Hansard — Monday, March 5, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		5743

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5743
	Public Inquiry Act (Bill 6)
	Hon. W. Oppal

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		5743
	Single Parent Resource Centre in Victoria
	R. Fleming
	Proposed place of worship at legislative buildings
	J. Nuraney
	Project Comeback for Surrey homeless
	H. Bains
	Coquitlam passport program
	H. Bloy
	Nisga'a new year celebration
	G. Coons
	Joni Ross
	J. McIntyre

Oral Questions		5745
	CN Rail safety and call for public inquiry into sale of B.C. Rail
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Compensation for CN Rail derailment in Cheakamus canyon
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	J. Horgan
	Funding for child care resource and referral centres
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	B. Simpson
	Call for inquiry into death of Harriet Nahanee
	J. Kwan
	Hon. J. Les
	Call for inquiry into death of Kevin St. Arnaud
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les
	Police complaint process
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. Les
	Barkel Business College
	R. Fleming
	Hon. M. Coell
	Increases to ferry fares and surcharges
	N. Simons
	Hon. K. Falcon
	B.C. Utilities Commission role and decision on Alcan power sales
	R. Austin
	Hon. C. Hansen

Petitions		5750
	C. Trevena

Second Reading of Bills		5750
	Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007 (Bill 5)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		5751
	M. Sather
	Hon. O. Ilich
	H. Bains
	Hon. R. Coleman
	J. Kwan
	Hon. P. Bell
	N. Simons
	J. Rustad
	C. Evans

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room
Committee of Supply		5782
	Estimates: Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	G. Robertson
	B. Simpson
	G. Coons

C. James: I am pleased to introduce three people who have joined us in the precinct today, all representing the Canadian Federation of Students who last year celebrated 25 years of providing post-secondary students with an effective and united voice provincially and nationally. Please help me welcome Scott Payne, the B.C. chairperson; Shamus Reid, the B.C. national executive representative; and Summer McFadyen, a B.C. organizer.

D. MacKay: Today in the precinct I have two guests. I had a very pleasant lunch with them, and I'd like to introduce them to the chamber today. With us in the chamber is Calvin Helin, who's a Tsimshian native from Port Simpson originally. He's a lawyer practising in the Greater Vancouver area now. He's also the author of a book called Dances with Dependency. I think you can probably imagine what the book is about if you've seen the movie Dances with Wolves. He's also here today with the public relations chap by the name of Tony Mayer, and they're down here to get some exposure for the new book. They're at the Victoria Conference Centre from six tonight if you want to get an autographed book from the author.

Hon. W. Oppal presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Inquiry Act.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. W. Oppal: I am pleased to introduce Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act. The act would repeal and replace the existing Inquiry Act with a more modern statute. The purpose of the Public Inquiry Act is to provide for the ability of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to establish commissions of inquiry into and report on any matter considered in the public interest, and to provide the powers and the duties necessary for commissions of inquiry to carry out their functions.

The act would provide for two distinct types of commissions of inquiry, which may be established according to the purpose for the calling of the inquiry: hearing commissions, the traditional and more formal type of inquiry, and study commissions for inquiries into matters of public policy. The Public Inquiry Act draws upon the principles of the Administrative Tribunals Act enacted in 2004, which establishes a modern standard for administrative justice and effectiveness.

The new Public Inquiry Act will provide a modern statutory basis for commissions of inquiry to fulfil their functions in a manner that is independent, fair and efficient.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Public Inquiry Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Fleming: I rise today to talk about an extremely valuable non-profit society located in my constituency of Victoria-Hillside. I am referring to the Single Parent Resource Centre of Victoria. Since 1978 the Single Parent Resource Centre has been committed to providing and serving the varied and changing needs of single-parent families in Greater Victoria.

In a relaxed and supportive house-like setting, the centre offers effective services that assist custodial and non-custodial parents in meeting the changing needs of their families. Families in my community rely on the wide selection of programs and free services that the Single Parent Resource Centre provides, including counselling sessions and a comprehensive selection of life skills programs and workshops, parenting skill development courses and parenting support groups.

In addition, there is an eight-week volunteer training program which readies volunteers to provide reception, individual support, and resource and referral information for the centre and its clients. Some of their free services include a clothing room for men, women and children; a bread pantry; a furniture and household goods exchange; and a telephone messaging service.

In addition, the Single Parent Resource Centre is also the sponsor agency for the Victoria child care resource and referral centre. Fortunately, thanks to the outpouring of parents and child care providers, it now looks like that positive relationship and vital service will continue for years to come into the future — after being told only in January that the CCRR funding cuts may effectively close it in September of this year.

The Single Parent Resource Centre will soon celebrate its 30th anniversary and celebrate 30 years of helping parents and kids and strengthening families in our community. I ask that all members of this House join me in thanking the staff and volunteers of the Single Parent Resource Centre for the important work they contribute to making Greater Victoria a better, more inclusive place to live.

J. Nuraney: It is obvious that Canada in the past two decades has become the envy of the world in its ability to accommodate people from different cultures and backgrounds. Pluralism has helped Canada to be tolerant and respecting of the cultural values of others.

It is also evident that as more and more people immigrate to Canada, they bring with them their spirituality and strong beliefs in their faiths and practices. The world today is seeking a balance between the material and the spiritual. Some of the world's serious conflicts have also risen because of the ignorance of these values.

The freedom to practise one's faith is a fundamental premise of our new society. It is therefore incumbent on us all to accommodate the practice of one's faith.

It is my humble proposal that our legislative building, which is the symbol of freedom and democracy, should offer a common place of worship to facilitate those who wish to have their moments of peace and remembrance.

Mr. Speaker, it is my request to you today to consider my humble proposal and let us take leadership in demonstrating to our nation and to the world that we in British Columbia understand and care.

H. Bains: Last December I was very fortunate to be invited to the Project Comeback Christmas dinner. As stated in this House previously, Project Comeback is an initiative designed to assist homeless day labourers in Surrey achieve full-time employment and independent housing.

Despite the many challenges they face, these people want to break the cycle of homelessness and integrate back into society. Project Comeback is the hand-up they need to achieve this goal. I was honoured to have the opportunity to have dinner with successful participants of this program. There were 35 people who met the criteria for this program, and 33 people are still living independently.

I cannot begin to express the deep impact this program has had on these people. Joining them for Christmas dinner was a truly remarkable experience. Men and women of Surrey are getting a second chance. They are so grateful for this opportunity. The participants of this program have formed a bond between one another that was evident and extremely important. Each and every one of them expressed their sincere gratitude during the round-table introductions. Attending this dinner was like having a dinner with huge family.

A couple of quotes from the participants. First: "I feel I'm slowly rebuilding my life. I now talk about my future. Before entering the program, I could only think about my next meal or where I was going to sleep." Second: "I wake up every morning with some place to go and something to do. I have my own place, and I'm making several new friends. Before, I dreaded the start of each day."

My hat goes off to Susan Keeping, executive director of Newton Advocacy Group Society, and Sarah Khan, project coordinator of Project Comeback, for the outstanding service they provide people that are homeless day labourers in Surrey.

H. Bloy: Mr. Speaker, last month we celebrated the Spirit of B.C. Week throughout the province, and I'm here to tell you that the spirit of B.C. is alive and well in Coquitlam all year long. The 2007 Coquitlam passport is now available. This award-winning tourism marketing initiative is in its fourth year. This year the passport features over 100 events and festivals in Coquitlam.

This past weekend I attended the popular Festival du Bois, part of Coquitlam's unique Flaunt your Frenchness week. This year the festival attracted over 15,000 people from B.C. and beyond. As you can see, I'm wearing my festival tie that I've had for many years.

As we head into spring, there are many more events to look forward to in Coquitlam, including the Como Lake Fishing Derby organized by the Kinsmen, the Korean Heritage Day Festival headed by Yonah Martin, the Highland Games, and the West Coast Chocolate Festival headed by Linda Baker. People can have their passports stamped at certain events and win prizes from great Coquitlam companies like Coquitlam Centre, Best Western Coquitlam Inn, Executive Plaza Hotel and Go West RV Rentals.

It is my pleasure to provide all members of the House with a copy of the 2007 passport, and I hope they will visit my community this year and enjoy some of the unique events.

I would like to thank Mayor Maxine Wilson and her council, and especially tourism director Barb Stegemann, who was the driving force behind this successful program. Their hard work and dedication has made Coquitlam a year-round destination.

G. Coons: Speaking of events, last week I had the opportunity of attending hobiyee. Hobiyee is the new season, the new year for the Nisga'a and many other first nations. It begins on the full moon in the month of February. Prior to this full moon is a crescent moon called hoobix, meaning spoon. This crescent moon, which appears in the first weeks of February, resembles the shape of the traditional Nisga'a wooden spoon. This particular spoon-shaped moon was observed to predict what type of harvest year could be expected.

It is said that if the hoobix moon — known by the Nisga'a as Hobiyee, meaning the spoon is full — was sitting in the sky to look like a smile, then the harvest

year would be plentiful. If the hoobix moon is on an angle or even upside down, then it's believed that the new year harvest will not be plentiful. However, the position of the crescent moon does not stop anyone from celebrating. This is a time for singing, dancing and sharing large amounts of food, which creates an atmosphere of peace and happiness.

Last week, with my colleague from Skeena, I had the opportunity to join in New Aiyansh with over a thousand drummers and dancers and thousands more to celebrate. Nations from the whole region joined in the Hobiyee celebrations, and it was a sight to behold. I believe that to make our 2010 games a real significant event encompassing the traditional history and culture of our province, we must invite our first nations to open or close the games, empowering the crowd with the sights and sounds of thousands upon thousands of traditional drummers and dancers.

In closing, I would like to wish everybody in the assembly a happy Nisga'a new year. Hobiyee. Welcome one and all to the celebrations next February in Gitwinksihlkw.

J. McIntyre: On February 22 a young woman found herself in a terrifying situation. Joni Ross, a 20-year-old UBC student, was driving home on a slushy road when her car slid down a two-metre embankment just north of Pemberton. Joni's arm was severed at the elbow in the accident, attached by only a small piece of skin.

Despite this, she managed to extricate herself from her overturned vehicle and climb up the embankment in search of help. Forced to wait by the side of the road, in a few moments, luckily, the first person to come across Joni was Pemberton volunteer firefighter Andrew Gilmour. Gilmour immediately called 911 and began first aid, reassuring Joni that help was on the way.

The ambulance from Pemberton arrived within 15 minutes, and Joni was transferred to the excellent Pemberton medical clinic where staff quickly decided they needed to cut the thread of skin and pack her arm in ice. Joni was then transferred to Vancouver General Hospital by air ambulance where she underwent nine hours of surgery to reattach her arm. While she's not out of the woods yet, the reattachment surgery was successful, and she passed the critical first 72 hours.

Thanks to what was described as her tremendous resolve and courage, Joni is recovering from her terrifying accident. Doctors are hopeful that she'll regain the use of her arm. I would like to commend all those who helped Joni through this ordeal. It's never easy to deal with an emergency situation no matter how much training you've had. Yet Andrew Gilmour, who I understand is an acquaintance of hers and just 18 years old, did everything right.

The ambulance team from Pemberton got to the scene quickly, and the staff at the Pemberton clinic made the right decision to help save her arm. Then a team of skilled doctors spent, as I said, nine hours in surgery with her. She was described by one of her doctors as an unusual person who did things I doubt many other people would or could do.

I'm sure that all members of this House will join me in thanking those who came to Joni's rescue and in wishing her a speedy recovery.

D. Chudnovsky: On Friday Transport Canada released two devastating audits into CN Rail's safety record. On Saturday yet another train derailed. The audits were only released because of access-to-information requests from this official opposition and from the CBC. They cover the years 2000 until 2005 and shed light on the poor safety, maintenance and environmental protection record of CN. So CN's poor record was well established when this government was in discussions to sell B.C. Rail.

To the Minister of Transportation: what discussions took place between this government and CN at the time of the privatization of B.C. Rail with respect to safety, maintenance and environmental protection?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, this is actually an issue that I've canvassed numerous times before with this member. This member knows full well that at the time of the partnership arrangement with CN and the British Columbia government, it was made very clear in the revitalization agreement that they are going to be expected to uphold the national regulatory standards that are in place, which govern all the railways — whether it's CN, CP or Burlington Northern — and that we expected that they, as landlord and owner of the tracks, would uphold all of the regulatory standards that are in place. That's exactly what they'll be held to do by the federal regulator.

D. Chudnovsky: Here are just some of the problems the audit identified with CN: incorrect safety inspections; non-compliance with the Canada Labour Code; incorrect track inspection, testing and maintenance; inaccurate train journals; high number of cars with safety defects; safety culture improvement initiatives not being effectively implemented.

The real problem here, and one that is borne out by the audits, is that this government sold our railway to a company that had a track record of safety problems. The citizens of B.C. have the right to know whether this government took action to protect the public at the time of the sale. Is the minister prepared to call a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: You know, if this member would just do his homework, the member would know that

even under B.C. Rail — the glorious days, which apparently this member yearns for, when B.C. Rail operated on that rail line — B.C. Rail also had challenges with derailments on a continuous basis.

The issue for this government, and one of the things that we have made abundantly clear to both the current federal government and the previous federal government, is that we expect them to act and to do everything necessary to make sure that public confidence can be maintained in the operation of the railway.

That's why, when this member over the last year and a half or two years periodically gets up and tries to play politics…. While he's doing that, I've actually been meeting with the federal minister, phoning the federal ministers — both the current government and the previous government — and raising it at the national Ministers of Transportation meetings, raising the issue of railway safety.

As a result of that…. This audit, which the member quotes from, was one of the results. The other result, of course, is that the current government has now put into place a new panel to review the Railway Safety Act, and I think that's the appropriate measure to get real results.

D. Chudnovsky: Well, the people of B.C. know, because they've been listening, that this minister for the last year and a half has been acting as a public relations flack for CN rather than representing the people of British Columbia when it comes to safety.

Here's the record of the sale of B.C. Rail: billions of dollars in profits to CN, two workers killed, one river dead, dozens of derailments and a criminal investigation.

Again to the minister: will the Minister of Transportation commit to holding a public inquiry into the sale of B.C. Rail once all the criminal prosecutions are complete?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, this member opposite is very selective. Apparently he's only concerned about CN derailments. I'm actually concerned about all derailments. I'm just as concerned about a CP derailment last week up in Golden as I am about one that took place under CN.

This member has consistently for two years tried to criticize the CN–B.C. Rail partnership. Now, why is that? I'll tell you why, Mr. Speaker. Because…

Hon. K. Falcon: …apparently that member wants to go back to the glory days where taxpayers had to see over $1 billion of taxpayer investment written off under that government when the NDP were in power. Apparently, they're against the $30 million CN is investing in the Port of Prince Rupert. Apparently, they're against the over 1,000 new railcars that have been added to the CN system. Apparently, they're against the $135 million in the northern development fund, which we topped up to $185 million and which is being invested in northern communities right across this province.

S. Simpson: Last week CN put their offer on the table for restoration and compensation concerning the caustic soda spill that devastated the Cheakamus River fishery, killing nearly half a million steelhead. The offer is $2 million over five years for restoration and no money for compensation.

By comparison, at the CN derailment at Lake Wabamun in Alberta, the provincial government stood up for their citizens, and the result was $28 million for restoration and $7 million for compensation. The contrast is clear. One government stands up for her citizens, and one government does not — $35 million for Albertans, $2 million for British Columbians.

My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Is he satisfied that CN's $2 million offer is adequate to deal with the Cheakamus River situation?

Hon. B. Penner: We were very concerned about the derailment that took place in the Cheakamus canyon in August of 2005. We have held CN responsible for all the ongoing costs of the cleanup and the mitigation. That work is continuing. We have, for example, people from the conservation corps — a new program that this government established — and many other agencies working collaboratively to make sure that we can recover those fishery stocks as quickly as possible for the Cheakamus canyon. CN Rail will be held responsible for all those costs.

S. Simpson: Well, the CN offer is a pittance — $400,000 a year for five years. Not only that, but they want to control how the money is spent. CN is responsible for this accident. Now they want to manage the restoration project and decide who gets restoration dollars and who doesn't.

The Cheakamus is a public asset, and it should be managed in the public interest, not in the interest of the company responsible for the polluting. Mr. Speaker, $2 million — that's less than $1 a year for five years for each of those half a million fish that were killed. It's a sad offer.

The Cheakamus stakeholders have called for a trust fund to be established of $1.5 million a year for 25 years to deal with these issues. What action is the minister going to take now to ensure that the concerns of the community are met and that CN is obliged to pay sufficient funds to meet the restoration costs and legitimate compensation demands of both the first nations and the local communities?

Hon. B. Penner: This appears to be one of those rare circumstances where we actually agree on something across the aisle here. It has been the position of our government right from the outset that CN Rail will be held responsible for all costs associated with responding to the spill and the deaths that occurred for the fishery resource in the Cheakamus canyon. We're continuing to work on a recovery plan with a variety of stakeholders, including first nations. CN Rail will be held responsible for all those costs. Not just going backward but going into the future, we're going to do whatever it takes to recover that river to its former glory.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, we're pleased to hear the minister's response. Does that mean, then, that he's rejecting the $2 million offer from the federal government?

Hon. B. Penner: I haven't had a chance yet to see that letter, if there has been an offer made, but our position remains clear. CN Rail remains responsible for all costs associated with the cleanup and recovery of the damage that resulted from the derailment on August 3, 2005.

C. Trevena: Last week the government backtracked on funding cuts to child care resource and referral centres and announced the funding will be $9 million this coming year. But let's be realistic. That is a $5 million cut. So I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Child Care whether she will commit to the House today that the $9 million announced last week will go to fund all the existing child care resource and referral centres.

Hon. L. Reid: The members opposite will know that last year $14 million was expended on child care resource and referral; $5 million of that were federal dollars under the early learning and child care agreement. I've canvassed this many times with the member opposite. She will know that that agreement has been cancelled. The federal government has cancelled the early learning and child care agreement. That $5 million is no longer available to us.

The member will also know that on the fifth of January we put out that the best-case scenario in British Columbia was $9 million. Only the New Democrats would find fault with best-case scenario.

C. Trevena: The $5 million is a cut no matter how you shake it. It's clearly a cut, whether it's come through federal or provincial. There is no money going into child care centres.

Last week an e-mail went out from the coordinator in the ministry for child care resource and referral section, and it stated: "At the moment we do not know what this means for the CCRR budgets, and there is no guarantee that the original CCRR recommendations will be accepted. There's still a possibility of CCRR closures, depending on the budget details."

Will the minister of state say that there will be no closures of child care resource and referral centres and that their recommendations will be accepted?

Hon. L. Reid: We are, as we speak, in dialogue with child care resource and referral. Certainly, the information will go and come between them and us directly, because we have that responsibility and we take that responsibility very seriously. They will give us advice, and we will have those discussions.

B. Simpson: I guess, in the fullness of time or something, these child care referral centres will find out what is in the Minister of State for Childcare's mind. As of today, those centres still do not know what the government's announcement means.

The minister talks about best-case scenario. Is it best-case scenario to force all of these centres to ramp up their services, go to storefront, add staff, incur leases and additional costs on a $14 million budget, cut that budget and say it'll be $3 million, and then — as a result of pressure — flip it back to $9 million and as of today still not tell the child care and referral centres whether they are getting that money or not. Is that a best-case scenario?

My question to the Minister of State for Childcare is this. Can the child care referral centres today rescind the layoff notices that this government forced them to give, and can they today tell their landlords that they will in fact be sticking around for another year?

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased, yet again, to canvass this with the members opposite. The federal government cancelled the early learning and child care agreement. That is where they lost the $5 million, which is on the table today.

In terms of the program and the progress we have made in these files, we are proud as a government to place our priority on vulnerable families in British Columbia — 25,000 families earning under $38,000 a year. We made that change. We lifted the income threshold from $21,000 to $38,000 — hugely significant.

We placed equal priority on vulnerable children in British Columbia — children with special needs. They are indeed a priority of this government. Whether or not you have Down syndrome, autism or cerebral palsy, you will attend child care in British Columbia with the appropriate resources and support. That is good news.

B. Simpson: I do. My question is really very, very simple. It doesn't have to do with all the things that the minister keeps wanting to talk about. We're asking one simple question. Will the child care referral centres, as

they are today, get the $9 million that the government flip-flopped and raised the allocation to last week?

The thing that's happening here is the minister's staff understands how difficult this situation is. The e-mail that was referenced earlier says: "We know the waiting game is painful." So my question to the minister is: will she alleviate the pain for these centres and tell us today if they will be funded by that $9 million?

Hon. L. Reid: The budget in place for child care resource and referral was $9 million on the fifth of January. It's $9 million this coming October, and it's $9 million on a go-forward basis.

J. Kwan: Harriet Nahanee, an aboriginal elder and activist, died February 24 at the age of 71. In spite of many more compassionate interventions, she was sent to jail at her advanced age and in frail health. Her lawyer believes that she may have contracted pneumonia while she was held in Surrey Pretrial Centre. There are many lingering questions regarding her death. Will the Solicitor General commit today to holding an independent inquiry into the death of elder Harriet Nahanee?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I'm sure along with all members of this House, we sincerely regret the passing of Ms. Nahanee. It's true that she was incarcerated for a short period of time. However, there is no evidence that she contracted any disease of any kind while incarcerated.

But there are avenues open to the family if they wish to pursue those avenues with respect to lodging a formal complaint. I would urge them, for example, to address the provincial director of adult custody to ensure that any concerns they might have are properly responded to.

M. Farnworth: My question is to the Solicitor General. Kevin St. Arnaud was shot in Vanderhoof and killed while being taken into police custody. The subsequent police investigation of this tragic event has raised more questions than answers in the communities in northern British Columbia. Will the Solicitor General order a public inquiry into the events surrounding the death of Kevin St. Arnaud?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Speaker, I'm well aware of the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. St. Arnaud. It was recently the subject of a coroner's inquest. This matter is currently before the commission for public complaints, which is a federal process whereby complaints against the RCMP are adjudicated. That process is currently underway, and I suggest that we wait for the results of that process.

M. Farnworth: This case, the Ian Bush case and the questions that have been raised by the public in communities in British Columbia, particularly those serviced by the RCMP, have raised questions around the police complaints process.

Does the minister not believe that it would be desirable to have a uniform, independent process for investigating these types of cases? And will he commit to pursuing this with Ottawa? An ideal time to implement a uniform complaints process would be when the RCMP contract comes up for renewal in 2012. And it should be done, if not sooner.

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the question. Clearly, we've had several troubling incidents in British Columbia over the last several years, and it certainly does call into question whether or not we might be better served in the province if we had a unified police complaints process. As the members opposite will know, we recently completed the Wood report into the police complaints process as it relates to municipal police departments in British Columbia.

I think it's fair to say that the report has been well received, and I believe the member opposite responded positively to that as well. As part of the release of that report, I made a copy available to my federal counterpart, the Hon. Stockwell Day. His department is reviewing that report. Indeed, as he suggested to me, he too is reviewing his options with respect to the police complaints process federally in light of the recent O'Connor report that was delivered to the federal minister.

It is too early to suggest exactly what kind of collaboration might be available between the provincial and the federal governments in this case, but the fact that there is some opportunity to develop a more collaborative process…. Certainly, that prospect is there, and I'm committed to following up on that with the federal minister to the greatest extent possible.

R. Fleming: The Ministry of Advanced Education has confirmed, through the opposition's freedom-of-information application, that it possesses at least 15 audits of private post-secondary institutions. Some were apparently triggered by financial irregularities including the misuse of taxpayer-funded student loans. So far the Minister of Advanced Education has shown a pattern of refusal to levy fines or prosecute when laws are broken by bad actors in the private post-secondary education business.

Can the Minister of Advanced Education confirm if an internal audit of Barkel Business College finds serious and fraudulent abuses of public student loans and recommends RCMP review? And if so, what has he done about it?

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that the ministry routinely audits institutions. If there is a complaint, if

we audit them, we sometimes send in an inspector. We sometimes close them if necessary or refer them on to the courts. I can confirm to the member that the institution that he mentioned is still under review.

R. Fleming: It would be nice if this House could know what the 25 blank pages of the freedom-of-information request means, if this minister is going to take action. The problem here in British Columbia is that when fault is found, operators are going scot-free on charges, of any fines or anything for any wrongdoing that is conducted.

He has in his possession several reports, including the ones on Kingston and Lansbridge University, which we've discussed in this House. Unfortunately, a message is being sent out loud and clear. The message is that this is a profitable business in British Columbia and that when you're caught, you will be tolerated.

China, Korea and India have heard this message. They're making warnings to their students about British Columbia. Can the minister confirm that the former operator of Barkel is now involved with a career college under a different name, operating today with the permission of the Liberal's self-regulating agency?

Hon. M. Coell: The member has selective memory. The institute that he mentions, Barkel, was actually registered under the NDP. We investigated it. If necessary, the investigations may have suspensions or closures of institutions. That one is under investigation.

N. Simons: The Minister of Transportation has repeatedly told people in my community that Mr. Crilly, the ferry commissioner, is responsible for considering the impact of fare increases on ferry-dependent communities.

Mr. Crilly, on the other hand, has an opposite view. In fact, in a letter to one of my constituents he says that the commission doesn't consider the needs of or the impact on ferry customers or communities when they rule on ferry and fuel surcharges. So who's wrong? Is it the commissioner or the minister?

Hon. K. Falcon: If I understood the member's question correctly — I'm not entirely sure I did — what I would say to the member is that the member should well know that under legislation, we actually cap the ability of the ferries to increase their rates. They are capped under the legislation over the term of the Ferries agreement that we have.

If the member is referring to fuel surcharges, that of course is separate. I suspect that what Mr. Crilly was probably saying to the individuals there was that ferry surcharges are exceptions. Naturally, we would rather not see fuel prices go up. But the member well knows that whether it's railways or airlines or the taxi industry or indeed even ferries, when we see those kind of increases in fuel prices, then those are historically passed along to the members who utilize those services. It's no different with the ferries.

N. Simons: I don't think that the obfuscation that the minister is offering is going satisfy either this side of the House or the general public, quite frankly. The question was a simple one, and perhaps it has to do with homework that he's not able to answer it. I'm asking the minister why he's been telling constituents that in fact the commissioner can look into the impact of fare increases on communities, and the commissioner says: "No, the minister is wrong. It's there in black and white." So who's wrong — the minister or the commissioner?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate that this is evidently an issue that gets the member excited. But I would just simply say to the member that the member knows full well — and if he doesn't, he should refer to the website — as to what the roles and duties of the independent ferry commissioner are all about. The fact of the matter is that when you have fuel surcharges, those are surcharges that nobody has any control over. The price of fuel goes up, and what they do is….

Hon. K. Falcon: Apparently, the members opposite don't believe fuel prices have gone up everywhere. I believe there's one of those members over there that thinks they ought to be regulated. I'm just trying to tell….

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, thank you. Apparently, all of the members of the NDP believe that now, and that'll be an interesting circle to square when they talk to their environmental friends about how to change behaviour by lowering the price of fuel. Oops.

Actually, I'm quite fascinated by this conundrum. Perhaps we can explore it further with the members of the opposition. It's quite interesting.

R. Austin: The new energy plan talks about "reviewing the B.C. Utilities Commission's role in considering social, environmental and economic costs and benefits when examining electricity purchase agreements." Can the Minister of Economic Development commit to this House that the changes to the BCUC are not retribution for the correct decision to reject the Premier's sweetheart deal with Alcan? And will he guarantee that these changes will not be used as an end run to reverse that decision?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's actually interesting that the NDP are continuing to flog this whole issue around the future of Alcan in Kitimat. I just wanted to share with the member a letter coming from the chief councillor of the Haisla First Nation, Steve Wilson, who in a letter to the editor — actually in Terrace — writes this. He says: "Today the rest of us are working to fix the problem that the NDP left behind, and now for the first time that company and the province are being inclusive." It goes on to say: "We are fixing the past, and at least we are intent on being inclusive, unlike" — dot, dot, dot — "the New Democratic Party of British Columbia."

As a government, we're proud of the fact that we have once again put B.C. Hydro subject to the regulations and review of the B.C. Utilities Commission. I am sure that the Minister of Energy will confirm that that will continue as we go forward.

C. Trevena: I have a petition with approximately 300 names, protesting the cuts in child care funding by the province. I have a second petition with about 200 signatures, opposing the potential eviction of Tom Bakken from Crown land. He's been homesteading north of Campbell River.

Hon. M. de Jong: In Committee A, I call the commencement of estimates debate. For the information of members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. In this chamber I call second reading of Bill 5, to be followed by the resumption of debate on the throne speech.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, now be read a second time.

Bill 5 is a short bill, but it does provide for an increase in the amount of estimated operating expenses for purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act by the amount referred to firstly in the Supplementary Estimates No. 1, 2006-2007, which was tabled on February 28 and actually passed through this House on that day.

As debated in the House last Wednesday, that $290 million supplementary estimate provided for funding for incentive payments to public sector employees under the negotiating framework for the 2006-07 fiscal year. To date, happily, 140 public sector agreements have been successfully negotiated. Those 140 agreements, when combined with management and exempt compensation agreements, represent approximately 94 percent of all public sector employees. That, by any measure, is a significant achievement for the employees, for the employers and, actually, for all British Columbians.

In addition, the second part of this short bill relates to the cost of fighting forest fires. There was an early start to a lengthy fire season this past year, and the Ministry of Forests and Range was required to spend in accordance with their statutory authority — in fact, statutory obligation — for direct forest fire fighting costs.

The current estimate for statutory spending for '06-07 is $111 million. I take it that that is an estimate, insofar as there are still invoices being processed, but that estimate is offered with a fair measure of confidence.

There were some notable fires in '06-07. They included the 11,000-hectare Hourglass Creek fire, 20 kilometres northeast of Tumbler Ridge, which, we will all recall, caused an evacuation alert and ultimately an evacuation order; the 60-hectare fire at the south end of Galiano Island, which caused an evacuation alert and some voluntary evacuations; the 130-hectare fire five kilometres south of Falkland, which additionally caused an evacuation alert; the over 5,400-hectare Tatoosh fire approximately one-half mile inside the Canadian border, between Manning and Cathedral parks, which caused an evacuation alert; and a further 1,800-hectare fire, the Border Lake fire, less than a kilometre from the Canada-U.S. border, which also caused an evacuation alert.

It was, therefore, a challenging fire season. The overall fires totalled 2,571, and I'm told and advised that just over 1,500 of those fires were caused by lightning strikes. The Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, Bill 5, makes provisions to increase the amount of estimated operating expenses for purposes of ministerial accountability under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act for the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Forests and Range to account for the costs that I have just described.

There may be further questions about the specifics, particularly around the fires, and we'll have an opportunity to canvass those in committee stage of the debate. Those would be my comments on second reading, Madam Speaker.

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

Bill 5, Ministerial Accountability Bases Act, 2006-2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

M. Sather: Well, it gives me pleasure again to respond for the first time to the throne speech. It was, as we know, a speech that was somewhat different than what we saw with the budget speech. But there are a number of areas that I wanted to cover off with regard to the throne speech.

The throne speech talked about children and families and children and family development, and it talks about transformative change. We on this side of the House are a little worried about what is intended by this government with regard to transformative change. When we look at what's happened in this province for children and their families, we do have concerns.

As we know, as we've mentioned before in this House, in British Columbia we have the highest child poverty rate in the country. How can that be in a province as wealthy as ours? The government is fond of telling us how well the economy is doing. That's great, but what about the children that are being left behind? What about us having the highest poverty rate in Canada? How can this government possibly be proud of that, especially having said that they were going to transform the issue for children and families?

Well, that's surely not the kind of transformation that this side of the House is looking for. We expect better from the government than that, and so we're looking for some change there. There were additional funds from last year, and we were wondering how those are going to be spent. That's not covered in the throne speech — what is going to be done in that regard.

You know, Madam Speaker, one of the things that worries me about the care of children in this province — and the care of adults, for that matter — is the issue of accessibility to services. When I think about the relationship between vulnerable children and their families, they need a person that they know is going to be there for them.

Yes, they may have an advocate, or they may not. But they need someone representing the government that's going to be there for them or at least is going to be a conduit for them to be able to clearly explain their concerns and be responded to. That has all along been the social worker.

Social workers do a valuable service in this province, and I think we all can recognize that. I have concerns about whether their professionalism is being supported and whether their work is being fully supported by this government.

I speak as a former social worker myself or at least in a social work position as a mental health therapist. I worry, for example, about Community Living B.C. and what's happening with Community Living B.C. for our most vulnerable children, children who have special needs, children with autism, children with more severe disabilities — although autism can of course be very, very severe in itself.

They don't have a social worker anymore that they can go to or that their families can go to. We now have analysts and the like, and it's all business-sounding. But where is the caring? Where is the person-to-person assurance that those people are being cared for, that they and their families know they have somewhere they can go to and access readily?

What I'm hearing in my community is that they can't access those services readily. I hear it from teachers who are special needs teachers, and I hear it from the families who have special needs children. They're concerned. In Maple Ridge the analyst makes a plan for them, and it's in Coquitlam. Then that goes through a bunch of hoops, and it comes back to Maple Ridge. In this whole process, a number of them have told me they feel completely lost.

What I've been told by teachers that are in a position to try to assist these families is that oftentimes they give up. A teacher told me about a family that she's dealing with, who has two autistic children plus a child with bipolar disorder. Wow, that is a load for any family to deal with. She's not accessing the services that presumably are available to her. A service is not only available if the government says it's available and it's on the books of being there. There has to be a clear and easy way for that family to access that service, and this is not happening.

There are families out there that are not getting the services they need, and the government needs to look at that. They need to go back and look and see: are these people getting the services they need? Are they able to talk to someone on a one-to-one basis? Do they have a social worker?

It's the same thing through the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance. Their employment assistance workers are not available one-on-one to clients. It's all kind of a distanced model where you go on the Internet and get whoever is available that day.

Again, the problem is its relationship and the lack of relationship that happens as a result. People need to know that they can have a person-to-person relationship with their worker, and what I'm hearing in my office is that they don't. They don't feel that anymore.

Now, that may end up meaning that there are more people on income assistance, and maybe the government thinks that's a good thing. But it's not a good thing if the reason they're not on is because they don't have the skills or the capacities, or because the availability isn't there for them to access those services.

I've had staff and advocates go through the kind of applications that they have to go through online, and they said: "It was difficult for me." One of our members

was earlier commenting that it's difficult to access employment assistance through the kinds of steps that you have to go through now. So it's really important that the government look at accessibility and that they encourage one-to-one relationships, important relationships.

It's not just about the bottom line. It's fine to be efficient. There's nothing wrong with efficiency as long as it's balanced with the human element.

I wanted to switch areas for a minute. The government has talked in the throne speech about investing in B.C. ports. We know there's a lot of push by this government for port development and the movement of containers and the like. We need to know, again, that there are assurances that other aspects of society are going to be taken care of or are going to be watched out for in this process.

For example, is the agricultural land reserve going to be taken into account? I think of — in my community, right out in the middle of the Fraser River — Barnston Island, where Fraser River Ports had a proposal to develop that for a port facility. Fortunately, it did not get through the Agricultural Land Commission, but it concerns me that Fraser River Ports is considering that kind of development on agricultural land. I mean, were they getting some encouragement from the government to move ahead with that? I hope not, but I wonder.

You know, I've had conversations with Captain Domaas from the Fraser ports. He's a great guy and very communicative, but I worry about what they're planning for my community in Pitt Meadows. We have the intermodal yard for CP, and from the port's development I'm sure they feel it's an excellent area to further develop a relationship or a continuity between the port and the intermodal yard. But is this going to be done at the expense of the agricultural land reserve? I really worry about that, and I want to know. I hope this government is going to assure that our industrial developments are green, that they consider agriculture and that they consider the environment. I'm not sure that's happening.

The transportation-related developments with the South Fraser perimeter road. It's related to port development as well, and there are real concerns in Delta about Burns Bog and what effect the development is going to have on Burns Bog. There are vulnerable species there.

In my community, in Pitt Meadows, we have about 15 of the greater sandhill cranes remaining. There are only two areas, and a third small area, where they breed in the lower mainland anymore, and the other one is at Burns Bog. This has to be taken into account when we decide on a new road. I know there is lots of concern in Delta that that's not happening. Again, it's fine. The throne speech talks about increasing economic development, and that's great, but we must be sure it's done in a way that looks at other values.

On education, in the throne speech, eliminating junk food in all public schools and in all vending machines in provincially owned buildings is apparently going to be legislation, as I understand it, that this government is going to introduce in this session.

I'm wondering, though, whether they have thought about a development like that in terms of TILMA, the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement that we had a chance to talk a bit about in this House. The impression I have is that they haven't really thought about what the ramifications of this agreement are. This is an agreement between Alberta and British Columbia. The concern that I have is particularly around the issue of investment and what is an investor.

Certainly, there are investors involved in junk food in schools and in public buildings; there are big investors. Are they going to challenge government legislation to remove junk food from schools under the auspices that it's affecting their investment or that it's inhibiting investment, and that's not allowed under this agreement?

I hope the government has thought this through, but I must say that when we met with the minister's representatives earlier today, I didn't get that impression at all. Understandably, the person that helped to put this deal together for British Columbia wasn't there, but I have to hope that there has been more homework done than it seems there has.

Other issues in the throne speech are kind of provocative or interesting around education, and we'll wait to see what it all means. But one of them said that they'll give teachers new recognition and financial incentives to reward improvements in student achievement. So how is that going to work, Madam Speaker? How is the individual teacher going to get a financial payout for improving the test scores — I guess that's how it would have to be — of the students?

I mean, we know there's a great diversity in our schools. We know there are schools where there are a lot of children who come from poor homes and a lot of children who come to school hungry. They're not ready to learn. Now, they probably aren't going to be able to get the same kind of learning improvements as the children who are in a school where they have adequate supports both at home and in the school. Yet there's a suggestion here that there's going to be financial incentives for student improvement. I have to wonder if that's not the Fraser Institute model where we rank all the schools, rank all the teachers and decide who's the best. Again, it's not a model that's conducive, really, to learning in the schools.

Another thing that I wonder about in the throne speech is the talk about establishing a teacher employment registry to publicly report the names of teachers disciplined for misconduct. Now, why? Why is this government now wanting to publicly report teachers?

I met with a bunch of teachers this weekend in a social event, and they talked to me about how demeaned they feel that their profession has been under this government. Now they're going to be further stigmatized by a public reporting of their misdemeanours. Are they going to do like they're doing for Mr. Callow? Are they going to tell where they're living now? Is that the next thing that this government has in mind with teachers?

We know that their attitude towards teachers has been very negative. The teachers feel it; they know it. They know how this government feels about them, and they're concerned about what's up next. I really don't think it bodes well for public education in this province. The government has a lot of fence-mending to do with the teaching profession, but this, to me, doesn't look like fence-mending. This looks like more scare talk. This is more: "Wow, these guys are under the microscope. Watch out."

It also says in the throne speech that the government will have the ability to directly communicate with all teachers in B.C. What does that one mean? We know that the BCTF is not on the Christmas list for this government. And what does that mean — "directly communicate with the teachers"? Is that code again for saying that we're going to go around the BCTF? I'm afraid that it is.

That, again, does not bode well at all for public education in this province. I'm hoping this government is not taking that punitive approach towards teachers, because believe me, it does not lead to better outcomes. This government is always talking about outcomes. Well, if you want better outcomes in education, you have to support your teachers. That's the basic.

We look at education in the throne speech as well. There is no special needs help there. Special needs is a huge area, as we all know. It's a challenging area, and it's one that we do have to look at. There's discussion now about how we should support children in schools with special needs, particularly the high-incidence, less severe special needs children.

Should they continue to be totally part of the wider school population? Should they have their own schools? Should it be a part of each? That's a real challenge for this government or any government. I don't know. I'm not criticizing the government on this. I don't know what their intentions are, but I'm hopeful that it's going to be an open discussion where we look at everybody's concerns. I think both sides of the House will have to look at that, because I think we have to admit that special needs kids often are not doing very well in schools.

It's very difficult. My wife was a teacher, and I remember going on an outing with her and with a child with autism — and very, very challenging, a child with autism. It's very challenging for them to go on an outing, because having the same environment and a lack of stimulation oftentimes works best for them.

There are a lot of areas that are a great challenge for parents, obviously a great challenge for the children and a great challenge for our teachers. So all need to be supported. Again, we can't be putting undue pressure on teachers who are oftentimes dealing with a lot of special needs children in their school. It's very stressful for them, and it's very stressful for the parents. So we need to work together on that.

Looking at health care, the throne speech says that we must face up to reality and do what is necessary to make our health care system sustainable for the future. Do what is necessary. We wait to see, I guess — after this conversation on health care that's going on — what the government's intentions are and what the Premier's intentions are for health care.

We on this side of the House have the concern that it means more privatization coming down the road. We don't think that necessarily, by any means, is the best way for dealing with health care. I see it, and it's happening all around this province when we look at long-term care. We know the promise of this government to build 5,000 long-term care beds, which hasn't been met. One sees what's happening with long-term care.

In my community there are two facilities that have been closed down. One is closed, and the other one is about to close. They're becoming assisted-living facilities. One of them will have some continuing long-term care capacity, but it's going from a non-profit agency that served my community very well. The people in that facility were happy. I would go there many times. The staff were happy. It was a lovely environment.

The health authority came to the facility and said: "You know, you've got to upgrade." Well, fair enough. They said: "We'll upgrade. Give us a hand. Tell us what to do. At least assure us that the 52 beds that we have funded will continue to be funded by the health authority." They couldn't get that assurance. They weren't given that assurance. They had no choice but to sell, and they sold to a private business, which is going to build some long-term care beds.

But the portion of these facilities that's the real moneymaker is the assisted living. We're talking 3,500 bucks a month to be in assisted living. What we're seeing, what care providers who have clients in these facilities are telling me, is that the level of care isn't there. The level of care for the type of patient that they have oftentimes isn't there.

We're getting Alzheimer's patients wandering out on the street. We're getting people being sent to emergency rooms. If they had the level of care that was appropriate to the kind of patient they have, it wouldn't be happening. But they're going to the emergency rooms. We know about the problems in the emergency rooms and in the hospitals with bed availability. It's a big, big problem. Partly the problem is this government's privatization scheme around long-term care. It's unbelievable to me that they continue to do this.

In my community, at Ridge Meadows Hospital we just opened a newly…. There was a closure of the continuing-care facility there, Creekside. They opened a nice, shiny new building. That's great. Just last fall it opened, and now they have to reopen Creekside, which was just closed, because 23 patients have to be moved back into Creekside. It's a question of not enough bed availability in the hospital. That's what's happening.

There's a great concern I have that doing what's necessary to make health care sustainable, according to this government, is about privatization. That's what we'll be looking carefully to see over the coming session, over the coming year — just what the government

The throne speech talks about the changes leading to fundamental health reforms that increase individual choice. Well, yeah. If you have the means, then some of the assisted-living facilities are quite nice. And if you have the capacity to be there, that's wonderful. That's choice for you, but it's not choice if you don't have those financial capacities. I've talked to seniors in assisted living in my community, and they said: "We sold our home. The kids got some, and the rest of it's gone for us to live here, but this isn't going to last that long. So if we live five years or if we live ten years, we don't know what we're going to do after we run out of money to pay for this nice apartment."

There's choice for some. For others, it's picking up the consequences. The rest of the seniors in this province are left to pick up the consequences of this government's ideological choices around privatization that are hurting seniors.

Also, the throne speech ignores the systemic influences in health like poverty, poor housing, aboriginal status, access to a social safety net and employment status. We need to look at the big picture. The unequal distribution of economic and social resources plays a significant role in a person's state of health. Having the highest childhood poverty rate, having increasing homelessness — these are not good indicators for good health.

We have to look at those people. We have to value each and every member of our society. This certainly isn't the only reason, but trying to speak to something that the government seems to be cognizant of…. That's economic indicators. It doesn't make good economic sense from several perspectives to have people out on the street. They're not able to contribute to the economy in a way that we would like them to. They're having huge health care costs, which are another burden.

The gap between the haves and the have-nots is increasing. This is not a good indicator for societal stability, let alone for the health and well-being of those individuals.

Seniors health. I've spoken a bit about seniors health, mentioned in the throne speech but not about much. In fact, there's no specific mention of seniors health at all, and that's a concern. Seniors have suffered greatly under this government. They know it. I hope this government knows it, and I hope they're going to do something about it.

No comment, no mention of any progress on the long-term care beds issue. No changes to Pharmacare mentioned. What's happening there with Pharmacare? Seniors complain to me all the time about the cost of their medications and about having to purchase more medications than they ever did before.

No mention of any changes to home support. There's another thing that's really, I guess, penny-wise but certainly pound foolish. Inadequate home support. You know, if you don't need bathing, you can hardly get home support these days. That's not right. People do need assistance with cleaning. They do need assistance with some of the daily activities of living. This is all to keep them in their homes, where everybody would prefer to be, and out of hospital as long as possible. Again, it's an area that this government has neglected. Seniors are feeling the brunt of that. They're not happy about it, and so they shouldn't be.

When we look at mental health in the throne speech, there's talk about shifting responsibilities of supportive treatment and care facilities to municipalities. That's interesting. I'm not sure what the government really has in mind there. As I say, I worked in the mental health system. Continuity of care is essential to a strong mental health system, and municipalities have not really been involved in providing mental health in that capacity. I wait to see how that one is going to work.

We look at Community Living B.C. That was supposed to be a devolvement to the communities, but it hasn't been a model that's working very well, from what I'm told in my community. I'm hoping this isn't going to be something along those lines.

Housing. Few concrete commitments from the B.C. Liberals on housing and homelessness in the throne speech. The speech encourages local governments to exempt small-unit supportive housing projects from development cost charges and levies. Well, this government has, as far as I can see, a pretty mixed approach to housing. Mixed, at best, is the best way that you could describe it.

They're going to encourage local government to make some changes. I know the minister has often criticized local government for not creating enough social housing. But then you've got a member — like in my community, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission — who says that he despises social housing. He despises it. Is that the attitude that prevails in other members of this caucus? He says that it's a stigma. Does that mean that people should be ashamed because they live in social housing?

This just doesn't cut it, and I worry that this government has far too much of that attitude in their caucus. I worry that they're not really intent on providing social housing. I know there's some discussion about housing for people with addictions, and that's good, but it's not just people who have addiction problems who need housing.

Looking at my critic area of Intergovernmental Relations, there's a reference in the throne speech to TILMA, the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. When is that going to be brought before this House in terms of legislation so that we can have a full debate? This is a huge, huge agreement. It's an agreement that potentially has very far-reaching consequences for this province. This government is trying to run below the radar on it. "It's just a deal. You know, it's just an agreement. We sign all kinds of agreements with various provinces. This is just another one. Ho-hum." On the other hand, they say it's going to create billions and billions of dollars and so on, but….

Hon. O. Ilich: I actually am very pleased to respond to the government's throne speech as the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. At the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services we are dedicated to providing the best services possible for the citizens of British Columbia. This is a very broad mandate, which means we have many opportunities to support government's great goals and the Pacific leadership agenda.

Our economy is strong. More people are working than ever before, and thanks to a progressive tax environment, they are keeping more of their money. As has been said many, many times in this House, the best social policy is a job. Building on the strength of our economy, we are working to ensure everyone has access to housing that meets their needs and is within their means.

As a result of this government's tax cuts for families and our strong economy, real disposable income has grown every year since 2001. Put simply, when people have more money in their pockets, they can decide where they want to spend that money and what their priorities are.

Today we lead Canada. B.C. leads Canada in job creation. We have got 350,000 more jobs in B.C. since 2001. So we are an economic powerhouse. We are continuing to grow, and we have the lowest unemployment rate in 30 years. Right now the unemployment rate stands at 4.3 percent. More people are working than ever before. Even entry-level workers are being offered benefits and bonuses, and that's a good thing. Unlike in the 1990s, people are flocking to British Columbia to work and to invest and to live. So I'm very proud to be part of a government that is leading Canada on job creation.

I'm also pleased that we're leading on climate change. The action on climate change announced in the throne speech and the actions on global warming are broad. They're innovative, they're challenging, and they're exciting. Nationally, provincially and in local communities like mine in Richmond, we each can make a commitment to take the steps necessary to reduce greenhouse gases.

In my community, for instance, we are going to have the Canada line. That's under construction. As we can see every day if we tour around Richmond, there's lots of construction going on. The new Canada line is going to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by up to 14,000 tonnes by 2021, so we're going to be happy to have the RAV line in the community. It's going to take a lot of cars off the roads, and I think people are going to be very happy once that is completed. So I'm pleased that's ongoing in my community. I know that I'm going to be very happy to get on that and make my way to downtown or from Richmond on public transit.

Transit changes like the Gateway project and transit corridors will dramatically increase local transportation options and alternatives. I think we've discussed how that's going to also complement our climate change agenda.

One of the other things that I was pleased about in the throne speech was LocalMotion funding, which is a $40 million announcement to help local governments build walkways, cycling paths, disability access. These incentives will also get us out of our cars and into our communities, walking, and give us better access. We'll be more fit, and it'll be better for us. We'll contribute less to greenhouse gas if we're walking and doing our business that way.

There's a number of other initiatives that I'm very pleased to see were in the throne speech. Spirit Squares, I think, are great — and Towns for Tomorrow and green cities.

At work, at home and in the community. I just want to talk a little bit about some of the other initiatives of my ministry. Knowledge is the key to unlocking our citizens' true potential in the digital world. Access to that information and the knowledge to use it are essential for success.

One of this government's priorities has been to help make that flow of knowledge possible by fulfilling our commitment to bridging the digital divide, and that is to ensure that all communities have access to broadband Internet. Broadband connectivity and capacity-building are important cornerstones that will allow all of our communities to access social and economic opportunities and services such as telehealth and distance education.

Using government's purchasing power in the telecommunications market, the government has been able to ensure access is available in every one of the 366 communities identified by the Premier's Technology Council. British Columbia has gained international recognition for its innovative approach to that challenge.

Certainly, when I go and talk to people at UBCM and other people that come in to see me occasionally, they're very happy, and we get kudos for that connectivity. I think it's very important. I've spoken at a couple of functions in the last little while that dealt with the knowledge and connectivity, and people are very pleased that we are extending broadband out to all the communities of British Columbia.

One of the tenets of the Pacific leadership agenda for this government is to lead Canada in partnerships with first nations. I am really proud that my ministry is able to assist in doing that through the transformative change accord. Going forward, NetWork B.C. is focusing on connectivity for first nations as well as building capacity of first nations communities to share in the health, social and economic benefits of Internet access.

We do recognize that to successfully introduce broadband and other new information and communication technology applications, there needs to be a basic skill level within the communities wherever possible. At a conference just last week, I was pleased to provide $50,000 to the First Nations Education Steering

Committee to develop the skills and expertise required in communities to use and maintain the technology.

One of the things that we were quite keen to be working on and that the throne speech promised is that more will be done to preserve aboriginal languages. We have a program that we're working with. It's called FirstVoices.com. It's a great example of helping communities to harness the potential of the Internet.

FirstVoices.com is a major project, actually, of the First Peoples Cultural Foundation. They are using the Internet to document languages, because many first nations languages are in danger of becoming extinct. They are being recorded and put on the Internet as sound files so that people can learn them again.

I was pleased last week to also be able to provide $25,000 for the FirstVoices program. These funds will assist 15 community-based language teams to document their languages, bringing the number of publicly accessible B.C. first nations language archives to 25. This new money is added to funding already provided to FirstVoices through the First Peoples Heritage, Language and Culture Council.

A language is not only the voice of the people. It's the voice of their past, of their ideas and their values. It's the voice that shapes their culture. Thanks to this program, these traditional languages are more than a part of British Columbia's heritage. They're also a part of the future.

Many of the challenges and opportunities that the Internet and connectivity provide for first nations are captured in the documentary and educational DVD series Cedar and Silicon. I think that was provided to all members of the House. It's a great DVD. If you haven't seen it, I'd urge you to watch it. It really shows terrific examples of how the Internet is working in communities in British Columbia.

It's produced by the Knowledge Network with the financial support of the B.C. government and also the federal government. It's a one-hour documentary, and it talks about enabling first nations to better access health, education and economic development opportunities by bridging the digital divide.

If any of you haven't seen it, it is going to be running again on the Knowledge Network on April 19. I invite you all to watch and learn a little bit about it and be inspired by what we're doing there with the ministry. With Cedar and Silicon, we'll show you what's going on.

With information technologies, obviously there come some challenges. We do need to do a better job of managing the flow of information within government. Recently we have expanded the role of the provincial chief information officer. His role has been clarified, and it is now going to encompass both information technology and information management. The chief information officer has also been provided with responsibility for overseeing all IT projects across government.

We remain committed to being the most open and accessible government in Canada. One prime example of the significant leadership role B.C. is playing in information management is the hosting for eight years of the international privacy and security conference right here in Victoria. We had about 900 people here a few weeks ago. Over the past eight years this conference has established itself as one of North America's leading events in the security and privacy arena. I found it quite fascinating to listen to the people who were speaking there as to how privacy and security keeps changing all the time. We are doing what we can to remain on the cutting edge of security and privacy issues.

One of the most important aspects of improving services is in delivering services with greater efficiency. We have been working very hard on a centralized service delivery and ASD partnerships — that's alternative service delivery partnerships — which we know deliver significant savings to government. Shared Services B.C. provides more than 30 services to core government and agencies in the broader public sector, including procurement and supply, corporate accounting, strategic acquisitions and intellectual property, information technology, payroll, and the accommodation and real estate sector. Shared Services continues to leverage technologies and economies of scale to offer effective business solutions to clients across government and the broader public sector.

In the throne speech this government pledged further health care initiatives that will build on the Conversation on Health, and fundamental health reforms that will increase choice and maximize health services. Access to that information and the knowledge to use it are essential for success, and so I'm proud that the technical electronic backbone will be provided by the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services for initiatives such as a new electronic surgical patient registry and a new electronic medical records system. This will help in the health sector, it will save us money, and it will mean that patients will be better served.

Another example of the benefits of this model has been in workstation support for the tens of thousands of people providing services to the citizens of British Columbia. We have a partnership with IBM, and that was to refresh more than 30,000 government workstations over the last two years. It has been a success, and it was completed in less time than was expected. It's a contract that is on track for savings of about $80 million over the next ten years. By ensuring that all of our employees are operating with a consistent level of desktop technology, we were able to greatly improve security and reliability.

I see many members of the House here. We're all working on the same computers. Having that happen means that the end-user problems requiring in-person support have dropped by about 50 percent. So not only have we saved a lot of money, but we've saved time, and we're giving better service to all the people who use computers within this House and within the greater public service.

This is just one of the many examples of how partnering with the private sector in alternative service

delivery has brought real and tangible benefits. We're letting the private sector and the people that know how to do some of the things that they do best…. We're letting them do the work, and it's brought real and tangible benefits, freeing up people and resources to protect and improve public services.

The savings and benefits of alternative service delivery are being measured not just in the millions but in the hundreds of millions of dollars for government. The flexibility and gainsharing elements of B.C.'s ASD partnerships are unparalleled and continue to attract the attention of public sector jurisdictions around the world.

We have won awards for what we have done with alternative service delivery. I know that one of the members of the House was in Washington D.C. earlier this year picking up an award from across North America. We got an award for being the best of one of these ASD projects. We're internationally recognized for the work that we're doing here, and I'm very proud of the people that work in our ministry, who have been able to do this great work.

We continue to want to provide services to British Columbians where and when they need them — whether it's in person, by phone or over the Internet. One of the things that we have responsibility for is government agents' offices where we serve more than two million people annually with front-counter service.

Today we are working to provide government services at convenient times and convenient locations and are integrating services from across government so that people can go to a single location to get the services they need, regardless of what ministry is ultimately responsible for those services.

I was in Prince George a few weeks ago, and I went to the government agent's office. There were people being served getting hunting and fishing licences, renewing their driver's licences, taking driver's tests and doing all those things in a single office. People were being well served. We have great government agents' offices all over British Columbia. The customer satisfaction there is continually very high, and I'm very proud of the people who work there.

One of the things we're committed to is that it should not be up to individuals to figure out how government works. It's up to the government to serve the citizens and to figure out the best way to do that. For British Columbians, there's no wrong door to get to government services. We are developing welcoming offices that combine multiple services with improved signage and better access for citizens, and we're doing that in many, many languages.

The government website is also slated for major redevelopment so that there is a seamless integration of all our service delivery channels. Because this ministry is in the business of providing services within government, we will have a vital role in supporting government's goal of leading the world in environmental sustainability.

As outlined extensively in the Speech from the Throne, the province has been actively listening to the concerns expressed by British Columbians about the potential impacts of global warming. We're going to be working to support the throne speech's call to meet or beat the best practices in North America for reducing carbon and other greenhouse gases.

We will coordinate and lead the environmentally sustainable procurement for government goods and services. Right now, we are greening the government fleet through the purchase of hybrid vehicles whenever possible. I'm sure that some of the people in my community in Richmond, where the auto mall is, will be happy to see this. I think that the credits available for purchasing a hybrid will also be helpful to them and to the people who buy them.

In terms of the government fleet, all of the hybrids being acquired generate lower greenhouse gases than the conventional gasoline vehicle that would otherwise have been purchased. So we're happy to be leading on that particular initiative.

We're also greening government buildings, and we're going to be looking at a saving — actually, $14 million annual savings — by greening buildings to make sure we have high-performance buildings that use less energy. That's the green building initiative of the accommodation and real estate services portion of the ministry, and we're excited to be working on that as well.

Also through ARES, we will be assisting as appropriate with the unified B.C. green building code. We will assist with the development over the next year with industry, professional and community representatives.

One of the other things we talked about in the throne speech was that we aim to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness. My community of Richmond, I'm very proud to say, is first across Canada. We've obviously taken that initiative very seriously in Richmond, and I did see in our local paper on the weekend that we are in fact first.

We're living longer. We live longer in Richmond than anywhere else in Canada. So that's great for the citizens of Richmond, and I think it is because we do so much walking and do so much bicycling. We've got a lot of bike paths and walking trails, so I hope that rubs off on my family. Obviously, we want everybody throughout the whole community to live long.

Living a healthy lifestyle has made all this possible, so we're going to continue to focus on that. My ministry is going to be looking at ways that we can contribute to that by replacing junk food with healthier choices in vending machines in B.C. public buildings.

The throne speech confirmed that we will replace junk food with healthier choices in vending machines in B.C. buildings, and it's expected that a significant percentage of vending machines in public buildings will have replaced that food with healthier choices by 2010. We've done it in our schools, and now it's time for our public employees to show leadership by making healthier choices too.

The Speech from the Throne clearly lays out that the government will open up Canada's Pacific gateway

and strengthen our economic competitiveness. One of the best indicators of the strength of our economy is the unemployment rate. In 2006 the annual unemployment rate for the lower mainland is 4.4 percent, down 1.3 percent from 2005. That's the lowest annual unemployment rate ever recorded in the lower mainland.

The labour portion of the ministry is going to be assisting in that on many levels. British Columbia is enjoying an unprecedented level of labour peace at the moment, evidenced in part by the success of last year's public sector bargaining, which saw collective bargaining agreements reached covering more than 98 percent of the province's public employees.

We are also seeing unprecedented labour relations stability. There has been a significant decline in work stoppages in strikes and lockouts in British Columbia since 2001. On average there were fewer than half the strikes and lockouts from 2001 to 2006 than at any time during the 1990s.

We also have a trend to longer agreements. Agreements now are covering five, six and in some cases even seven years, reflecting employer and unions' renewed sense of optimism about our economy. More than half of all the union members in British Columbia work in the public sector, so we're pleased to see that stability. We're doing what we can to make sure that continues.

Agreements have been reached covering virtually all of the unionized workers in the public service, and we hope and believe that each one of them is fair to employees and affordable to the taxpayers. All of the public sector agreements are for four years, contributing to fiscal stability and certainty for British Columbia. The conciliatory bargaining process ensures that the people of B.C. will enjoy labour peace and uninterrupted service for many years.

Our economy continues to benefit from a labour code and employment standards that are fair and balanced for both employers and employees. We also have a workers compensation system that remains responsive to the needs of workers and employers.

My ministry is very broad in scope. Our work touches citizens wherever they interact with government, and that means we have boundless opportunities to support and promote the vision and progress outlined for this government in the Speech from the Throne.

We make government services more centred on the needs of the citizens of British Columbia. We connect the province and build a capacity that will allow all of our communities to access social and economic opportunities and services. We preserve and revitalize sleeping first nations languages. We provide safe jobs for our young people and support for those who need it.

We can be open and transparent while protecting security and privacy, and we advance the Pacific leadership agenda. We can truly live and work in the best place on earth. Thank you very much for allowing me to talk.

H. Bains: It is my honour to reply to the throne speech. I had the opportunity earlier to speak on the budget but didn't have the opportunity to talk about the throne speech, so I am really privileged. I feel privileged and honoured to have this opportunity to talk about some of the issues that are important not only in this province but to the constituency that I represent, Surrey-Newton.

It gives me a great deal of pride to stand here as their representative, because those are the folks who put their faith in me in order to bring their issues to this House and make sure that those issues are debated and actually talked about. Hopefully, the government members of this House would listen to those issues and concerns, and there's expectation that they would act on those issues.

I must say that we were able to bring those issues here before, but it is my disappointment, to say the least, that those issues weren't acted upon by the members of the government. The only reason I could think of is that it's a matter of ideology and politics. I think that governed their decisions, rather than the common sense and practicality that are required in this day and age in order to deal with those issues. The members of my community are actually expecting the government to also look at their concerns and deal with those issues that they have brought to this House through me.

I want to talk about health care issues that we have in our community, because it is by far the most important and concerning issue in our constituency — not only in Surrey-Newton but for all the folks living in Surrey and the surrounding area who actually go to Surrey Memorial Hospital for health care needs. It is one of the key issues that they face day in and day out. As I have said in this House before, you can hardly ever walk the street in that area, walk into a social gathering or have a family gathering where these issues are talked about, where the issues and the experiences — the bad experiences that they or their friends have actually experienced in Surrey Memorial Hospital — aren't brought up.

So it is on their minds all the time. You've seen and heard of many high-profile cases that went through Surrey Memorial Hospital where members of the community felt that the system failed them, that the government failed them and that they're not very happy with the situation they face.

More troublesome to them, I think, is that they don't feel the government is taking this issue seriously. They believe that the decisions, as I said before, are more politically motivated, rather than motivated by the needs and concerns of those folks to fix the problems that we have in the area around Surrey Memorial Hospital.

There's no doubt that it's not just members on this side of the House talking about those issues. Here we have doctors, nurses, patients and the general public talking about the issues that we face in Surrey with Surrey Memorial Hospital. They all feel that the situation is in chaos and that health care is in crisis, starting with Surrey Memorial Hospital and then expanding into most of the hospitals in the lower mainland.

Hour after hour of waiting in the emergency wards in pain and agony — this isn't the health care system that our forefathers dreamed about. They actually thought that the health care system should be one — a public health care system that is funded by public funds and that will look after the needs of the public, as the Premier even said, when they need it and where they need it.

But they're not seeing the results. I think it's time now to act. Act now, rather than continue to make those promises, continue to come and make those big announcements…. Not only are they telling people that they actually are doing something — in my view, that is misleading — they go out there and delay the decisions and the promises that they have made.

I give you this very good example. After a tremendous amount of pressure from the community and from this side of the members, the government side, including the Premier, finally realized that Surrey Memorial Hospital needs help. As a result, they made the announcement during the election of 2005 that there is a study being conducted that they will actually fast-track so we will know sooner rather than later what is actually needed — what kind of help is needed and what needs to fixed.

That study was fast-tracked, and I give them that credit. As a result, the Minister of Health went to Surrey and made an announcement that came out of that study that they will be expanding the emergency ward and that they will also actually be building another day care ambulatory unit that will be built either in the hospital — at the time they weren't sure — or outside the hospital. They made the announcement, which I thought was very important.

The announcement was that the construction of these facilities, the expansion — especially the ambulatory care unit that I have talked about before — will start in 2007 and that the construction will be completed in 2009. I can tell you I was the one that was quite happy with the announcement — that at least something is being done, that at least the decisions are being made, that the concrete decision is there, that this will start the need to expand the hospital, that the date was given, that the time line was outlined.

So we were happy. Then the Premier went back to my constituency in Surrey and said, "Well, you know, this is the area and the site where the ambulatory care unit will be built," but he didn't tell anybody that at the same time he was making a decision to delay the construction by one year — why one year? — knowing full well the problems we face in Surrey, knowing full well that this is the fastest-growing region in the province if not in Canada, that we do need to act soon. I couldn't believe that that would be the decision made by the Premier after the decision was made earlier to start the construction in 2007. However, after questioning, the answer was: "Well, the construction will finish at the same time as it was originally announced."

No one has actually come out with any explanation. My question back to them is: if it takes only one year to complete the construction of this unit, why don't you start the construction as you promised to the province, as you promised to the folks in Surrey that it would start — in 2007? If it takes one year to construct, then it will be completed one year sooner. People will not have to go through one extra year of pain and agony and suffering that they go through now with this decision and will continue to go through for the extra year.

No explanation has come forward, none whatsoever. What is the explanation? What is the reason for delaying the construction of the ambulatory unit by one year? There's no explanation. When there's no explanation, you are left with trying to come up with your own answers or speculations, and the folks are speculating. They are speculating that the decision to delay the construction has to be maybe one and only one reason — that they don't care, that they're not serious about dealing with the issue at hand and that they want to line it up with the next election so that again they can point out to the folks in Surrey: "Look what a wonderful job we're doing for you. We're building this facility for you."

The other explanation is that because of the mismanagement and the cost overrun at VANOC for the Olympic Games and at the Trade and Convention Centre expansion, the money is being sucked into those two big black holes, and there isn't enough money left to pay for the health care system that we need to fix right now. Again, there's no explanation coming from the government side.

That is not how the government should run. This is a government that promised to be the most open and transparent government in Canada. They ran on that promise. What I've seen so far — and I have actually dealt with many governments before this government — is that this government is the most secret government that I've ever faced in this province. That goes back quite a while. I go back to 1973 in this province.

That is a lot to say about this government, and that's another promise broken, in my view. The promise was also broken on the health care promise they made to people in Surrey. I don't think that is sitting well with the folks. I don't think that it should sit well with those people on that side of the House. I would concede that everyone, even on that side, comes here to make a difference. They came here trying to make our people's lives better. But there are some questions here that I believe the only reason, or one of the reasons…. Some of the decisions that I question are completely politically motivated rather than motivated by the need-and-commonsense driver.

There's a lot more to talk about on health care in Surrey. I will finish by saying that the government, rather than fixing the problem in Surrey Memorial Hospital and providing the resources to those hard-working health care workers both in the emergency ward and in the rest of the hospital, rather than pro-

vide them with the resources they need, they are actually more busy. They're busy now trying to open private health clinics in Surrey. Now that to me is a shame. Here I think they have lost direction. There's a lack of vision there. Again, when you look at all those decisions being made, they're made purely on the basis of political motivation rather than what is actually needed out there.

I'll talk about some of the other issues that are facing our community right now in that part of the lower mainland. I think Surrey is one of the most diverse and multicultural communities that you come across. I would say it is more multicultural and diverse than anywhere in Canada, if not the world. That is the beauty of that city, but they have challenges. They are crying out for help from this government to help them to contribute back to their economy and to this province and the country they adopted, but they're not getting any help.

I'm talking about folks who have foreign credentials. They held their education outside of this country. They were actually sought out by this government and the federal government because of the skills they possess, which are needed in Canada. As a result, they were given those points, because they come from the point system, and they were successful in meeting the criteria. As soon as they land here in Canada, they are told: "Thank you very much for coming, but the qualifications that you brought with you, the credentials that we told you we were in need of in Canada, the skills that you brought with you that we can actually use in Canada to help deal with the labour and skills shortage in this country…. Those credentials are no good anymore, now that you're in this country."

I think that is very disrespectful of those folks, and it is insulting to those folks who are in this country. They want to come and contribute. They want to come and help us deal with the issues we have, such as the labour shortage. Even the federal government of the day, today, is pointing fingers at the provincial governments. They are saying that over 400 provincially regulated organizations are the ones who need to work with the provincial government to come up with the solution to this very serious problem.

The provincial governments are not doing enough, as the minister has said already, to deal with this issue. My federal NDP colleagues have, as the members on the other side will also know, introduced a nine-point formula to deal with this issue. The Ontario provincial government has also taken steps. Those are, in my view, the concrete steps that are needed.

Is that everything that can be done? I'm not so sure, but they actually came to the House and passed Bill 124. Through that bill, they are giving these provincially regulated organizations — the associations, the professional associations — a plan to work out, a process whereby those credentials can be recognized through a fair system so that those folks don't feel left out. My understanding is that they are giving them about a year to deal with this issue, and if they fail to deal with it, then the provincial government can actually bring in changes that are needed to deal with it.

I think that's the kind of leadership we need in this province — which is sorely lacking, I might say. We need leadership. We need a vision from this government. Them failing these foreign-trained professionals…. It's not only that those professionals are not realizing their full potential to contribute back to our economy; we are also losing out as a province and as a country. We're not able to utilize the skills that they brought here. They're sitting there for us to use and utilize, but we're not doing anything to have them put through the system so they can be actually realized. So that's another example.

I didn't see any vision coming out of the throne speech to deal with this issue. You will hear the ministers, from time to time, talk about how serious they are about dealing with this issue, but what they've done is more lip service — a lot of talk. Right now it's time. It's time to walk the talk, and it's time to deal with this issue rather than continue to talk and provide lip service and leave the impression that they're doing something about it.

The other issue that I want to talk about, which is very near and dear to me — I think the minister will agree with me that it is a serious issue, because the minister has received numerous presentations and perhaps calls and e-mails — is the issue about manufactured home owners and the problem they are facing with the new act. They have told me. They have told other members of this House. I'm sure they have told the minister, because there was a petition brought to this House.

When they changed the act in 2002, they actually put in a lot of unfairness, as they will tell you, by way of compensation when they are told that the landowner or the park owner has decided to redevelop that land for uses other than the manufactured homes park. It used to be, before the act got changed, that if the park owner was to evict these homeowners, there was up to $10,000 moving expenses paid to them. That got changed to 12 months of compensation, or the equivalent of 12 months.

The minister and everyone else who deals with this issue are quite aware that it's not anywhere near or close to $10,000. Many times it's only $4,000 or $5,000. Here is a group of people who are seniors, most of them. There are many in those situations who actually have physical or mental disabilities, who actually have made these home parks their communities, their homes. These are quite little communities. If you walk through one — which I have, quite a number of times — they are very well kept. They are the community. They look out for each other. They know each other. This is the kind of lifestyle they have chosen, and they want to maintain that lifestyle.

In the event that the park owner decides to redevelop, these folks are left with very little. Again, this act that was brought in, in 2002 is to help the landowners and the park owners at the expense of these homeowners. That's not what I call fairness. I think that is a one-sided agreement.

It's not only I who is talking about this; many members have spoken about this. Many municipalities have actually started to pay attention to this, and my hat is off to the municipality of Coquitlam, which took the lead and put in their own in-house policy to deal with this issue. That was then followed by Penticton and others, and since that time the UBCM actually passed a resolution to adopt the policy that was adopted by the city of Coquitlam.

I think there's a clear message coming from all of those communities when you see a resolution get passed by the UBCM calling on this government to deal with this issue that they believe is unfair — unfair to our seniors and unfair to the manufactured park owners. So I think it's about time, Minister — through you, Mr. Speaker — that we should start to pay attention to the plight of these folks. The municipalities have recognized this. I think it's about time that this government started to recognize this and to deal with this issue. Put in some safeguards. Bring some fairness back so that our seniors who are living in these home parks feel they are actually respected and can live the last few years of their lives in the lifestyle they have chosen, with dignity and respect. That's what I call on the government for on many occasions, and I call on the minister again. This is what is needed.

The other part that really is affecting our community is the Human Rights Commission, which was actually eliminated when this government took over in 2001. This province actually has a long history of dealing with some of the injustices of the past. In trying to come to grips with this situation, as a result, the Human Rights Commission was introduced by — I must say; I'm proud to say — the government of the day in 1972, led by Premier Dave Barrett. I think that was a great achievement. It was a great initiative taken, along with many others that that government actually brought, and we still enjoy the benefit of those decisions today. That was the one which brought in this Human Rights Commission at that particular time.

No government since that time has tried to tinker with this. They felt this was an important piece of legislation. It was an important policy matter, because the Human Rights Commission is the one that a new immigrant, who actually is the one in most need because they don't know our system as they come to this country…. When they felt they were being discriminated against, or that they didn't get the justice or the fairness they needed at a workplace, in their neighbourhoods or in other places, they could go to the Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission was set out for helping these folks — how to proceed with the application, how to do a proper investigation — and to lead them to the panel, so that the final decision would come through it.

Now that part — the initial part that would help them put those applications through and do the investigation part — is gone. Now the folks are left on their own.

I'll talk about the education part that this commission provided. That is also missing. It was more important, because education, as everyone has recognized — not only here but all across the world — is the key to reducing discrimination and racism. The Human Rights Commission was playing a key role in dealing with that issue. Now that issue is gone. There was nothing in the speech that my constituents and I could see where there was something coming for them. There's nothing in there.

As I've said before, my constituency is one that is a working-class community. They go out in the morning, pack their lunch pails. They go to work, deal with their workplace issues, earn their living — hard work — and come home. They take their kids to a hockey game or to the park or to the other recreational activities they're involved in, come home, cook, wash themselves and sleep. Then they go back and start the day all over again. As they are engaged in that practice day in and day out, there are workplace accidents. Many of them have gone through workplace accidents, and here comes WorkSafe B.C.

Their experience with WorkSafe B.C. is less than, I would say, acceptable. You will hear day in and day out from these folks how terribly they were treated at WorkSafe B.C. This government has actually allowed that organization to deteriorate to a point that it simply does not do the work that it was set out to do many years ago, decades ago. This organization was set up for the workers so that if they are hurt at a workplace and cannot continue to work, there will be that income that they will be receiving, rather than through litigation which will take months and years.

Here was the contract, basically, that was agreed to between the workers, the employer and the government. If they are hurt, they will be looked after, and a paycheque will continue to come so that their houses aren't taken away by the banks because they are unable to work because of no fault of their own. They were hurt at the workplace.

That link is missing. They are hurt, they are sitting at home, but that income isn't coming because of the bureaucracy and because of the system that they put in place, which is completely anti-worker.

That's the culture that exists out there, the culture of denial that exists at WorkSafe B.C. That is something that needs to be fixed up and fixed up quickly. This government showed no desire through the throne speech that they are able to do that or even have a desire to do that.

I was able to attend one hearing. This fellow went through 12 years of denial, had to hire his own lawyer. The allegations at the hearing were that WorkSafe B.C. was withholding the pertinent information that was needed to deal with the claim at hand. Mr. Speaker, I just have to tell you that after 12 years this person was actually so suicidal that he left home quite a few times. It's recorded that this person was so fed up with the system and how he was made to feel so little — no respect, no dignity — that he felt he was worthless and useless. That's the system that caused him to think that way and that he was going to kill himself.

I heard those with my own ears at that hearing. I must tell you: after 12 years he finally won his case. Finally, I was told today, after 12 years. It shouldn't take 12 years. It shouldn't take even 12 days to deal with the issues if you're hurt at the workplace.

The issue, as I said before, is that if you're hurt at a workplace, your paycheque should still come. The worker gave up the right to sue the employer in return for that arrangement. But the employer and the government are actually relinquishing their part of the contract, and as a result the workers are suffering every day, every time they are hurt at a workplace, every time they need to deal with WorkSafe.

Another fellow, Mr. Saran. It's been over seven years. For over seven years he has been going from lawyer to lawyer. He's gone from one department of WorkSafe B.C. to another — still no end in sight. Right now, because he cannot earn a living, cannot provide food and shelter for his children and his family, he also feels that he's useless.

This is not the country our forefathers dreamt about. This is not the society that our forefathers decided we wanted to have. Their dream was to have a society where everyone is respected — the working people, the CEOs of the companies. Everyone is treated the same. Everyone has respect and dignity, whether at the workplace or at their homes. That's not happening here, and I think this government should be ashamed. This government should start to pay attention to this.

Hon. R. Coleman: Following on the heels of the member for Surrey-Newton, I have some comments to make, obviously, about some of the things that he didn't talk about today.

Before I do that, Mr. Speaker, yesterday my community lost a wonderful guy named Jim Shiells. Jim Shiells was a gentleman who was a pioneer in the chicken industry in British Columbia for many years. Sadly, he died of cancer in hospice yesterday morning at 10:30.

Jim was actually a beneficiary of modern science about nine years ago when a new procedure was put in place to clean marrow, so that he could have his cancer treated back then and have nine years with his grandchildren and his children and his family.

My community will miss Jim. Jim was a Rotarian, he was involved in the chamber of commerce, and he was involved in the chicken board. For me Jim was an educator. When I became an MLA back in 1996…. Any member that serves in the Fraser Valley would be able to tell you that one of the most complicated files you can try to deal with is the chicken and chicken marketing boards and the turkey and turkey marketing boards.

Jim was a guy who sort of got me through that and taught me so we could understand it in my community. I did say to my wife that I would probably mention Jim in the House today, because I feel that our communities are built on people like this, who have built the foundation of British Columbia. Those are the important things that we need to remember from time to time as we go forward.

Now I want to talk about the throne speech in a number of areas, and the first area I want to talk about is basically an area that has to do with my riding and the lower mainland and, I think, the lack of understanding of way too many people about the importance of infrastructure, the Pacific gateway and the issues facing it.

I'm disappointed to sit through speeches time and time again from members of the NDP from Surrey, who won't stand up and tell us whether they support the Gateway project and won't stand up and tell us what they believe and support — that this is an important project for the future of B.C. and for our communities.

The reason I say that is because on Friday I was downtown in meetings and headed out to the valley, as we call it. Just past Surrey — that's the valley. We have Surrey, and then we have the valley. As I'm going out, I'm coming across the Port Mann Bridge, which took quite some time to get across. As I finally got across the Port Mann and crawled my way to 160th and 176th and 192nd and out past 200th Street and past 208th Street, the traffic on the north side of the freeway was stopped. There was traffic idling for about ten miles, trying to get across the Port Mann Bridge. That's in the afternoon, which is supposed to be counter to the rush hour, but the rush hour now goes both ways for about 11 hours a day on the lower mainland of British Columbia.

When I think about that, it's always frustrating to me, because I have sat in that valley and known for a long time that an investment had to be made in infrastructure. I also knew this — that I have a community in the north end of my riding called Walnut Grove. There are about 35,000 or 40,000 people living in that area of my community. There's one thing that isn't available to them, even though we tell them they should take transit and use transit in British Columbia.

There's one thing that's not available to the people from that entire area of British Columbia, where there are about 100,000 people, not counting the 150,000 people in Abbotsford, and that is this. There is no HOV lane. There is no bus lane. There is no ability for transit to go directly downtown to Vancouver across the Port Mann Bridge, because there's no lane for it.

So you can talk about transit, and you can talk about air quality. You can talk about all these things, but if you don't expand the Port Mann Bridge, you're not getting there. At the same time all that's taking place, all you see as you drive along that freeway is the lost economic opportunity in jobs to every person from all socioeconomic aspects of our society. They sit idling and can't move goods and services and get things to a construction site or to a port or anywhere in a timely fashion.

I find it frustrating that the members opposite won't grasp the Gateway strategy and look at it from a

holistic point of view and say this: "If we actually do something on the Pitt River Bridge, do something with the Golden Ears bridge, do something with the Port Mann and do the south perimeter road, we'll actually move goods and services more efficiently so that we can compete in a world market. We'll actually move people quicker and more efficiently and improve the use of transit for the people in the Fraser Valley and at the same time reduce air emissions."

Now, that's important. I get the fact that the people opposite me in this House will talk oftentimes about the fact that they know something about climate change or they know something about pollution. But at the same time they say that, they never actually follow through historically and stand by those claims.

The member for Nelson-Creston said: "Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change and its implication for socialistic principles." The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said in the House: "I…say that the record of the last government, being the NDP in the late 1990s, was not good on climate change…."

One of the things that affects climate change, affects my community is air emissions, and I can tell you this, Madam Speaker, and this is important. In the upper Fraser Valley, according to doctors that I know, we suffer from a greater percentage of asthma and ear, nose and throat problems than most jurisdictions in North America. And it's not our pollution, ironically. It's pollution coming from Vancouver, pollution coming from the lower mainland on the other side of that bridge in many cases. There's an inversion in the valley, and it catches this pollution and holds it down on top of people, and they breathe it.

If we look at this whole package and say, "Okay, now we've got…." Why aren't they supporting the Gateway? Why aren't they actually supporting the expansion of highways? Why aren't they moving goods and services? And at the same time, why aren't they getting in there with a vision for Canada with regards to the ports and the movement of goods and services? There's pollution spewed by the ships that are arriving in our ports. We need to electrify our ports. We need to do that, in cooperation with the federal government and members of this House, so we can have success there.

While I find it frustrating to listen to speeches, particularly by the members from Surrey, who know that their constituents actually support Gateway and do want to get across the Port Mann Bridge and move goods and services and get to jobs in a timely way and actually get home in a timely way to spend more time with their families…. While they won't come out and tell me anything about that, they do have a history of doing nothing about air quality and nothing about good things for the environment in my area.

The NDP tried to pave Burns Bog instead of actually saving it. The NDP wanted to put an amusement park and track in the middle of Burns Bog. What did we do? We bought it; we saved it. We bought it because it's the largest natural carbon sink in the lower mainland of British Columbia. We actually did the right thing with regards to Burns Bog.

Back when I was in opposition…. Of course, we know — and the members opposite are now learning and enjoying opposition, some of them for the first time — you do get issues that come into your community.

I was involved in one with the member from Chilliwack and the members from Abbotsford many years ago, and that was the building of SE2, a gas-fired power plant in Sumas, Washington. At no time did the government of the day, the NDP, step up to the plate. At no time did they help us in any way to try and fight that project. As a matter of fact, it was only on the very last day, when all things fell apart and there was a big rally in the valley, that the minister actually showed up and said, "Well, maybe we don't support SE2" — didn't say they didn't but said: "Maybe we should rethink this."

While they did this dithering, they actually missed the deadline. Imagine this. I mean, the whole Fraser Valley is saying, "You're going to hurt our air quality in our valley with the emissions coming out of SE2," and they missed the deadline to even get official intervener status on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia to talk about SE2.

As we came through that, they did a number of other things that were very frustrating. On one side, they don't like Gateway. They don't like the Port Mann. I don't understand it. It's a vision for ports and trade and that sort of thing. They don't stand up for citizens on SE2. They don't protect Burns Bog.

At the same time all that's going on, what's the biggest polluter on the lower mainland that's being run flat out all those years? Nobody's investing in any clean energy, and no infrastructure. They're running Burrard Thermal flat out and polluting the Fraser Valley. This is the type of thing I find frustrating when I listen to members opposite, when I think about what we're trying to accomplish as a government.

The opposition will try and tell you that somebody has just all of a sudden found the environmental agenda in British Columbia. I find that rather interesting too, because I know we've actually had more protected areas and parks under this government than at any time previous to the previous government. I know that we put the living rivers trust fund in place, with a budget creating a $7 million fund and a budget tripling the living rivers trust to $21 million. Of course, the NDP voted against that.

The NDP voted against creating a $91 million fund to clean up contaminated sites on Crown land. Imagine. We want to clean up our own Crown land, and they vote against that. They voted against exempting hybrid vehicles from PST, alternative fuels, exempting energy-efficient homes from heating….

They actually opposed the Canada line, which is going to take 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases by 2021, or the equivalent of taking ten lanes of traffic off the road between the airport and Vancouver. That's

what the Canada line will do — move people faster and cleaner and get them to and from work better. And they're opposed to that.

I find it incredible, when I sit in the House and I know we're all representing constituents, that I can't see in a speech with regards to throne or budget by members from Surrey that they will support a project like the Gateway that will actually improve lives, move goods and services, improve trade and have a vision for the future of British Columbia.

While we did all that we've been doing, we also did some other neat things, I think — just little things that we've done. They were all things that are also driven by the belief in the environmental agenda. We acquired the Codd wetlands over in Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows through a $4.5 million partnership with the GVRD, the owners, Pitt Meadows, the Land Conservancy and Ducks Unlimited. And we actually protected that vital wetland for the future generations of B.C.

Those are the things you do. You do it because you invest in things like the Brilliant power plant near Castlegar. That's just to increase B.C.'s renewable energy. You do all of these things as you try and build an agenda that is strong for the future of the province.

As I move from this, there's no doubt that the members opposite will have difficulty as we start to achieve the agenda on climate change and air particulates and as we make some changes to how we're managing our forests and getting power from wood and those sort of things, which I think are all the right things to do. They will have some difficulty in the future opposing what's before them.

The fact of the matter is that every time I've seen governments like this one decide to step up to the plate and try something different and follow through, people actually like that. They like the fact that somebody can make a decision, put a plan in place and effect the plan to have a future and success.

We have a throne speech that actually talks a great deal about the environment and climate change. People around the world — including other states, the United States and jurisdictions around the world — are lauding this, saying this is good. All we can hear from the people across the House is: "Well, there's no plan."

Well, they didn't have a plan for ten years under the NDP government, and we've actually been doing things incrementally in the last five or six years, all related to improvement in the environment, improvement in our air quality. Addressing these issues, we build to a major agenda with regards to climate change.

That's important, frankly. It's important because all of us know that Jim Shiell's children and grandchildren and my children and grandchildren want to have a cleaner environment to live in. They want to know that there's a future in the province and a place where they can actually build an economy in a safe way but also an environmentally friendly way.

As we do that, I look at other things this government is doing, some of them mentioned in the throne speech. There's so much good news that it's incredibly hard to think that you could possibly talk about it in 20 minutes to half an hour. But let's try and talk about a few of them. As the Minister of Forests today, I've now signed up to, I think, 119 forests and range opportunity agreements with first nations — part of reconciliation, part of a new relationship with first nations, part of the fact that we want them to be part of the forest economy.

We're going to work through challenges with these as we come along, but we're working together, which is an important aspect of the whole structure of this thing. It's important that we work together to build that foundation for the economic side of forestry in relationship with our first nations.

We have three treaties presently going under vote for approval with first nations across the province. We hope that they will approve those treaties and that they will come to this House and to the federal House and get approved this year so that we can move again further down that whole reconciliation and relationship side of the first nations stuff.

As we go through that, I look at some of the other aspects that challenge first nations and other communities and people within communities. One of them that is highlighted in the throne speech and that is near and dear to my heart is the issue of literacy. It's just not a matter of the fact of literacy, of people saying: "Well, somebody needs to learn to read." It's the world you open up as a result of opening up people's skills and literacy.

When I was a Solicitor General, the one thing I became very acutely aware of was that a high percentage — close to 90 percent — of prisoners in B.C.'s jails did not have a grade 12 education. I was highly aware of the fact that the literacy skills of the folks in those jails were not good. Then when they left our system and would to go out into the public, the reason they weren't employable was because even the easiest thing, as we would think, of filling out an application for employment…. When you can't read it, you can't even get through the front door.

There was one particular jail in Nanaimo where I walked into a classroom and the teacher had every grade 12 equivalency certificate that she had ever had from every person she had ever taught as a teacher in that particular correctional institution pinned up on the wall of the classroom. At that time we were doing the Queen's Jubilee medals, and I felt that there was somebody who deserved recognition because of the work they do for people.

I think that setting a high, aggressive, tough-to-reach goal focuses everybody on the fact that we need to focus on literacy as an important linchpin in our economy and in people's lives in British Columbia. As we do that, we'll also work to improve the education system and deal with it, as we have done and as we will continually have to do. As I've said to this House, each of us in our ridings has some very unique and interesting challenges with regard to education.

If you've been here 11 years, which is sounding like a very long time as I give this speech…. Eleven years

ago, when I became the MLA for Fort Langley–Aldergrove, we were trying to get an elementary school built in Aldergrove because we had three other elementary schools in our community — one in particular — with the playing field covered in portables.

Today, 11 years later, we don't have enough students to support two of the four elementary schools that we have in our community because the demographics have shifted. I look at my school system, and I recognize I've got two high schools in the eastern part of my riding. If I look at the number of children in grades 1 to 7 that are coming through the system and I look at the capacity of those schools, it doesn't take much to figure out that in a few years, as the next bubble comes through, we've got another challenge with high schools in my particular community, which is incredible.

In one area we'll have the challenge, and in the other area, where we have the development and growth, we'll need another high school, because the numbers are just growing and burgeoning in that area of the community. So my community has to start to adjust. We may have to adjust to busing. We may have to adjust the distances that our children go to school, simply because there won't be the ability to do education the same way because of the numbers of students that we have.

Yet, having said all that, we're still raising the budget of education every year. The per-pupil funding is the highest in the history of the province, and we continue to do that in B.C.

I look at the health care system. I think all of us are acutely aware — if we weren't, then even in the last two weeks — of how the health care system and health have such a significant impact on all of us. I think we're all getting a little older. We may still think of ourselves as young in the basic general demographics of British Columbia, but we see friends of ours who are a little older and who are having health issues. We lose friends. We see people going through treatment and challenges.

It seems we have to come to grips that as a group of people we are part of a problem that was created by our society, by a baby boom and the difference in demographics and the fewer children we have today. And we're an aging society. We better get around to figuring out how we're going to deal with that. We need to figure out how we're going to improve the health care system in its efficiencies and in its vision and how we're going to deal with it, going forward. Quite frankly, we're providing a significant challenge to the system.

As we provide that challenge, it's going to actually take all of us in this Legislature and everybody in this system to try and change some things that we do, to set some directions that make a bit more sense, to challenge ourselves to thought. That's why the Conversation on Health. The reason we need to do that is because you don't have to always do things the same way all the time, especially if you're not getting the results that you want.

If the results are a better health care system for all of our citizens, then we need to look at all the ideas that can help us to improve that. We can do that. I think it's a significant challenge for all of us, but I think we can do that. I think the people who least understand, sometimes, how good we can be at doing this — how good a job we can do at doing this and how well we can do to improve the health care system — are us in this House.

If you go out and explain to British Columbians that there are two million visits to emergency rooms in British Columbia every year and that you'd like to improve how those people, when they came through, might go to something where they could get a different level of care — simply because the emergency room is really for the triage of emergencies — they'll say: "That makes sense."

If you say to people, "You know, we want to be able to adjust our system so that we can handle aging in place for people, so they can stay in their home and get the home care and supports where they are, versus having to come into another level of the health care system," they get that.

What we get in the House…. It's because of the adversarial relationship between government and opposition. I mean, "government" and "opposition" — the language is there. You oppose; they answer. The reality, though, is that the rest of the public knows we've got a challenge in health care. They will at some time look at us as leaders and say: "Okay. We get that you guys have got to ask questions of each other. We get that you have to have the debate, but why don't you quit pointing fingers at each other all the time? Why don't you try and figure out how to fix this thing?"

I'd invite the opposition to participate in something like the Conversation on Health. I would invite members of this House to be open-minded to opportunities that we could have that would help us improve health care in B.C. for our citizens, because that's what we're here for. Again, the thing that's really interesting about challenges in health care, education, the environment or transportation is that it requires a simple, little thing. It requires leadership and decisions, and it requires that people show leadership and make decisions to ensure that we will have a system that works.

We do know that as we take leadership in any walk of life — whether in business, education, health care or any walk of life, including public life — you make decisions. You have to realize there are imperfections, and sometimes you're not going to get it right the first time. But the fact of the matter is that if you're able to shake that off and improve the decisions you made, you build a good foundation for the future.

In the forests in British Columbia today, we are faced with some significant challenges. We have the coast, which has to go through an entire remake as far as their future — to attract investment, to see how they can improve their business case, to look at their long-term fibre supply and to make sure that that coast has an opportunity. In the next few months we will bring a coast recovery plan to British Columbia to try and

address those issues — after a year's work with industry, communities and first nations alike.

In the interior of B.C., we are seeing, as everyone knows, an unprecedented beetle infestation. It provides us with significant challenges and significant worries with regard to the future of our forest industry in B.C., but it could also be a significant opportunity. The one thing I fear about the beetle is that we go to a mentality that says: "The sky is falling. All is wrong. It's a disaster. We can't deal with it. My goodness gracious, what are we going to do?"

We do have to accept the first thing with the infestation: we have it. Secondly, we now have to deal with it. We have to deal with it decisively with a plan, and that's why we have a beetle action plan in British Columbia.

As we go through that plan, we need to adjust. The classic example is the case of us looking at wood as bioenergy. Jurisdictions all over the world look at wood waste pellets as renewable and certain energy for their electrical grids. They use it in Europe. They have technologies that they use. They make pellets; they replace coal. Instead of burning coal, they actually burn wood supply.

We sit with massive amounts of particulate matter that won't be able to go through a sawmill and that won't be able to be used for those uses. Why aren't we building an integrated power system with wood in B.C.? Well, we are. We'll shortly have a proposal call out, now that the energy plan is completed, and we'll attract the investment and innovation into that industry so that we can build a future with wood and power in B.C.

It's important. We can't just sit back and say: "It's going to die, and it won't be able to be any good for 2-by-4s, so that's too bad." We say to ourselves — because we're British Columbians, we're Canadians, we're smart and we're adjustable: "We still have a pioneer spirit to us, and we'll figure out a way to make it work," and we will. I believe that.

I believe the only way you can lead a file like that is with a positive approach to the future, not one that says: "All is lost, and the end is here." You never get anywhere in life if you walk through life with the glass being half empty instead of half full.

I'm also pleased to be here for, I guess it would be, the 12th throne speech debate to represent the community as I have for the last 11 years. In those 11 years I've seen tremendous changes in my community. I've seen, in some cases, young people that I knew at two or three years of age now in their early teens, and those 12 and 13 years of age now in careers. In the community where I've lived, I've seen people that I've known since they were two and three years of age who now have come completely through and are nurses and legal secretaries, lawyers. One is actually going to be a doctor. Two or three have entered the military.

These people have all been young people I've seen grow in a community because it's safe and it's got great standards and great people in it and great examples in the parents and the people in the community. Fort Langley–Aldergrove and the Langley area in general, to me, is one of those great places in Canada and the world. I might be a little prejudiced in regard to that, since I represent the riding, but I am a little prejudiced because I represent the riding.

I do think it's an honour when a community re-elects you three times to be able to come to this House and do the job. I think it's also a privilege, but it's also something that's very important to remember — how important it is to them that you represent them in Victoria and do the job to the best of your ability.

I think that my community has seen a change in demographics, and they'll see more. I also think that they're poised, because of the leadership of their own municipal council and people that we have in our own local government and other areas of my community, to actually handle that change and handle the future, going forward.

I am pleased to support the throne speech. I hope, but I know it's not going to be the case, that the people opposite will grasp on to the whole challenges of climate change, the environment, the Gateway, the ports, education and health care so that we can build a future for the citizens of this province together. I know that they will more than likely to just pan and say that things are wrong and no good. They would be quite happy to live with the lineups on the No. 1 Highway going all the way to Abbotsford, because there's no reason that they should have to ever come up with a good decision with regards to building something like the Gateway strategy.

We live in a great province with great opportunity, and I'm pleased to be here in the House today to say how thrilled I am to see a throne speech that actually puts a vision down for the future, challenges people to thought, to start to protect their environment and their future for their children and grandchildren. We're all going to be part of that great future together.

J. Kwan: It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak to the throne. I just heard the Minister for Housing talk about how great the throne speech was for British Columbians. Well, while people clap and are cheerful about their own performance, let me just put a different lens on the issue — that is, of course, people in the public in terms of what they think about the throne speech and its ramifications.

I have to say this: in the area of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant — I've said it many times in this Legislature — we have many challenges in our community indeed. I look to the throne speech in terms of the government's response to the areas which my community is challenged with.

Let me just raise the issue of the plight that the urban aboriginal community is faced with in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. I looked to the throne speech to see what the government is doing about that. There has been this new relationship that the government has found over the last couple of years, but in reality, what does it mean on the ground, and more importantly,

what does it mean for the people in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in my own community?

People in the aboriginal community are still struggling to find better opportunities for education. People are still struggling in my community to find affordable housing. People are still struggling to find addiction services that they desperately need. People in my community are simply saying: "Is anybody out there listening to us? Does anybody care about our concerns?"

If they do, where are the concrete actions? The government can talk a line all they want. They have many spin doctors, as we know, who will spin the line, a web of narrative, for them. Whether or not that actually matches the reality of the community remains a completely separate story. It's almost as though there's a disconnect of realities.

Let me just say this around the issue of housing. The single-room-occupancy hotels in the downtown east side — the loss of those hotels is happening at such a rapid rate. I can't tell you, Madam Speaker, how frightening it really is.

I began my work in the downtown east side community in the early 1990s. In fact, I was a student at Simon Fraser University. I did a practicum at Legal Aid in the downtown east side of Vancouver and found that at that time there were about 14,000 units of affordable housing in the downtown east side, the downtown core community. Today there are about 5,000.

I've heard members in this House say: "Yeah, but that kind of housing is the most deplorable kind of housing. Why would you want to protect it?" Well, let's be clear. It's the only other alternative that's available to the people who are in greatest need in the community. I'm not a strong advocate for substandard housing. Let's be clear about that. But next to that, the reality is that it's the streets. That's the option that's available for them.

The Olympics commitment that the government has made indicates very clearly that people in the community are struggling. Just last week another hotel, the Piccadilly, announced its closure. That was just last week — another 40 units lost. So far there are about 700 units of single-room-occupancy hotels lost in the downtown east side community.

What is the government doing about it? Sweet nothing. That's the truth. In fact, I'd like to call on the government to put a moratorium on the loss of single-room-occupancy hotels in the downtown east side until 2010. Let's just hold the situation for a minute here. Let's just make sure that the people who are in greatest need have some level of protection. After all, it was this government that signed the inclusivity agreement, that said they will ensure that there are no displacements in terms of the housing issue as a result of 2010. Well then, let's take some action.

Why didn't the throne speech mention that? Maybe the throne speech should just take a moment and talk about that, because the other joke, of course, was that the budget speech came out a week later and the government touted it as the housing budget. Guess what. For every dollar that was spent on housing, three were actually spent on a tax cut.

People in the community have been saying throughout that what we need is comprehensive strategy on affordable housing. Where's the government on that? So far, their solution is: "Let's build shelters." Shelters are not a home. Let's be clear. Shelters should not be looked at as a home for people who are in greatest need.

The community of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a proud history of social justice issues. In fact, today in question period, I called on the Solicitor General to hold an independent inquiry into the death of Harriet Nahanee. There were a lot of questions around her death. People in the community held an event to honour her life, but there was also a lot of concern in the community around the circumstances of her death. People asked the question of why aboriginal elder Harriet Nahanee was sent to jail, despite clear direction from the Supreme Court of Canada that imprisonment should be the last remedy for aboriginal persons. People asked the question.

Did the court take into consideration Madam Nahanee's frail health and advanced age before sentencing? People wanted to know why Madam Nahanee's aboriginal sovereignty defence was refused at the court level.

People want the government to look into the Surrey Pretrial Centre. People want to know why there was not a medical examination conducted, given her frail health, before she was put in the Surrey Pretrial Centre. These are just some of the lingering questions. If the government wanted to stand up for British Columbians, to find answers for British Columbians, then the government would agree today to call for an independent inquiry into the matter.

The throne speech liked to talk about justice issues. The throne speech liked to make grand statements about caring for British Columbians and for those who are most vulnerable, but when you match that up to concrete actions, you actually don't see the government acting. Those are real issues in my community. Those are real issues all across British Columbia.

I just want to take a moment to also talk about the situation around the child care file. The throne speech was touted as a speech that puts our children's and grandchildren's future as the major thrust behind the throne speech, yet not one mention of the words "child care" was in that speech. How could that be?

Isn't there study upon study saying that investing in children in their early years is perhaps the most significant and important investment that one could make and that those are the years that we need to take advantage of to help the young child develop into the future? Yet this government didn't even mention it. I find that quite curious and interesting. In a throne speech that talks about the future of children and grandchildren, there's no mention of that.

The throne speech, however, talked a whole lot about education. I just had the great opportunity to

meet with a number of the principals in my riding on Friday, when I got back last week, and to seek their comments about it and what their thoughts are around it. Interestingly, the principals in my community are very concerned about the lack of support from the government in the education sector. You couple that with the throne speech and the budget speech, and it actually shows that the budget will only support the wage increase that this government had brought in through negotiations — the wage settlement — but it does not fund Bill 33.

Bill 33 was a piece of legislation that this government brought in and said that there would be provisions for class size, provisions for special needs class sizes and for supports in the classroom, yet the budget did not provide for that. There was no additional lift for that.

I know that the Minister of Education will say: "Oh, but we have declining enrolment, so really, our budget has actually gone up." But one has to take this into consideration: just because you have fewer students in some schools, it does not mean that you can cancel all the classes. All the expenses associated with those schools continue to exist.

I know that the government doesn't want to hear this. I know that some members in this House, perhaps, would not want to hear this. It's kind of hard to take, I know, for the government members because the truth often is hard to take. Talking to the principals, they're saying: "What am I going to do? Am I going to rob Peter to pay Paul?" In fact, people are saying that they're very worried about the inner-city schools, but not just in Vancouver.

These are the principals in my riding, in Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but they're also worried about other schools and other students in the province that have similar issues to the inner city of Vancouver. They name Surrey as one of them, as an example, which they're worried about. But they're also worried that the government will make them make a decision, or make the system make a decision, about which school, which district, is more important and where the funding should go. In other words, rob Peter to pay Paul.

Those are comments from what I would say are front-line workers — principals and educators, people on the ground who are delivering the education system to our community.

I asked the question: "Did the government even stop to consult with you about what your thoughts are, as you are the people who see the students every day, who work with the educators every day? Did they consult with you to see what your thoughts might be and what advice you might give?" The answer was a resounding no. I suppose that from the government's perspective, they're only just the lowly principals and educators. Why should they be consulted?

I would argue this: we entrust our students, our children, with the educators of this province. They are the principals, the administrators, the teachers and the special assistants. Maybe we should stop and take a moment to listen to them. I bet you they have some very good advice for the government as to how the education system should be looked into, what changes need to be made and, most importantly, how it should be funded.

While the government wants to claim that they care about children and grandchildren and that the throne speech is about the future of future generations, let's be clear. The government did not even take the time to talk to some of the most important people that provide services in our community to the children of this province, whether it be about child care or whether it be about education. It simply wasn't there.

Let's just take a moment to examine the throne speech from this perspective: beyond K-to-12. What about students in higher education? What about them? Maybe that generation deserves some focus from the government in the throne speech. We heard it from students all throughout and, in fact, prior to the House sitting.

There was a rally all throughout British Columbia where students and supporters and advocates of students got together and called on the government to ensure that tuition fees are reduced, to bring back free adult basic education, to provide better support to English as a second language for students — particularly immigrant students, who are new in this land and who actually need to acquire the language skills so that they can secure employment or better employment.

These students called for the government to provide grants, to restore the grants for post-secondary education that this government cut. Was that reflected in the throne speech? Was that reflected in the budget speech? No, it wasn't. All of the advice that people took time to come to give to the government, frankly, fell on deaf ears.

It's true that tuition fees have increased, on average, at least more than double since this government took office. In some cases, it has gone up as high as 300 percent. That's what students in our communities are faced with. Now, some may say: "Hey, you know what? That's the price you have to pay. Students shouldn't be subsidized for their education."

I would beg to differ. I think that we should support and invest in our students today. It is for tomorrow, for us to remain competitive with other jurisdictions, especially at a time when there is a skilled labour shortage, at a time when we need to ensure that the competitiveness is there — not just for today but for tomorrow — to build for that future.

It's not just a human resource question. It's a question about our economy and ensuring that the economy has the strength it needs to bring us into the future. If we don't invest in our people today, don't invest in our community today, how on earth do we expect that we will remain competitive?

I just came from a trip to Taiwan in November of last year. Our leader brought her economic team over to Taiwan to foster a relationship culturally and economically between Taiwan and British Columbia, to

look for opportunities to do that. It was quite astounding in terms of some of the work that was done in that other jurisdiction and what the Taiwanese government was doing. They were, in fact, investing in the high-tech sector like no one else's business.

Not only did they invest in building and incubating businesses and in trying to have the businesses come together in a centralized location in terms of the economic activities, they even bridged that into the education system to make sure that students are focused in the area and in the economy for which they need the talents. They've built that into the education system. In other words, there was much advanced planning into the future of Taiwan's economy, and that related to the post-secondary education sector.

They have a targeted initiative that targets aboriginal students to ensure that they have access to post-secondary education. To that end, the unemployment rate in the aboriginal community is at par with the rest of the population, something I think we should be aspiring to. Perhaps we could take a page from the Taiwanese government's approach in addressing these issues. Do I see any of those kinds of approaches in the throne speech? The answer is no.

There is much work that I think this government needs to do, to be sure. There's much that the government needs to do: listen to the public — maybe once in a while stop patting themselves on the back — then talk to real British Columbians in terms of where their concerns are and bring their ideas into this Legislature. Maybe once in a while the government will actually pause, reflect and say: "You know what? They actually have a point. Those members actually have a point. Those community members have a point. We should do everything we can to support them and to advance that perspective."

The throne speech — and there's been much talk about this — engaged in the climate change discussion. I find it very curious, because I just heard the Minister for Housing say: "Oh, the opposition was accusing us as though we just thought of this idea, when in fact, we've been thinking about climate change issues all along." Really, Madam Speaker. Maybe that explains why the Premier, when Kyoto was being debated, refused to sign on to Kyoto. That was a few years ago; that wasn't just yesterday or last week. That was at least two or three years ago. If the Premier was so supportive of climate change issues, why wasn't he right there when that issue was brought up a few years ago? Not just a couple of weeks ago.

Let's just take a moment and look at the throne speech and match that up to the budget speech. It's curious to me that when you spend 14 pages talking about climate change in the throne speech, in the budget there's hardly any reference to it. There's passing reference to it. Most of it just talked about: "Hey, you know, we'll think about it. This is an ongoing project, and there's more to come."

It was as though there was a complete disconnect between the Minister of Finance and the government's throne speech, as though one day they just woke up and the Premier decided: "Oh yeah, I see a green light — green. Yes, I think green. I want to walk green. I want to look green today. So I'm going to get the throne speech to talk green." Then everyone else is left behind and, quite frankly, eating the wake of what the Premier says.

I have to say that the fleeting moments of the Premier's sort of awareness of critical issues really do come and go. One day it was the seniors issue. The next day was education. There was literacy, and now it's the green agenda. What's important, of course, by way of measurement, as we know in this business, is that actions speak louder than words.

I have to say: "How's it going with respect to the Premier's view on these new projects he has thought up and the follow-up action that comes with it? Did the government actually deliver on what they said, or is it that the words of the throne speech…?" It's not worth the paper that it's written on.

If you look at the past six throne speeches delivered by this government, I think the answer is clear. I think the answer is clear that these fleeting moments the government gets hardly ever translate into action, into real programs that make a difference on the ground.

The government's been talking for a long time about addiction and mental health services, yet in my own community those services and the funding are being cut. More than ever we have people on the streets who are struggling. The government wears it as though it's a badge of honour when they say: "Hey, but we've got outreach workers working with them, helping them get on income assistance." You've got to ask the question: why is there a need, even to begin with, that there should be outreach workers trying to help people get the support services they deserve? Shouldn't the government be working from the perspective of ensuring that they take down the barriers, ensuring that there's adequate support in those areas?

In reality, they're not. That explains why homelessness has more than doubled in the city of Vancouver. It's projected to triple by 2010. In the throne speech, if they were serious about it, they would actually have put that truth in there and come up with concrete actions to try to address some of these critical issues that are happening all across the province.

Hon. P. Bell: Following the previous speaker, it's awfully tempting for me to be negative, destructive and pessimistic, but I've chosen not to take that particular line in this throne speech. There's so much good news in this throne speech that I just can't hesitate but to highlight some of the very, very positive things that came as a result of it. I may take the opportunity to touch on the budget as well, since I was unable to. We had so many enthusiastic speakers wanting to respond to the budget that unfortunately I was not able to get on the list.

Before I do that, I want to recognize a few individuals, as is my custom when I respond to the throne speech each year. There are a number of individuals

who work for me in my constituency offices in both Prince George and Mackenzie who do just a fabulous job of dealing with the day-to-day work that we have to do on the front lines — dealing with constituents, responding to their needs, making sure the government responds to them in a proactive way, on an ongoing basis.

Certainly, to start out the list, I have to touch upon my now almost-six-year constituency assistant — she came on board with me when I was first elected in 2001 — Charlotte Groot. Charlotte has done an absolutely fantastic job for me, has really demonstrated her ability from her previous career as a legal secretary in terms of weaving her way through difficult and challenging issues for constituents on an ongoing basis. Although I would like to take much of the credit for the work that Charlotte does, I simply cannot do that. She is an exceptional constituency assistant, someone who has delivered time and time again for the constituents of Prince George North. I want to make sure that I recognize her for the absolutely fantastic work that she's done for me for the past six years.

I have two other constituency assistants that work for me as well. In Mackenzie I have a small office, and Rita Francis has taken up the challenge for me for the past five or six months and has really done a great job. Rita has an in-depth interest in education, in forestry and in health care in the region. She really has adapted well to the community. She is broadly known and really kind of digs up the difficult and challenging issues in the constituency in Mackenzie, where oftentimes there are not a lot of challenges. There are not a lot of problems in Mackenzie. Things are going very well. There's virtually full employment in the area right now. There's been good investment in the region. But Rita's able to help develop new initiatives, new programs that we're working on.

Just last year, as an example, we were able to move forward and develop lit cross-country ski trails in connection with the 2010 Live Sites fund. This has been a great initiative. Days are a bit short in Mackenzie during the winter months. There are not that many daylight hours. It's great for my constituents to be able to get out and cross-country around the golf course. That is actually where it is. Fortunately, during the summer months that wouldn't be an issue because you can golf not quite 24 hours but almost that in Mackenzie with the extra daylight.

In Prince George I have another constituency assistant, Judy Jackson, who has come on board with me in the last five or six months and just has been fabulous. She used to be the communications officer for the College of New Caledonia, is well known in the community and responds very effectively, particularly to some of the post-secondary files that we deal with on an ongoing basis.

I am very, very fortunate to have three such talented ladies helping me weave my way through this political life. I know that my constituents are well looked after by having those three particular ladies working in Prince George.

Down in the Victoria office, downstairs here, I also have a fabulous staff, most of whom have been with me not, I guess, for a full year and a half but many of them for a year to a year and a half. It starts out with the stalwart of the team: Christine Willows. Christine has worked for me down in that office since I first took over the portfolio and has worked for government for quite some time.

Christine manages the ongoing challenges of scheduling. Members on both sides of the House will know how difficult it is to schedule time on an ongoing basis, and Christine has done a great job in managing that constant challenge and making sure that all members have the opportunity to meet on a regular basis if we need to.

We were joined not that long ago by Cathy Goodfellow, who has taken over responsibility for all the travel and all the incoming paperwork that comes into the office. She has done a great job — used to be a trustee, actually, in Abbotsford, so is well acclimatized to the political environment. Cathy is really meeting the challenge down in our office.

Then my two other key staff. Lisa Wilkinson will be leaving us to have a baby in a couple more months. I think we've got her for about another six or seven weeks, but Lisa has absolutely done a fantastic job. She is the one that constantly delivers on the agriculture issues in the portfolio. She has been with me both in this role and previously in my role as Minister of State for Mining. I am sincerely hoping that after Lisa gives birth and has some time off, she rejoins our office. We've got a great team down there, and Lisa's a key part of that team.

Finally, wrapping up my office staff here in Victoria, I want to touch on Sharon McKinnon, my ministerial assistant. Sharon has been with our government, I believe, since 2001 and is a real leader amongst all ministerial assistants in the Legislature. She has adapted well to the ministry. She's been with us for about eight or nine months and has really met the challenge of very difficult and diverse files — I'm going to talk about a few of those — and has really demonstrated great leadership.

There's a great tone in the office. I think everyone is working well as a team, and it's really providing great results for us. Before I move into my formal response to the Speech from the Throne, I want to mention just a few other individuals who are, I think, key in my life and my ability to do my job down here.

The first two I'd like to start out with are my colleagues from Prince George–Omineca and Prince George–Mount Robson. We make a fabulous team together up in Prince George. It is a real team environment. We deal with difficult files, but we've each found our own niche and our own area, and this is what I think is so important.

When you look at a community of 80,000 people like Prince George, a thriving community, one that's growing, to have colleagues — I'm not allowed to mention names in the House — like the MLA for Prince George–Omineca and the Minister of Education, the

Deputy Premier, and the MLA for Prince George–Mount Robson…. It is such a great team environment. We work together on an ongoing basis. We meet constituents.

I feel that when you look around our community, we have delivered in spades. The growth in the economy and the relationship that we've been able to develop with our city have been fantastic. It certainly has been a real honour for me to work with those two individuals, and I want to thank them for that.

Finally, wrapping up, I want to recognize our mayor and council in both Prince George and the mayor and council in Mackenzie as well. We've developed a great relationship over the last number of years, and it just makes such a difference when you get the different levels of government working together and recognizing that we are much better to provide services to constituents when we work together than when we're constantly arguing with each other.

We've been able to develop that relationship, and I think it's worked very well. Mayor Kinsley, Mayor Killam and all the respective councillors, I think, have really committed to maintaining that relationship, and it's been great.

But let's move on to the throne speech because that's what this is all about. Really, it is about climate change and a real commitment and promise to make sure that we're going to do what we can do to ensure that British Columbia leads in climate change around the world.

You know, it's interesting because I hear comments from the other side about how this government just got religion all of a sudden, that someone woke up and realized that this was a movement that was going on around the world and that we needed to catch up with that. Yet I look back in 2004, and that was one of our great goals in 2004. Well, we're in 2007 now; that was 2004. I'm not sure that that's just getting religion.

There's another key piece to this as well: a global awareness of where we need to go as a society. We have a tremendous heritage to build on in terms of our generating assets with B.C. Hydro. When you think back to some of the challenges, we often look back at Premier Bennett as being a visionary of the time — and he truly was. But I recall seeing the news articles of the day and the intense criticism that he was under for building those generating assets, and he was not considered a visionary at the time. He was considered someone that was really challenging the status quo.

I think what we've done with this is also challenge the status quo, but really, we're trying to take a leading role not just in climate change for British Columbia but in climate change for the west coast of North America. I think that's really the underlying, underpinning principle that we talk about in the throne speeches: how can we bring California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska and British Columbia together, take all of those representing jurisdictions and ensure we do what we can do to manage climate change in an effective way on the west coast? There's just so much that is possible when you work together as a team as opposed to in a diverse and non-unified environment.

Certainly — with some of the initiatives that we've talked about in terms of the production of clean energy, in terms of having another look at Site C and seeing: "Does that make sense?" — it's interesting to me that people are starting to embrace the notion of Site C. When they understand the importance of that secure form of power and the ability to generate in a meaningful way, it's not like it was in the past, when decisions were made very arbitrarily and first nations were simply moved when it was necessary to flood an area or when there was a decision made to flood an area.

We're going out and taking the time to consult — to figure out how we can accommodate, where appropriate, the first nations and other users of the land base — and to create that additional power, Now, 800 megawatts is a significant amount of firm power. When you have that additional 800 megawatts of firm power, you can go out and build additional forms of non-firm power and make them much more valuable as an asset as well. The notion of building a project like Site C — and, I think, taking the responsible approach of going out, consulting and talking to people around British Columbia and North America about how we should approach this specific project — is absolutely the right thing to do.

If you look at some of the other initiatives that I think are very important, the $25 million clean energy fund is absolutely the key to making this work. I represent in the province the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, and the agriculture community is very excited about this $25 million fund. They see this as a key initiative that will allow them to engage in biodiesel and ethanol opportunities.

My colleague from Peace River South has been a real leader in terms of talking about the opportunities around biodiesel fuels. I think we both agree that this really will shift agriculture from being a place where we're only producing food products to where we're producing food and energy products in a renewable way. Biodiesel is just such a logical approach to this opportunity.

There was recently a feasibility study completed in the Peace River, looking at what opportunities there are for biodiesel in the Peace. It looks like the project would be about $22 million to build and operate initially. It would consume, potentially, all of the canola produced in the Peace River.

It would actually allow for an expansion beyond just the canola produced in the Peace to bring in canola from other parts of British Columbia or from Alberta to put into that plant for production. It's green and it's renewable. That's what's really important here.

You can link together good, logical business decisions with a clean, healthy environment. When you build those two things together, you have a huge win-win for the environment and for the people of British Columbia. It allows us to make logical decisions that will really lead into the future. This $25 million fund is a key step in terms of moving that forward.

I actually had an interesting constituency meeting last Friday with someone who is looking at a potential

new form of wind energy and a way of developing that wind energy, and looking for seed capital. Again, that's what this fund could be tapped into.

Another key thing that we talked about in the throne speech is a mandated 10-percent low-carbon fuel standard by 2020. This is significant because it opens the door for biodiesel and ethanol products and allows us to look at what we can do to enhance renewable fuel sources in the province.

I hear the opposition saying that this is all about getting religion all of a sudden. We've been working on these biodiesel and ethanol initiatives. I can tell you personally that I'm aware that we've been working on ethanol initiatives for about four years now. This is not a new initiative; this is not about getting religion. It's about: let's do what is right for the environment and figure out how to do it in a way that actually creates a good supportive economy. The underpinnings of the economy, I think, are absolutely critical.

We heard the public talk about their concerns around coal-fired electrical generation. It was not an easy decision, but clearly we've made what I think is the right decision in terms of requiring capture and sequestration for any potential coal-fired electric generation.

When you link that with the $25 million fund to help develop new technologies, I think there's a nice synergy there. There's the possibility of us actually creating some new technology, utilizing that technology in British Columbia and then around the world. So a tough decision, but part of good government is, I believe, listening to the public and responding to them in a meaningful way.

Finally, I'll just touch on one more key initiative that I think is important. I did mention it a little bit earlier. This spring British Columbia will be hosting a Pacific Governors leaders conference — including Governors from Alaska, Washington, Oregon and California, and our Premier here in British Columbia — to help generate new ideas and better ways of creating that infrastructure.

One of the key generators of greenhouse gases is the shipping industry. The number of ships that come into port in Vancouver, and soon into Prince Rupert, that sit there and generate their electricity onboard the ship, utilizing their diesel-fired energy systems…. The opportunity in California has come along where now they're looking at this new technology where the ships can come in and plug in and shut their engines down while they're in port.

We think that's a very exciting technology and something that the Minister of Environment is very supportive of and has actually personally witnessed this technology and come back and reported that out and identified that as a key initiative.

In terms of this throne speech focusing on climate change — on the notion that we need to chart a new course not just in British Columbia, not just in Canada, not just in North America, but around the world if we want to ensure that we have a sustainable environment that we leave behind for our children — I think it's supportable and absolutely critical. For the opposition to stand up and malign the efforts of this government is just incomprehensible in my view.

I want to move on to another key initiative that we've taken on over the past two years, and that's the new relationship. I have a significant role in the new relationship, working with land use plans around the province. I've had the opportunity to sign off, actually, on the land use plan for the north and central coast, with 30 different first nations.

This is remarkable. When you look at the relationship that we've been able to develop in the last two years with first nations in this province… You know, oftentimes I'm reminded of a comment that the Premier makes, which is that it's amazing how little changes in two years but how much changes in ten years.

I actually think that we bring that into question a bit in this case because of the relationship that's been developed up and down the coast particularly, but in other parts of the province as well with first nations. Three initialled treaties ready to go to ratification is very exciting as well.

What I'm finding now is that first nations are approaching us and saying: "We want to work with you on these projects. We want to work with you on the land use planning agreements. We like the government-to-government relationship that this government has brought to first nations and the province." I think there are very, very exciting things coming forward.

I can tell that you the Squamish First Nation is very excited about the work they're doing in the Sea to Sky corridor right now. We have a good relationship with the Squamish through the integrated land management bureau, for which I have responsibility, and to do with all of the land use planning in the Sea to Sky area.

The opportunities for the 2010 games — and we are less than three years away from that opportunity — have been embraced by first nations. The Squamish First Nation and the Lillooet First Nation are just two examples of first nations that are looking forward to embracing the opportunities around the 2010 games. I know that they will benefit because they're proactively and aggressively working towards the development of those games.

When I sit in my office here in Victoria and have folks like Dallas Smith come and talk to me about their vision for the future of British Columbia and the future of the central coast land use area and how they're developing their economies there…. The conservation investments and incentives initiative that was recently rolled out — a $120 million fund; $30 million provincial dollars and $30 million federal dollars, but $60 million coming from different trusts around North America, the conservation communities — is significant.

When did you ever see in British Columbia, or any jurisdiction for that matter, the conservation community, the ENGOs, bringing to British Columbia $60 million

worth of investment saying: "We want to put this in the land base. We want to help support the activities that you're participating in right now. We think that British Columbia has the right vision for the future."

That contribution to first nations communities is significant. Again, just think about that for a second — $30 million of provincial money translated into an additional investment of $90 million between foundations and the federal government. Those funds can be accessed for a variety of initiatives that we announced — I believe it was January 21 — in terms of different key investments, restoration of key habitat, planning but also in terms of real economic ventures that will translate into jobs on the ground. The conservation investments and incentives initiative has been significant.

The three treaties that have been initialled and are moving forward. One in my backyard, the Lheidli T'enneh, is coming up very quickly, and looking forward to the results of that one. But the relationship is quite different. Two other first nations in my riding are the Tsay Keh Dene and the Kwadacha First Nations. Both have signed agreements very recently with B.C. Hydro over the issue of the flooding of Williston Lake. Again, you're seeing the new relationship actually active on the ground.

When I was first elected, the road into Tsay Keh and Kwadacha took about eight hours to drive — from Mackenzie into Tsay Keh and Kwadacha. I recently had a report back from the district manager, the Ministry of Forests, who drove that road, and he did it in four and a half hours. So there's been significant investments and improvements into those communities, and that's the new relationship on the ground.

The new relationship is about Grand Chief Ed John being able to pick up the phone and call me and say, "There's an issue here that I need you to deal with," and we deal with that issue. It's about dealing with other first nations — McLeod Lake First Nation in my riding being able to pick up the phone and talk to us.

We're not in that confrontational relationship. We're in a very cooperative relationship. It is challenging, but this government is committed to delivering on the new relationship, and I'm very excited to be part of that new relationship.

I want to move on and talk a little bit specifically about my ministry, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. I'm going to start out by talking about the agriculture side of the ministry because I think we've got an incredible future for agriculture out in front of us here in British Columbia.

We recently added $51 million to the ministry over three years to ensure that we could fulfil our commitments to the agricultural policy framework, which includes things like support programs, but also into new research initiatives and other key things that we need to do as a ministry to support the agriculture industry.

I'm looking forward to this June. I expect to have the report from my parliamentary secretary on the long-term agricultural view and how we can approach agriculture going out, not just for a year or two or three but really solving long-term problems of ten, 15 or 20 years from now, so that agriculture is an exciting place for young people to engage and be part of again.

There are very, very exciting parts of the industry that are doing quite well right now. The blueberry industry has been growing in leaps and bounds. It is very profitable. It's functioning in a successful way, and there are big opportunities in blueberries. The cranberry industry is another good example of an industry that has shown a real leadership role through a very interesting form not of vertical integration but simply working together — farmers through processors and wholesalers and out into the retail community. The cranberry industry has demonstrated leadership in that area. It has a solid, solid future in British Columbia, and really is positive going out into the future.

The challenges and issues around the supply-management industries, as a result of the World Trade Organization discussions, have really been calmed at this point. The World Trade Organization did create some uncertainty in the supply-managed sectors, which are dairy, chicken, hatching eggs, table eggs and turkey. That industry now understands the playing field they're working on, and they're showing good profitable transactions on an ongoing basis.

Everyone's familiar with the product that we consume — whether it be fresh B.C. turkeys or chicken — and that we do just a fabulous job. The egg industry is growing and doing very, very well. Turkey is actually the fastest-growing supply-managed industry. The dairy industry is looking at new and innovative approaches to what they do to try and grow their business in changing times and, really, a changing environment. So those industries are all very successful ones.

The grape and wine industry is showing real leadership and real growth. Last year was a lower level of growth, only about 2 percent as opposed to the 20-percent growth rates, but it was simply a result of the low crop year in 2004. We had a low crop year. The 2005-2006 years were much better, and we're confident that we're going to see upwards of that 20-percent growth rate this year as well.

They've also approached us, and we've provided them with a small grant to develop the concept of a B.C. wine and culinary centre in Vancouver. I think that this is an exciting initiative. You know, the concept of having a wine and culinary centre that focuses on the high-end B.C. product that is profitable for our agriculture industry to produce really demonstrates leadership on the part of the B.C. Wine Institute. I want to congratulate them for that because they're going beyond simply their own self-interest and showing leadership for all of agriculture, and that's important.

I want to touch on the tree fruit industry as well. They have worked very, very hard over the past year to develop a strategy. They rolled that strategy out about a month ago, and I think that they are absolutely right on the money in terms of the development of a long-term strategy for a profitable tree fruit industry. It has not come easily. This industry has worked very, very hard. They've had a tough couple of years because

of bumper crops, a flooding of the market of apple product from around the world.

The industry has been growing, but they're looking at high-quality products now. They're focused on unique properties of the products that they can produce in the Okanagan Valley. They're looking at products like Ambrosia, just as an example, or the new Nicola apples that have real promise in the industry. They're attracting premium prices for their product — you know, upwards of 50 cents a pound farm-gate versus low-end products at pennies or five or eight cents, or Royal Gala that is averaging 20 or 22 cents this year. So we need to be in the high-end, high-quality market.

The B.C. tree fruit industry has recognised that, and they're working hard to continue to develop those products. They've got a good strategic plan, and I'm committed, from the provincial government's perspective, to help deliver on that plan. I know that my colleague the federal minister, Chuck Strahl, is also committed to delivering on that plan, and that's good news for B.C. tree fruits.

The other industry that I wanted to mention in agriculture, which is currently struggling but is showing real promise, is the cattle industry. Coming through the challenges of BSE, the border closures and then drought in the Peace, it's been very difficult to be in the cattle industry for the last number of years. There's been some significant downsizing that's taken place in that industry.

I continue to work with the B.C. Cattlemen. They're coming forward with a strategy in the next month or month and a half that I think shows equal promise to that of the B.C. tree fruit industry. I want to tell the cattlemen in British Columbia that I will be there for you. We will ensure that you have what you need in your resources, in terms of the knowledge transfer, in terms of all of the other components that we can bring to the table to ensure that you have a successful industry. We believe in your industry. We think that there's a long-term opportunity, and we're going to be there to help your industry long term.

I did touch on the grains and oilseeds industry, as well. I won't go back to that one, but I think that's a key initiative for us as well.

I want to just briefly touch on the opportunities in the Lands part of my portfolio, the integrated land management bureau. We now have eight FrontCounter B.C. offices spread around the province that provide services to small and medium-sized businesses. They do a great job. I've met with most of the offices. I've been in, I think, all of the offices now at one point or another.

These individuals really target small startup and medium-sized companies that need to have someone help them weave their way through government. I think this is an initiative that you're going to hear more of in the coming years. It's something that can be very, very productive and certainly will, I think, lead…. Other jurisdictions are looking at this FrontCounter B.C. initiative now as something they would like to tap into and build on.

Well, I can see that my time is rapidly coming to an end. I actually had two more topics to go into. It's unfortunate, because I'd like to spend some time talking about the Pacific gateway initiative. I think it's incredibly exciting and a real opportunity for agriculture, and for business generally, in British Columbia. I wanted to talk about the economy around mountain pine beetle and the land use planning components that are going on around that. But clearly, I'm not going to have the time I would like to commit to either of those.

I know members opposite would probably even be willing to share some of their time with me. I don't think that's within the House rules, and we wouldn't be allowed to do that, but I understand that maybe the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast was willing to give me an extra five minutes or so, and I appreciate that commitment on his part. We could talk about geoducks for five minutes if he wanted to.

But I think, Mr. Speaker, that I'm going to leave it at that. I can tell you that I have a great team in Prince George. I have a great team here in Victoria. I'm positive about the future of British Columbia. I believe in the long-term potential of Prince George and the economies throughout British Columbia, and we're going to deliver what's necessary to make sure that British Columbia has a long-term future.

N. Simons: It gives me pleasure to stand here and respond to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to thank my colleague opposite, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, for his words today. It gives me an opportunity now to reflect what he started his speech with, which was a thanks and an acknowledgment to community members who support him, and I suppose I'll talk about the ones that support me. I'd like to thank them for continuing to have confidence; I'm hoping.

The whole issue around constituency assistants — I don't think people understand the kind of work they do for us. Like all my colleagues, they do immeasurable amounts of work, and we have to thank them for that. I have Kim Tournat, a former child protection social worker, responding to calls fast and furiously in my lower Sunshine Coast office, and Maggie Hathaway, a former dispatcher for the fire department, working in the upper Sunshine Coast and responding as quickly as she expects her colleagues to respond to issues of importance in the community.

I'd like to also thank all of the volunteers who help staff my offices, answer the phones and pass on important messages to my constituency assistants and to me. I think that the communities I represent know they have a voice here in Victoria and that across the province that is what constituents should all expect.

As well, I'd like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the elected officials in my area, who also do an enormous amount of work on behalf of citizens in Powell River–Sunshine Coast. That includes both Chief Walter Paul of the Sliammon Nation as well as Stan Dixon of the Sechelt Nation. I'd like to thank them and their councils for the work they do for their people.

Also, to Mayor Stewart Alsgaard of Powell River, Mayor Barry Janyk of Gibsons and Mayor Cam Reid of Sechelt, who all do a lot of work on behalf of their constituents. Their councils, as well, should be thanked.

I'd like to thank both regional districts that make up the Sunshine Coast. On the upper Sunshine Coast you have Colin Palmer, who's the chair. On the lower Sunshine Coast it's Ed Steeves, who's once again the chair of the regional district. They and the directors do a very good job of passing on to me the information of importance to their constituents.

With that, let me proceed to some comments on the throne speech. We've heard many MLAs stand in the House and speak on various positions regarding the throne speech. Some members of this side of the House have been appropriately unnerved by the glowing words and subsequent lack of follow-up in the budget. Others have pointed out some areas where they have found the government to be moving in the right direction. Our job is obviously to point out where we think the government could improve and perhaps make suggestions as to how they can better serve the people we have all been elected to represent.

Let me begin with one particular issue that's been of concern to people on the Sunshine Coast, and that is a land and resource management plan. It was fortuitous, in a way, speaking after the minister responsible. This issue is still alive, well and topmost in the minds of people who are concerned about the future of land use on the Sunshine Coast, and that certainty and predictability about land use would benefit all.

I believe there's a consensus in my community that the land and resource management plans that exist in 85 percent of this province should also exist for residents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast and the Sechelt forest district, the Sunshine Coast forest district. I believe that the commitment made by the Premier…. The indication I'm getting from the ministry is that this is very much an issue they would like to pursue, understanding its value both economically and socially to my communities. I'm hoping that at some point in the near future we'll have some actual firm commitment to the establishment of a process where we can actually undertake a land and resource management plan.

There's another issue of concern that perhaps hasn't been, in my mind, addressed appropriately, and that is the issue of transportation. I'm speaking specifically about rural transportation issues. I think it's fair to say I was a city person for a long time, and now I live in a relatively rural area. I understand that some of the issues that rural people want heard in the cities don't always get translated appropriately.

The highway safety issue in my community is heightened by the fact that there is one highway, built in the '40s and the '50s, that stretches from Langdale, where the ferry lands from Horseshoe Bay, all the way up to Pender Harbour. There's another ferry and another road up to Lund. This road is characterized by its narrowness; its darkness on rainy nights; the very, very small shoulders on the sides; and the gravel that exists on the small shoulders and oftentimes well into the roadway. So the issue is essentially not just capital improvements and possibly alternative solutions but also maintenance of the highway.

Overall, when the government proposes to lay out its vision in a throne speech, it could perhaps speak to some issues relating to rural communities. Rural communities, I believe, are in many cases the most strongly impacted by the types of cuts this government has undertaken over the last six years. I won't say that every single cut that this government has made will result in hardship for all community members, but certainly in one way or another people in my constituency have all been impacted by the government's priorities.

Far be it from me to question the government's priorities. That's my job. My job is to ensure that the priorities this government reflects are those of constituents in my community. That's simply the way the system works. What ends up happening, of course, is that there's a split in those 79 MLAs, and more sit on one side and fewer on the other. Consequently, issues of concern to my constituents may not have the direct ear of ministries. However, I'd like to point out that I believe that the ministers with whom I've had conversations understand some of the specific issues of my communities, and I expect and hope that they'll continue to work for my constituents as I express their concerns to the government.

So I'm hoping that overall the government will be able to have a vision that they can share with my communities in terms of what is going to happen regarding transportation. Unfortunately, as I might have mentioned in the response to the budget, the concerns of my constituency are far more than theoretical. They are, in fact, very much close to home.

In small rural communities, when there's loss of life, the communities feel the impact as a whole, as you can well understand. In the last year, as I've mentioned, there have been six fatalities involving children — girls. We also had fatalities involving adult men and women, but the importance of this issue can't be understated.

I well understand that most accidents involve some degree of driver error or pedestrian error, and that's not necessarily the point. We understand that, because that's why they're called accidents. But what we can do as a society is try to mitigate those circumstances to make safety part of our understanding of how we can improve highway and road use. I'm hoping that the highway issues in rural British Columbia will be seen as a safety issue first and foremost and not necessarily simply an issue of convenience and practicality.

In that respect, I find that the throne speech, while strong on language that creates an image that our interests are being addressed, subsequently fell short in terms of actual action. Hospitals and care facilities on the Sunshine Coast have repeatedly fallen into the most-in-need-of-replacement category. Obviously, the life cycle of any facility will eventually terminate, but we have some situations where elders in our community

are being kept in substandard buildings with inappropriate facilities — essentially that are too warm in the summer and cold in the winter. One staff member sank up to his ankle in one particular section of the building which was not supposed to be rotten. I think perhaps the overall approach to capital improvement is wanting.

Obviously, there's been a lot of talk about how this throne speech was the first evidence that the British Columbia public has seen that this government recognizes the importance of the environment. Now, I don't want to get into that argument of whether or not that's necessarily true. The evidence really sort of speaks for itself and would probably make it clear to the government why this is being characterized as such.

There are a number of initiatives that have been reintroduced in the throne speech that were essentially part of a previous government's agenda in the '90s, and they had been either cancelled or seriously reduced. So forgive us for believing that this is a Johnny-come-lately to a situation of critical importance to our populations. But that seems to be the indication, just as in the past, when there was a new relationship announced, it came on the heels of a bitter and divisive referendum that was the spawn of this same government.

So essentially we have to understand the cautiousness with which the budget and throne speech has left the community. In other words, I believe that we need to wait and see if this government is actually interested in following up some of their glowing promises or visions with actual on-the-ground changes. As we know, the new relationship is very little more than platitudes, especially if you speak to people who are on the ground. First nations people from various communities have not seen evidence of a new relationship.

Perhaps there is some leadership that believes the path is clear and the relationship is in fact new, but from what I hear, there is a lot of work that still needs to be done. I think we would be less critical were it not for the fact that it's being touted as something grand, new, innovative and spectacular. In fact, the truth of the matter is that it's just an attempt, and it's a beginning of an attempt. We have yet to see any sort of real achievements from that.

What happens, unfortunately, when the government decides to call something a new relationship…. They might choose a few first nations with whom they will have a good relationship, with whom they will have constant communication. I think a new relationship that allows a particular first nations leader to phone a minister is a good step. I don't think that's new. I think that anyone who is operating in an appropriate manner, in terms of negotiating or discussing issues with first nations, should be available to answer phones and should be able to respond to the leadership of first nations communities.

Quite frankly, I think that the absolute stone silence of this government over the elimination or the tearing up of the Kelowna accord speaks more than calling something a new relationship.

I think the same thing happened with child care. The void wasn't filled by anything. There's an echo that we can't understand — why the fundamental core issues facing first nations families on reserve or in first nations communities haven't been translated into any particular understandable strategies other than, as I mentioned, the glowing terms of at least saying that you're friends.

I encourage a new relationship, but I don't encourage a new relationship that isn't supported by actual change. The reason I don't support just calling it a new relationship and not changing anything is because first nations have been promised things in the past, and they've been ignored in the past. Their needs have not often found their way to the table. I think we need to recognize that by dividing communities, we're not accomplishing a new relationship that's going to actually be a sustainable new relationship. What it does is essentially build up expectations, only to allow them to be dashed again.

It's unfortunate to me that the Kelowna accord, which is essentially the one wide-ranging plan to improve the social conditions — the underlying social conditions that lead to many of the social problems that are faced by first nations people who are living in poverty, the social conditions they find themselves…. I believe that government needs to be looking at those underlying problems.

With that, I think I can turn to first nations child welfare. Quite clearly, that's an area that's been essentially neglected for a long time. We have an opportunity now with the appointment of the new Representative for Children and Youth to address some of those disparities and inequalities.

Let me just turn to another issue facing rural British Columbians, and that is the issue around liquor — rural agency stores. The concerns facing owners of rural grocery stores in British Columbia won't find their way into a throne speech, but any principle of fairness and any values of equality should perhaps be reflected in the throne speech. Then you see a government that undertakes to increase the discount to private liquor stores while ignoring the impact that will have on rural agency stores.

I think it's an issue the minister responsible will probably want to look at, if he hasn't done so already. It's an issue of fairness. Many, many stores in my constituency and across rural British Columbia are providing high-quality liquor distribution to community members at the price set by government, which does not allow them any profit margin other than that dictated by the Liquor Control Board.

I find it disconcerting that private liquor agencies, primarily urban stores, are able to purchase alcoholic beverages from the liquor distribution branch at a 16-percent discount. It really does lead small agency stores…. It puts them in a difficult position, and I hope that message will be heard by the minister. It impacts some 250 or 300 stores in the province. I think that if we see evidence of fairness, it will be in how rural communities are treated, and this is just one more area.

I was saddened to see that the once important issue, according to this government, of mental health seems to be, again, an issue that's been downloaded to municipalities. Quite frankly, this is not the best plan for people with mental health issues or for an overall comprehensive plan for mental health services.

The truth is, obviously, that this relates to housing and to a lack of affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing relates to the fact that this budget wasn't about affordable housing. It was about tax cuts to people who may benefit from it but who will not necessarily be going and spending their 10 percent on creating affordable housing for people whom they otherwise have to walk over in the streets on the way to buy eggs.

Every time I walk downtown in this city or in Vancouver, I'm reminded that we do know what some of the solutions are. We do know that we have money to implement those solutions. We do know that this is not a moral argument of whether they should be there or not. The fact of the matter is that in our communities — where children walk, where elders walk, where all of us walk — we see people without homes. We see people without services.

I hope this government will understand that governing the province is more than a series of episodes with different titles — the children's title or the seniors title or the aboriginal title. This government should be considering the possibility of governing for the entire province at all times.

I'm kind of worried that we've bought into this idea that government should be like Entertainment Tonight — flashy and keeping your attention. But actually, when you're finished with it, you haven't learned anything, and nothing has gotten better. If the government would be able to approach the throne speech and the budget and the visioning process for the province, perhaps we would actually see a vision instead of a series of short, kind of shallow ads.

I do know that the members opposite, the members of the government, are concerned about British Columbians. I think they perhaps need to understand that their perspective, the way that things are going now…. The problem is not getting any better.

When you do a little self-analysis, you usually come to the conclusion that it's not good enough to pass the buck. It's not good enough to say: "Hey, federal government, you cut our child care services. You cut the Kelowna accord. We can't do anything. We're just going to sit back and say that it's their fault." We can't say to municipal governments and regional governments: "Oh, the homelessness problem and the zoning issues are your fault."

It's almost as if there's a reaction to criticism. I have to say it's thoughtful criticism. Our critiques of various issues elicit some derisive laughter, but they are issues of importance to our communities. We reflect the interests of the communities. That is our job. That is why we've been asked to come here.

With regards to an area close to my heart, in a place like the throne speech I would expect some words about creating an environment — a society that is not just able to read but is able to listen to music and understand theatre and learn about some of the arts community which we have been blessed with in this province and which has been ignored by this government.

I find it difficult that the B.C. Arts Council is still suffering under a budget that is woefully inadequate and that this results in small communities across this province unable to support the arts infrastructure that exists there. It's not even a question of: "Can we build a new theatre? Can we build a new museum? Can we do something to house a dance club?"

The archived materials in small communities are deteriorating because the funding to provide proper archival storage systems is not there. That is a loss.

Local theatre groups would like to perform. They end up performing on a school gym floor, or they'll perform in a theatre that is seismically not appropriate, or they're funded on the same basis that they were funded years ago.

The arts community is not necessarily the most powerful lobby, but if you think about the benefits that arts communities bring to our communities…. Nobody can deny that people are attracted to communities not just because they can find a job and go to work and come back in the evening. It's not just about a job. It's about enjoying. It's about quality of life. I think we forget that government has a role to play in promoting the quality of life of citizens.

We mustn't forget that, and I urge this government to do what is necessary to ensure that our arts communities are supported so that they don't have to go year to year, hoping they will be able to survive another budget cut. The time spent by their paid employees on writing proposals is disproportionate to the amount of benefit they get out of it. There's a lack of ability to create. All of the energy is focused on just trying to stay afloat.

I think members of the government will agree that British Columbia is rich in writers and in actors and in singers and in cellists. In every type of musician or artist in this province — painters, poets — we're rich with people with talents like that. We don't support them the way we need to.

These are not people making a lot of money, but that kind of strength and that kind of weaving of community members together are something that you can't really just simply measure. People from all walks of life come together and sing in a choir, but if there's no one available to teach a singing chorus because they would have to also teach a course at a local school or what have you, there's a lack of coordination. There needs to be more emphasis placed on promoting not just amateur arts but the arts of professionals as well.

I hope this government will, instead of maybe making next budget the arts budget, actually think about

long-term arts promotion, long-term arts generation. I'm sure this government would benefit from being seen, at least, as supportive of the arts, but I would prefer that they would be seen as supporting the arts because of something they actually would do.

So while the throne speech is designed in such a way as to make us feel good about things and make us feel that the government is taking important steps in the right direction, I'd say there were some steps that were in the right direction. My job is to point out where their steps need to be larger or broader or where there needs to be a big jump.

My hope is that, with my tone today, some of the words that I've spoken will actually be heard for the benefit of British Columbians. With that, I will take my seat.

J. Rustad: It's getting to that hour in the day where the House tends to be quite enjoyable. It's my pleasure to rise today to speak to the throne speech. The throne speech for me was one that was a statement of vision, a statement of where things are going in the future, and I'm very proud to be standing and supporting this.

I'd like to start by thanking my constituents, whom it is a great honour to represent and to be their voice here in Victoria amongst the issues that arise. Also, it's a great honour to be here in this House and to partake in its history.

The throne speech laid out a clear plan about our future. It was probably, in my opinion, one of the best throne speeches this House has seen and one of the boldest.

Just today Matt Price, in the Victoria Times Colonist, wrote about our initiatives. He started his article by saying thank you. To me that says a lot about the throne speech and about the initiatives and the undertaking that we put in it, because leadership is about setting a bold direction and then following through to see the fruition of the efforts.

We've seen this with our efforts with the budget and the economy, with first nations and education and so many of the other undertakings that we've had in this government. Now we're going to see the same leadership on another matter, and that is the environment.

Before I go into this exciting aspect of the throne speech, I want to touch on the vibrant and robust economy that we have and enjoy here in B.C. It's because of our economic success that we're able to build the environment for continued success for the people of this great province.

We're at record-low unemployment rates. We've seen record-high participation in the workforce by women, by first nations and by our youth. These aren't projections. These are the reality that has come with the hard work of the people of our great province and through the actions of a government that understands what it takes to set the stage for people to be successful. These are examples of real leadership for British Columbia, and these are examples of real progress being made for the people of British Columbia.

In my riding we're seeing the benefits of the optimism that comes with our provincial success. In Fraser Lake the people have decided to undertake an initiative to do some renovations, some work, on their arena. They've come to us and asked for some help, and I'm hopeful that we are going to be able to provide that for them, because the people in Fraser Lake know they have a future. They want to participate in that future, and they want to build a plan and have the facilities they need for that future.

In Vanderhoof just this past summer we were able to repave the airport. This was an important initiative not only for the local businesses but also for the air ambulance and for the community in general. We just announced funding to help out with another initiative they're doing, which is an outdoor sporting complex. It's going to be a type of facility for Vanderhoof that they've never had before. It's going to allow them to host sporting events, as well, for their children and the general people of the community to be able to take and enjoy.

In Fort St. James just this past year we opened up a new library, and for the hospital we've just announced that we're going to be putting in six complex care beds for seniors. These are all part of optimism and hope in a future and building a future for the people of this great province, and certainly for the people of Fort St. James.

In Prince George the optimism is absolutely amazing, with huge efforts around trying to take advantage of the Asia-Pacific gateway strategies that we're doing and the containers that are going to be moving through. We're hoping to open up an inland container port and also, through the expansion of the airport, try to take advantage of a brand-new industry for Prince George, which would be air cargo.

These are examples of what optimism is all about. They're all examples of what leadership is about and of the people building a future for themselves and having that groundwork laid for them so they can do that.

Despite the resounding success that our government's policies have had in creating the right environment for investment and job development, I find it amazing that the NDP seem to think we're in a crisis. I can understand that such great news as our province is having around our economy, our economic growth, does cause some consternation. One might even venture to say that the NDP do see a crisis, in that our success means their demise.

However, it's still surprising to hear statements like the one made from the member for Cariboo North, who said in the House on February 22 of last year: "We have an economy that is not structurally sound and has not been for some time." I wonder what the member was talking about. Could it be that the member for Cariboo North thinks that the high unemployment levels of the 1990s are more structurally sound?

Is the member suggesting that we go back to 16-percent unemployment? Could it be that the member for Cariboo North believes that the record levels of participation by women, youth and first nations in the workforce are somehow a sign of instability? Or is it just that the member for Cariboo North is blind to the success of our government's policy, the provincial success, simply because of his ideology?

Or could it be that the member just doesn't understand economic principles? For example, from Hansard on October 3, 2005: "There's an inherent and fundamental fallacy in that position, and that is corporations are not job generators. They are not job generators." Clearly, the member has some sort of skewed economic vision that does not reflect the reality, does not reflect the statistics and does not reflect his constituents who are looking for help to build a solid future.

I can say this. Our government believes that the people of B.C. want employment opportunities. It believes that corporations from the small ma-and-pop operations to the large corporations help build opportunities. It's important to recognize their efforts and to help get government out of the way so that they can be successful.

Perhaps the member for Cariboo North simply believes the same ideology position that the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith does. While on tour with the Education Committee this past fall, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith actually stated that B.C. is facing a crisis. He implied that too many people were working, and therefore they didn't have time to go back to school and upgrade their education, and that when the impending collapse of B.C.'s economy hits, these people will be facing a serious crisis.

I could hardly believe that the member actually believes that people would be better off without a job so that they could seek further education opportunities. But perhaps that kind of philosophy makes sense given that the member for Cariboo North seems to share the same opinion.

Switching gears, I'd like to make a quick comment about our first nations and particularly that we're seeing the three final agreements initialled. We're looking forward to these agreements being ratified as well as more agreements in the future. In my riding the Lheidli T'enneh First Nation is taking a bold step toward building a bright future for its people.

Once again, this is what real leadership is all about. You can see this across the province with our first nations in terms of the steps we're taking, the relationships we're building and the fact that they are participating at record levels now in our economy. Their future, quite frankly, is turning around.

It's going to take work; it's going to take effort. That's what the new relationship is all about. It's about taking those steps, laying those seeds and walking hand in hand.

Our throne speech. We're now taking new steps towards another one of our great goals — to lead the world in sustainable environmental management with the best air and water quality and the best fisheries management, bar none. Our throne speech has laid out a clear and bold plan towards making a real difference for our environment and building upon our past successes.

Yet the NDP don't seem to be happy with our government's direction. Let's take a look at what we've done — in particular, what the members of the NDP have been opposing.

Before I go into that, I'd like to reserve the rest of my comments and move to close the debate so we can have the vote on the motion from earlier this morning.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we do have a division motion that we're going to deal with in the next three or four minutes.

Hon. Members, the question is Motion 43: "Be it resolved that this House urge the BC Government to introduce the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta to this House for full debate before it comes into effect on April 1, 2007."

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

J. Rustad: I'll just take a moment here, if I may, to let colleagues file out — if I can reserve the time.

J. Rustad: …what we've done over the past little while and, in particular, what the NDP have actually opposed. We created a $7 million fund to help out the rivers called the living rivers trust fund. Building upon that success, we tripled it to $21 million. What was the NDP response? They voted against it — twice. Despite the critical role that rivers play in this province, they actually voted against it.

We created a $91 million fund to clean up contaminated sites on Crown land. We need to lead by example, and cleaning up these sites is the right thing to do. What did the NDP say about that? Once again, they voted against it.

We made a priority around reducing vehicle emissions by exempting hybrid vehicles from PST. We also created PST relief for alternative fuel vehicles, yet for some reason, the NDP voted against that as well. Are the NDP really saying that they want to continue to see inefficient gas guzzler vehicles polluting our air? Quite frankly, how shameful.

The NDP voted against our plan for exempting energy-efficient home-heating projects from PST. It's hard to believe that in this day and age the NDP just don't get it.

Perhaps that's not quite fair. I think history has proven that the NDP have never gotten it. In the words of the NDP member for Nelson-Creston: "Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change and its implications for socialist principles." Furthermore, the NDP member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows said: "I will say that the record of the last government, being the NDP in the late '90s, was not good on climate change."

Once again, it's clear that the NDP have no idea how to deal with the environment. Just think, the NDP actually opposed the Canada line, which is a project that will remove up to 14,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas by 2021, or the equivalent of taking ten lanes of traffic off the road between the airport and Vancouver. They've actually opposed clean energy projects such as the Cascade and Ashla run-of-the-river projects.

This is the difference between our government and the NDP: real leadership. Our plan has set bold targets in halting and reversing the growth of greenhouse gases. We plan to reduce emissions by at least 33 percent below current levels by 2020. This will place B.C. at 10 percent under the 1990 levels.

This is an ambitious goal, when you consider where the real source of the problem has come from. Under our government, greenhouse gas emissions have increased by 5.7 percent between 2001 and 2004. Under the NDP government in the '90s, emissions in B.C. increased by 24 percent.

I'd like, actually, to take this moment to talk a little bit about clean power creation from B.C. Hydro's 2006 call for power. We're going to see up to $3.6 billion in private sector investment in clean power. This is phenomenal, and yet the NDP seem to be against this. I mean, could you imagine the concept of private money producing clean power for us so that we can remove our reliance upon carbon emissions from coal fuel that we have to buy our power from.

I've heard that the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, who was speaking to NDP party faithful, actually suggested that if the NDP were in power, they'd take over these independent power producers. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age that type of philosophy exists, but apparently, it's alive and well in the NDP caucus.

That's not all. The member for Skeena has also suggested that the Crown needs to meddle in aluminum production in Kitimat. I guess the NDP members are just following their federal leader's example.

I'd like to take this opportunity to read a quote from an article written by John Spears from the Toronto Star about a manifesto calling for a socialist Canada.

One of the authors of this said: "The manifesto reaffirms existing NDP policy and advocates few measures that aren't already the NDP doctrine."

Now, you might be thinking that I'm reading something from communist Russia, from the bad old days of days gone by, but this was actually co-written by the leader of the federal NDP, Jack Layton. His actual comment in here is: "It represents a prodding from

Actually, this report goes on to say: "No one should try putting all this in during the first term of an NDP government. This is something that should come in slowly, so that the people are not taken by surprise by this."

Quite frankly, when you look at this…. You look at the fact that every one of these members of the NDP is also a member of the federal party. They stand up and campaign for them during the campaign. Is this what they believe? Is this where they believe that the future of the NDP party should be?

I'll just give an example. For example, the member for West Kootenay–Boundary….

Mr. Speaker: Members. If members want to speak, they have to speak from their own seat.

J. Rustad: As I was saying, this past fall when I was on tour and I had the opportunity to travel around the province on the Education tour, we stopped in Castlegar, which is one of communities for that member for West Kootenay–Boundary. Being that both sides of the party are on the committee, we decided we would stop in at the office and pay a visit. So I went in. Unfortunately, the member wasn't there, but it was a beautiful office, and the staff offered to take me on a tour. I went around on a tour of the office.

Lo and behold, when I came to the boardroom, what did I see? The boardroom was absolutely filled with campaign paraphernalia from the federal NDP. I could hardly believe it, let alone the fact that that is an inappropriate use of government funds. The fact of the matter is that it speaks volumes to what that member and the party represent. They support the leader of the federal NDP and, in particular, this manifesto that he was one of the co-authors of.

The NDP seem to think that the throne speech is rhetoric without substance. But let me read a few points into the record to show that rhetoric is a matter for the NDP, while substance is a matter for our throne speech. When I read these initiatives, when I read these things, ask the question: are the NDP really going to vote against this?

I mentioned before but I want to say again that the province will aim to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 percent below current levels by 2020. The targets will place these emissions 10 percent below the 1990 levels. The climate action team will also be asked to identify practical options for actions for making the government of B.C. carbon-neutral by 2010.

All electricity produced in B.C. will be required to have a net zero greenhouse gas emission by 2016. Greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas industry will be reduced to the 2000 levels by 2016, including a zero-flaring requirement at producing wells and production facilities. Can you believe that the NDP are actually going to be voting against these green initiatives for the province?

We're going to have a new $25 million innovative clean energy fund, established to encourage the commercialization of alternate energy solutions such as bioenergy, geothermal energy, tidal, run-of-the-river energy, solar and wind power. Tailpipe emission standards for all new vehicles sold in B.C. will be phased in between 2009 and 2016, reducing carbon dioxide emissions from autos by almost 30 percent.

A new unified B.C. green building code will develop with industry and the communities. Legislation will be developed to phase in requirements for methane capture at landfills, the source of about 9 percent of B.C.'s greenhouse emissions.

The province will substantially increase its tree-planting efforts. Beehive burners will be eliminated. Trees infested by the mountain pine beetle will be used to create new clean energy. Are these the kinds of initiatives that the NDP are actually going to vote against? These are the kinds of things that are reflected in our throne speech, and real leadership gives us the ability to do these.

Changes will be introduced to strengthen forest stewardship and reduce forest fire risks. Actions will be taken to improve the forest health, encourage better utilization of beetle-kill timber and salvage fibre, and strengthen actions against those who damage B.C.'s forests or range resources.

Those initiatives that are in the throne speech are on top of the $6.4 billion in climate change initiatives that we've already undertaken — $6.4 billion of initiatives, things like the Canada line, Forests for Tomorrow, the Evergreen line, increasing efforts on Power Smart, hydrogen fuel stations and the effort around there to promote the use of hydrogen, expanding transit service, LocalMotion fund and the innovative clean energy fund.

We didn't just wake up to a green agenda. We've had a green agenda all along, but what we have done — like I say, the rhetoric from the NDP, as they put it — is build a solid strategy moving forward. We put things in the throne speech that have laid the seeds that we'll be developing and continuing to move forward. Quite frankly, it truly is an honour to be able to support a throne speech that will create such a great environment for the children of this province.

It's hard to believe that a throne speech could contain much more, but indeed it does. It also talks about housing and new initiatives that we'll be taking. This was followed up by commitments within the budget. It spoke about improving and protecting health care, particularly our initiative for phasing out smoking in all indoor public places. This is a great initiative that will be a huge benefit for the people of this province.

Along with this, it spoke about adding $885 million to our health care budget. That's a huge increase for health care spending in this province, and we'll see great benefits from that.

The throne speech also laid out initiatives in education to improve upon the success we're seeing in B.C. The

throne speech talked about initiatives to continue opening up our Pacific gateway. With such optimism, hope and promise of a better future for British Columbians, it's hard to imagine that the NDP are actually going to be voting against the throne speech, as they did to our budget.

I believe the NDP have made it clear that they are against things that bring real progress and real leadership for B.C. They're against the people of B.C. reaching higher for a prosperous future. They're against leaving more money in the pockets of the people of this province, and they're against our continued success and growth in B.C.

Mr. Speaker, I'd just like to close by talking a little bit, also, about some initiatives in my riding around the environment, particularly around the Nechako River. I just want to pay tribute to Henry Klassen and the entire group that's working on the Nechako Watershed Council, who are looking at the cold water release on the Nechako. I think that's a great initiative that is going to see some real positive benefits for the people in my riding as well as for the river. Certainly, it's going to be a great benefit for the fish stocks — for the salmon, the sturgeon.

Along with that, we're also seeing a huge and tremendous effort by all the people in the community of Vanderhoof around the white sturgeon and the opportunities they have there, particularly around the rearing facility and what they're trying to do in terms of tying in tourism and the kind of opportunities that can come from the efforts of managing the river and saving, quite frankly, the Nechako white sturgeon, which is now endangered.

It's has been a huge effort. There have been many children who have been involved in that. There have been a great number of people involved in it, and I just wanted to thank them for those efforts. It's because of those kinds of things that we in this government are supportive and want to see it happen, to help build that better future.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to just close, once again, by thanking the people of the riding. It's a great honour to represent them and to be able to be down here in Victoria. I'd also like to thank my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Mount Robson. They have been great to work with. They are good, solid people that helped to really have a team that helps to represent the heart of this province.

I look forward to voting in favour of this throne speech. Like I said, this really will be a benefit for all British Columbians.

C. Evans: I really appreciate the opportunity to respond to what I just heard, but I think it would be a better plan in terms of humanity if I went and meditated or something for 24 hours and calmed down.

We can sometimes get elected, and we think we're really important — that we're somebody now. Having to listen to that kind of — is "drivel" unparliamentary? — stuff for 30 minutes imposes humility. It makes us better people. It teaches us that we can't always enjoy ourselves just because we get elected.

In the interest of my being able to meditate, calm down and become a better person before I respond to that excellent stuff, noting the hour, I suggest…. What's the right word?

C. Evans: I reserve the right to comment tomorrow, and I move adjournment of debate, temporarily.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL
BUSINESS AND REVENUE AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR REGULATORY REFORM

Hon. R. Thorpe: Thank you, hon. Chair. If you don't mind, I'll just stay seated just to say a few opening comments. Well, maybe it's not a few.

I'm pleased to introduce the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform for fiscal 2007-2008.

This past year has been phenomenal throughout British Columbia, with many key economic indicators reaching new records. The news on the small business front has been particularly encouraging. British Columbia has the most new small businesses, the largest small business job growth, record investment and the most optimistic small business sector in Canada.

I believe the work of all employees of the ministry has supported in this success, and I will outline how in

the year ahead the ministry will continue to reach for new heights and new partnerships. Our goal remains clear: to make British Columbia Canada's most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada and to strive for continuous improvement in our customer service and build on British Columbia's reputation as a centre of excellence in revenue management.

To begin, I would like to introduce staff who are with me today: my deputy Robin Ciceri, Associate Deputy Minister Beth James, John Powell, Ranbir Parmar, Rob Fraser, Janet Baltes and Doug Rundell, who, by the way, is celebrating his birthday today. I bet that he's really pleased that I've communicated that to all British Columbians.

I thank them for joining us today in the House, but more importantly, for their successes this past year. Of course, success is the result of a complete team of ministry staff who have devoted considerable effort in the development of our service plan and our estimates. I would also like to acknowledge and thank all of the ministry staff whose dedication to our customers makes our goals and objectives real for British Columbians.

In particular, I want to acknowledge Simone Decosse and her team for their work with the Small Business Roundtable and on PST review; Rob Fraser and his team for all their work related to the review of B.C. Assessment; Janet Baltes and her team in the appeals division for all their hard work in providing timely, fair and equitable results; to all of the folks who have worked to develop the taxpayer fairness and service code, as well as the team that has recently completed TIP.

I am very proud of the work that all of the employees in the ministry and at B.C. Assessment do, and I would like to say thank you to them.

As I noticed, the last year has been an exceptional one for small business. The Ministry of Small Business and Revenue will remain steadfast in its mandate, that is, to foster a competitive environment for small business and investment in British Columbia and to ensure a modern, efficient regulatory system that strives to make it easier to do business in British Columbia.

The ministry also provides a centre of excellence for revenue management and tax administration and managing and supporting independent, fair property assessment appeals. As well, the ministry represents British Columbia in its relationships with the Canada Revenue Agency and the Canada Border Services Agency to ensure revenue due to British Columbians is identified and received in a timely manner. Finally, we collect taxes and fees for local governments and other agencies.

Our overall goal is continuous improvement in customer service while serving all British Columbians. This means providing all of our services in a fair, equitable, timely manner. In doing so we are supporting British Columbians who over the past five years helped to make British Columbia the best place in which to live, work and invest.

Record construction, small business job creation and retail sales are just a few indicators of British Columbia's booming economy, which is benefiting every region of our province. New construction and development have hit a record assessed value of $19.5 million, up 55 percent from a year ago. That's nearly four times what it was in 2001.

British Columbia continues to lead Canada in job creation, with over 356,000 new jobs since 2001 and nearly 32,000 new jobs in January of this year alone — the second highest monthly increase in 30 years.

The strength of our small business sector is one reason British Columbia ended 2006 with record high employment and began this year with unemployment at a 30-year low. Today 2.25 million British Columbians are working. That's up a whopping 650,000 folks from October of 1991.

Small business alone employs more than one million British Columbians, and the future continues to look even brighter. In October of last year a Scotiabank survey revealed that small business owners in British Columbia are the most optimistic in Canada, with 38 percent believing economic conditions will improve over the year. That's compared to 28 percent nationally.

This followed a quarterly business outlook survey released by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business which showed British Columbia's business confidence in September 2006 tied the previous historic record of 119.5 in March 2005. These are signs of a healthy, strong economy, one that brings in revenue needed to operate programs and services benefiting all British Columbians.

These revenues pay for vital government programs such as health care, education, transportation and social services. Again, my ministry's mandate is to collect revenues owed to all British Columbians, champion small business performance and reduce regulatory burden. For example, by continuing to strive for ongoing improvement in our regulatory system, we make it easier for small businesses to operate and succeed in British Columbia.

As we continue to reduce the impact of regulation on small business and cut red tape, business owners will have more time to devote to what is most important: running and growing their successful small businesses.

Now I'd like to tell you about our ministry's key goals over the next three years and the steps we will take to accomplish them. The key goals are, firstly, to provide customer service that meets the needs of customers, stakeholders and partners. We are meeting or exceeding established targets in eight of nine measures in our success in meeting service standards performance measures as of December 2006.

To encourage small business growth. Our performance measure to implement a small business strategy is on target, and the Small Business Roundtable released their first report to government on October 17, 2006.

Thirdly, to ensure revenue owed to government is received. We are on target for percentage of on-time

payments, exceeding our other three targets: percentage of incremental revenue achieved, number of reviews and audits performed. Percentage of on-time payments is targeted at 89 percent. We are achieving 89.3. The percentage of incremental revenue, with a target of 100 percent; we're achieving 128 percent. We're very pleased with our achievement in these measurable measurements that we have.

Fourth is to facilitate a streamlined and simplified regulatory environment. We have exceeded our target to reduce regulatory requirements by one-third and have now achieved a reduction of over 41 percent. I believe that the exact number is 41.2 percent as of the end of January. Today we recommit to our three-year goal of zero net increases in regulatory requirements.

Our first goal is to provide services reflecting the needs of our customers and our partners. We are consistently working with our customers, business and professional organizations, towards more accessible, more customer-friendly, more responsive services to British Columbians.

Just over two years ago, in January 2005, the ministry released the first version of the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code. Through this innovative code we have formalized and continue to strengthen our commitment to our taxpayers — that is, British Columbia taxpayers. We believe that the third edition of the code strengthens our relationship with British Columbians, a relationship based on mutual respect, fairness, cooperation — a partnership of working together.

The Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code outlines a customer's rights to such things as courtesy and respect, fair treatment, dispute resolution and a timely appeal. In the fall of 2005 we enhanced the code with additional specific measurable service standards. In phase 2, in October of 2006, we added multilingual versions. In fact, we added eight multilingual versions, which were produced. These eight multilingual versions benefited from circulating draft versions through the Ethno Business Council of British Columbia. Today I publicly thank them for their involvement, for their commitment in working with our government to ensure that all British Columbians are aware of their rights under the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code.

Each successive edition of this living document is developed in partnership with organizations like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the British Columbia Chamber of Commerce, the Chartered Accountants of British Columbia, the CGAs of British Columbia and the Certified Management Accountants of British Columbia. All are involved, as are a number of other organizations.

On February 26, a day I will remember for some time — a week ago today, probably just about this time — we issued a launching of the third edition of the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code, which further ensures that customers' needs are met through fair, efficient and equitable tax administration. Once again, accounting professionals in British Columbia contributed to the improvement of the code, and I was pleased to be joined by representatives of the chartered accountants, the certified management accountants and the certified general accountants for this launching of the third edition of the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code.

This third edition benefits tax audit customers in particular, providing more information on the audit process and clear commitment to timely service and our customer service expectations. With these goals in mind, we are committed to significantly improving the time we take to produce a final decision on taxpayers' appeals to the minister.

We have reduced the time line of appeals to an average of 4.9 months as of January 2007, down from 12 months in January of 2005. We expect to continue to move forward in achieving our goals as we go forward.

Again, I would like to thank Janet and her staff in the appeals division for all their hard work providing timely, fair and equitable results. For 2007-2008 we have set an even more aggressive target of 4.5 months.

Our commitment to customer service excellence extends to how we facilitate property assessment appeals in British Columbia. We are committed to ensuring that the review panel process for property assessments will be completed by March 31 each year. There will be an ongoing review of the property assessment and property appeal processes to ensure that they are working for all British Columbians who are being assessed.

Continuous improvement in customer service is our highest priority. We want to streamline and simplify the assessment and appeal process and reduce the length of time for appeals to be resolved. For the 2007 assessment roll, a number of new tools have been implemented by B.C. Assessment, the property assessment review panel administration office and the Property Assessment Appeal Board.

The 2007 assessment notice was modified to highlight important information contained on the notice. Modifications include the highlighting and bolding of certain texts and phone numbers to draw attention to their importance as well as clearly stating the processes used to initiate a complaint, and how to access the new toll-free property assessment complaint and appeal information phone line.

B.C. Assessment has improved its on-line property assessment appeal form, allowing property owners to file their complaints on line if desired and to withdraw their complaints on line if desired. The notice of hearing appeal that property owners receive informing them of the hearing before the property assessment appeal has been modified to be much more user-friendly.

B.C. Assessment has enhanced their web-based public information, allowing the public to access and enhance assessment by address, sales by address database — which provide valuable information to property owners on their property and others within the province. This is a service that is used as a research tool for property owners who are, or are considering, filing a property assessment complaint.

As part of its service commitment, B.C. Assessment has committed to provide property owners with

comparables and other information that will be presented at the property assessment review panel at least five days in advance of the hearing date. In addition, all B.C. Assessment staff have recently completed comprehensive customer service training.

To further assist in understanding the process through which to initiate a property assessment complaint, two guides have been produced containing a step-by-step property assessment complaint process and the parking site roll complaint process. This information can be found on the redesigned property assessment review panel.

The Property Assessment Appeal Board recently made new board orders to require all appellants and BCA to provide timely and relevant documentation in support of appeals being heard before it. To ensure that customer service is a priority, both the Property Assessment Appeal Board and B.C. Assessment have recently implemented updates to customer services commitments.

I want to publicly acknowledge the board chair of B.C. Assessment, Lillian White, and all board members for their contributions in these achievements, as well as Doug Rundell and his staff for their commitment and, to date, for the achievements we've made and, most importantly, for their commitments as we move forward.

Also, I'd like to recognize Cheryl Vickers, who leads the appeals board, and to thank her for the excellent progress that they're making in providing much more timely decisions for the public.

The ministry is working hard to improve its processes to make them more useful for our customers. For example, as part of our government's goal of making British Columbia Canada's most small business–friendly jurisdiction, the ministry undertook the provincial sales tax review from November 2005 to May 2006. Our commitment was to consult with small business, industry and individual British Columbians to find ways PST could be improved to develop revenue-neutral options for change; to process, to simplify, streamline and enhance the fairness of the sales tax.

During this time I personally attended 20 provincial sales tax review sessions in every region of British Columbia to hear directly from small business, industry and individual British Columbians. I heard from hundreds of small business owners and operators that provincial sales tax is unnecessarily complex and burdensome to administer. Through consultations with local business stakeholders and individuals, we sought input on ways to streamline, simplify and enhance the fairness of PST administration. The objective of the review was to develop revenue-neutral proposals for changes to PST policies, legislation and administration. Government listened, and in this year's 2007 budget 13 tax measures were introduced, resulting from the PST review.

Changes have been made in the following areas: extension of remittance date, clarification of due date, tax return reporting frequency, audit assessment reduced, refund limitation period reduced, record retention period reduced, audits of liquor licensees, registration and collection thresholds, oil and gas exploration and development, roadside tire services, prescription drug samples, bare leases and lease with operators, catalysts and direct agents.

As a result of the new PST tax measures announced in the budget of 2007, over the next three years businesses and small business in British Columbia will have an additional $120 million of money put back into their businesses.

Government responded to small business's concerns, and in the year ahead we will continue to consult our small business partners on ways to further simplify and streamline the tax system in such areas as exemptions. For farmers and work-related safety equipment, exemptions need to be rationalized. Tax implications related to real property contracts and transactions involving partnerships, amalgamations and trusts are unclear and have to be made clear. These are some of the items we will continue to look into, and I am very hopeful that again in Budget 2008 we'll have some meaningful recommendations that the Finance Minister will table in the budget acting on behalf of small business in British Columbia.

These budgetary responses demonstrate our government's commitment to becoming Canada's most small business–friendly jurisdiction. We want our customers to spend less time dealing with their tax obligations and more time on what is important to them — growing and creating successful small businesses.

This leads us to our second goal: to encourage small business development. Some of you have heard me say many times that small business is big business in British Columbia. Small business makes up over 98 percent of all the businesses in British Columbia, representing 57 percent of the private sector workforce. It accounts for 26 percent of our economic activity — well above the national average of 22 percent of GDP. As I mentioned, British Columbia continues to produce more new small businesses and the fastest pace of small business job growth in Canada.

Since June 1991 we have seen the number of small businesses in British Columbia climb as follows: June 1991 — 224,300 businesses. In June 2001 — 333,700. As of September 2006 — 367,000 small businesses. Our government is committed to continue working with its small business partners to actively encourage opportunities for their growth and success.

Our focus will be through the permanent Small Business Roundtable. The permanent Small Business Roundtable was established in October of 2005 as a commitment of the Premier to advise government and small business sector issues on strategies and potential actions to make British Columbia Canada's most small business–friendly jurisdiction.

Between November 2005 and May 2006 the round table completed 18 consultations, engaging 228 small business owners and industry representatives throughout British Columbia. This input led to the first Small Business Roundtable report, which I received on

October 17, 2006. Their report recommended government focus on three main areas: (1) supporting access to training and trades development, (2) reducing tax complexity and (3) continue efforts to reduce regulatory burden.

The round table also developed a small-business lens and recommended provincial, federal and local governments use it to ensure small business issues are carefully considered when governments are introducing or amending legislation, regulations or bylaws. The small-business lens is a checklist to ensure government considers important questions about proposed changes to legislation and regulations on how they impact business.

As I announced, our government has implemented the small-business lens developed by and for our small business partners to ensure all proposed laws and regulations reflect our ongoing commitment to regulatory reform. Ministries proposing new legislation or regulations must use the checklist to confirm that the changes are needed, are without increased costs to small business, are competitive relative to other jurisdictions, are streamlined and are clear. In addition, ministries must ensure that any related training or information is easily accessible by small business in all regions of the province. Ministries must also consider where they can eliminate old regulations as they introduce new ones.

Our government was the first in Canada to undertake a comprehensive review of its regulatory requirements, set an aggressive target and exceed that target — as I said earlier, eliminating over 41 percent of the regulatory burden in British Columbia. By incorporating the small-business lens into our regulatory reform checklist, we will make every effort to ensure no new unnecessary regulations interfere with Canada's most small business–friendly jurisdiction.

The small-business lens and the first-year report were just the beginning of the Small Business Roundtable. In the year ahead it will continue to consult with small business owners to identify additional opportunities to support small business success.

Our third goal is to ensure amounts owed to the government are paid. Specifically, our target is to collect over 96 percent of identified revenues owed to government in each of the next three years.

Fortunately, most British Columbians pay their taxes voluntarily, recognizing provincial taxes fund vital public services. To pay what they owe, however, British Columbians need to know their obligations, which takes us back to promoting customer service excellence.

Many of our efforts to ensure that people pay their taxes are focused on providing information so they can clearly understand what their obligations are and making it as easy as possible for them to meet those obligations. Promoting voluntary compliance is simply the most efficient and cost-effective way for us to do business with taxpayers.

In 2006 the ministry took a significant step forward, creating a centre of excellence for tax administration and revenue management. The first release of the revenue management system was implemented on April 10, 2006. The new platform was developed to consolidate debts from several ministries, leading to more efficient and consistent collection practices and better customer service.

It is also yielding significant customer service improvements — faster service with more calls getting through and more customers served; increased fairness, with specific types of collections automated to ensure consistent treatment and timing of collection activities; streamlined same-day payment process; faster responses to customer inquiries, since account management is streamlined; and more ways for customers to inquire about one or more of their accounts.

Today we have streamlined contact for customers and strengthened consistency in our business process and procedures, resulting in faster, fairer and more consistent customer service. Consider this. Since November 2004 the number of customers who have received a busy signal dropped from 27,000 to zero. Call wait times dropped from 15.9 minutes to 2.1 minutes, and fewer calls have been abandoned. In addition, the number of first-call resolutions for our customers averaged 94.7 percent in 2006, well above the target of 75.

The province remains on track to realize the projected benefits of our agreements. In fact, in 2005-2006 the ministry exceeded its annual debt collection forecast by 8 percent, recovering $49.8 million, well above the $325 million forecast.

To help taxpayers get more information — they need to understand their obligations — we are focusing on several strategies. We provide free PST seminars to save small business and industry time and money by teaching them how to access and use ministry information and services. Since we started providing PST seminars in April 2004, more than 278 seminars have been held in 56 British Columbia communities.

The third version of the Taxpayer Fairness and Service Code includes a commitment to provide at least 60 provincial sales tax seminars annually and ensure a customer satisfaction level of at least 90 percent. We have also been working closely with partners to simplify how we explain British Columbia's tax system.

Through the tax information project we are taking a citizen-centred approach, transforming our public information to provide clearer ministrywide information tailored to specific industries. The ministry is creating and rewriting public information materials like bulletins and notices in plain language, and we have also developed and completed 40 industry-specific webpages.

Another way the ministry encourages voluntary compliance and tax remittance is by providing advance tax rulings and explanations to businesses and members of the public to clarify the application of taxes in each unique circumstance. This service ensures taxpayers have clear, reliable information on their own specific obligations.

Since April of 2006 the ministry has issued over 5,300 of these rulings, almost 450 of them complex rulings. Some 90 percent of the inquiries and standard rulings were completed within our target of two business days, and 75 percent of the complex rulings were also completed on time. We expect to complete over 6,400 rulings by the end of this fiscal year, including more than 500 complex rulings.

Audit and collection programs are other important tools which identify money owed and help the ministry to recover outstanding debts. Audit and compliance programs help us protect the majority of British Columbians who, as I noted earlier, pay their tax voluntarily.

We all benefit from services of our tax support, and a level playing field is essential to ensure everyone pays their fair share. Our approach in conducting collection emphasizes courtesy, willingness to work with debtors to resolve outstanding debt issues and collecting amounts owed to the province in a manner consistent with the debtor's ability to pay.

Turning to our partners in other levels of government, in our work with the Canada Revenue Agency we continue to strive for improvements with the federal government's tax collection on behalf of British Columbia. Together we are leading and developing a new British Columbia–Canada service management framework and service level agreement. In addition, we have a British Columbia workplan, and we are also working with the CRA to develop clear service standards and measures — for example, set turnaround times for audits British Columbia refers to the Canada Revenue Agency.

British Columbia is leading the nation in establishing a new performance approach with Canada and the Canada Revenue Agency. Our goal is to ensure British Columbia gets its fair share of both personal and corporate taxes.

Our fourth goal is to foster a streamlined and simplified regulatory environment. As I mentioned earlier, our government was the first in Canada to undertake a comprehensive review of its regulatory requirements, and we have exceeded our targets.

To build on our momentum, we have implemented track 2, a citizen-centred approach to regulatory reform.

G. Robertson: My thanks to the minister for his comments, although I was surprised at the length of those comments, given the amount of that information that is publicly available on the website.

I'm hopeful that this is not a pattern that we'll see as the budget estimates debates proceed and all the ministers report with their introductory remarks, given the constrained amount of time that we have to actually debate and engage in the detail of the ministry that's not publicly available. I'm hopeful that further debates in estimates will have brief introductions. But thank you to the minister for all of that, and my thanks to all the staff for being here and supporting the minister.

I want to start with some questions on the small business and regulatory reform department within the ministry. First of all, in terms of the budget and full-time-equivalents, there was a significant increase from '05-06 to last year — from 11 full-time-equivalents to 21. That number of full-time-equivalents has been maintained in this budget.

I'm curious. That was a very dramatic increase, almost a 100-percent increase in the staff of the small business area. I'm curious as to the results of that significant increase, if that was money well spent. And the additional money that was budgeted, the increase for these ensuing two years — is that all due to full-time-equivalent expenses, or are there other expenses associated?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I actually, quite candidly, can't believe the amount of things we got done with the limited staff we have. I want to congratulate the staff, who have recognized the priorities of the government, who have worked tirelessly on behalf of the people of British Columbia in achieving their goals.

What did we achieve this past year? The PST review, the most comprehensive review ever undertaken in the province, was led by a group in this section. The development, with the Small Business Roundtable, on the small-business lens was recently introduced. The establishment of the Small Business Roundtable, in consultations that took place in over 18 communities throughout British Columbia and which culminated — and I believe the member has a copy — in the Small Business Roundtable Report to Government.

We established a partnership funding program to work in partnership with those groups that identified and came forward on how they could work together with us. As I said, the organizing of small business round tables in 18 communities throughout British Columbia, small business forums held in June and October in Prince George and the Okanagan, and the execution of a Small Business Week and the development of a Small Business Month for this year have been major undertakings.

We've also been working and leading the regulatory reform initiative inside government. Staff have led the development on the citizen-centred regulatory reform initiative and are championing that throughout every ministry in government and making sure that people are doing as they said they would do and meeting their deadlines.

We've also been very pleased with the success of a pilot project undertaken in Kamloops call BizPaL, working in partnership with the municipality of Kamloops and also with the federal government. Staff have been leading negotiations with Canada to complete a five-year agreement so that we can move BizPaL through other communities in the province. I think we're targeting to have that completed in the next month or so, and then we would target, I believe, 20 communities in the coming year for rolling it out.

Another initiative that the Premier announced at the UBCM last fall was a single business licence initiative so that businesses throughout British Columbia do have not to register in every community in British Columbia.

Those are a few of the highlights. This team of 21 folks has done a tremendous job, and I'm proud of their work. I would expect that the coming year will see other great achievements by this very committed workforce in the ministry.

G. Robertson: It looks like a great deal of that activity — from the PST review to the Small Business Roundtable process, implementation of the small-business lens and BizPaL — was new or one-time in the last year. I'm curious, though, if there is a continuation of all those efforts or if there is a need for all 21 of those people, 21 full-time-equivalents, to continue, given that many of those appear to be one-time projects that have run their course. Or are the additional initiatives the minister mentioned taking up the slack now that the others are completed?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Is the member suggesting that we reduce staff in the ministry? Is that his real question?

G. Robertson: No. My question was merely to confirm that there are in fact ongoing functions that demand all 21, given the fact that there were a lot of one-time projects undertaken over this past year, with the increase to 21 full-time-equivalents. I'm not hearing that all of these initiatives are continuing to the same degree that they were carried out over the last years.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Although I didn't get to conclude my comments, perhaps the member didn't hear me mention that we had established the permanent Small Business Roundtable, which means it will continue, which takes a lot of work. Perhaps the member did not hear that we would be continuing a sales tax review, and I was hopeful that we will have more good news in Budget 2008.

Those things will continue, as will the regulatory reform office, as will the B.C. assessment policy support group. All of these groups will work forward, and I can assure every member of this House that these people are working very hard and that British Columbians are getting great value for their investment.

G. Robertson: Question, then. The split between the staff expense related to the 21 full-time-equivalents versus program expenses. The minister mentioned the partnership funding program. Can the minister clarify the exact amounts that are going to staff and FTEs versus programs and, specifically, the amount within that partnership funding program?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The amount of money that will flow to Small Business British Columbia through a grant is $669,000. The federal government, I believe, puts in just under $1.3 million on an annualized basis. The partnership grant fund will have approximately $225,000 in it. The salaries and overtime will be $1.483 million and employee benefits $3.72 million to look after the programs.

G. Robertson: Would it be possible, through the minister, to get a breakdown of the partnership development program and who exactly are the recipients of that $225,000? You could provide that on paper if it's easier than listing them out. I would like to see the detail on that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I realize the member's new to the House. This is a budget that is for 2007-2008. So in fact, we have not made any allocations for that budget. But I'm sure that when we do consider those in the coming year, we will be pleased to provide that information to the member when it happens.

G. Robertson: A question, turning to the Small Business Roundtable. In terms of the funding that is made available for the round table and the ministry's staff support that exists to continue, can the minister clarify what moneys and staff time are made available for the round table?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We have a budget going forward for the permanent Small Business Roundtable of $300,000 a year. The small business staff is 11 staff members out of the total complement of 21, and the workload is allocated. We do not ask our staff to fill out time cards and allocate it to different projects. They are done on a priority basis, with the permanent Small Business Roundtable being one of the priorities.

G. Robertson: Will the minister clarify the ongoing objectives of the round table and the expectations in terms of reporting out from that round table?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Within the next month and a half or so we will have a permanent round table meeting scheduled, where myself, my deputy and assistant deputy ministers will be meeting with the round table. We will be finalizing the workplan with them for the coming year, but we expect that workplan to stay focused on their recommendations to government.

Their recommendations to government were to continue to work with industry to make sure that small businesses throughout all parts of British Columbia — that their voice is being heard with respect to the access to skilled and skillable workers. They've also asked us to make sure that we stay focused on — and they applaud the province on — their regulatory reform.

They now want us also to work closely with federal and provincial governments, which is one of the reasons we are trying to move forward on BizPaL, a five-year agreement with the federal government. I do not want to enter into one-year agreements with the federal government and start something that we can't finish in all regions of the province. That's why we're striving for a five-year.

They have also asked us to stay focused on making sure that we have a competitive sales tax regime that is simplified, is streamlined and that enhances fairness. So we are going to stay focused on that, and that's why

I gave the example of working on the very complex issue of safety and safety products that attract or don't attract sales tax. That's why we're also going to be working with the Ag Council of British Columbia and other agricultural sectors to see how we can streamline the sales tax as it applies to farmers, retailers, first nations and others with respect to the agricultural sector.

Those are the priorities that they have identified, and we're going to continue to work with the permanent Small Business Roundtable to make sure that small business's voice is heard inside government, because one of our roles is to champion it.

G. Robertson: I'm curious what the ongoing consultation commitment is from the Small Business Roundtable. I know there were at least 20 consultations through the initial process that resulted in the document with the recommendations. With the permanent committee is there a commitment to a certain number of open consultations around the province in every year?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, there is. We will be holding both regional consultations and small business forums. In fact, in 2007 we hosted two small business forums, one in the Okanagan and one in Prince George. We are contemplating holding six in 2008, and those are to propose topics at this point in time, because this is the permanent Small Business Roundtable.

They have to sign off on it, but we think that they want to look at strategies to address human resource challenges; information on government procurement systems for small business, including 2010 Olympic Games opportunities; and information on small business, on the provincial sales tax and on federal GST. Also, Asia-Pacific market opportunities are another thing that we have picked up. So we will be holding forums, about six of them, and the various regional consultations throughout the province during the coming year.

G. Robertson: I'm a little confused. My understanding was that there were at least 20 consultations in the initial year of the round table's activity. But the minister is saying there were two last year and there are six planned for this year. Given the degree of staff support and promotion of the initiative, I'm curious. Why the significant drop in the amount of consultation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In fact, there will not be a reduction in consultation. I will be travelling extensively to communities throughout British Columbia with some staff support.

When I said that there were two small business forums in 2007…. There are going to be six this year. We're forecasting six. So two to six — that's a tripling.

With respect to the consultations, they have not been finalized. But we will be out. We will be meeting with small businesses in every region of the province.

Again, we listen very, very carefully to the inputs that we get from the members of the permanent Small Business Roundtable. I should, just while I'm up, thank them very much for their contributions to British Columbia. They give of themselves, and I can assure all members of this House that they speak and give very candid inputs, and that's most helpful in moving forward.

I should also recognize that one of my vice-chairs, Kevin Evans, has stepped down as vice-chair of the Small Business Roundtable. We have not appointed a new vice-chair, but Kevin Evans was our vice-chair. The former head of Retail Canada for the western provinces, he made a significant contribution and was a champion on the permanent Small Business Roundtable for the small-business lens and also a champion in working to make sure that the human resource issues of small businesses were recorded and that government was addressing them.

I know that his expertise and talents were shared with Minister Hansen and the ITA. Effective March 1 he has become the chief operating officer of the ITA, the Industry Training Authority. We have great expectations that not only has he championed expectations for small business but that besides addressing the management of success for employment and opportunity, in the coming year he will also be working on small business opportunities at the ITA.

G. Robertson: A question, then, about the appointments and the members of the permanent Small Business Roundtable. The last number that I have in terms of the makeup of the round table is 23 members. I believe it was originally anticipated to be about 16 but ended up at 23. I'm curious if that number is static, if there have been any term limits put in place, what the makeup of that committee looks like and the process for renewal on it going forward.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member for his question. Actually, we think it's important, and it is on our spring agenda item with the permanent Small Business Roundtable to discuss a rotation. We think it's important that there be an orderly transfer, not that all members would go off at the same time and new members would come on. We have had some members that, due to business pressures and personal issues, have had to step down. But again, we are looking at addressing this issue in the spring meeting with the permanent round table on how we can formalize. No procedures have been put in place at this time with respect to length of service, etc.

But I would also say to all members of this House that if they have any names that they think the permanent round table should consider for membership, I'd be pleased to receive those names.

G. Robertson: I'm still on the Small Business Roundtable. It's not clear to me how many members continue to be involved. How often is the round table meeting with that current number of members? Their activity and their compensation for that activity, it

seems, has radically changed from the initial year of 20 or more consultations down to two and then back up to six this year. Their compensation has remained the same through these years of fluctuating consultation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm not sure if I'm not explaining myself properly or if the member is not hearing me, so let me try it again. Yes, there were 18 small business consultations throughout the province of British Columbia, and there were two small business forums. Those are distinct and different from the regular consultations. We will have six consultations this year. That's two from this year, six for the coming year. We will have consultations throughout every region of the province.

Will they all take the same format as last year? Probably not, because it's important, taking the feedback from people, taking the input from staff, that we modify, based on the needs of the area that we go to. But we do not see any less consultation with small business. It's something that's important. It's something that we heard lots of great input on, and it's something we're acting on. So we're actually going to continue it.

With respect to the composition of the board right now, we have 24 members representing every region of the province of British Columbia. We have right now three members who have said that they are going to have to step down.

Again, I know I'm supposed to stay calm and all that kind of stuff, and I'll do my best. But the suggestion from the member of excessive compensation is absolute nonsense. These individuals, for the most part, are business people from all parts of British Columbia, and for $175 a day they give their expertise to the province. I don't think that's excessive. But you know what? They actually have to travel to every part of the province. Staff have to travel.

I'll tell you, when you invest, in my opinion, $300,000 last year into the Small Business Roundtable process, and the benefit to small business in British Columbia is the expansion of BizPaL, a $120 million sales tax reduction over three years and a small-business lens introduced into the government for all regulations going forward…. I think that that percentage dividend return is immense for a meagre investment of $300,000.

G. Robertson: I am certainly appreciative of the good work that the round table members have done and committed for the greater good — small business in the province. I'm merely questioning the rationale when I see numbers go from 18 to two to six. That, by my math, is a pretty significant reduction.

It sounds to me like the government is choosing to reduce significantly the amount of consultation and input through the round table to the government from the small business community. I can't figure out how the minister thinks that's an increase, but we'll leave it there.

A question specific to one of the funding recipients from the small business area: Small Business B.C. The minister mentioned $669,000 of funding that is labelled for that organization this year.

G. Robertson: It's $686,000. Can the minister just clarify if that is a commitment, that there are several years of commitment in keeping with the service plan and three years of planning, and how that $686,000 compares to what has been granted to that organization in the past.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me just go back. I'll try this again. I'm trying to go slow for the member, but apparently it's not registering. So I'll try again.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'll go at the pace I want to go at. I'm very happy on this planet where I am today.

The member apparently doesn't want to hear and wants to somehow be able to get a sound bite that the government is going to reduce consultations with small business. Well, nothing could be further from the truth. Our government will continue to consult with small business at unprecedented levels, as it has when it was in opposition and since it's been in government. We value small business, and we will continue to value small business.

Now, for the member: he seems to have consultations and forums mixed up. Let me say this one more time. Last year there were two small business forums. This year there will be six small business forums. That is an increase. With respect to the number of consultations, that plan has not been finalized with the permanent Small Business Roundtable.

Do I expect to see a huge decrease? No, I do not. Do I expect to see visitations to every region of the province? Yes, I do. Do I think consultation with small business is the right thing to do? Yes, I do. Can we do enough? We're going to work at it every day to make sure their voices are heard, because one of my responsibilities is to be the champion of small business in British Columbia. I take that job very, very seriously, and I will do that job very, very seriously.

With respect to Small Business B.C., there are two years in our funding agreement, and again, this is a partnership between our government and the federal government with respect to Small Business British Columbia. Over the next two years it's $686,000 per year. Western diversification puts in $1.2 million per year. Small Business B.C. provides business information services, access to business registration, business seminars, market research services, business plan advisory services, one-on-one export coaching, e-business services. It includes a library and business bookstore.

Small Business B.C. has a storefront operation in downtown Vancouver and can also be accessed through a 1-800 number. We are continually looking to strive to find ways to make it more efficient and more accessible for small business. We are not going to stay

static. We are looking at BizPaL. We are looking at the single business licence. We are looking at the one-stop shop. We are working with Service B.C. on how we can integrate these services so that small business throughout British Columbia can have access to government and the information they need to succeed in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: I will move forward on this thing. I wouldn't mind clarifying with the minister whether there will in fact be 20 or more consultations this year to keep up the pace. But if you want to continue along that line and be vague about how much consultation there will actually be…. I know the minister feels passionate about the importance of consultation, and I agree with him. I would have expected a commitment as to the amount of consultation that will take place this year.

Given that there is a commitment to the number of forums taking place this year, I don't know why it's so difficult to plan for the number of consultations. But we can leave that. If those plans have not been made, that's the way it is.

A question now about the largest threat. Through the round table's recommendations, through the findings of the round table and, certainly, through all of the polling and surveys that have taken place around the province for some time now…. The skills shortage is the single greatest threat to the viability, success and growth of small businesses in B.C.

I'm curious about what the ministry's direct initiatives are to address the skills shortage and its impact on small business in B.C.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me again attempt this. I don't know if this is the fifth or sixth time I've attempted to clarify for the member, but I'll try once again because, as most people know, I'm a patient person. But let me just say, about consultation….

The member hasn't been here that long. I don't want to have to give him a history lesson on how, when his side was the government, they actually ignored small business. So I'm not going to get into that discussion today.

You know, I mentioned earlier that I have a permanent Small Business Roundtable that advises government. That means we actually listen. We have — and I mentioned this — a meeting with them in the next month or so to finalize the workplan for the year. So I think that for me to stand here and say that it will be this way, this way, this way…. Why would we have the meeting in the spring to seek their inputs?

We're going to have a meeting in the spring with the permanent round table to finalize the business plan, the action plan. Our recommendations are that we have consultations at the same level we had.

Is it the same format? I don't know. That's why we're going to have the meeting. We're suggesting that instead of two forums we have six forums. I don't know why it's so hard for that member to get it through…. Maybe he's already prepared a press release from these estimates, and he has to make sure he justifies it by getting it out. But we are actually going to consult, as we have done in the past.

We will then have a firm action plan that we will act on. Then the Small Business Roundtable will issue their report, hopefully at the end of September, for next year. That's our plan.

With respect to skills, we believe very strongly…. As I travelled around in consultations last year, one of the things that I heard in every community…. But I heard it most in Quesnel. I remember that consultation in Quesnel.

When I was sitting at the end of the table, a lady sitting up in the far left corner said to me: "Do you know what the real problem is?" I said: "Well, why don't you tell me what you think the problem is?" She said: "The problem is that in our education system today our students do not know about business opportunities. The whole system is skewed towards university, but there are lots of opportunities."

I'm not saying that this lady was saying…. I'm not saying we should stream our students, but what we should be doing is at least exposing them to entrepreneurship, to small business, to mentorship.

Then she went on to say to me: "Have you ever heard of a program called Junior Achievement?" As life would have it, yes, I had, and I said: "Why don't you talk to me about what you think Junior Achievement would do for British Columbia?" She said: "You know, working with our educators and our small business communities, maybe we could get Junior Achievement in the schools throughout British Columbia, as a tool to help expand people's thought processes and opportunities so that they go forward."

My staff did some work. I talked to my deputy minister. I then went and talked to the Minister of Education, because this was something for our students and for our school system. Between the two of us the Premier announced a $2 million commitment to Junior Achievement, with the goal of having Junior Achievement in every school district in British Columbia by the year 2010. That is one of the longer-term things we believe that we could do toward helping students and providing for small business.

The other area that we're working on…. I thought I had touched on this earlier. Kevin Evans, the vice-chair of the permanent Small Business Roundtable, has been a tireless, tireless advocate working with my staff on small business issues with respect to resources. Now that he's at the training authority…. We put him in touch with the training authority, though, before Minister Colin Hansen, the Minister of Economic Development, got this new appointment. He worked on a human resources plan.

We're going to continue to work with Minister Hansen. He has responsibility for the Industry Training Authority program. We're going to continue to put our feedback in from small business. We're going to continue to work with small business organizations like the Chamber of Commerce of British Columbia.

As a matter of fact, on Friday the Premier announced a $50,000 commitment to Leadership B.C., which is a program that promotes and encourages outstanding community leadership by cultivating potential leaders who will help their communities reach their full potential. This leadership program includes skills training for community leaders and outreach programs. Currently it's taking place in Kamloops, Quesnel and Nanaimo. It's going to be expanded in Cranbook, Merritt, Ladysmith and Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows in the coming year. We contributed $50,000 to that.

We are pleased with our involvement in the ITA through Minister Hansen. We will continue to work to make sure that small business opportunities are made aware to students and entrepreneurs throughout British Columbia so that they, too, can prosper in the great success of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Frankly, I'm concerned not to hear more substance there. This is after two rounds of estimates with Minister Hansen and Industry Training Authority, with Minister Coell in Advanced Education and in question period. It's been clear all along that this government is not taking the skills shortage seriously. It has been voiced repeatedly from the small business sector that this is the number-one threat and that they need support.

All I heard in that response from the minister was $2 million for Junior Achievement — no doubt a great organization with good work to do and a long-term upside — and $50,000 for the B.C. Chamber of Commerce for leadership programs.

When the skills shortage is taking the kind of toll it is, when a significant percentage of B.C. small businesses have spaces they can't fill and when their growth is limited by the inability to find skilled labour, I'm curious why there is no dedicated initiative within the Small Business Ministry to address the skills shortage and to work directly with the Minister of Economic Development and the ITA to figure out a game plan — the way to help and support B.C.'s small businesses.

There doesn't appear to be anyone or any program specifically targeted at the skills shortage within the ministry. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's always interesting to hear members from that side of the House because they're always against things. They're always negative. They're always pessimistic.

It's too bad those members weren't here in the '90s when they saw this province going down the tube. Now we've turned around, and we've got the lowest unemployment rate in the history of the province of British Columbia. We are managing success in the province, and now they're complaining about that.

Unlike when they were in government, we actually believe in people being responsible. The Minister of Economic Development is responsible for training and for the skills shortage and is making significant progress. I'm not going to comment on his estimates. The member could attend those estimates and ask the member about those issues at that point in time.

I can tell you that I am working hand in hand with the minister to make sure that managing success, record employment levels, record involvement of women in employment, record employment of youth while, when they were the government, we had record youth unemployment….

We are working together as a government. We will not and do not support a silo approach. We do support a focused approach, and that's what the ITA, through the Minister of Economic Development, is providing British Columbians.

G. Robertson: I'm curious. The minister notes that the '90s were a difficult time — or speculates, anyway, that the '90s were a difficult time — for small business. But in his introduction he stated that the number of small businesses in B.C. grew — well, by my count, 11,000 businesses a year from 221,000 to 333,000 from '91 to '01. And in the five years since, the number of small businesses continues to increase, but at a significantly lower rate. We're down to about 7,000 new small businesses a year.

Apparently, in the last five years the growth of our small business sector has dropped significantly. Maybe that has something to do with the fact that this government also doesn't support small businesses through the skills shortage, and the fact that we don't have any dedicated programs within the small business ministry, and we don't have any dedicated efforts here to address the skills shortage.

The only initiative of any significance that this government has announced, related to the skills shortage, has been a training tax credit, which has very limited, if any, significant meaning to small businesses. Without any support from the Ministry of Economic Development, through that training tax credit — which doesn't apply to most of the small businesses in this province — and without anything in this ministry that's dedicated to that, other than the minister's comments about an ongoing conversation, working closely with the Minister of Economic Development, I don't know where the substance is here.

It sounds like the words and the intentions are there, but there are no actions. There is no money dedicated to deal with this. There's no staff time going specifically into addressing the skills shortage, which is the number-one impact on our small businesses and their ability to succeed and grow in B.C.

Given that, I suppose we will move on to regulatory reform. I want to start with the small-business lens and the announcement related to the small-business lens, which was developed by the Small Business Roundtable.

I'm curious if the minister can provide some concrete examples of what this small-business lens will mean within government in terms of ensuring that not only small businesses and their needs are met by initiatives of the government, but that it's kept in balance with environmental, social and other economic concerns through the regulatory reform initiative.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'll just comment for the record. The number of small businesses operating in British Columbia over the past year has increased at somewhere over 5 percent over the last four years when the national average has been 0.2 percent. So British Columbia is certainly outpacing the national.

You know, perhaps the member chooses not to understand that, but there is nothing I can do about that. Or if there was, perhaps I wouldn't care to do anything about it anyhow.

Perhaps when the NDP…. We used to have lots of big businesses in British Columbia, and maybe that's why we had so many small businesses — because they took big businesses and made them into small businesses. I'm not too sure.

The small-business lens is something that came directly out of the Small Business Roundtable — a recommendation. It was announced on February 6 that it was going in place. I don't know if the member has seen it, but it is available on the website.

Basically, it is a checklist to make sure that when big government is bringing forward regulatory change, small business has been consulted, has been considered. When I say consulted, I mean real consultation.

Time and cost of compliance is a huge item for small business. Has the amount of time needed to comply been reduced? That's the question that has to be answered. Can compliance occur with existing resources? No additional staff, accountants or lawyers are required from a small business perspective; no additional paperwork is required?

Can compliance occur without specialized training? If training is needed, it's equally accessible to the rural areas of the province and for persons who do not have access to high-speed broadband. This puts the onus back on government to make sure it is consulting meaningfully with those that are going to be impacted, and specifically small business.

One of the things that I heard in consultations as I moved around British Columbia, in all regions of the province, is that government was laying things on small business and had no impact on what the costs ramifications would be.

To me, the big thrust here is the understanding and the implication that it's going to have on small business. Those are clearly outlined…. Again, I don't know if the member has had the opportunity to print these off the website. But they are available on the website. So that's the thrust.

N. Macdonald: Point of privilege. These are more intimate settings than usual, and there was a comment made by the minister. I'm hoping that I misheard. But maybe just an opportunity to clarify that you were not commenting on my colleague here. There was a comment that I thought was inappropriate. If I've misheard that, then I apologize.

G. Robertson: First of all, a comment related to this round table's recommendations on the small-business lens. Obviously, one of the things they pointed out was the necessity of more consultation, and it goes back to this fact of consultation not being laid out at this point and the small-business lens being put in place before the consultation is laid out. Just a flag going up that again — a new initiative that certainly has merit is being run up the flagpole. The consultation process associated with it doesn't seem clear at this point.

What consultation will be undertaken specifically when the small-business lens is applied to initiatives of government?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The consultations that took place last year are actually the reason we have the small-business lens this year. It's a result of those consultations — okay? We travelled to 18 communities last year. We heard about a concern that perhaps small businesses' input wasn't being heard by government when it was doing regulatory changes. We brought that back. We talked. We listened, and now we've acted in cooperation with.

The small business here has nothing to do with the consultations I'm going to do as I go out around the province. The consultations that are required with respect to the small-business lens are that when any ministry is bringing forth a legislative change or a regulatory change, they must go through this checklist.

For instance, if there is something that is taking place with respect to a specific industry on a regulatory reform, or retailers or whoever it may be, then the government ministry that's leading that initiative, whatever it may be, has to go out and have meaningful consultations with that group as part of bringing forward the legislative or regulatory change.

That's what this is. These have to be signed off by the minister, and my staff check and verify. As part of the cabinet process, I check and verify that in fact consultations have taken place before new regulatory things are put in place. That's what this is about.

G. Robertson: My concern is that that consultation will mirror the kind of consultation being done in the spirit of the new relationship. As was raised in the House previously in this session, a number of first nations have not been consulted, in their opinion. They have not been consulted related to the expansion of aquaculture, particularly with geoduck clam aquaculture.

If we take that as an example where the government says there has been consultation, which in that case was a letter that went to the chief and band councils…. Their response to it was a rejection of the imposition of that aquaculture industry in their traditional territory. In effect, the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands checked off the consultation box.

Are we in the same situation here in terms of consultation, where a letter or a phone call or a meeting with ministry staff will suffice regardless of the approval or disapproval of the small business sector involved and affected by the legislation or regulatory changes?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, it's not the approach. The consultation will be meaningful.

G. Robertson: A question related to the small-business lens but I guess more broad. In terms of the regulatory framework and the reform that has taken place, can the minister clarify how regulatory reform — in light of the Premier's new commitment to climate change and a greening of government — will continue to progress, given the probability that many more regulations will be necessary to mitigate and adapt to climate change?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our government has been very clear in its approach to regulatory reform. We will not compromise safety, health or the environment.

The Chair: Welcome back to the Douglas Fir Room and the budget estimates debate on the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

G. Robertson: I'll return to my questions related to regulatory reform. The minister just stated that the ministry is invested in defending regulations which protect the environment, which is encouraging to hear. However, if I look at the work being done in the ministry to date, there seems to be — in terms of so-called improvements to regulatory reform — a tendency for these regulatory changes to be all about economic competitiveness and, specifically, consideration of the recommendations made by the Red Tape Reduction Task Force, which were not specifically about protecting the environment. They were about economic competitiveness.

If we look at an example of this, in the case of pesticide certification, the actual improvements seemed to be mostly about cutting down the time that it takes to get pesticide certification. Given the known hazards of many of the pesticides to human health and the environment, I'm curious how regulatory reform — when it speeds up the process of pesticide certification — does not actually impact the environment. Can the minister clarify that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I believe I said, one of our principles of regulatory reform was that we would not compromise at any time in regulatory reform of health, safety or the environment. With respect to individual ministries and their reductions or proposed reductions in regulatory requirements, the member and his colleagues should address those specific questions to those specific and particular ministries in their estimates.

G. Robertson: No doubt we will pursue those lines of questions with the specific ministry. However, this ministry is charged with regulatory reform and tasked with a net zero increase in regulation.

I'm curious how it's possible that there could be a net zero increase in the regulations, given the 2020 target for greenhouse gas emissions and given the extensive menu of targets laid out in the throne speech over the next 13 years.

Is the ministry intending on continuing to cut regulations at a pace rapid enough to allow for the increase related to managing in a carbon-constrained economy — and greenhouse gas emissions specifically?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, each ministry is charged with its own regulatory responsibilities. Each ministry is committed to the government's guidelines of zero-zero-and-zero increases. Again, those specific questions would be best addressed to the individual ministries responsible for the particular regulatory reform initiatives, whether it be the environment in the Ministry of Environment, whether it happened to be employment and income assistance in that ministry. But all ministries are committed to zero-zero-and zero, as is our government.

G. Robertson: A question. It's not clear to me that all ministries are having success with the zero-zero-and-zero. Information has come forward from one of the ministries, which apparently found thousands of new requirements from the Securities Commission that it tried to add to its books. Apparently, this minister said no to that, and the service plan that was published showed an actual decrease, rather than including the increases from the requirements from the Securities Commission.

I'm curious if the minister has the ability to determine which regulations do get scored within the individual ministries — if he is able to override what comes forward from individual ministries in order to achieve the overarching goal of no net increase.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Each minister is responsible for their own regulatory reform accounts. They are measured on a ministry basis, and individual ministers are responsible.

G. Robertson: In terms of the results to date on regulatory reform and red-tape reduction, the service plans have shown that we have had an approximate 40-percent decrease to the end of June 2005. Now we're at 41.27 percent or 41.20 percent. I'm not sure — one of those.

When I look at this mapped out on a chart and see us go from in the range of 400,000 regulations and shoot right down to 230,000 and 225,000, we appear to have flatlined. The actual drop over the past year or more has not been a significant drop.

Does the minister see this zero-zero-zero resulting in us remaining around 225,000 regulations and that this will be the baseline going forward?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Sometimes I'm confused with propositions put forward by members on the other side, because it sounds to me like the hon. member is now suggesting that there should be more regulatory reduction. If that's the case, I would hope that he would tell us that is his goal.

We believe in a responsible approach. We will not compromise health. We will not compromise safety. We will not compromise the environment.

We believe that a zero-zero-and-zero approach to regulatory reform, with respect to regulatory count, is the right way to go. It's interesting to me that the Finance Minister of the federal government of Canada, the current government, has recognized the successes of British Columbia.

It's also interesting to me that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has recognized that British Columbia has been a leader. In fact, last year it gave a recognition to the province and presented an achievement award to the Premier of British Columbia for his leadership in this area.

Also, we've had ministers from Ontario and Alberta visit British Columbia to see what's going on. We've had Newfoundland following our examples. We have had people in the northern parts of Canada looking and following our examples. Somebody must be doing something right somewhere, and I believe the teams in the various ministries have done a tremendous job.

One of the things is that we're now moving on, and that's why we have introduced citizen-centred regulatory reform. That's basically what we call track 2. The member may recall that when we did have a briefing, I did talk briefly about track 2.

The regulatory count is what we call track 1. The citizen-centred regulatory reform is what we call track 2; that is, we are currently in the process of working with every ministry in government to identify how we can save British Columbians time in complying with regular regulations and how, in fact, the government of British Columbia can save time.

We are going through an extensive business mapping in each ministry of government to do this. Also, we are actually providing funding from my ministry, through my deputy minister and the ADM, to some ministries that require financial assistance in achieving their goals. Our plans are moving along very nicely, and for the most part they are on time.

G. Robertson: The fact that the commitment ongoing is for no net increase in regulation, and we have seen a dramatic decrease in the number of regulations over the past several years…. Can the minister comment on the budget and staffing required to achieve that significant reduction versus the staff that's required to maintain no net increase?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In my ministry we have four people working on this task — four people out of 899 doing a tremendous job on behalf of all British Columbians.

G. Robertson: Were those same four people involved in that 40-odd-percent reduction in regulation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: For all intents and purposes, the FTE count is about the same. Of course, there has been a change in personnel. There is always a change in individuals in government. Let us also remember that in each ministry, they also would have had staff identified. The Ministry of Forests and Range would have had staff identified. Again, those specific questions should be addressed to those ministries.

For all intents and purposes, that's been the complement as we have moved through this process.

G. Robertson: Is the minister's sense that, given the 40-percent reduction has been achieved — lots of ministries have been involved in that, and certainly this ministry has led the charge — there will be now some significant savings in terms of resources, staff, budget because we have dealt with 40 percent of those regulations? They're gone, and now we're at no net loss. Should we be seeing savings right across government as we no longer need to put energy into significant reduction?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I may be misunderstanding this member, but this is the second time, I think, that the member has suggested that we have to get rid of public servants from government. We actually are trying to attract people to government service, so I don't support his notion.

One of the things we are doing in our ministry and other ministries — but I'm particularly knowledgable of our ministry, and I'm proud of our ministry — is that…. New challenges come along. New priorities come along. Yes, a lot of work has been achieved on track 1. Are we going to take our eye off the ball and let that get away from us? The answer is no. That's why we have zero-zero-and-zero — each ministry assigned its responsibilities.

Now we are moving on to track 2, and these four individuals that work in this area are leading this. There are 26 projects being identified throughout government. We're going through a business-mapping process. These are significant opportunities to save British Columbians time and, quite frankly, to save government time. We know when we say "British Columbians time," that means they actually have more time to work and build their businesses.

We have two examples. One is in the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'll just take a second. It had to do

with cutting permits. It was in the Kamloops forest district. It identified and implemented efficiencies in the cutting permit issuance process, improved the quality of the applications and provided for better communications between the parties. The new process not only eliminated 90 steps but also reduced the processing time by 50 days. It also allows for further streamlining by designating whether the application is eligible for a fast track or requires a more detailed review.

The redesign of the cutting permit now ensures continuity of operation for licensees. That was good news for the ministry. That is good news for the industry.

Another example is in the Ministry of Transportation, I believe it was — or was it the Solicitor General? — with respect to licensing at ICBC for non-expiring licence decals. This initiative allowed commercial trailers to use non-expired licence plate validation decals, thereby reducing the administrative burden on operators by eliminating the need to track down trailers potentially anywhere in North America to a fixed and annual decal. Annual requirements for inspection, licences and insurance remain in place, but the time savings have been extensive and very much welcomed by the British Columbia Trucking Association.

G. Robertson: Ultimately, the success of any program has to play out on the ground. It is good to hear the minister give some examples. But the example that has jumped out of the Small Business Roundtable report, which is shocking in terms of its significance when 40 percent of the red tape is being cut…. It reports that 85 percent of small businesses in B.C. felt no change. There was no impact to 85 percent of small businesses in the province when the government cut 40 percent of the regulations. Does the minister think that's good enough — 85 percent feeling no difference?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Actually, no. I don't think that's good enough. That's why our goal is continuous improvement. That is our goal. One of the things we found when we drilled down, in consultations I had with folks, is that people recognized what the provincial government had done. But we've got a federal government, and we've got local governments.

That's why we're driving so hard on a program called BizPaL. That's why we have been working tirelessly with the former federal government and the new federal government in trying to get the federal government engaged in these things. That's why, quite frankly, when we can come up with a single business licence for municipalities in British Columbia, it will be a good thing. That will reduce red tape.

I actually think the challenge of addressing red tape is a challenge that will never, ever reach the end. We will always be challenged, because some people want to regulate everybody to the point of tying them up in knots. We heard that complaint in the '90s. We have addressed that, but we have to continually work to understand the impacts that all levels of government place on small business. Small business has my commitment that we will continue the pursuit of reducing red tape for them, and I will lead the charge within government with respect to other ministries.

G. Robertson: I'm confused by the minister's comments about continuous improvement and reduction of red tape when the commitment is zero-zero-zero, which is no improvement and no reduction. Can the minister clarify whether there are ongoing initiatives to continue reducing and improving the red-tape load or if in fact it's status quo?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I don't know if there is something wrong with this microphone system in here or with the loudspeakers or what, but I did talk about track 1. That's where we have achieved a reduction of 41.2 points.

I then talked about track 2, which is a new way of approaching regulatory reform. That's about saving British Columbians time — small businesses, medium-size businesses and individuals — because one of the things I heard as I went around British Columbia was, "Why do all levels of government continue to put regulation on us?" and how much time it takes. One lady told us that it takes $8,000 a year, she estimates, for her to comply with different levels of red tape.

That's why we've got track 2, the citizen-centred and -based approach to saving time. That's why I'm pleased to highlight what my colleague in the Ministry of Forests and his folks in the Kamloops forest district have achieved by saving 50 days. Fifty days is a lot of time.

Hon. Chair, I'm sure you've heard the saying that time is money. Well, just think. Those 50 days put money back into the licensees' pockets, put money back in government's coffers, because we don't necessarily have people moving paper around.

That's why we have 26 business-mapping processes taking place in government today, and the results of those various programs will come to fruition during the next year throughout government, saving British Columbians and saving their government time and money.

G. Robertson: The minister — maybe he can clarify this. What he describes as track 1 in terms of regulatory reform and reducing red tape for small business — that's done. And now it's zero-zero-zero. There are no further expectations of the small business community. Track 2, the citizen-centred regulatory reform, is where the energy is going for improvement and reduction of red tape. Is that clear?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. I don't agree with the characterization of the member that I have said or that government is saying that track 1 has come to an end. That's it, and thank you very much. I actually know — by the very dedicated public servants we have in every ministry, by the leadership team of the deputy ministers and the assistant deputies throughout government

— that they are going to continue to look for ways to streamline, simplify and move forward on track 1.

I also know that on track 2, with the 26 that we're doing…. There are three cross-ministry projects underway. One of them is the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance on the disability strategy. Integrated land management is leading a FrontCounter B.C. expansion to nine locations across the province. We are looking at the BizPaL initiative. So there are lots of initiatives going on.

To characterize that a new one is starting because another one has come to an end is, quite frankly, a wrong characterization and one I will not accept. I have every confidence that ministry staff in all ministries will continue to look at ways they can streamline and simplify — which will actually end up reducing the count without compromising the health, the environment or safety — and also that our track 2 will provide great opportunities and benefits with respect to saving British Columbians and their government time.

G. Robertson: Just to take focus back to track 1. What makes no sense to me here is that the minister's commitment is to zero-zero-and-zero, that there will be no increase in regulatory burden on small business in B.C. But that means — zero-zero-zero — that there is no commitment to a decrease.

Is the minister disagreeing with me? Is there in fact a commitment from the minister to continue to decrease, and for the targets on regulatory burden to continue to decrease?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Some questions are, to say the least, puzzling. Zero-zero-and-zero are maximums. It doesn't mean that ministries will not overachieve by reducing. That's up to individual ministries. Ministries will continue to look for streamlining and simplification. That's what ministries do. That's the guidance they've been given.

With respect to track 2, we're going down another track. You know, in both of these tracks British Columbia has been recognized as the leader in Canada. We are leading in Canada. Our success rate has been recognized by leading organizations, by the Minister of Finance for the government of Canada. Our Premier has been recognized by awards.

We are moving forward. We will continue to focus on track 1, and we will continue to focus on track 2.

G. Robertson: I can only interpret the minister's answer as lacking a commitment to decrease the regulatory burden on small business. There is no specific commitment from this government to continue making progress on reducing red tape.

All that I've heard today and seen in the plans indicates that the status quo is acceptable, that zero-zero-zero is acceptable, unless the minister wishes to make it clear to me that there is in fact a commitment to continue reducing the regulatory burden on small business — the number of regulations — and even to legislate this cap or reduction. If, in fact, there is a reduction that is being committed to here, I'll certainly accept that, and it will make all of this a whole lot more clear.

I'm curious, again, about how the minister sees the commitments made in the throne speech to greenhouse gas emissions, which is through all ministries and will affect many of the ministries in government. The scope of the throne speech on the subject certainly identified that this will be a cross-government initiative and will affect every one of us. So I'm curious if the ministry has done any work on mapping out what the climate change initiatives look like in terms of regulatory reform or burden.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me be very clear to the member. Our government has led the nation and probably North America in our approach to regulatory reform. We are going to continue to lead Canada in regulatory reform. We are going to continue to move forward on regulatory reform. That's what we're going to do. We're going to do it in track 1; we're going to do it in track 2. I have every confidence that my colleagues, our government and our professional public service will overachieve, as they have in the past.

With respect to his questions on environmental regulatory reform, our government has been very, very clear that it will act when it has a plan, the climate action plan, and I would suggest to the member that those questions would be better addressed to the Minister of Environment in his estimates.

G. Robertson: I'm curious if the minister is aware of any regulation that was in place resulting from the previous climate change plan through the Ministry of Environment and if the regulation that was attached to that initiative carries forward. My understanding is that the climate action team is led by the Premier, not the Minister of Environment, and that these will be cross-government regulations.

My understanding was that the climate change initiative was Ministry of Environment, but given the significance of this issue for the province going forward, I'm surprised that I'm not hearing results of any work done to date to understand the implications of the climate change strategy going forward in terms of regulation.

There are a lot of small businesses wondering what all this means, and I'm curious if the minister knows if there will be a net change resulting from a whole new plan led by the Premier.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our government has led Canada in regulatory reform. Our government will lead Canada and North America with a climate action plan. We will act in a climate action plan, as a government, to achieve the benchmarks that we have clearly stated, and those detailed questions would be best asked at the appropriate ministerial estimates.

G. Robertson: Well, I'm not surprised. My impression following the throne speech was that work had not been done at ministry level, had not been done for the budget or the energy plan. The many promises in the throne speech related to climate change and the climate action team, in fact, have seen no light of day within the real workings of government, which is disappointing, but that's where we are.

I'm curious how the minister feels. I mentioned earlier the results of the Small Business Roundtable indicating that 85 percent of small businesses in B.C. have felt no impact from the red-tape reduction, and specifically mention that 95 percent of businesses in rural B.C. have felt no impact. So only 5 percent of businesses in rural B.C. — the interior, north — felt any kind of impact from the 40-percent reduction in red tape.

Does the minister have a specific strategy to deal with the fact that rural B.C. is not feeling the impact of all the work that went into red-tape reduction?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I happen to be from the Okanagan. I happen to live in a small community in the Okanagan. I happen to have the pleasure of representing in my riding small communities in the Okanagan.

You know, I think it's important that we talk on these matters for all British Columbians. That's why one of the things that I'm very proud of in the small-business lens is that the onus is put back on government.

If you wanted to take the time…. When it talks about time, costs and compliances, it clearly states in here that government has to comply, and if training is required that it is equally accessible to the rural areas of the province and for persons who do not have access to high-speed, broadband Internet. It's a commitment our government has made.

Hon. Chair, when the member over there speaks through to you and I speak through to you, this is politics. This is pure and simple politics.

But when the Scotiabank, which is not known as a political organization, speaks and says that small business confidence in British Columbia is at 38 percent, and the national level is 28 percent, that says to me that British Columbia must be doing something pretty good and British Columbians are doing something pretty good.

When the CFIB — a very progressive, leading organization focused on independent small business throughout British Columbia — gives us a rating of 119.5, tying the highest record that's ever been achieved since 2005 and leading Canada, that tells me British Columbians are doing something right.

We've heard that we can do more, and we will do more. As difficult as it is sometimes to draw federal governments to the table to address red tape, no matter who the government is in Ottawa, we will not rest. We will pursue them, and we will achieve a five-year agreement on BizPaL, which is going to help small business in every part of the province over time. We will pursue having a single business licence in British Columbia. We will achieve that goal.

These are the things that we want to be focused on. I want to be focused on the positive things. There's nothing more that I like to do and have liked to do since I've been elected than travel to rural British Columbia to hear first hand the challenges that people have. Are they all going to get fixed overnight? No, they're not. Can we work on them one at a time? Yes, we can.

That's what we did on the PST sales tax review. We went out, and we listened. I remember, in particular, a small retailer. Her name is Sue, and she lives in Courtenay. I said: "Sue, what happens to be the problem?" She said: "You know what the problem is?" I said: "No. Go ahead and tell me, will you, Sue?" She said: "Government doesn't listen." I said: "Really, governments don't listen? What could government actually do to hear and understand your concerns?"

She said: "Why don't you send somebody out here to work with me to see what I have to go through every day." I said okay, so some staff went out, and they learned firsthand. That's why I'm so proud of the staff in our ministry. They are reaching out. They're reaching out to every part of the province to understand issues to see how they impact.

That's why, through the permanent Small Business Roundtable, the small-business lens is a tremendous accomplishment. Is it going to work 150 percent the first day? Son of a gun — no, it's not. But are we going to pursue it so it does work for small business throughout British Columbia? Yes, we are, and that's why British Columbia small business has the highest confidence it's ever had right now.

G. Robertson: I just want to bring things back around to red tape and the fact, again, that 95 percent of small businesses in rural B.C. did not feel the impact of a 40-percent reduction in red tape.

The minister asserts that there will be continuous improvement, but the only commitment on the table for those 95 percent of businesses who have seen no improvement to date, as far as continuous improvement goes, is zero-zero-and-zero. If a 40-percent reduction didn't make a difference to 95 percent of B.C.'s rural small business and now you're committed to zero-zero-and-zero, which is no further improvement in the red tape, can the minister clarify what his commitment is to improve the prospects for 95 percent of small business in rural B.C. with the zero-zero-zero?

Hon. R. Thorpe: To date, touch wood, in our ministry when the targets have been established, people work hard at achieving those targets. It may come as a surprise to the member that we've had the zero-zero-and-zero in place for a few years now. In the year ended '05-06 to '07-08 the reduction in percentage terms was 3.1 percent. In '06-07 to '08-09 it was 4.1 percent, even though it's zero-zero-and-zero. We've surpassed those.

I am hopeful that with our zero-zero-and-zero and creativity and leadership from our public service, we'll continue to overachieve our goals. That is what continuous improvement is about. As I said earlier, we will work with municipalities and we will work with the federal government to achieve those goals and, no doubt, overachieve those goals.

G. Robertson: I just want to return for a moment to the small-business lens and the fact that economic competitiveness is the priority with the small-business lens. I am curious how the minister sees or reconciles the priority of economic competitiveness with the necessity to protect the environment and social considerations. He mentioned the commitment to environmental and social safeguards. However, it's clear from the small-business lens that economic competitiveness is the priority.

Can you clarify some concrete examples of where environment and social safeguards will take precedence over economic considerations?

Hon. R. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Chair. I didn't think Blackberrys were actually allowed in here for receiving and sending messages while we're in debate. Am I incorrect in that?

I've been advised that when the member has the floor, they may not refer to electronic devices, but when they are not speaking or not engaged with the speaker, then they may refer to that material.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I asked the question, hon. Chair, because sometimes, apparently, some of my answers haven't been getting through, and I didn't know whether the member was distracted using his Blackberry.

G. Robertson: I'll restate the question, then. Maybe it was not clear to the minister. The Red Tape Reduction Task Force and the small-business lens both indicate that economic competitiveness is the priority. But the minister in effect countered that by saying that they will not compromise in terms of the environmental and social safeguards. So I would like an example from the minister as to where economic competitiveness will take a back seat to environmental or social concerns in the regulatory framework.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I had thought that perhaps the member had read the small-business lens, but maybe he hasn't had the opportunity, so let me just read a key part of it: "The purpose of the checklist is to demonstrate that legislative and regulatory changes have been developed according to the regulatory reform policy while protecting public health, safety and the environment." We will not compromise the protection of public health, safety or the environment as we pursue competitive economic success in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: I will take that as a no — that there are no examples that the minister can provide. It's all well and good to lay out the rhetoric in terms of commitment to economic, environmental and social considerations. However, there do come times when choices have to be made. From my understanding of the ministry's documents, economic competitiveness will take priority, according to the small-business lens and the Red Tape Reduction Task Force documents.

That said, if the minister is ready to move on to revenue programs related to PST and the PST review — can I go ahead with that? — the general question right off the top is related to the changes to legislation and the PST review that's taken place. Can the minister provide a breakdown of the $40 million in savings, of each of those initiatives?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I want to once again for the record assure you, hon. Chair and members of this House, that our small-business lens checklist will not compromise the protection of public health, safety and environment.

With respect to the legislative changes announced and the saving of $40 million on an annualized basis: the extension of the PST remittance date from the 15th to the 23rd, just around $6 million; increasing the threshold for quarterly, annual and semi-annual remittances to $12,000 from $8,600, $1 million; making sure that our audit and refund assessment periods are competitive with other jurisdictions, $11 million — and that would be about $13.5 million in total; creating a threshold of $10,000 for collecting and remitting taxes, $2.5 million.

Allowing lease inventory to occasionally be supplied with an operator. This is actually something that came out of the round table right here in Victoria, which the former critic attended, where an operator in Victoria in the light and sound industry basically said he had to keep two sets of books because some equipment he used in his business and some other equipment he rented out, so he had to have two sets of books. I'm an accountant by degree, and that didn't quite process well with me. That's a direct result of that individual coming forward, and that's a saving of $5 million.

Expanding the exemption of roadside tire services, $100,000. Expanding prescription medication for samples for veterinarians and others is $1.5 million. There were also some expanded exemptions for catalysts and direct agents with respect to a recent British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, for $10 million.

G. Robertson: There were a few other of the exemption initiatives that I was hoping for clarification on. In oil and gas it looks like there are two: exploration and development in oil and gas, and producers and processors. My understanding is that the farmers exemption is not in play yet, that we're looking at next year. And the work-related safety equipment…?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The farmers exemption. Although we worked extensively with the Ag Council, due to the

complexity of the exemption list — the retailers, the wholesalers and the farm status — it's a very complex issue. We couldn't get that resolved working together with the farming community. They are committed to working with us, and we hope to have that completed in the next few months ahead. We committed to doing that ongoing consultation with respect to safety equipment.

As the member knows from a briefing in my office last week, I gave him an example of the safety equipment with respect to gloves, with one being exempt and one not being exempt. That work will continue, as will some taxation work with respect to partnerships, trusts and amalgamations, and also audit sampling.

G. Robertson: What I'm still missing and curious about are the exemptions related to oil and gas exploration and development and the oil and gas producers and processors.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The exemption, the tax change for the gas and oil industry, I'm advised by staff, is less than $1 million.

G. Robertson: A question about the initiative related to Energy Star windows, which I understand will be a net positive of saving the government $23 million a year by eliminating the exemption for windows that are not Energy Star compliant. It may be the case that the Energy Star–certified products are more energy efficient than the others, but the small businesses that produce windows that may not be Energy Star–certified at this point…. Is the government doing anything to help those businesses achieve a higher standard or achieve that certification?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's a tax policy question. It should be directed to the Minister of Finance and the Ministry of Finance estimates.

G. Robertson: Maybe a more specific question then, to the small businesses themselves that are involved in this industry. Is the minister aware of the businesses that are affected by a $23 million hit in terms of their PST exemptions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, I'm aware of it. The details and the questions should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.

G. Robertson: Well, I'm a little surprised that the minister is not engaging when his ministry is now going to be tasked with bringing that $23 million in from window and door manufacturers here in B.C. Obviously, a $23 million hit to those manufacturers is significant within their industry. Given that the minister is responsible for small business and the needs of small business in the province, is there no effort right now in terms of outreach to those businesses? Is this just simply a "crank up the tax?"

Hon. R. Thorpe: Tax policy questions should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.

G. Robertson: It's disappointing that we can't have a more frank conversation about the impact that this will have on window and door manufacturers. I would have hoped that the minister would take an active role in ensuring that those businesses were able to upgrade, certify or qualify through their manufacturing for Energy Star and thereby not lose out on $23 million.

I'm sure, given the government's intentions around climate change and strategies to address efficiency, that the Ministry of Small Business would take an active role in seeing this happen and seeing those businesses succeed under the government's new green vision.

C. Evans: So who is their champion, then, if Finance is going to tax them and this gentleman doesn't want to answer the question?

G. Robertson: The member for Nelson-Creston raises a good point: who is the champion for these businesses that do need to upgrade and probably are more willing and able to qualify for Energy Star? Who is their champion within government? Is it just the Finance Minister going after them for the tax now? Will someone within government like the Minister of Small Business actually step in and play a role in making sure these businesses don't suffer because of this?

The Chair: Member, I think the question has been referred by the minister to be directed to the Minister of Finance, and I would invite you to pursue a different line of questioning.

G. Robertson: I suppose that's what it means — that there is no support for businesses that may wish to qualify for Energy Star and get certified. The window and door manufacturers that are being hit with $23 million in tax this year don't have a champion within government. It's disappointing to hear that.

A question in terms of these revenue programs and PST. The catalysts and direct agents…. Was this exemption directly related to the results of the court case — the interpretation — or was there an additional rationale from the ministry for opening up $10 million worth of tax exemption?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This item did come up in our consultations through the PST review around the province. We put that forward, and then, there was also a court decision which ruled on this matter.

G. Robertson: I'm going to hand off here to the member for Cariboo North for some additional questions related to the forest industry and rural small business.

B. Simpson: I would like to just deal with some issues around regulation and e-filing first, and then look at some other forest-related issues.

Could the minister please inform me as to what some of the issues are that his ministry is hearing about the implications of deregulation — in particular, the smaller sector in the forest industry, woodlot owners, small manufacturers, consultants. Is he hearing any blowback?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Items related to forestry regulation should be directed to the Minister of Forests in Forests estimates.

B. Simpson: My understanding was that this ministry is the ministry that championed for deregulation, and these individuals — the woodlot federation, etc. — passed some resolutions at their AGM with respect to deregulation, which they're not getting any joy from the Ministry of Forests about. Would those individuals come to this minister and address those concerns with this minister?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I am always pleased to hear from a variety of British Columbia groups on matters and would pursue that with the appropriate minister.

B. Simpson: When the minister did the discussions around the province, did he hear anything from those small business sectors in forestry — consultants, woodlot owners, ranchers that have timber operations — about the issue of the regulatory impacts for them?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I passed it to the minister responsible, the Minister of Forests and Range. That's why I suggest that the member would want to follow up with the Minister of Forests.

B. Simpson: In what form was that communication with the Minister of Forests and Range?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I know for a fact that I had verbal conversations, and if in fact I did receive written information, I would have also forwarded that to the minister responsible.

The Chair: Member, may I just make a comment that I think it is made clear that the Minister of Forests and Range would be the more appropriate minister to address questions regarding forests and range.

B. Simpson: Chair, I'm talking about small business owners, who have indicated to this minister, through the minister's own round table process, that they have concerns and that those concerns went into a black hole. There were no communications back to them. So I think that it is well within the purview of this ministry to ask the questions about a process that this minister has undertaken.

He got the feedback, and I think it's appropriate that the individuals who were involved in that know what the process was for passing that feedback forward and how they're going to close the loop on communications.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I know that the members from time to time will want to characterize things for dramatic effect. In fact, the member knows fair well that I have helped constituents in his own riding with respect to items related to forestry, working with the Minister of Forests and Range. Again, the specific questions should be directed to the Minister of Forests and Range.

The minister's own document stipulates that access to high-speed Internet is an issue for both rural areas and communities on the outskirts of relatively large urban areas. I hope that it's okay for me to quote from the minister's own documentation.

"Small business supports the government's program for expanding high-speed broadband access. Small business also cautions government that its increasing use of Internet to provide services can create difficulties for many small business owners. Particularly in the forestry sector, the necessity to conduct large volumes of business electronically requires allocation of significant resources to service providers and technical consultants."

My question to the minister is…. This is in his report. What is his ministry doing to have this issue addressed for small business owners, particularly in the forestry sector?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, perhaps the member wasn't here when we talked about the small-business lens. In particular, we did address the area where, in fact, high-speed broadband is not accessible. It is incumbent upon government in those areas to make sure that it is consulting with those folks. It's providing other training vehicles, other than high-speed broadband, for those areas. I did mention that to the critic responsible, but perhaps that member wasn't here.

Also of interest…. I try to keep a fairly thorough record of points that I do hear from opposition members in written correspondence and the responses that we have got back. Unless I have misplaced something, which we go to great effort to make sure we don't, I do

not have anything in any correspondence from this member on the issues that he's raising today.

Perhaps he has sent something, but I haven't received it. According to my records, I've never received such an inquiry from the member.

B. Simpson: I'm not sure what the point of the minister's last comment was. Estimates debate is about asking the minister questions on behalf of constituents and sector groups. The minister is not answering the questions now. That's his choice, but it has nothing to do with whether I corresponded with him or not prior to this. That's not my obligation. It is the minister's obligation now to answer the questions.

Again, I just want to be clear. The minister has gone out around the province and has heard two things from the small business sector — in forestry in particular, but I know he must have heard the same things in mining — about the fact that regulation still is onerous for the small business owners and that when compounded by the fact that they have to do the electronic filing, it is a significant resource burden on small business owners.

My question to the minister is this: will the minister undertake to take the lead on addressing this as it is a general small business issue? It is my understanding that this is the minister for small business as well as revenue.

Hon. R. Thorpe: One of the responsibilities as Minister of Small Business and Revenue and travelling around the province is that when we do come back from our consultation trips, we do make sure that ministries are aware of the issues. I do provide that information to my ministerial colleagues.

Again, I will take note of the member's questions — I will follow it up with the Minister of Forests, as an example — that he's highlighted here, but I would encourage him, hon. Chair, to take these questions to the Minister of Forests in his estimates.

Let me canvass another area and ask the minister if, based on his staff's work in the small business area of his ministry, is there a particular area of small business that appears to be in some trouble in this province?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think that the conclusions of the Small Business Roundtable are very clear. That small business wants government to continue to work and drive the adoption of the government of British Columbia's approach to regulatory reform at both the federal and local government levels is on here. I think that all small businesses — it doesn't matter which type of small businesses — want us to stay focused on the complexities of the PST, and they want us to stay focused on working with the minister responsible for the ITA, the Minister of Economic Development.

B. Simpson: My question was more specific than that. Is there a particular sector within the small business domain that is not faring well over the last five or six years?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Small business in British Columbia is seeing unprecedented growth, unprecedented employment and unprecedented success across the board in every region of British Columbia.

B. Simpson: Unprecedented growth across all sectors. I refer the minister to his own small business profile and the profile produced by B.C. Stats, in which it shows that there is an unprecedented decline in secondary manufacturing in this province. There are thousands of these businesses that are closing. We have seen net job loss in an unprecedented fashion.

My question to the minister is: if he takes his rose-coloured glasses off for a few minutes and actually looks at the sector that's within his business domain, is the minister aware that he has a sector that is in severe decline and in very real trouble, and what is this minister, the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, going to do about it?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our government is continuing to work with all sectors in the province to make sure that we can have economic growth. We've got unprecedented job creation, the lowest levels of unemployment in the history of British Columbia. We've got the strongest small business confidence of any jurisdiction in Canada. We're going to continue to strive to work with all sectors in the small business community so that they, too, can enjoy success in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: Let me try this. Will the minister at least admit that the secondary manufacturing sector in this province is hurting?

Hon. R. Thorpe: There's no question that from time to time business groups, business sectors see cyclical changes. Most of us can recall in the 1990s what happened to mining in British Columbia. We now know that mining is back. Mining had gone down to $20 million a year in exploration taking place in British Columbia in the '90s. Last year I think it was up to $265 million.

We actually know that when we work in partnership with groups and chambers of commerce and communities throughout the province that we can find solutions. I'm hopeful that over time we, again, can find solutions.

We live in a global community. We have to be competitive. That's why we've reduced taxes. That's why we're putting more money in people's pockets. That's why we're cutting regulation. From time to time there are going to be cyclical changes, and we'll work to address those.

B. Simpson: Between 2000 and 2005 the secondary manufacturing sector experienced a drop in the number

of establishments in every employee size category. Such a decrease in establishments likely resulted from an overall employment reduction ranging from 4,600 to 7,800 workers. That's within this government's mandate, not the 1990s.

Again, my question to the minister is: will he admit that that sector is in steep decline and deep trouble? And what will this minister do to lead some form of action plan around addressing this sector's needs?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have attempted to answer this question, in that we work with sectors — the Minister of Economic Development, myself and other ministers. We will continue to do that.

B. Simpson: What does that work look like? What is it exactly that the minister is going to do? We've already heard that all he does is pass on verbal information to the other ministries when it comes to whatever happens in this round table with respect to e-filing, with respect to the regulation for small and medium-sized businesses.

Here's another angle to see how informed the minister is about this sector that he thought, at the beginning of the questioning, was actually still doing okay. What is it that is the most troublesome aspect of operating in this province under this government for secondary manufacturing?

It's my understanding, Madam Chair, that I asked a question. My expectation is that I get an answer.

The Chair: The minister does not appear to be answering the question. I suggest that the member move on to a new line of questions.

The minister's answer is not satisfactory. I asked and rephrased the question to be more explicit. My question is more explicit than it was before. I asked what the minister understands to be the root problems that are creating trouble in this ministry and why it's in decline. That's a new question. It's my understanding of the estimates process that the minister has an obligation on behalf of British Columbians to answer the question.

Hon. R. Thorpe: If I heard the question correctly, the member referred to my ministry. My ministry is working very progressively with all ministries in government. We attempt to address and work hard at addressing concerns and questions. We bring those to people that are responsible.

But you know, hon. Chair, maybe what I could do is…. If the member has some recommendations or thoughts in this area that would be helpful in moving forward in the interest of everyone working together on behalf of British Columbia rather than partisan politics, I'd be very pleased to receive his written comments.

B. Simpson: I love the default to partisan politics whenever the questions get too hard for a minister to answer.

Here's the question again. The minister went around this province, heard from all kinds of people around this province. The minister made a statement here under questioning that there is not one sector that's struggling. The minister's own data shows that that is simply categorically false. That's not partisan politics. Those are the facts.

My question to the minister is: based on his experience, what is it that he heard from the sector or is hearing from the sector that is causing them to be in decline?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, again I would extend, through you to the member, that if he has some concrete inputs and thoughts on how everyone could work constructively, I would be more than pleased to receive them.

Let me tell you that the consultations that took place in the province were very meaningful — 18 different communities and hundreds of small businesses, even in the Chair's own riding.

The recommendation of the permanent Small Business Roundtable was to focus on reducing the complexity for PST; working to ensure that our regulatory burden and the successes that we have achieved in British Columbia — even though some members on the other side of the House want to discount those — are put in place; working with the federal government and municipal governments; and continuing to work within government to find ways to get more skilled and skillable workers in British Columbia, even though we've had the highest job creation of any jurisdiction in Canada.

B. Simpson: With respect to the minister's question about us helping out, I thought that they were elected as government to actually lead the province and to do the job of governing the province. If I hear the minister right, he's inviting us. If he wants to play partisan politics, the people of British Columbia can elect us for government. We will lead instead of asking the opposition to help us to govern.

My question to the minister is very simple. Let me try a couple of other angles. I'm trying to understand the role of this ministry in the small business sector. It is absolutely unclear. It's unclear to the secondary manufacturing sector, which I stand here and represent their interests today.

Did the minister engage in any discussions about the implications of the softwood lumber agreement on the secondary manufacturing sector? Was he consulted, and did he engage in an appraisal of the impacts of the softwood lumber agreement on the secondary manufacturing sector in this province?

Hon. R. Thorpe: All questions related to the softwood lumber agreement should be addressed to the Minister of Forests.

B. Simpson: I take that as a no. When I talk to the Minister of Forests, I know I'm going to be asked to talk

to Mr. Ken Dobell, a contract bureaucrat who's running the softwood lumber agreement out of the Premier's office.

Let me ask a second question: is the minister involved or engaged in any way in the log export policy review, looking at it for its implications for the secondary manufacturing sector, which again falls within the domain of Small Business?

The Chair: I am going to intervene as the Chair. I think that these questions have been put several times to the minister. The minister has responded, and I would recommend that the member move on to a new line of questioning.

B. Simpson: Thank you, Madam Chair. I thought log exports was the first time I'd asked that question.

Let me complete my line of questioning then — since it doesn't appear that I'm going to get anywhere — with a final question: what does the minister do with the round-table document that he provides B.C. Stats, documentation on the small business profile for the province, with respect to a specific action plan for small and medium-sized business in this province? Does it roll up to an action plan, and if so, where does that action plan exist?

The Chair: Before I recognize the minister, I want to make it clear that in the line of questioning around forest matters, the minister has made it very clear in several answers that he believes the appropriate place for those questions is the Ministry of Forests.

Hon. R. Thorpe: One of the things that did come out of our consultations with small business as a result of the Small Business Roundtable was that government should come forward with a small business action plan. During the coming fiscal year we will be coming forward with that action plan.

G. Robertson: I will just circle back. I asked the minister questions related to PST exemption and the Energy Star–certified doors and windows, which will no longer be PST exempt — another clear example of where value-added and secondary industries from B.C.'s forest products industry are being hard hit.

Given the fact that the ministry's own materials, looking at the small business profile in the province and being fully aware of the condition of the value-added industry and the small businesses involved in it here in B.C…. Did the ministry take into consideration the state of the industry when the decision to no longer exempt door and window manufacturers from PST was made?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I have said at least three or four times, tax policy is the purview of the Minister of Finance, and tax policy questions should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.

G. Robertson: A question, then, to the Minister of Small Business: was he consulted by the Minister of Finance around the decision related to the Energy Star exemption in the tax implication for small businesses? Was he consulted by the minister?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Once again, tax policy issues are the purview of the Minister of Finance and should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.

The Chair: To the member: this appears to be the same situation we were in a minute ago, only a different ministry. I would request that the member move on, away from tax policy, as the minister has made it clear on several occasions that that is the purview of the Ministry of Finance.

G. Robertson: Thank you, Madam Chair. It must be clear by now how alarmed the members of the opposition are here that the minister has not taken an active role to protect and represent small businesses, particularly in the value-added sector, not only in concrete steps related to the challenges in that industry but in terms of new tax measures brought in by the Minister of Finance. The minister doesn't appear to have taken an active role on behalf of the small businesses, and in fact will now be collecting $23 million more tax revenue from those businesses, which is extremely disappointing.

I am going to move back to a couple of questions that are related to the government objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The minister pointed out that the new PST exemptions related to the oil and gas industry total less than $1 million. I'm curious how these exemptions fit within the government's objectives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Hon. R. Thorpe: In government I'm not responsible for environmental issues. That's the Ministry of Environment. The government has been very clear that they will be coming forward with a climate action plan, and those questions should be addressed to the appropriate individuals.

G. Robertson: A broader question, perhaps, then. What is the ministry doing generally to help small businesses in B.C. with climate change initiatives?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Again, it seems to me that this line of questioning would be better suited for the Minister of Environment and those that are going to develop the climate action plan. That is not the primary responsibility of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

G. Robertson: Again, I will clarify that the members of the opposition here are asking specific questions around small business here in B.C. and the Ministry of Small Business. It appears that when the minister decides not to take any responsibility for small business, the questions get deflected to other ministers.

I'll go as simple as I can. How much does the ministry budget for climate change–related initiatives within the ministry?

The Chair: It appears that the member should perhaps move on to another line of questioning.

G. Robertson: Madam Chair, my understanding is we are here to debate the budget estimates for the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. My question was: how much is the ministry budgeting for climate change–related initiatives within the ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our ministry, under the leadership of my deputy minister and assistant deputy minister, are active participants in government action plans, and we will continue to do that. Perhaps….

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm not sure whether the member over there wanted to say something or not. If he did, I could sit down, or I could continue if he is going to be quiet.

Hon. R. Thorpe: My deputy minister, assistant deputy ministers and myself as a minister are very active participants in government plans and government actions. Our government has been very clear that it will develop an action plan this year. Our government will do that, and we will be active participants in it.

Unfortunately, sometimes people think it's all about dollars and cents. It's not about dollars and cents; it's about priorities. When our government comes out with its climate action plan, it is going to lead North America. Our ministry will re-establish its priorities, and we will be there to participate.

The Chair: Perhaps I could remind members that the minister has made it very clear that this ministry is not the lead ministry on climate change, nor is it the lead ministry on forest policy, nor is it the lead ministry on environmental policy. I would ask members, once again, if they could direct their questions according to the appropriations that this ministry deals with.

G. Robertson: By the sounds of it, there is no budgeted line related to climate change within the ministry. The minister made it clear that there is work ongoing but nothing budgeted. My understanding from previous questions was that there was nothing within the regulatory regime related to climate change that's envisioned in this upcoming year as well.

I want to bring us back to the PST exemptions with a question about environmental products, which have been raised by a number of small business stakeholders as being excellent examples of products that should be PST exempt, if the government is intending to support a greener B.C. It's certainly related to the goals and targets laid out in the throne speech.

Yet there was nothing in this round of PST exemptions related to environmental products. Can the minister comment on whether that is work that is in progress and if we can expect to see PST exemptions related to environmental products in the year ahead?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, apparently the opposition didn't hear your guidance on such matters. The Minister of Finance has been very clear that during the coming year our government will be laying out an action plan, a climate action plan. I know that the opposition feel like they are being left behind again, so now they want to nitpick.

We are going to establish our goals. We are going to achieve our benchmarks in British Columbia. It's really quite interesting to me that, actually, our government started talking about it back in 2005, and here we are in 2007 now.

What did we say one of our great goals for our golden decade would be? How about number 4: to lead the world in sustainable environment management with best air and water quality and best fisheries management, bar none. That's actually what British Columbia is going to do.

We inherited an economy that had been destroyed in the 1990s by some of the members on that side of the House. But working together with all British Columbians, British Columbia now has a diversified, strong economy. Now, with the latest budget, we have the lowest income tax rates for those earning less than $108,000 of any jurisdiction in Canada. We have the third-highest threshold. We have the second-lowest small business tax rate. We've lowered business taxes from 16.5 percent to 12 percent.

British Columbia is competitive once again. We're leading Canada in job creation. Things are booming in British Columbia.

You know what we're going to do with our climate action plan? We're going to build a plan. We're going to go out, we're going to achieve it systematically, and we are going to lead North America.

Are there going to be some changes in tax policies as we go forward? Again, I would say to the member: tax policy questions should be addressed to the Minister of Finance.

G. Robertson: My line of questions there, and we seem to be making good progress on it, related to the PST exemptions. It was just a question about what didn't make it onto this list of PST exemptions. Clearly, the minister is not interested in engaging on anything related to climate change or environment. So we'll leave it, and those stakeholders can play the waiting game.

I have some questions now related to EDS advance solutions and revenue collection.

G. Robertson: Some questions related to revenue collection, and first of all, on the consolidation of revenue streams. Last year the minister provided us with a list of, I believe, about 40 revenue streams for which the member was responsible. Has this list remained the same, or are there new revenue streams that have since been consolidated or on-boarded into the ministry?

G. Robertson: Is it the minister's intention to transition all of the accounts management systems within government into this ministry, or is that work done?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The answer is to consolidate it in a centre of excellence over time.

G. Robertson: If I may, my colleague from North Coast just has a quick question related to his constituency.

G. Coons: Thank you for the opportunity. Just to the minister. I realize you must get lots of mail and correspondence, but this is just a constituent of mine up in Meziadin, a Mr. Tom Kingshott, who had a problem with his homeowner grant. There is a situation where Mr. Kingshott, who lives in Meziadin…. The population is about ten. It is his main residence. He is on disability. He has a son with special needs. He was disentitled to the homeowner grant, and he owes $1,500.

He did appeal it, but there are some situations here where his disability in Meziadin…. He can't live there full-time because of the weather conditions and the snow. The closest bank is three hours away. There is no phone, no Internet. Mail is sporadic, and his mailing address is at his mother-in-law's in Prince Rupert. So he travels there in the winter months.

It's the only property he owns, and it says that to qualify for the homeowner grant, he must be the registered owner of the property — which he is, a permanent resident — and it must be his principal residence. They indicated that because of his phone number and address on his licence, he's ineligible and has to give back $1,500.

You did get some correspondence on that. I would just hope that you would look at the situation with this elderly gentleman who owes $1,500 and might quickly intervene and see if we can look at something to alleviate the situation so he doesn't have to have that concern of paying back $1,500 on his $1,100-a-month disability cheque.

You did correspond back to me on this, saying that it's going through the process. I just hope that we can fast-track it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member for his question. Yes, I did receive correspondence from the member on February 12. I responded to the member on February 20. I did say that our appeals and litigation branch would be following up. I can assure you that they will do a thorough job and take into account all the facts that have been raised in this matter.

G. Coons: Just one comment. At this time of year it might be hard to reach him because he's back and forth. Again, I hope that perhaps the minister could take this situation under some sort of special circumstance and review it himself. Thank you so much.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As is the process in our government, I do personally review all appeals. My expectation is that I would be reviewing this one also.

G. Robertson: Returning now to the questions related to revenue collection. Specifically, I have some questions related to EDS or EAS. I am curious. In terms of the ten-year contract that was signed with EAS, since taking over management of revenue collections, has EAS, the provider, had any fines or any issues resulting from inadequate service or not meeting its contractual obligations?

G. Robertson: I'm curious what regulations the government has in place to ensure the proper conduct of EAS in this, or in the case of other companies that are contracted through the B.C. alternative service delivery secretariat. Are there regulations and an audit system in place to monitor these contracts?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We have in place a very comprehensive master service agreement with very, very tight restrictions. In fact, we have 42 additional privacy and secrecy matters embedded in our contract that surpass the laws of British Columbia. We will not compromise the protection of personal and private information. We also have the right to do audits at our choice. We have, we believe, a very tight management of this situation. The staff responsible, my associate deputy minister and my deputy minister, take the management of this very, very seriously, as do all of our team that work on this.

I think it's important for us to also look at what we were. One of the areas we were striving to do was to make sure that we improved customer service. In January of 2005 customer contacts were averaging about 97,600. Today our 2006 average contacts is 183,000 per month. In fact, before we started this in 2004, customers were complaining of busy signals. We were able to track 27,000 people having a busy signal. Now that's down to zero.

Call wait times, from a billing and remittance perspective, ran at 15.9 minutes. We've got that down to 3.2 minutes. Now, on average, we're running at 2.1 minutes. First-call resolution — that is when someone calls in with a difficulty, a challenge, an issue — is now running at a satisfaction achievement rate of 96 percent against our target of 75 percent.

All in all, I think the employees…. I think there were about 177 employees that were members of the BCGEU who transferred over to EAS. They did a good job when they were in government. They're doing a great job at Advanced Solutions. In fact, I believe 44 out of that 177 have gained promotions within the organization and are providing great customer service for all British Columbians.

G. Robertson: Maybe just to focus for a minute on the staff that did move over to EDS. My understanding is that they were guaranteed the ability to return to the public service if they chose to do so at some point. I'm curious if any have returned and if that option to return to the public service is an open-ended option or if the window has closed, or will close, for those employees.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, 177 government workers — actually, members of the BCGEU — did transfer over there. They had the right to come back to government for two years. That opportunity expired in December of 2006.

I did say that so far in 2005 and 2006 a total of 45 employees have gained internal promotions within the organization, and 11 have retired. So out of the 177 employees that did transfer over to Advanced Solutions, 136 remain employed there.

G. Robertson: The call centres that are used to deal with the revenue collection — are those all located here in B.C. or Canada? Or can you give some more information as to where EAS's operations are?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our centre of excellence is located at the Vancouver Island Technology Park. I've actually toured the facility.

It's interesting. When I was Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, I toured that when it was a vacant building, or for all intents and purposes a vacant building, made over — now the Vancouver Island Technology Park. I don't know if it's 100-percent full, but it's almost full.

I visited it and talked to employees — obviously, some that I knew when some of them worked just across the street here. They have fantastic working conditions. They are enjoying it. They all have windows in their offices. They have great lunchrooms. They have great team spirit.

The facilities are located here in British Columbia, and we're hopeful in time that we'll have more employment, more opportunities created here in British Columbia. Our goal is to have a centre of excellence for revenue management right here in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Is it the minister's guarantee that all of the jobs related to revenue management and collection in B.C. will be located here in B.C. going forward?

Hon. R. Thorpe: My goal is to have a centre of excellence for revenue management located here in British Columbia. My goal is to expand and consolidate it and to have all of the government services related to that here in B.C. Our goal is to try to attract over time other jurisdictions to do the work here in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Can the minister confirm that it's still the minister's intention, then, that all revenue management be turned over to EAS? Is that the intention?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The goal, the intention, is to consolidate the 40 revenue streams throughout government in British Columbia into the centre of excellence into Advanced Solutions. That was the business case that was built in. That's still the vision as we move forward.

G. Robertson: And just to be clear, when the minister says centre of excellence, the minister is talking about EDS Advanced Solutions, which is a private company on contract to do the revenue management for the government of British Columbia? Is that correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The government owns the mark Revenue Services of British Columbia. That's a government mark, and that is contracted to Advanced Solutions to pursue the centre of excellence. As the member rightly points out, we have a contract which has renewal periods, etc. Our goal is to build that centre of excellence here together with our partners for the benefit of all British Columbians.

G. Robertson: The management of revenue management. Does there continue to be a managerial function within the ministry related to revenue management, or has that in fact been contracted out as well?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, there is an oversight and compliance function within the ministry.

G. Robertson: Is there a management team in place at EDS Advanced Solutions here in B.C., or is the management aspect of the contract in fact managed from their head office outside of Canada?

The Chair: May I remind the parties to direct their remarks through the Chair.

G. Robertson: In terms of the information systems, do all of the information and the databases related to revenue management now reside within the EDS Advanced Solutions itself, or is there a parallel and constantly updated database within government as well? And are those synced, or does all that now reside at EDS Advanced Solutions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The revenue management system platform that has been built is located here in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: The platform's located in British Columbia. I'm curious if all of that is in fact with the private contractor now or if the government maintains that database as well and those databases are linked.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The government's databases interface with revenue management services.

G. Robertson: Forgive me. I'm still not clear. There continues to be a government database for revenue management that is updated by the contractor?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Ministries retain the registry. The data is transferred to the RMS. The RMS is responsible for account management, payment management, billing management and collections management.

G. Robertson: Well, just to be clear there. The minister is saying RMS, which is a new acronym into this exchange of questions.

G. Robertson: Which is EDS Advanced Solutions. Can the minister just clarify? EDS Advanced Solutions is the private contractor managing revenue collection, revenue services. It also has revenue management services as a component of its business. Can you clarify what the relationship is between those?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Revenue services British Columbia is a mark of the province of British Columbia. Advanced Solutions is an alternative delivery supplier that provides the services. Ministries register the data. They transfer the data to Revenue Services, to Advanced Solutions. They do the account work. They do the billing work. They do the payment work. They do the collection work and maintain the accounts.

G. Robertson: Maybe we'll just finish this little piece here. So revenue management services is in what way related to Advanced Solutions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Revenue services British Columbia is the brand or the trademark that is owned by the province. Advanced Solutions is the alternative service deliverer that provides the services. Ministries are the registry point. They collect data; they transfer data; and then Advanced Solutions does the collection, the billing, the account work and that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: RMS is just a technical term for the revenue management system. It's a system. Sorry, that's my fault. Sorry about that.

G. Robertson: Noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress on the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue 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.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 25

S. Simpson	Fleming	Kwan
Ralston	B. Simpson	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Lali
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Robertson	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chouhan	Macdonald
	Conroy

	NAYS — 40

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad