Hansard — Tuesday, March 6, 2007 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5809
	Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 10)
	Hon. G. Abbott

Throne Speech Debate (continued)		5809
	C. Evans
	Hon. I. Chong
	R. Fleming
	Hon. G. Hogg

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		5825
	Estimates: Ministry of Small Business and Revenue and Minister Responsible for Regulatory Reform (continued)
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Thorpe

TOBACCO SALES (BANNING TOBACCO AND
SMOKING IN PUBLIC PLACES AND SCHOOLS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 10, entitled Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm very pleased to introduce these amendments today. In November of last year government committed to phase out smoking in all indoor places in B.C. by 2008 and to end smoking in all schools and on all school grounds by September of this year.

Today we're taking another step forward, an important step forward, to address this critical issue for all British Columbians' health. The proposed changes will amend the Tobacco Sales Act to ban smoking in all indoor places, limit the promotion and sale of tobacco products in British Columbia, and prohibit smoking in schools and on school grounds throughout the province.

While we're pleased to have the lowest smoking rate in Canada, smoking still kills an estimated 6,000 people in British Columbia each year and costs the British Columbia economy $2.3 billion every year. With these amendments we're taking aggressive action to reduce these unacceptable numbers.

Passive smoking is dangerous, sometimes even lethal. In fact, it kills as many as 140 people in this province every year. Bill 10 addresses this very serious problem. To better protect B.C. citizens and avoid these preventable deaths, this amendment bans smoking in restaurants, pubs and private clubs, offices, malls, conference centres, sports arenas, community halls, government buildings and schools — wherever people gather in public places, whether for education, business or leisure.

The changes to the Tobacco Sales Act will also limit the promotion and sale of tobacco products throughout B.C. To protect our children from being confronted with tobacco marketing every time they go to a corner store, this amendment bans outdoor tobacco signs as well as the display of tobacco products in all indoor places where tobacco is sold that are accessible to youth under 19 years of age. It includes a ban on ads that hang from the ceiling, countertop displays, self-serve displays and products like lighters and caps with tobacco brands on them. And we're taking this a step further.

I move that Bill 10 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 10, Tobacco Sales (Banning Tobacco and Smoking in Public Places and Schools) Amendment Act, 2007, 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.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued debate on the throne speech and in Committee A, estimates debate — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

C. Evans: I had the honour of closing debate yesterday, and I suggested that it might be a better idea if I went away and came back 24 hours later in a better humour in order to deliver a more philosophical and less reactionary statement. I am pleased to get the opportunity this morning.

I rise to speak about the throne speech. For those people not in this room who don't understand what a throne speech is, I'll just give a little bit of background. A throne speech is a very strange tradition or phenomenon of English parliamentary culture. Once a year a person comes in this building — the Lieutenant-Governor, quite a wonderful woman who used to be MP in Haida Gwaii and Prince Rupert — and she reads a speech that she didn't write. She uses the pronoun "my" or "our" when she refers to the government.

The Lieutenant-Governor is actually, I think, a representative of the Queen. She's reading a speech that she didn't write saying what the government will do, and the press gallery refers to that speech as written by the Premier. But we in this building are all sure that the Premier didn't write it.

Actually, once a year there's an event where an anonymous speech is read out loud that says the government's objectives, and nobody knows who actually wrote it. Then, for the rest of the year, the government attempts to live up to the content of the throne speech, read by a representative of the Queen and written by someone we've never met.

This year's throne speech contained some quite wonderful words. Even though I get wages to oppose the government, I have to give praise to the Lieutenant-

Governor or the Premier or the anonymous author of the speech for recognition in the Speech from the Throne that climate change is real.

I'll just read a couple of words from the throne speech, because I think everybody in the province has waited for the day when people in this building finally come to grips with the notion that we have to manage our own pollution and attempt to do something to see that the planet survives.

The Speech from the Throne read by the Lieutenant-Governor in 2007 — that's this year — said: "British Columbia will take concerted provincial action to halt and reverse the growth in greenhouse gases." The Lieutenant-Governor said: "The government will act now and will act deliberately." The Lieutenant-Governor said: "The science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real."

Hon. Speaker, I think there are thousands of citizens, especially younger people, who have waited years — maybe in some cases decades — to hear: "The science is clear. Global warming is real."

I would like to dedicate this speech to a gentleman who lives in my constituency named David Lewis. David Lewis has been talking about climate change since before I was first elected in 1991. I remember David Lewis coming to meetings when we, government and citizens, were engaged in battles over the attempt to double the amount of provincial parkland from 6 percent to 12 percent.

There would be a whole bunch of people in the room. Some are for parks, some are against parks, and they're all arguing what the best thing to do with the land would be. David Lewis would say: "Excuse me. It doesn't make any difference. If you don't deal with climate change, you're going to have a park, and all the trees inside the park will die. Then who wins? Do the loggers win? Does the environmental community win or the recreationists win? No." He kept pounding the table and saying: "When are we going to deal with what science is telling us?"

This is now — what? — 17 years ago. Year after year after year we, the leaders — both sides of this building, regardless of who governed — found it difficult to say publicly from your chair, hon. Speaker, what we all knew in our hearts, which was that the way we govern, and maybe even the way we live, was precluding the future for our own children and grandchildren.

I think every culture — I hope every culture in the world — starts out thinking that their job is to leave the world better than they found it for their kids and future generations. Once we began to understand climate change, it became clear that we — our generation and the people in this room on both sides, our leadership — were the first generation that might not be able to say they left the world better than they found it.

I want to talk a little bit about the enormity of this idea of sustainability. I think that the big political ideas of my grandparents' time and my parents' time essentially came from the analysis of Adam Smith, who wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776 — that would be about 250 or 300 years ago — defining how capitalism worked and, to some extent, how a world economy worked. Then Karl Marx in 1848 wrote The Communist Manifesto defining an alternative.

The big events of the previous century — world wars, the evolution of the Soviet Union, the détente between what they called East and West…. All of the politics of my parents' time derived from essentially the struggle — I would argue a very healthy struggle — between the principles of capitalism and the principles of socialism, as defined by philosophers Adam Smith and Karl Marx in previous generations.

The biggest idea of my parents' era, my mom and dad, was this idea of social democracy — this idea, which evolved in their time, that citizens who we represent, voters, had a way to choose. You didn't just get a capitalist or a socialist society because of who had the most power or the most guns, but because citizens could choose and create a balance. That idea we — everybody who is sitting here — inherited. We didn't think it up.

I think the biggest idea of our generation started on August 14, 1959, when a rocket ship — I think called Explorer 6 — went up in the sky and took a photograph of Earth. For the very first time in the lives of anybody in this room or anybody watching at home, we found out that what we thought was endless — there would always be another territory to go conquer, and there would always be another country, another continent to explore — was actually finite. Our generation began to talk about words like spaceship earth or the lifeboat earth or the idea that the planet was finite.

Out of that photograph grew the only real new political idea of my generation, which was the idea that maybe the world wasn't just a struggle between ideological constructs of capitalism or socialism. Maybe both had an obligation to try to see to it that that blue-green globe was sustained. That was not part of the analysis of my parents' generation, for whom growth was an infinite objective.

Once we saw that picture in 1959, I think all of us began to figure out that the growth and prosperity and the well-being — the money that sent us to college, the money that saw to it that there was a car in every garage, the money that saw to it that we could have the dream of a home for every citizen…. All of that was essentially built on the prosperity of cheap energy post–World War II, fuelled by hydrocarbons. Maybe, as David Lewis kept trying to tell us, that growth was in fact killing us.

Now what do you do, hon. Speaker? How do you govern? How do you lead when it turns out that the very system that you put in place for the well-being of your citizens…? Whether you are ideologically committed to the capitalist solution or a socialist alternative, it doesn't really matter. The system might be killing the very people that you represent. It's a challenge, eh? It's a huge challenge.

The notion that we all get elected, and our political parties, our leaders, ourselves…. What do we say? We

say: "Elect me, and maybe we'll have to tighten our belts. Maybe it will be tough for a while, but we'll make it better for your kids." That's the essential promise. In any democratic system, you have to be able to promise to make it better. Better continually means ever-increasing levels of consumption and ever-building levels of consumption, which of course means ever-building levels of growth, ever drawing out of the earth cheap energy in order to pay for it forever.

I started thinking maybe this was a little impossible. I remember in 1996, when I was running against Joan Smallwood and Glen Clark in your town, hon. Speaker — in Surrey. We were having a debate, and I was trying to get to be leader of my party. I made a little speech and said: "You know what? I think growth is maybe killing the planet. Maybe we should talk about the politics of less." Wow, did I get creamed from the audience and from the other people I was debating, Mr. Clark and Ms. Smallwood.

The politics of less was seen as an abdication. It was losing the dream of always making it better. I learned that day to never, ever repeat those words and talk about the politics of less, because we couldn't handle the idea that we could ever have a ceiling on never-ending prosperity.

Hon. Speaker, I wish it hadn't gone like that. That was 1996. That's ten years ago. We lost a decade when we could have shifted the debate away from consumption levels, ever-increasing consumption, to some kind of conversation about quality of life. How do you live? Do you have to always have the biggest car, the fanciest suit? Do you have to live in the poshest home? Or could you have a different quality of life? Could it be that the cement is choking us down on the ground as much as the pollution in the sky is choking us up above? How would we begin to talk about it?

If what the government talked about in the throne speech…. If they actually mean it where they say the science is clear, it leaves no room for procrastination, then how do you govern? I would submit to you, hon. Speaker, and to the folks over there and to everybody at home that you've got to start with restructuring everything about how we do what we do.

How can we measure the well-being or the success of a government with what they call gross domestic product, once we discover that gross domestic product is maybe suffocating our planet? I mean, it just sounds bad — gross domestic product. It almost sounds like immoral domestic product.

GDP is named in the budget 88 times, every single time the Lieutenant-Governor said: "Here's our debt-to-GDP ratio; here's our spending-to-GDP ratio; here's how much we spend on health compared to GDP." We measure every single thing we do by gross domestic product, when divorce is part of the gross domestic product. If I get cancer, making me well is part of the gross domestic product. If an ocean liner hits a rock and spills oil, picking it up is part of the gross domestic product. Tragedy is part of the gross…. Crime is part of the gross domestic….

Why on earth would we measure everything we do against almost an obscene number, except that it's tradition? We did it in this century. We did it in the 1990s, in the 1980s, in the 1970s. Essentially, the bond-rating agencies want the government to measure everything they do against GDP, and it's maybe immoral.

I would submit that if what the Lieutenant-Governor said is real and we're actually going to deal with climate change, then we should never have another budget come into this room where GDP is the measure of success. The 88 times that it was mentioned in this budget speech has got to cease.

Right now, if we're actually going to deal with it, Mr. Premier, tell your Minister of Finance to go out and invent another measurement. Go meet with the bond agencies, meet with the big heads at UBC, meet with whoever you have to, to find a way to measure our well-being that actually measures pain, pollution, disease and crime and deducts that stuff from well-being. If we're going to deal with climate change, you can't have an old-fashioned, industrial sort of system budget following a throne speech that says climate change is real. It's over.

We live in a province where the people own the land. I love that. I talk about it all the time. Some 97 percent of the land owned by the people — certainly the only province in Canada, the only jurisdiction in North America, and I'm not sure if there are any others in the world. Certainly the people in British Columbia, under a capitalist system, own more of the land than the people in the Soviet Union did under communism.

We own the means of production. We are the stewards of the land, and that means equity. But in the budget that followed the speech on climate change, the word "equity" was only mentioned three times. Apparently, we are living on cash flow. We are like young people living on their credit cards. We aren't talking in our budget about equity.

Do we take care of the land? Do we sell the land? Do we degrade the land? If we do, we have to deduct that from…. You can't have a throne speech that says we're going to deal with climate change and measure it all by gross domestic product and never consider the value of the equity that you're passing on to future generations. Otherwise, I don't actually get why people would come to work here. Exactly why would people on either side want to work in this building to pass on a degraded land base to the next generation? I don't think anybody would.

Unless it's spin. My God, if it's spin, it's the biggest lie we've heard in this building. No, we're not allowed to say "lie." What's a good word for misleading the people? If it's spin, it is the largest immoral gesture to come into this building in a very, very long time. I worry that it's spin.

I'll give you an example, hon. Speaker. Just yesterday the member down here at the end of this row, the Liberal gentleman from Prince George–Omineca, was quoting me on the subject of climate change. He was reading a sentence. I've heard the Minister of Environment read it. I've heard other people in this building

read it. He's reading a sentence that I wrote last year encouraging my party to deal with the issue of climate change, and he reads it as if the people on this side have no opinion.

That gentleman didn't even read the article that he was quoting from. He'd never seen the article he was quoting from. I know that because every time anyone asked, I'd go ask them. They've never read it. They got it from their public relations staff. Those 24-year-olds went to college, and then the Premier hires them. They go through the computer, and they take out quotes and stick them in their speeches. It has no bearing on the truth. Or doesn't the truth matter here?

If a person reads a sentence that comes out of context from a larger document — one that I, by the way, am proud of — and he's never read the document, does that constitute misleading the House? Or because he didn't actually write it there…. It was written by some child somewhere else in the public relations department. Is somebody not working in this building, whose name we don't know, misleading the House? And if they can do that, then can they write a throne speech that they don't even mean? Where is the line between coming in here with integrity, saying words you believe and can write, and just acting as an actor?

You know what? There are people over there who should be getting actor wages. There should be a picket line out front, because there are actors over there who haven't even bothered joining the actors union. They are reading words that they don't understand written by somebody we've never met and degrading the world of ideas. If you can lift stuff out of context and just use it against people, then, of course, soon people on both sides will quit engaging in the world of ideas. Public discourse will die because it's too risky.

If those folks can engage in that activity, exactly what substance is there to make me believe that they meant the words when they said: "Climate change is real, and now we're going to govern differently"? And I want to believe it's real. I want to work here when we actually deal with the issue of growth and try to reinvent our economy.

If it's real, then every single ministry in government has to come forward next year with its own plan. The Ministry of Transportation should deal with how we're going to move people now that we acknowledge climate change. The Minister of Finance has got to come in here with another way of measuring well-being and how they're going to relate to the bond agencies and how we're going to get rid of GDP. Municipal affairs is going to have to talk about how cities can do planning.

Somebody is going to have to talk about the dikes. My kids are living in Steveston. We all know that if climate change is real and if the government admits to it, then they are living where the sea will be unless we begin to reinvest in the dikes.

What about the people in Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley? If climate change is real, when the snow melts where I live and begins to run down the river systems, what do you think is going to happen when it gets to the lower Fraser? Municipal affairs or whoever is going to have to deal….

You can't say climate change is real and not deal with its ramifications. What about Environment? What about the Ministry of Forests? If climate change is real, are we still going to keep planting Jack pine all over the land? If it's real, then the government in the next year is going to have to have consultation with every single industry. It's certainly going to have to talk to the forest companies. You're going to have to talk to B.C. Hydro and Columbia Power Corp. You're going to have to talk with the Islands Trust, the Columbia Basin Trust, the Fraser Basin Council. Every business and every institution in this province is going to have to change the way it thinks, now that we have acknowledged that growth is maybe killing us.

I want to close here with a little discussion about how economics works, I figure. I was taught how to do politics by a gentleman who was my friend and my mentor, and has now passed away, named Bob Cunningham. He was a log truck driver and a really good thinker. When I was just getting started, he used to drive the car and lecture me on how to think. "To understand the people in the land base," Bob said, "you know, you'd best understand capitalism and socialism, Cork."

"Capitalism," he said — and you'll probably want to take this out of context too, hon. Member, the next time you're misleading the House — "is the best system there is and that has ever been invented for employing people and making money. But that best system that's ever been invented tends to grow out of control. It's kind of like the cells of your body, Corky. They're healthy. They make your body beautiful, but sometimes they're out of control, and then they grow at an exponential rate and actually kill the body or the body politic."

"So," he said, "for the cancer that is capitalism that is sometimes out of control, socialism is the medicine." Then he explained to me how it works in our party and in Canada generally. Social democracy, he explained, is the system where you have to define your socialist principles in such an attractive way that people will actually walk in a ballot box and make an X, will impose those limitations on the cancer themselves. You cannot impose it on them. It's a beautiful, beautiful notion.

If climate change is real, it's going to take the folks over there, backed up by all the miracle of Adam Smith's analysis, and the folks over here and all that social democracy means about a people's ability to impose limits on themselves in order to control capital…. It's going to take both sides to make it work. It's going to take the invention of a politics that actually means what it says, and that says it is more important to pass on a planet to your grandchildren than it is to work here. Your job, the work you come to do, is more important than the wages or your name up in lights.

It will take a fundamental shift and one that I am honoured to be part of. But God help us, hon. Speaker and folks opposite and my friends, if we come in here next year and it turns out that it was a sham, that it was spin, that it was words out of context because the polls

told them it would help. I think, hon. Speaker, what you have — I hope metaphorically speaking — is me, my party and beyond them the four million citizens of British Columbia suspending belief and judgment while folks opposite, the government, attempt to restructure the state to make their words real.

If it's real, if they mean it, I am here to help. And if it's false, spin, corrupted language in order to fool people one more time, I submit I'll spend the rest of my career trying to see them disappear from this building.

Hon. I. Chong: I begin my comments this morning by, first of all, saying that it certainly is a privilege and an honour to rise and respond to the Speech from the Throne. I was fortunate enough to also offer my comments on the budget speech, and I take every opportunity that I can, whenever a budget and throne speech are introduced, to respond to them, whether I was in opposition or whether I'm in government now. Each and every one of us has a part to play in this Legislature to offer our views on it. I can say that the privilege that I have is afforded me because of the confidence the people of Oak Bay–Gordon Head have provided me to be here in this Legislature, and for that I am always grateful.

I also want to begin, as is the normal practice that I have taken in these last 12 years being in this place, by formally congratulating you, as the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, on being appointed as the Assistant Deputy Speaker; my colleague the member for Kelowna-Mission on being appointed as Deputy Speaker for this session; as well as the member for Burquitlam being appointed Deputy Chair of Committee of the Whole. Work is underway now, and each and every one of you has a task ahead of you that I know requires you to sit for long periods of time, and we in this Legislature are very grateful that you take on that responsibility.

I was interested to hear the comments from the member opposite, the member for Nelson-Creston. As you know, Madam Speaker, he was formerly a member of government before 2001 and had as well been a member of cabinet. Then he left for a time and now has returned and is now a member of the opposition. I can tell him and assure him that I have not only read many things that he has said; I have listened to him. Even before I came to this Legislature in 1996 — I remember being somewhat of a political junkie, I guess, watching and listening to what was happening here — I heard some rather interesting speeches that he made here.

What's most interesting is that sometimes he would say things and then a year or two later, believe it or not…. Not that he contradicted them, but I think he had selective memory as well. So when those of us in this Legislature rise and refute what he says or repeat what he has said, it's because we have heard sometimes some of those things not conveyed in exactly the same way.

Let me first of all put on the record, because he made reference to my colleague from Prince George–Omineca, about comments about what he had done…. It was in an open letter to his constituents on August 29, 2006, where, in fact, he did…. "Our party has no idea how to deal with climate change and its implications for socialist principles." That's what he wrote in a letter to his constituents. So what is it that you would imagine that his constituents expect him to say?

Yes, it's an open letter to his constituents, but he put that phrase, that sentence, in there. If you were a constituent who only read that letter and not everything else he's ever said or espoused, all you could do is read the letter and, in the context of that letter, surmise where he was going to, what he was coming from.

He was pretty clear. Whether it was an apology to his constituents for his failure or an apology that he did not study the matter, I don't know. But it's pretty clear he said that his party — and I presume being a member of the party, and this is 2006 — has no idea how to deal with climate change. Maybe that's what sparked the Leader of the Opposition to address provincial council and start talking about the issue of climate change.

I can tell you that despite what members opposite have been saying, despite what they say about thinking that we have just come to talking about climate change, I would say emphatically that they are wrong. I have been a member of this party, a member of this caucus since 1995-1996, and I know it has been very much a part of our agenda.

One thing that we said when we were elected in 2001: before we can provide any social programs, before we can work on improving the life and quality of citizens of British Columbia, we had better do one thing, and that is to turn the economy around, to make sure we have the fiscal capacity, the fiscal power, the fiscal opportunity to make sure that we can sustain programs, that we can provide for social programs, that we can make sure our communities are strong and vibrant.

I know that there are two different ideologies going on, two different fundamental thinkings that are happening here. Members opposite believe that you must either choose being for the economy or being for the environment. Well, I can tell you that on this side of the House that's not how we're thinking. We believe you can be for both the economy and the environment.

If you strike a balance, if you make sure both are strong, you can be for both. You can bring in policies. You can bring in programs that make sure that both the economy and the environment will do well and do well for our citizens in our communities. We have proven that, and we've done that.

I know it's extremely hard for members opposite to accept that, because their philosophical belief is that it's one or the other. That's not what we're saying. I'm extremely proud of where we're going.

I'm also extremely proud because I have this opportunity to respond to the throne speech. As I say, 12 consecutive years of being in this Legislature…. I can say that this has been the most visionary, the most bold, the most inspiring throne speech that I have heard, and I say so because it has set targets. It has provided a vision not just for the next election and not for next year; it is looking out to 2010, to 2015, to 2020.

After all, that's what I hear from constituents. They say: "Why is it that when people are elected, they only think out to the next term?" We have never been a party or a caucus that has only thought out to the next term. We have always gone beyond. We have always been bolder. Perhaps that is why it has been difficult sometimes for people to accept and gather that kind of understanding. For so long governments after governments have only produced throne speeches that have been so limiting. Ours has not been limiting.

The one item I want to stress in the throne speech, which I highlighted and I've spoken about, is at the very beginning of the throne speech, on page 5. I look at it, and I still remain in awe of it at times. It says here in the throne speech: "At the heart of the government's agenda lies this simple question: what can we do today to secure the future for our children and grandchildren?"

That is exactly what this throne speech is about. You know, to hear members scoff at that…. Yet they talk about their children and grandchildren. Why is it they cannot look deep down into the content? Why is it that they will not even listen to who, I would imagine, in the past have not been strong supporters of ours but strong supporters of theirs, who have come out and said that our throne speech is in fact a good step forward?

What they've said is that it does provide vision. I know it's been quoted already by others in the House who have responded, but I can't help but also provide this into the Hansard for future reference — the fact that we had a world-renowned, well-respected, award-winning University of Victoria climatologist, Dr. Andrew Weaver, state that he was "taken aback and stunned" about the Speech from the Throne.

He also said: "It is the most progressive plan that I've seen anywhere in North America for a start, and one of the best in the world." That's what he said. Then he went on further to say: "This is the way to go. This is great leadership. It really is super."

Are we to take the words of the members of the opposition, even if they want to scoff at things that we have to say…? This is a world-renowned climatologist — an award-winning professor, I might add. I have met him on a couple of occasions. I saw when the University of Victoria awarded him a special teaching excellence award.

For him to say that it's "the most progressive plan I've seen anywhere in North America…." He didn't say anywhere in Canada. North America. Are you disputing this gentleman's comments? If you are, you should say so. He said it's one of the best in the world. Again, I challenge members opposite: are you disputing this climatologist?

I'm not going to even try to put any descriptive into this. I'm just going to accept the fact that he's taken a look at what we've done. He's perhaps even checked out our recent energy plan. He's looking at the targets, and he is firmly believing that, as he said: "This is great leadership. It really is super."

I'm just very grateful that independent thinkers and specialists and experienced people such as Dr. Weaver felt compelled to provide those remarks. He is, after all, one of the most sought-after experts in the field. Again, I want to say on the record that I want to convey my appreciation for his comments. They were not solicited on any part. I think I was just as surprised as members opposite were.

I want to also speak a little bit about other parts in the throne speech that will relate to things that our government is doing. As I say, we have made a commitment that is forward-thinking, a commitment that is visionary, a commitment to ensure that we have vibrant, sustainable communities, and that, in fact, we do have the best place on earth here to raise our families, the best place to invest, the best place just to be, in terms of comparison to the rest of the Canada.

I can say, having spoken to my counterparts across Canada and having visited in communities, that there is a feeling of optimism around that this province is a leader. It's a leader not just in comparison to other provinces but right across Canada. We are leading by example on many fronts.

We certainly have led on the economic revitalization front. Our fiscal renewal has been achieved. The fact that we have a triple-A credit rating, the first time since 1983…. I know members opposite don't think much of that, but it is an amazing achievement. You know, two credit downgrades when the NDP were in opposition. We have had credit upgrades, and now this, of all things, the cap: the triple-A credit rating. Only three jurisdictions: the federal government; the Alberta government — who has no debt, mind you; and our government…. That holds us in pretty good stead, I would say. That puts us in pretty good company.

As I say, to have a strong economy allows us to afford the sustainable programs that we need for the environment, for those most vulnerable. But if we allow our economy to spiral downwards again, as it did in the '90s, we will end up at a position where not only can we not offer help to our citizens, but we will have our young people leaving this province in droves, as they did in the '90s.

I know that sometimes it's very difficult for members opposite to hear that, but we have personal examples. We have them in our constituencies all the time. I know they like to raise things that occur in their constituency, which people said. Things were so much worse off in the '90s that now their children have hope for the future. We not only want their children to have hope. We also want their grandchildren to have hope.

There is much to be proud of in the work we've done. It's not to be sitting back on our laurels and expecting that change and improvements will continue. We know that it is required of us to continue to look forward and to accept changes as they occur and sometimes to adjust that path if other things are happening around us.

The fact that we now have one of the strongest relationships ever in dealing with first nations is also an important aspect of our government's agenda going forward. We have a Pacific leadership agenda that will allow us to strengthen our relationship with first na-

tions. It allows us to tackle the challenge of global warming. It allows us to address housing and urban sprawl and allows us, as well, very importantly, to open up British Columbia as Canada's Pacific gateway, which will strengthen our economic competitiveness even more.

Right now, things are doing very well in this province in terms of our economy. Our annual unemployment rate has dropped every year during the term of this government. That's every year — from 9.2 percent in 2001 to 8.8 percent in 2002. Now it's around the 4-percent unemployment rate, which is essentially full employment when you really think about it.

But we've also noticed that there are gaps. So we're addressing those — gaps in the first nations aboriginal communities. That's why our agenda and our first nations relationship are so important in dealing with those gaps — gaps in the economic opportunities, gaps in education, gaps in health care.

None of that is acceptable to this government, and I hope that none of that is acceptable to members of the opposition, which is why I will encourage them to support the throne speech. The throne speech will allow us to continue on that movement forward. It will allow us to think about what the future holds for our province, for our communities, for our residents.

I want to go back and talk a little bit more about the environmental agenda and our province's green future, because I believe we do have a green future. We did speak a number of years ago about our government's five goals for the decade ahead. I have said in the past, and I know other members have, that I realize it's difficult for members opposite to grasp. But they think that if it hasn't been achieved yesterday or won't be achieved tomorrow, that's the end of the goal.

We had said that this is for the next decade, and that's the idea — to talk about the future. We know some goals will take longer simply because of the changing demographics around us. We know others will happen quicker. So we do know and we have stated that we can improve our environmental sustainability and have good, sound sustainable environmental management.

We want to lead the world, and that's why it's one of our goals for the next decade. We will reach those goals as long as we can work together in this House. Again, I am asking members opposite to think about why they would vote against this throne speech, which talks about our climate change and about the vision we have. Why would they not want to support this throne speech?

I saw them vote against the budget speech, and that was very unfortunate, because each and every one of them spoke about homelessness and housing. That budget talks about and was dedicated to housing. They voted against that, and I'm still confused as to why. It's just amazing how they could not go through the myriad of their political spin and not see that it really was dedicated to housing.

Community after community — they will see receive additional supports for housing. Again, they voted against the budget. That's quite clear. They have a second chance now, a second chance to redeem themselves and vote for the throne speech, so I hope they'll do that. I really hope they'll do that. I have my doubts, but I'm going to cross every finger and every toe and just wish that they will really look deep into that.

I see some members chuckling — oh, I can cross my toes. Not to worry. I have hope for members opposite that you will read the throne speech yet again. Read it the night before the vote takes place, and then vote in favour. I challenge each and every one of you. We'll see how that goes.

I know that, as I say, we are looking forward to working with community after community, taking a look at the green projects that will be coming on board. We have, in fact, a very aggressive and focused green cities project that my ministry is very much a part of. As the members know, last year at UBCM a number of new programs were initiated that go to the heart of helping communities work towards building vibrant, connected communities that are socially responsible and environmentally sustainable. That was announced in October 2006, so why some of them have made comments about the Premier suddenly having a vision in December while he had taken some time off…. He announced these in October.

Now, those didn't just come about in October. They came about even before then. So if they could just put the reasoning and the time lines in place, they will know that if you keep going back, we will have a pretty clear agenda in going forward. We've been able to roll these things out. Some of them, as I say, take some time. Some of it requires consultation with interest groups and people who have a stake at providing information. So it's pretty clear. Again, I caution the members to think about the comments they make about, I guess, the time lines that they're choosing, because clearly they're incorrect.

Let's talk about the programs that will encourage and support the development of sustainable infrastructure in our communities, reduce greenhouse gases, improve energy efficiency, water stewardship and environmental management. Let's talk about some of those. We have a $40 million LocalMotion program giving local governments extra resources to improve air quality, reduce energy consumption and encourage British Columbians to get out and be more active in their communities.

That's important as well, because as members in the House will know, we have an ActNow initiative. We have a Minister of State for ActNow who is not just putting words into action, he is actually active and out there — and in fact, I might add, looking quite svelte these days. He is eating healthier, and he is going to maintain a healthy and active lifestyle. Our LocalMotion program will allow us to do that in our communities as well.

We have a $20 million B.C. Spirit Squares initiative that will help communities across British Columbia create or enhance outdoor public celebration places. That, too, brings people outdoors, appreciating the outdoors. That, again, is about vibrant communities.

We have our green city awards that we will be presenting at UBCM this year, and they will be highlighting and rewarding outstanding achievements for innovative local projects. I am hoping that there will be some contenders from here on the Island. A number of my colleagues from the Vancouver Island constituencies know that we have some pretty amazing constituencies, amazing communities, and I know that they should be out there encouraging their local governments. In fact, I hope they will encourage their local governments to submit proposals, submit applications. We'll see if they're going to receive that award.

I hope that whatever the members feel about going forward on this, they don't hinder their own local communities, that they will support their own local communities when they submit applications for these various programs, because it is about making sure our communities have safer drinking water, cleaner air and more choices for physical activity.

Again I go to a program that was established not just this past December as members like to think. It was almost three years ago, in 2004 — before I had the privilege of having this portfolio — that the previous ministers responsible, along with the Premier, negotiated with the federal government of the day the very first gas tax transfer agreement.

That is where $635 million has been returned from the federal government treasury to British Columbia over the next five years — $635 million. We were the first province to come to an agreement on that, and that was back in 2004.

That program focuses on exactly where we're headed towards on environmental sustainability. It's about significantly improving our communities and our quality of life. It's about projects that will deal with energy conservation — new ways and uses of making our buildings more green.

People think and members opposite think that this is something new. We did that in 2004. Again, I ask members opposite: go back and look at the time lines. I know it's easy to ignore them, but perhaps you really should take a look at what has been going on and what has got us to that point.

The negotiations that started in 2004 didn't just start in 2004. The process to get us to the table to talk to the federal government perhaps even started in 2003. You know, we're almost five years into getting so many of these things off the ground. But again, it takes time to talk to some of the partners that you want to be involved, time to talk to the communities and time to talk to the federal governments. As they change, we will continue to work with them to make sure British Columbia gets its fair share — that British Columbia will continue to receive the dollars that we need to have environmentally sustainable projects happening here.

I'm also excited to say that I'm looking forward to providing, through our ministry, even more support for some of our communities, and that is for our resort communities throughout B.C. It was announced last May, and that will be a piece of work that we will continue on to allow us to find a mechanism to share a portion of the provincial hotel room tax to help build our resort communities around the province. I know at this point that there have been a number of resort communities who are very excited about this. I know the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts is excited about it, because it means it will go a long way to help us double our other goal — our goal of doubling tourism by 2015.

These resort communities are ready. They're on board, and they want to be a part of the solution. Again, that just didn't happen overnight. It required work with the resort communities or the Resort Task Force, a collaborative who came together and said: "Okay, how would we approach this?" They came up with a number of ideas and solutions. Going through this and working through this, certainly one of the solutions was to take a look at this revenue-sharing. I am glad to say that when we have a task force that provides information and input into good, solid solutions which are reasonable, we will act on them. So here we are, Madam Speaker, acting on that.

I want to talk, as well, about another portfolio area that I have responsibility for, and that is about our aging population. We know that the demographics are changing. We know in fact that we will be facing a shift so significant that it's almost unimaginable. We have been talking about it for a number of years, and it was in 2005 that the Premier established the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. It was established for this one reason. In the 1970s fewer than one in ten British Columbians were 65 and older; today it's one in seven. So 25 years from now we expect that nearly one in four British Columbians will be over 65 — one in four British Columbians. That is going to create challenges in all areas.

It will create challenges in ensuring that our economic engine will continue the way it has. It will definitely put strains on our health care system, which is why the Conversation on Health underway currently is important.

But there's good news. Even though one in four will be 65 and over, 25 years from now…. I dare say many of us in this room may be in that category, except perhaps Victoria-Hillside, who I think has a ways to go. But many of us will be in that category. The nice part about this or the positive aspect is that we are living healthier, longer lives, because a number of years ago we started stressing the importance of living longer and healthier lives, which is why the Minister of State for ActNow B.C. is going to be so important and instrumental in making sure that we stay active and vibrant.

Perhaps we could put the partisanship aside and go out for walks at lunchtime from time to time. I understand that it is one kilometre around the buildings outside. Also, if you go around twice, you've done two. Go around three times — three kilometres, 15 minutes — you're halfway to your 30 minutes of exercise a day. Very good for you.

Hon. I. Chong: I don't think I want to race, though, but I will do a nice brisk walk. Thank you for the challenge from the member for Victoria-Hillside, because he is much younger than I, or else he looks much younger than I. I'm just giving him a compliment, because I know he's just had a new child in his family.

As we face an aging population here in British Columbia, it is our responsibility to act now preparing for that shift. As I say, the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues was established in 2005. It was an incredible group of 18 British Columbians with diverse backgrounds led by Dr. Patricia Baird, who came forward and had to take a look at what we needed to do as a province.

She produced a report, Aging Well in British Columbia, which was launched and released December 1, 2006. I ask all members to have a look at that. We are going to act on those recommendations. That's another commitment we can make.

I know my time is nearly up. It's hard to believe that 30 minutes goes as quickly as it does.

I want to say it's so obvious to me, and I hope to the members, that this is a tremendous throne speech. Not even the NDP can deny that our province is being recognized and acknowledged as a leader. Not even the NDP can deny that we are in fact an economic powerhouse. Not even the NDP can deny that we have social innovations and improvements here. It's a great throne speech. It has something for everyone in all of our communities.

I know, perhaps, they were expecting everything, every day for everyone, but let's be reasonable. We will continue to improve. We will continue to provide opportunities, but we can only do it working together. The first step the NDP can take in working together is to vote for this throne speech. The first thing they can do is acknowledge how important it is to move forward.

It really is an exciting time for British Columbia. It really is an exciting future ahead of us. We can build upon the strength of our citizens, our families and our communities to realize British Columbia's true promise and prosperity.

I would ask that members opposite not be negative, not be pessimistic and not be destructive regarding this throne speech, because as I say, it is one of the most inspiring ones that I've heard.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the House for giving me the opportunity to respond to the throne speech today. I particularly want to thank my constituents who gave me the opportunity to be here and elected me to represent them on their behalf. We have a very busy community office in Victoria-Hillside. We work to the best of our ability to serve all of our constituents.

I think, in that regard, it would be appropriate for me to, in particular, thank my constituency assistants. Marni Offman works very hard for me in my community. Her work is invaluable. She has become a key resource in Victoria-Hillside for people from all walks of life, from all types of community organizations. I want to thank her for representing me in my community while I'm in the House.

I also want to thank and send my best wishes to Alice Ross, who works for me on a halftime basis as my constituency assistant. She's actually probably watching this on the parliamentary channel today, because she's at home recovering from a very serious accident that occurred last Friday afternoon on her commute home from work.

She is recovering well, and if part of her recovery is watching all of us here in this House on this channel, then power to her. I want to send out my best wishes to Alice Ross for her continued recovery. She will be back serving the people of Victoria-Hillside very soon. [Applause.]

One of the things that the throne speech utterly ignores — and one of the reasons why New Democrats, members of this side of the House, cannot vote for it — is the issue of child poverty and poverty in general in this province. You know, B.C. is the worst jurisdiction of the ten provinces for the incidence of child poverty.

Let's remind members, indeed, on that side of the House, that British Columbia has for many decades been one of the richest jurisdictions of the ten, yet we are worst when it comes to children and people living in poverty in this province.

At our province's food banks today a full 36 percent of recipients of food are children. And a point that my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin has made many times in this House is that children living in poverty reside in families living in poverty. Many of B.C.'s children living in poverty — most, in fact — grow up in families with one or sometimes both parents in the workforce.

I'm going to come back to that theme in a moment. I just wanted, while it's still on my mind, to respond to the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, who was talking about the Premier's 2005 advisory committee on aging. I want to note that she says that that's one of the key reasons why all members of this House should vote for this throne speech.

I want to remind her that of the nearly dozen recommendations that came out of that task force, only one is being actualized by this government. The other 11 or so are being completely ignored. It's not surprising, because the other ones are the ones that deal with substance, that actually address the issues around inclusiveness, respect and raising seniors out of poverty in our province — ones that dedicate a commitment to resources, not just words.

It's curious that the B.C. Liberals, on the one hand, claim that government direction, shaping the coordination and direction of development, and any real, deliberate efforts to achieve economic diversification in a market economy are wrong-headed.

People will recall that in 2001 this government campaigned, and one of its promises was to end business subsidies entirely. That was one of the first promises they had to break when they formed the government. Because the first challenge they encountered was

whether they would actually abandon B.C.'s film industry and the thousands of high-paying jobs that Hollywood North created as it matured and blossomed in the 1990s.

It was nurtured, in fact, by the previous government's targeted tax credits that lured studio investments and productions from California, Ontario and elsewhere. That was the first confrontation with that party's economic dogma in 2001.

In this throne speech that broken promise comes up again. That foolish 2001 promise presents another interesting choice for this government, and it's one that shows this government simply does not walk the talk. The government has maintained, even in this green-washed throne speech, a quarter-billion-dollar annual subsidy to the oil and gas sector.

There are no such subsidies to encourage wind power or other alternative green power developments of a comparable scale. That subsidy remains there for the oil and gas sector at an amount of over a quarter-billion dollars. Plenty of promises, words to that effect, but no programs or direction to B.C. Hydro to make us a real green energy leader.

There's complacency, in fact, about our hydroelectric legacy in this province, which hasn't had any significant addition or public investment since the Columbia Power days and dam development in the 1990s. While the throne speech waxes eloquently about making B.C. a sustainability leader, the Minister of Energy continues — in a somewhat less lyrical fashion, I might add — to try and undermine the federal moratorium on oil drilling in the Hecate Strait.

I note that this moratorium is strongly upheld and supported by first nations on Haida Gwaii. Are we to conclude that their voices apparently don't count in the government's other public relations exercise of building a new relationship of reconciliation in this province? That is what one is left with in this throne speech.

As I previously stated, the B.C. Liberals, while hostile to government playing a role in the economy, somehow never tire of taking credit for anything good in terms of economic indicators that truly have nothing to do with them. Housing starts are just one.

While housing starts and residential construction growth are something that are part of a global increase in real estate values, which are related, in fact, to interest rates that are not set by this jurisdiction…. The growth in housing values has more to do with the collapse of technology stocks and mutual funds at the beginning of the last decade and to the pursuit of safer personal investments.

My point is not to do with this government. If you look at real estate in British Columbia, this government has imposed taxes that would seek to discourage the continued growth and well-being of residential construction.

This is a jurisdiction where an average homeowner at the point of purchase pays $10,000 in property transfer tax. That is not something that other provinces have; that is not something that the States down south of us have in place. So for them to take credit and put in punitive taxes at the same time, I think, is entirely inconsistent and wrong.

It also represents an incredibly squandered opportunity to use this windfall of property transfer tax revenue that now totals something over $4 billion during their time in office over the past six years. While this revenue growth has been staggering, it hasn't been linked to a corresponding reinvestment or any kind of ambitious housing strategy that would give real housing choices that are affordable for working families, nor does it dedicate resources of any significance to eliminate homelessness.

There are other places on this continent that have said they're not going to just cope with homelessness by dribbling out little amounts of money for shelter beds, etc., like this throne speech and budget have done. There are other jurisdictions that have vowed, made it their sole preoccupation, to eliminate homelessness entirely. That's the kind of leadership that we're looking for in British Columbia.

Six years in power, flush with property transfer taxes, and we get something called a housing budget that features a promised $139 million investment for housing over the next three years. This is the same government that promised 5,000 residential care beds in the 2001 election. They recycled that promise again in the 2005 election. Here we are in 2007-2008 with a long way to go. And we're to believe them on their new so-called housing budget.

Let's look at the revenues and the rate of reinvestment that this throne speech and budget promise on the housing file — as I said, over $4 billion of revenues taken in and a promised $139 million spend on housing over the next three years. That is a rate of reinvestment of around 2 percent of those windfall taxes taken in. That speaks volumes about this government's priorities or lack of them when it comes to housing.

I asked the Minister for Housing in estimates last year whether he thought it was a good idea during the housing bubble to dedicate some of the windfall tax to reinvestment in affordable housing. I'm sorry to say his response was no. He felt the idea had no merit. Yet here we have it, and the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head referenced it in her remarks just a few minutes ago.

It is accepted to link tax revenues, windfall taxes, to expenditure in dedicated improvement areas. It's accepted by all three levels of government when it comes to the area of transportation, particularly the agreement around federal excise taxes on gasoline. It's accepted by all three levels of government that it is a good idea to direct these revenues to local government for capital spending on public transit and transportation infrastructure — the idea being that if you're going to tax motorists, then you should direct a significant portion to providing transit solutions that relieve congestion, improve the road conditions and improve the infrastructure for everyone. It makes sense; it's widely embraced. Yet this government rejects it categorically, out of hand, when it comes to housing.

The idea of dedicating a significant portion of property transfer tax to an ambitious affordable housing strategy or programs in B.C. is rejected. But guess what? Many people in B.C. do support it. It's not just this member or this side of the House that's calling for this; it is the realtors of British Columbia that call for this in their policies. Mayors, city councils, chambers of commerce, various towns and municipalities support it.

I strongly suspect that the majority of homebuyers that are paying this tax would be much more supportive and feel a lot better about paying this significant tax if they knew that a portion of it was going to provide affordable housing in their communities and that this surtax wasn't just going to a black hole known as general revenue.

You know, Mr. Speaker, affordability and availability of rental housing and housing of all types is so important in my community and in many, many parts of this province. In my community it is a fact that young couples can't afford to raise kids here on average working wages. This government has closed five schools in my constituency in the past four years. Another is up for consideration in a month's time.

The government's sole reliance on a rental supplement program doesn't do a thing for my community to keep young families in the city, primarily because it doesn't address the lack of rental housing stock. This program will not add a single unit of rental housing in my community — market or non-market housing, I might add. The vacancy rate in the capital region today is 0.5 percent — practically nothing — and most of those vacancies are at the upper end of the market above and far out of reach of what this rental supplement program will allow.

What about new, innovative programs designed to allow families to build equity while they rent? Rent-to-own programs or savings accounts from the rent that is paid to provide future down payments — not on a timid, trial basis, but across B.C. in all communities where working families struggle to house themselves — are the kind of things that we would expect to see in a housing budget, but they weren't there.

Innovation is required if we're going to meet the housing challenges in this province, but it has not been forthcoming, even in a housing environment that developers themselves describe as market failure when it comes to the 40 percent to 50 percent of those in this province who can't get into the market or find suitable, affordable rental housing.

The government's failure on housing has a huge cost that I think many members of this House are aware of. One of these costs is to literally take food off the table for low-income and working families. I started my remarks by talking about child poverty. This is one of the contributors to the symptoms of child poverty: working families who pay far too much for their housing — all while wait-lists for non-profit housing have grown exponentially under this government.

Another area where I think the throne speech and the government have misguidedly and deceitfully taken 100-percent credit is in the area of mining development and investment. Again, this is related to global commodity prices. Make no mistake. Any market analyst will tell you that.

R. Fleming: Well, look at the prices in the 1990s in various mineral and resource sectors, to that member.

I'm sorry to break it to the members opposite, though, but the world barely knows who is in government in British Columbia; they barely know who the Premier is. After all, in the Asia-Pacific region, it is Alberta, Ontario and some of the prairie provinces that have trade offices. B.C., despite calling itself the Asia-Pacific gateway, has no trade offices there — only slogans back here at home. What the mineral sector knows is profit and loss for shareholders, and when the value of copper rises 14-fold, that is what interests them in British Columbia.

Let's talk about another area where this government has failed to put more money in the pockets of those who need it most. In particular, I want to speak about the lowest-paid workers in our economy. It's a sad and alarming fact that the poorest workers in our province are falling further and further behind, even as unemployment rates are now lower in B.C. and across North America than they have been in the past two or three decades. Living conditions for the working poor under these employment numbers and conditions deteriorate while the economy grows at a reasonable rate.

A major concern of this side of the House and a missed opportunity of this throne speech — in fact, the last six throne speeches — is regarding the government's minimum-wage policies. As I mentioned, we have a growing poverty problem in our midst, one that government and society must work with conviction to ameliorate. The latest figures from Statistics Canada confirm that in larger B.C. communities, the current minimum wage reduces those who even work full-time to below the poverty line.

B.C. has the second-highest incidence of minimum-wage earners. It's a full 6.2 percent of our workforce, second only to Newfoundland. It's much, much higher than the 0.9 percent of Albertans who have to get by and make do with the minimum wage in that jurisdiction. It is not a good thing to have a high incidence of minimum-wage earners in your economy. I think we all understand it in terms of the reduced purchasing power that comes with it, and the point I'm trying to make is its link to living in poverty while working.

They don't stimulate economic growth through low consumption — this 6.2 percent of our workforce. Of particular concern to policymakers is that B.C. is actually growing its share of minimum-wage earners, and it has grown by over 2 percent since 1999.

It's time — and this throne speech, as I said, was a missed opportunity to do this — to review the minimum wage in British Columbia and that specifically that review include an objective look at the so-called training wage that makes up a second tier of reduced minimum wage that is open and subject to abuse and an unlevel playing field between socially responsible employers and mostly the fast-food giants that have primarily taken advantage of this policy.

B.C.'s minimum wage was cut by $2 per hour as one of the first 90-day measures the government took in 2001. It was controversial legislation then and part of a policy turn overall by the government that returned the province to deficit for the next three fiscal years.

Who earns the minimum wage in B.C.? More people than one might think. Over 104,000 workers of B.C.'s workforce of 1.67 million employees earned the minimum wage in 2004. Two-thirds of these workers are women. Most of them, not surprisingly, are young people under the age of 24.

You know, if the 1976 minimum wage in British Columbia would have kept pace with inflation, the minimum wage today would be $10.36 per hour. But the minimum wage of $8 has in fact been reduced to $6 per hour for many new workers, mostly young people — who aren't necessarily in their first job, by the way.

These young workers have additional pressures that they face. Housing costs are rising. The cost of public post-secondary education has doubled under this government over the past several years. Student grants were eliminated systematically by this government. Student debt has now grown to the second-highest level in the country.

While younger workers today are better educated than their parents' generation 30 years ago, they are paid on average 25 percent less in inflation-adjusted currency. Lower pay combined with B.C. housing prices will result in kids living with their parents longer and living in poorer families. The real risk and danger is that hope and opportunity is actually further diminished for those who are at the bottom struggling to get ahead.

This isn't the kind of socially inclusive society that modern governments should be promoting. It is a recipe for frustration and despair. One can readily find the worst kind of despair on the streets of B.C.'s largest communities today. I speak of the growing number of the homeless population.

There was a homeless survey done in my community. Preliminary results were released just this past Friday that showed over 1,100 people are either homeless or at significant risk of homelessness in the capital region — 750 of them are absolutely homeless every night in the streets of this town.

In 1999 to 2000 we were talking about homelessness too. As I was a city councillor at that time for the capital, I remember the police suggesting that we had a problem because we had a hundred homeless people in this region. Now the estimates are at 750, and this government has no ideas how to deal with it. That is what is most distressing.

In the nearly six years since the reduction in the minimum wage, this government has not once reviewed its action or the minimum wage in general, either through a commission or through a panel. I want to contrast this with another Liberal government — I suppose a real Liberal government — in Ontario where Premier McGuinty's government has raised the minimum wage three times, and it was elected in 2004.

They had a Conservative government in power that was very similar, in its actions and its socially regressive policies, to this government. That Conservative government froze the minimum wage for nine years in Ontario. Maybe that's a record that our Premier's trying to match. But surely when raising the minimum wage doesn't cost the treasury a single cent but it puts money in the pockets of the worst-paid employees, those that are living in poverty, many who work full-time in this economy…. That was an opportunity that this throne speech and this budget provided the government to do.

It's time for a review. It's time to review the minimum wage. It's past time. But even those like Ian Tostenson, who's the president and CEO of the B.C. Restaurants and Food Services Association, who lobbied heavily — and donated heavily to the governing political party, I might add — to introduce the training wage in the first place…. He now admits, six years on, that most of his members don't use the training wage at all and that it's outlived its purpose. In fact, he suggests that the training wage never really worked at all.

There are other business leaders who also question the government's training wage. The past president of the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Jim Tighe, says he thought it was a strange move when the government implemented the lower wage. He did a survey of his business members, and 70 businesses responded. They reported that none of them were using the training wage.

So let's get rid of it, and let's look at a serious review after six years' time of the minimum wage in this province. Surely if we're going to attack poverty in British Columbia, one of the mechanisms at our disposal is to help those who work in full-time and part-time employment and earn the minimum wage. That's a full 6.2 percent of our workforce. Surely it's time to give them a raise.

I mentioned some of the survey results that show the vast majority of small businesses and restaurants do not use the training wage. Many fast-food chains do, including McDonald's, Burger King and Dairy Queen. So was this policy shift designed to help the profit margins of burger and french fry giants?

I notice the government has talked a lot about ActNow and fruits and veggies. Was the policy intention of this government to help out those multinational companies that sell junk food in our community and create an unlevel playing field for those socially responsible small businesses in our community?

I want to speak very briefly to one of the things that the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head talked about and other members of the government side of the House have frequently bragged about, and that's to do

with the credit rating of the province. It's interesting that while the credit rating has been adjusted slightly upward and there's a slight advantage — the slight advantage in terms of borrowing and investor attractiveness…. In fact, we are and have been for many decades in an elite club of nations that have a good credit rating.

It's interesting that the government doesn't use any of the benefits that come with improvements to the credit rating in regards to public finance. It hasn't affected at all this government's infatuation with public-private partnerships and privatization. In fact, Partnerships B.C. is now automatically allowed to use their monopoly status as the only vetter of P3 projects in the province — completely uncompetitive.

They've extended that monopoly to every single capital project worth over $20 million in this province. That was a directive of the Premier in his speech to the Union of B.C. Municipalities in November.

So even while the advantages of public finance grow, the ability to finance cheaper through public borrowing grows and we become more competitive with private capital, we're apparently going to use less and less of this as a method of procurement and building infrastructure projects in B.C. It makes no sense. While they boast about an improved credit rating, they forgo any advantages that come with that. It's amazing. It's remarkable.

I haven't seen any dampening-down of their enthusiasm for P3s. In fact, the appetite has grown more insatiable. One would think we would move to see more conventional procurement practices — that we would see design-build agreements, for example, where we would use the advantage of cheaper, more competitive public finance as something that we bring to the table, which is a public advantage and an advantage to the taxpayers. But we're not seeing that.

As a consequence of this government's infatuation with P3s as a cure-all for every single capital project that this province will build, we're going to see less transparency in those agreements for taxpayers. We're going to see a growing, more costly premium for private finances as a component of those agreements. We'll be paying more and getting less, in other words.

The new move to exclude more government services, which is designated as "joint special projects," in fact removes those projects from the purview of freedom-of-information disclosure. It suggests the government would actually like to hide more and more of how their dollars are spent from the public.

This is right in the throne speech — not in those exact words. But it is there as a concept and something the government is saying is undoubtedly a public good, when clearly there is a mountain of evidence to show that in fact it's quite the contrary.

It's also completely at odds with emerging practices in other parts of the world — in Australia, for example, where in 2005 the Auditor General investigated P3 transportation projects and concluded that the reasons for obscuring transparency and scrutiny in deals worth billions of dollars were completely unjustified and, in fact, dangerous over time to the concept of an open and democratic society and to sound fiscal management.

It's interesting. The province of B.C. didn't see fit to issue a press release in February this year when Standard and Poor's announced that it lowered its longer-term issuer credit and senior unsecured debt ratings in regards to the Municipal Finance Authority of B.C. The MFA's credit rating was actually downgraded from triple-A to double-A-plus shortly after the provincial government's credit rating was moved upwards.

What was the reason given for downgrading the MFA's credit rating at a time when the province's credit rating had seemingly improved? It was because municipalities in this province are incurring more debt. Guess where that debt is occurring — those debt obligations. They're being incurred in expensive public-private partnerships, including the overbudget Golden Ears bridge and including the Canada line, which exposes local government to substantial risks from aggressive ridership targets and other things.

These are projects that heavily involve the province to which, by force, Partnerships B.C. was inserted as the agreement adviser in lead. They have an absolute monopoly in this regard as the sole vetter of public-private partnerships in B.C, as I mentioned earlier in my remarks.

One of the things that S&P cited for improving the province's credit was the return to balanced budgets. But in this story that wasn't told was this. Government actually inherited a $1.2 billion surplus from the previous provincial government. Also, this government has tremendously benefited from the government of Canada and their financial support to B.C., most notably through the Canada health and social transfer.

It's estimated that in the previous fiscal year British Columbia received over $6.6 billion, or about $1,570 per person, from the federal government. It's a full 19 percent of the province's budget. Let's contrast that with the less than $2 billion when they came into office.

Hon. G. Hogg: Thank you to the people of Surrey–White Rock who have made it possible for me to be here and also to my community office constituency assistants. Verna Logan has been with me for some ten years now and seems to somehow be able to continue to manage the things that we're engaged in, in the community and to be involved in many important activities within our community. And to Diane Thompson, who has been with us for over three years and is now just going back to her original profession in the real estate industry. I want to wish her all the very best.

I also want to thank my office staff here, Raechelle, Jennifer and Valerie, for all of their work, and Sue who is assisting us right now as we integrate the ActNow issues with programs around the province. It's a delight and an honour to work with all of them and with the people of Surrey–White Rock.

Surrey–White Rock is a very positive community that is anxious to celebrate, to look at all kinds of positive things that are happening. The chamber of commerce has been very active in promoting and celebrating the successes of the businesses in our community. The executive director Jim Dyson is just taking retirement this month, and I want to wish him all the best as he moves on to travel around North America.

He and the president, Dan Higgins, were over to visit the Legislature to listen to the budget speech, to take advantage of the opportunities here to hear, to understand and to grab onto the issues that were being presented within it, and to look at ways that Surrey–White Rock might benefit from both the budget and the throne speech.

Surrey–White Rock. One of our former Members of Parliament, Benno Friesen, used to refer to it as one of the volunteer capitals of the world. I think that certainly it has a large demographic of retired people in the community who are spending a lot of their time contributing to the quality of life within the community, building on the wonderful initiatives that have been talked about.

I probably shouldn't go any further without mentioning Putnam. I know that my colleagues will want to be reminded of Robert Putnam's work and the notions of social capital, the ability that relationships have to effect change and the profound impact that those have within the context of the Surrey–White Rock area. I know it happens all across this province as people hold on to the notions of their own communities and the value that people have within them.

The Surrey–White Rock area is also blessed with a number of service organizations, service clubs and sporting organizations. In fact, we're home to the largest Little League organization in Canada. They do wonderful work within our communities to make them better for all of us.

I remember reading Tip O'Neill's book one time — it is entitled All Politics is Local — where he talked about the issues that happen within our communities being actually the really important parts of what we say and do in this building and in Victoria, how those are interpreted within our communities, and how we have the responsibility to interpret the needs of our communities as we come forward and present them here.

Tip O'Neill talked about when he was in Washington, D.C., and people would come to visit him from his constituency and say: "I don't know why you're not back in the community more often, why you're not spending more time in your constituency. You're spending all your time here in Washington." And he said that when he was in his community, people would come up to him and say: "Why aren't you in Washington supporting us and doing the things that need to be done to represent us in our communities?" He talked about the dilemma that becomes that of the politician being torn between the capital and the community.

He talked about how easy it is to tear down a barn. He said he saw and learned in his many years in politics that anyone could tear down a barn, but that building a barn was a challenge. It took time and perseverance and skill. Certainly as we move forward, we want to build a barn. We want to build a community with the issues that we talk about in the throne speech, which we present in that. We want to take a positive visionary approach to issues. We want to be optimistic about our future. We want to have a sense of hope that things can continue to grow and be better.

I'm reminded of a couple of sports analogies that I've always enjoyed, and one is the story of Ty Cobb. He was one of the first players named to baseball's hall of fame, one of the first five that were named. Ty Cobb had the highest lifetime batting average of any baseball player, the highest lifetime….

Hon. G. Hogg: Barns and baseball. I can help you with this, Member — and Putnam and social capital. It's all coming together rather nicely now.

Ty Cobb was interviewed when he was in his late 70s or early 80s. I think he had a lifetime batting average of about .361, and the interviewer said: "Well, Ty, if you were playing today, what would your batting average be?" Ty Cobb said: "My batting average today?" He thought for a moment, and he said: "My batting average would probably be about .300." Of course, he said: "What, .300? Like, you're a lifetime .361. Why only .300? Has it got to do with artificial turf, bigger gloves, relief pitchers? What is it?" And Ty Cobb said: "No, no. I'm almost 80. I'm not nearly as fast as I used to be."

He had that sense of optimism and joy as he moved forward to look at things and expand the world and the way that we can find things to grow. That vision is part of what the people of British Columbia carry all across this province and is part of the vision that we've tried to portray with the throne speech.

Clearly, one of the more important parts of this for me is the whole notion of the well-being of British Columbians — the whole social well-being but certainly also focused on the physical well-being. I'm not sure that we're able to divide between physical well-being, social well-being and financial well-being. All of them come together in terms of a sense of who we are and how we project ourselves into the future.

Our vision is to have the healthiest jurisdiction ever to host the Olympics, and the throne speech talks about some of the strategies we want to put forward in terms of doing that. Certainly, ActNow B.C. is an important part of that, and the five goals which are laid out in our strategies to achieve that include wanting to increase by 20 percent the amount of physical activity that British Columbians are involved in.

About 58 percent of British Columbians are now physically active, and we want to move that up to 70 percent. We want to ensure that the number of people who are eating the appropriate numbers of fruits and

vegetables a day is increased by 20 percent, moving from 40 to 48 percent. We want to increase the number of people who have ideal body weights by 20 percent. That means moving from about 42 percent up to about 34 percent in terms of being able to address that.

Tobacco usage. The Minister of Health introduced Bill 10 this morning. That's going to talk about how we can address the issues of tobacco usage. While we have the lowest tobacco usage in Canada — I think the second-lowest in North America, behind Utah — we want to reduce the amount of tobacco usage by some 10 percent. Right now about 16 percent of our population use tobacco. We want to reduce that to 14 percent.

The other goal in that, again reflected in the comments we make in the throne speech, is to increase by 50 percent the number of women who are receiving counselling with respect to the impact of alcohol during pregnancy. We still have between 200 and 300 babies born each year in British Columbia with fetal alcohol syndrome. We need to ensure that we're able to assist and support them in knowing what takes place.

British Columbia, despite all of this, still has the lowest percentage of obese residents in Canada — about 19 percent. The Canadian average is 23 percent. British Columbians who report themselves as being inactive are at 40 percent. The Canadian average is 47 percent. So we are, on virtually all measurements that have been looked at, a healthier jurisdiction than any other jurisdiction in Canada.

Yet when we put that in a broad context, we are the best of a not very good set of averages — not a very good lot. If we want to look at how we're going to be able to address those initiatives and those issues, then we have to be much more pervasive in the ways we provide options to the people of this province.

The World Health Organization, a function of the United Nations, has looked at ActNow B.C. and said that ActNow B.C. is a vanguard in the development and delivery of successful government programming.

The Canadian Public Health Association gave ActNow B.C. its Ron Draper award last year for significant contributions to health promotion. It's the first time that this Canadian Public Health Association award has been given to a government. It has usually gone to individuals or organizations outside of government.

Under ActNow B.C. there are about 180 programs that run in this province and that are promoting health and doing things. Yet to a large degree, the name ActNow B.C. is not terribly well known across the province. That is because a number of those programs are run under a number of different names. So we're being told that to be able to coalesce that and bring brand significance and focus to it, we really need to bring greater identity and focus the name ActNow B.C. around the types of programs that are there so that it will raise consciousness.

We all know that information doesn't mean change, but information is a first step towards change. We have to look at ways that we can increase the information and look at how we can programmatically provide the service delivery.

ActNow B.C. has won the national award and been recognized by the World Health Organization. It's because we've taken an interdisciplinary approach, an interministerial approach, an approach of partnership with our community partners in order to do this. It hasn't been, as a number of other jurisdictions have done, by saying that we're going to create a health promotion ministry and do it within that framework. It is because we have actually recognized that we have to use, engage and be part of the delivery of all kinds of options across this province as we try to create healthy options as the easy options.

In order to do that, we have been working with the Healthy Living Alliance. We have, as a government, given them over $26 million so that they are empowered not just with their membership but with finances to actually support and move towards this collective vision that we all share.

The Canadian Cancer Society is an example. The B.C. Division knows that it's not just about trying to find a cure for cancer, but it's about being able to address the challenges that cancer presents in a health promotion model.

The Canadian Diabetes Association, Heart and Stroke Foundation, B.C. Lung Association, B.C. Recreation and Parks Association, Dietitians of Canada, UBCM, 2010 Legacies Now and the pediatricians are the nine members of the Healthy Living Alliance who are all engaged in looking at how they can use this $26 million to address this goal.

Now, the exciting part of all of this, despite all the challenges we have…. The challenges are not insignificant. We know that 37 percent of adults are overweight, that 6,000 a day die of tobacco-related issues and that 200 to 300 babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome. The number of adolescents who are overweight has doubled in the past 16 years. The number of obese has tripled.

We know that the next generation is not expected to live as long as their parents, the first time that has happened in a significant number of years — expected to have a life expectancy of three years less. Recent research is telling us that obesity reduces life expectancy by seven years — exactly the same amount of time as tobacco. We know that 800,000 British Columbians live with chronic diseases. We know that 49 percent of the burden of health is related to tobacco, to inactivity and to nutrition-related issues.

We know that all of those issues are there. We know that all of those challenges are there. We know there are some remedies. It's pretty exciting to know that with proper exercise and proper nutrition, we can reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes in British Columbia by up to 90 percent. The incidence of cancer can be reduced by up to 50 percent, and the incidence of cardiovascular disease and strokes by up to 30 percent. These are big, big numbers in terms of the impact. The provincial health officer, Perry Kendall, has talked

about this and said that from a financial perspective, it can save $1.7 billion to $3 billion that can be focused on other programs.

I think most British Columbians are really concerned about quality of life to end of life. How do we ensure that we engage each other in meaningful ways? How do we find an emotional, visceral connection with that? Most people around the province don't seem to connect with saving money, but they do connect with: how can I make a difference within my family? How can I ensure that I can be there for my children and my grandchildren? How can I ensure that it is quality of life to end of life?

There are lots of simple and easy things that we can do, and encourage other British Columbians to do, that will help us address the vision that has been laid out within the throne speech. Those include little things like inviting neighbours for dinner, feeding them a healthy meal and telling them that we're doing that because we care. It includes doing things with our children that reinforce that notion of how we can care and reflect the positive notion of health and health promotion.

There are a number of other programs functioning around the province that reinforce that. We know from successful social marketing programs, programs such as wearing seatbelts and the tobacco cessation that we've had, that it takes a long time, and it takes a multitude of approaches to effect it.

One of those programs we're using is Action Schools where we're engaged in teaching, primarily in elementary schools, ways that schools and the children within their classes can become active during the day. Teachers have actually been taught some skills in terms of what you can do in a classroom on a daily basis to have them active. You don't have to go out to a gym or run around. You can actually use things and do things within the context of the classroom.

The research done by Dr. McKay at UBC shows that this has been a tremendous success, that children are really engaged in it and enjoying it and are being more active. Some of the numbers are well over 50 percent more activity happening around that, as we look at that. We know that the early patterns that are established with youth are reflected throughout their full life. So if we can develop some positive approaches at that level, they will last for a lifetime.

Our active communities is doing the same type of thing. I think 108 or 109 communities across this province have registered as active communities. Those communities are looking at ways that they can make sure their citizens are more active and that they can take advantage of the knowledge that sits out there that if we do things — if we promote nutrition and promote activity — we are going to be healthier throughout the course of our lives.

Those are the types of things that really start to connect us as communities in ways that look forward to the development. It's the horizontal partnerships, the horizontal issues that allow us to look at and grow in meaningful and positive ways. The all-party Select Standing Committee on Health made reference to the initiatives and issues around this and supported it as well.

They talked specifically about some of the ActNow initiatives, about some of the health promotion issues which are, again, reflected in the throne speech. I think they had 36 recommendations, and included is that the government continue to designate ActNow as its coordinating fitness, diet and wellness agency; that all ministries should review their service plans within that framework; and that ActNow conduct comprehensive reviews of programs to ensure that they're reflecting the physical activity, healthy eating and healthy schools.

Mr. Speaker, those things are being done. I know all members of this House are anxious to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to ensure quality of life to the end of life for the citizens of our province.

There have been a number of programs around the world that have been looked at in little pieces, with some degrees of success. Perhaps ironically, Arkansas had some success in stopping the growth of obesity amongst their school-age children, their younger children. The Governor of Arkansas dictated that all students should be weighed, their height taken and their girth measured, in terms of looking at it. Then they sent information home with their parents, telling them: "Here are things you need to do." Those are not initiatives that would be looked upon favourably by the Canadian constitution, I'm told, so they're not specific issues that we could take. Certainly, we have to raise consciousness and awareness for the citizens of British Columbia.

Those programs, little pockets which have had modicums of success around the world, seem to have about six common criteria that reflect the success of those. Those are contained in and are a part of the division that has been reflected within the throne speech. Those six criteria include a strong government focus. The government has to be engaged in and supportive.

It includes that the programs have to be fun. Certainly the notion of having to become healthy — meaning you have to join a health club or have to go on a diet and take on all of those things — seems to be so daunting that it tends to immobilize people in the actions they have. So it has to be fun, and it has to be easy.

It has to be workplace-related. We have to be addressing it within the places we live, work and play. Certainly the workplace is an important part of that. All of us who work here know that it's an issue in this building.

We have a wonderful relationship with the B.C. Chamber of Commerce and have started a program with them where 1,000 small businesses have been identified and are engaged with a Health Works Here toolkit. That program is starting to have some successes. The federal government is looking at it, and we're looking at ways that we can build upon that.

The fourth criterion is that there be a champion, that there be people who stand up and say: "This is what it represents. This is what we want to do. This is how we want to be able to change things."

The next one is a focus on children. It's been clear, as we've looked at other social marketing programs, that children are an integral part of change, that children were significant in saying to their parents: "Do up your seatbelt" and "Stop smoking." So they're powerful shapers of adult behaviour, and we need to focus on and ensure that that happens within the context of our school systems and bring it out.

The last one is that there is cultural relevance, that we ensure we will respond to the cultural relevance of the issues and the people we're addressing.

I note that you are checking the clock, Mr. Speaker, so I will try and come to closure here quickly. In fact, I may do that right now.

Hon. G. Hogg: Okay, you've talked me into going on for a little longer. Thank you very much.

I will conclude with a quote from Hodding Carter, who said: "There are two lasting bequests we can hope to leave our children, our communities. One of them is roots, and the other is wings." The roots means a foundation upon which we can grow, a solid foundation that allows us as communities and as a province to grow. And wings means a vision of what might be — a sense of hope, of change that might be out there.

I believe that we've started to, over the past number of years…. In fact, all governments in this province, for 150 years — a settlement that we'll be celebrating next year — have built a pretty strong foundation as a people and as a province. I believe we've started to reinforce that notion of vision and hope, and that's reflected in this throne speech.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes. With that exciting, scintillating, insightful finale, I move adjournment of debate.

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

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

G. Robertson: Good morning. I want to start with a question on revenue programs specifically and the estimates related to the international fuel tax agreement in the Motor Fuel Tax Act. I'm curious why the disbursements have dropped from $4.7 million to $1.1 million from last year to this year. Is there an obvious reason why those disbursements have dropped significantly?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We do not have the detailed reasons for that. We will undertake to get that before estimates are finished, and I will provide that to the Chair for the member.

G. Robertson: I appreciate that commitment. One follow-up, just closing the loop on the PST exemptions — going through the readout from the minister yesterday on the $40 million a year of PST exemptions, if we could get the detail on that in writing, just so that we know the exact amounts, that would be very helpful.

In the meantime we go back to some questions on EDS Advanced Solutions and revenue management. Can the minister give us an update on the contract with EDS, how much money EDS gets for providing that service and what bonus or penalties are involved in the contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Payments to Advanced Solutions will come from two sources. The first source is the current cost of delivering the in-scope services, approximately $30 million a year, which constitute base fee payments. The second source of funding is a share of the expected incremental benefits, which will allow the company to recover and earn a reasonable return on their investment. If the incremental financial benefits are not realized, Advanced Solutions will only receive the base payments.

The overall potential agreement sees potential payment over the life of the agreement at $572 million, $271 million for potential incremental benefits and $301 million for base fees over the life of the agreement.

G. Robertson: The base fees, the $301 million. From the minister's description, it sounds like the incremental benefits represent the ability for the company to make a return on providing that service. Does that mean that the $301 million base fee actually does not provide a return to that company?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The base fees that are being paid to Advanced Solutions are the result of when the agreement was struck on an in-depth review by the ministry to know exactly what the in-house costs were at that time. Obviously, discussions with Advanced Solutions…. This is the allocation of what those costs would have been if they had been borne by government, as we go forward. No profit margin was envisaged in base fees.

G. Robertson: If the $301 million was the base cost to government, this additional $271 million…. What benefit to government is that? If that is paid out — and I assume it's performance-based — what benefit is government deriving from that?

G. Robertson: That's $382 million in additional revenue that comes forth because of $271 million in spending.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The agreement envisages an incremental revenue. That's what the agreement is based on. Of the incremental revenues, Advanced Solutions will accrue $271 million, and the province will accrue $382 million.

G. Robertson: If the government were directly managing those services, would all of that $271 million, in addition to the $382 million, accrue to the government? What is the rationale for that accruing to the Advanced Solutions side?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, the benefit would not have accrued to government. This is a transfer of risk, a transfer of capital buildout and all of the risks associated with the transfer of the capital buildout to Advanced Solutions.

G. Robertson: Transfer of risk. Is Advanced Solutions better capable of managing the risk than the government of B.C. on the collection of those revenues?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The transfer of risk does not just pertain to collections of revenue. It pertains to a substantial capital investment: technology upgrades to ensure that in pursuing British Columbia's goal of having a centre of excellence second to none in North America located here in British Columbia, the technological investment — the risk of that investment — has been shifted to Advanced Solutions.

G. Robertson: The risk associated, though, with dedicating that capital to this revenue management service…. How is Advanced Solutions capitalized? Are they capitalized purely through their company here in Canada? Are they a publicly traded company? What is their access to capital that makes them a better source for this service than the government of B.C.?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This transferring of risk is not associated with who has access to capital and what the cost of that capital is. The transfer of risk is with highly technological development and systems development. That is the risk transfer, and this decision has been made by the government of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Did the government look at acquiring that technological capacity to manage the revenue service at a performance level comparable to what Advanced Solutions is providing at this time?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The ministry and government did extensive analysis from a business case perspective, a value-for-money perspective. The decision was that this was the way to move forward in the best interest of British Columbians and, once again, to establish a centre of excellence for revenue management here in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Given the dollars being dedicated in terms of incremental benefits to Advanced Solutions, it looks like a significant additional investment accruing to that company for the service. In terms of the contract itself, I understand that it was a ten-year contract but that there has been a summary negotiation. Can the minister confirm whether there has been renegotiation to this point?

G. Robertson: My sources tell me that there was $1.1 million spent on a contract refresh less than two years into the contract. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: One of the things for government officials who negotiated this alternative delivery service project was that in the ninth year, the government had the right to look at an option of extending it for a further five years. But the government also retained the right to look at having discussions with Advanced Solutions at the appropriate time. A year and a half or so into the agreement, management at the ministry approached me and said that they thought we should be looking at some things.

Some things had been learned, and some experiences had been gained. Therefore, we entered into a process called a refresh. That refresh has been concluded. As a result, we believe that we're going to see additional benefits accrue to the province of British Columbia.

We did incur some costs with respect to legal and professional services with respect to that refresh, but we believe that is a good investment to again make sure that we are achieving the goals we set out on behalf of British Columbians. So yes, we are moving forward, and the agreement has been moved from a ten-year agreement to a 12-year agreement.

G. Robertson: Well, it strikes me as bizarre that less than two years into it, the contract was refreshed or renewed for an additional ten years. What was the exact cost incurred in order to renegotiate the contract?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I will tell the member that our refresh costs were about $2 million, but that refresh cost is not reflected in these estimates. That has been absorbed within the ministry's budgets, and the ministry will achieve all of its budget targets for the coming year.

G. Robertson: In this renegotiation, what was the change in the payments accruing to EDS Advanced Solutions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: All of those details will be released in our annual report, which we will post once that annual report is completed. We expect that to be in the spring, approximately the same time as it was this past year.

G. Robertson: Can the minister comment on whether Advanced Solutions is receiving more in terms of revenue than had been negotiated in the first contract — more or less?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The senior officials at the ministry that led the refresh, I believe, have done a first-class job on behalf of all British Columbians. They have negotiated a very good deal on behalf of British Columbians that will see further benefits accrue to British Columbians and, in fairness, further benefits accrue to Advanced Solutions. Again, those details will be included in the annual report that we will table in the spring.

G. Robertson: The funding for this contract. I assume there is a component of that funding in the budget for this year within the ministry budget. Can the minister clarify the amount that is allocated for that contract in the next three years?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the number estimated — because they are all estimates — will be $30 million in base fees, as I have talked about earlier. About $28 million in incremental, and that's an estimate. They have to achieve the benchmarks. But I think it's really important for people to understand that it's a 12-year agreement, and over that period of 12 years the province will receive 60 percent of all the incremental benefits.

G. Robertson: In my rough calculation in terms of the math, the minister stated it was $271 million over ten years in incremental benefit to Advanced Solutions or $27.1 million a year, and that's now increased to $28 million a year. Is that accurate?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, I think your math is accurate, but the way you have achieved your math is not accurate. Obviously, for commercially sensitive reasons — confidential reasons — I can't go into the details of the contract, but over the life of the agreement, there are different methodologies of payback. Obviously, when people invest substantial capital amounts, they want that back. That's been structured into the agreement. So over the life of the agreement on the incremental revenue side, British Columbians are going to receive 60 percent of the benefit while having transferred all of the risk to Advanced Solutions.

G. Robertson: Again, we go back to this: 40 percent of that incremental benefit goes to Advanced Solutions for bearing the risk, although the risk for collecting revenue and managing revenue on behalf of the province…. You've got to wonder about that investment — 40 percent when they have their base covered as well. The minister did clarify that the base payment of $30 million a year covers the cost of providing that service without surplus built into it. But the incremental benefit on top of that $28 million in this year…. Are there actual service delivery costs associated with that $28 million, or is that an incremental benefit that accrues directly to the bottom line of Advanced Solutions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, it's my understanding that Advanced Solutions does have incremental costs in running its business to achieve its goals in its incremental revenues.

G. Robertson: In terms of dedicating 40 percent of that incremental benefit to a private contractor, is the risk alone the rationale for paying out 40 percent of that revenue collection?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I know the member and his party are absolutely opposed to the private sector being involved in providing good services to British Columbians.

The Chair: Member, will you please allow the minister to give his answer without any comment. Thank you.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I would suggest that he may want to watch his language. If he does want to use that kind of language, he could use it out in the hallway.

This is the budget of estimates. It's between the member for Vancouver-Fairview asking questions at the present time and the minister answering them. So if everyone else could please keep their comments to themselves so we can keep the decorum of the House going here. Thank you.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As much as the other side of the House is opposed to the private sector providing improved customer service to British Columbians, assum-

ing substantial risk, our government is not. Our government believes that improving customer service is a good thing. Our government believes that transferring risk to those who have the expertise is a good thing.

You know, we have gone through extensive analysis — the senior officials in my ministry and in government. Perhaps the member would want to go on the ministry's webpage, look at the value-for-money analysis that's been done. We believe that this is a good deal for British Columbians.

We're proud that we're establishing a centre of excellence here in British Columbia, and the full details of the status of this project will be released in our annual report, which will be released in the spring of this year.

G. Robertson: Contracts like this, more than anything, demonstrate that this government is perhaps incapable of customer service. They have decided that their management of revenue collection and customer service associated with it is higher risk than that of a private contractor.

Just to be clear, members on this side of the House in the opposition have no ideological opposition to private service providers and good contracts with those service providers in any way, shape or form. We're merely scrutinizing the deals that have been done on behalf of the taxpayers of B.C. That's our job here, and we strive to ensure that the government is held accountable and that these deals are the best they can be.

It is disconcerting that deals with Advanced Solutions have been renegotiated less than two years into a ten-year contract. From the sounds of it, from the minister, the deal was sweetened for Advanced Solutions. Whether that's a good deal for taxpayers…. I suppose we'll know more when the full detail is released soon enough.

Looking at last year's revenue services of B.C. annual report that reports out on the performance of EDS Advanced Solutions, there's a reference late in the report to an audit that apparently took place that the ministry moved on last year. "A comprehensive privacy and security audit is now underway with results expected in mid-2006" — which is more than six months ago. Can the minister share with the people of B.C. what the findings of that audit were and whether that audit has been released to the public?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm advised by staff that the audit was not completed, and it was superseded by a comprehensive action plan initiated during the contract refresh process. That also included a complete security risk and control review completed by a major accounting firm. The result has been a further 11-point security action plan that has been agreed on during the refresh process. I'm advised that out of the 11 items, nine have now been completed and the other two are in progress. Let me just see if it says when they are expected to be completed. No, it does not.

G. Robertson: Will the minister share with us the cost associated with that audit that was then…? It sounds like it was derailed as the contract refresh took place.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's included in the $2 million cost that I gave the member earlier.

G. Robertson: Am I correct in understanding that an audit was taking place of EDS Advanced Solutions? In the middle of that audit process a decision was made to renegotiate the contract for an additional ten years, and that contract has been signed without the audit actually having been completed?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, the member is absolutely incorrect. The refresh was for two years additional, not ten years.

G. Robertson: Well, the first part of this is…. The contract refresh was negotiated and signed before the audit was completed. Is that correct?

G. Robertson: Therefore, the minister is saying that the audit was completed and then the contract was renegotiated?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, as I said earlier, the audit was superseded by the refresh process. We believe — and perhaps the member will agree with this when the report is issued in the spring — that the refresh resulted in heightened security provisions for privacy and also increased benefits for British Columbians. But those details will be in the report that is issued in the spring.

G. Robertson: I'll come back again to the audit, but the minister's statement about heightened security raises a flag for me. Does the minister contend that the security measures in place before the contract refresh were inadequate and therefore had to be bolstered in this contract refresh?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, not in the least. In fact, in the original contract — to my understanding, and staff will correct me if I'm incorrect — we had 42 provisions above and beyond what the privacy laws of the province called for.

G. Robertson: There were 42 additional provisions, and then to the contract refresh 11 additional points were added in the 11-point security action plan? Or are those 11 part of the 42 that were already there?

Hon. R. Thorpe: These are 11 action items to support the already-in-place 42 stringent privacy provisions in the agreement, above the privacy laws of the province of British Columbia.

G. Robertson: Going back to the audit process, I'm very concerned that there was an audit taking place of

EDS Advanced Solutions and the revenue management services being provided to the government of B.C. The audit was not completed, and a contract refresh was negotiated at a cost of $2 million. Is there a reason for the audit being dropped midstream?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The refresh process undertaken by my deputy minister, senior staff and my new associate deputy minister was comprehensive and thorough, and it has taken the very leading-edge privacy and protection plans above and beyond the laws of British Columbia and strengthened those through this action plan.

G. Robertson: I can only infer from the minister's comments that the rationale for renegotiating or refreshing a ten-year contract less than two years into it — spending $2 million to do that, dropping an audit process of the contract provider — was all about increasing the security provisions in this service contract. Is that correct, or did we get a better deal out of it, financially, too?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Perhaps I haven't been very clear in my comments that we will be issuing a very comprehensive report in the spring, as we did last year, with respect to this arrangement with Advanced Solutions. Perhaps the member may want to retain the right to look at the conclusions then. I believe the report will show that British Columbians have received a very good return for the investment of $2 million.

G. Robertson: In the refresh, which the minister describes as being a two-year deal…. The only way I understand that is that we were just less than two years into the contract, a ten-year contract, and two years were added on at the back end; therefore, we have ten years yet to go in this deal. If we're comparing the ten-year deal that was originally negotiated with $271 million accruing in incremental benefit to Advanced Solutions to the ten years from here forward that are now a part of the contract, what is the total amount of incremental benefit accruing to Advanced Solutions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Those details will be in the annual report that will be released in the spring of this year.

G. Robertson: Well, I'd hoped that we could have more constructive exchange here in terms of what that contract looks like for the people of B.C., given that we are committed for the next ten years to honouring that contract. It's a little disturbing that we are not entitled to know the contents of that commitment over the next ten years.

It's fairly typical of a government that seems to go backwards on openness and accountability at every opportunity. We have the minister telling us that $28 million of benefit is accruing to Advanced Solutions in this year in the service plan. Is it $28 million for these three years covered by the service plans?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I do want to just comment that some of the comments the member makes are…. He's entitled, obviously. Everyone's entitled to say what they want to say, within the protocols of the Legislative Assembly. But it's amazing that the member doesn't want to acknowledge the improvements in customer service.

Of course, I guess the reason he wouldn't want to recognize those is because that's what we inherited. Customers couldn't get through on the phone, and 27,000 were receiving busy signals. Now, today, we have virtually no one receiving a busy signal. People were waiting on average just under 16 minutes to have their call addressed. Now, in 2006, we're running at, on average, 2.1 minutes. That is a significant improvement.

I understand the politics of this, but we should actually from time to time think about British Columbians and about the customer service. That's one of the goals of this centre of excellence that we're achieving.

With respect to the benefits going forward, those will be calculated based on the incremental revenue. Again, those details will be in the report that's going to be issued in the spring.

G. Robertson: My question to the minister is specifically related to the service plans that we are debating estimates on. I believe that the minister is obligated to share the cost to B.C. taxpayers that is budgeted for the next three years, directly related to the incremental benefit accruing to Advanced Solutions for that service.

Hon. R. Thorpe: For '07-08 the total payment is estimated, based on results, at $58 million; the following year, $59 million; the following year, $64 million.

G. Robertson: That sounds like it is escalating in the first three years of the ten additional years remaining on the contract. I'm curious what the reason is for enriching the contract with EDS Advanced Solutions only a year and a half into the existing ten-year contract. Is there a rationale for cranking up the revenue?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The government, through my ministry, will be releasing an annual report in the spring which will clearly lay out the business cases and the life-cycle benefits to Advanced Solutions, anticipated based on certain criteria, and the benefits to British Columbians. I think the member may want to consider that that would be the time to pass his judgment on how good a deal British Columbians got.

G. Robertson: Well, it's very difficult for the taxpayers of B.C. to know what kind of deal we're getting, given that the audit process to look at privacy and security in this contract was halted in the middle of its course. This deal was renegotiated, and the pot looks to have been sweetened significantly for the service provider, Advanced Solutions. Apparently there is additional cost associated with the provision of that service.

Just to be clear. From the minister's comments, clearly there is value being provided by that service

provider. The question really is: is it better value for money than we would get internally by managing that service in-house? That is a question that the opposition will continue to scrutinize, to dig for the detail on. At this point it looks like the price of revenue management continues to accelerate. No doubt the service has improved, but it has cost us a lot more to get us there, and it will continue to cost us more.

A question, more broadly, on audits within the ministry: have there been any other audits done in any area of the ministry, the ministry's programs or agencies?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Like other ministries in government we do have an internal audit program in place that goes over the three-year program. That is done by staff, in my understanding, and that's done in coordination with the comptroller general's office.

G. Robertson: Would the minister agree to provide for the opposition an inventory of the current audits ongoing within the ministry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I believe those are available through the comptroller general's office through the Ministry of Finance.

G. Robertson: A question, just returning again to EDS Advanced Solutions and the service being provided: what mechanism do B.C. taxpayers have for grievances related to service being provided by Advanced Solutions? Is there a process through government, through the ministry, by which taxpayers can grind their axe?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I should also say that customer opportunities to deal with revenue services of British Columbia have been expanded as a result of this agreement. Monday through Thursday, service is available between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m.; on Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.; and on Saturday, 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. With respect to British Columbians, customers that have customer service issues, first of all, they can contact my office. I'm pleased to hear from British Columbians and deal with customer service issues. They can deal through my deputy minister's office and associate deputy minister's office. Then, of course, they can always phone the 1-800 Advanced Solutions line, and they will provide customer service.

Customer service is something that I believe in strongly, that my executive believes in strongly, and I know that Advanced Solutions is striving to continuously have improvement in their customer service. Just a second. I have a toll-free number of 1-866-361-5050.

G. Robertson: Just a couple more questions related to value for money, specifically flowing from the Fast-Track program. I'm curious. In terms of value for money coming from the Fast-Track program, is the minister assuring taxpayers that value for money continues to accrue as a result of the Fast-Track program?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have not heard reference today to the Fast-Track program. I don't know what the member is referring to.

G. Robertson: My understanding was that the minister was responsible for the Fast-Track program several years ago and that value for money for that program was attributed. I'm just curious if that continues and if the minister can comment on whether value for money has accrued as a result of that program.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's actually a program I introduced when I was the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Economic development issues would be a question for the estimates with the minister responsible for economic development.

G. Robertson: I guess it brings another twist into it — a ministry that no longer exists. If the minister of that former ministry now is the Minister of Small Business and yet, perhaps, some of the functions of Fast-Track are more directly attributable to economic development….

The Chair: Member, if I may remind you, we're here only to deal with the estimates for which the minister is now responsible, and we can't deal with a ministry that no longer exists.

G. Robertson: My question, Chair, was: is there any component related to the Fast-Track program, obviously, that has connection to small business? Is there any accruing value for money that the minister would comment on?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We believe very strongly in our ministry that customer service is one of the most important things that we can do. That's why our ministry has established a number of service benchmarks for providing answers to British Columbians in a timely way. I did talk about some of those.

For instance, I actually believe that it's the responsibility of government to respond as quickly as possible. That's why we have established in my office that correspondence will be replied to and returned within 14 working days, same as my deputy minister and assistant deputy ministers.

We also have tax ruling issues where, when people send in…. We're going to do about 6,300 tax rulings this year, and we get those done in two days. Complex issues — we get those done in 20 days. We'll achieve 75 percent of those. We are seeing increased complexity in those requests. We're going to address that.

We are also seeing that people want to register for sales tax and other tax being done, where possible, within the first working day, if not the second working day. Our team at the ministry — just under 900 employees — is committed to improving customer service

G. Robertson: If you will be more specific in terms of results from Fast-Track and its relation to the ministry currently, does the ministry have any current contracts with the former point person for Fast-Track, Gary Cowan? Is the ministry engaged in any contracts with Gary Cowan at this point?

The Chair: Member, again I encourage you to move on from the Fast-Track, which I think the minister's made clear is no longer a function of his department. But we'd certainly look for other questions.

Questions specifically related to the minister's office. Maybe I'll start with: how much money was spent on travel for the minister and the minister's staff in the previous year, and how much was budgeted for the current year?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The budget for the minister's office last year was $438,000. The budget for this year is $438,000, and this year we have $30,000 budgeted for travel.

G. Robertson: Has the minister taken any concrete steps in his plan for this year to increase accessibility and public accountability in his office?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I believe that my office and the team that I have in my office — Samantha, Pamela, Amanda and Lisa — do a fantastic job, that the public has immediate access to my office and that my staff strive every day to provide the best customer service they can for all British Columbians that are in contact with my office — as I do too.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Are we going to move to B.C. Assessment now? I can change my staff.

G. Robertson: I'll hold off for a few more minutes. I'll move to a question on the luxury auto surtax and the continuation of the surtax. How much is budgeted in terms of cost to the treasury for the luxury auto surtax for this year?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I need clarification on the question. I did not understand the question.

G. Robertson: I'm asking specifically about the luxury auto surtax and the amount of lost tax revenue associated with the luxury auto surtax. That surtax applies to cars. Now the threshold is at $55,000.

Although it started a decade ago, introduced by an NDP government at $32,000, that threshold has increased under this government to $47,000, to $49,000, and now $55,000 is the threshold for a luxury auto surtax. My question to the minister is: how much lost tax revenue is attributable to the luxury auto surtax?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Tax policy is the purview of the Minister of Finance, and that question would be best directed at the Minister of Finance.

G. Robertson: Maybe to clarify, this ministry has no involvement whatsoever, particularly around this initiative and its application to increasing the purchase of hybrid vehicles through tax policy.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Tax policy was tabled in the budget by the Minister of Finance on February 20, I believe — third Tuesday of February. Again, that recognition of hybrid sales tax exemption is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and those questions would best directed at the Minister of Finance. What we do in our ministry, the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, is actually administer tax policy, after policy has been established.

G. Robertson: Maybe that's more where I was headed with that. In terms of administering tax policy, can the minister clarify the amount from the luxury auto surtax that is accrued because of the purchase of hybrid cars?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I don't have that information with me, but I will undertake to get it for the member.

G. Robertson: That would be very helpful — to see the total accrual amount and then the hybrids split off from that as a component of that luxury auto surtax. I'll look forward to seeing that.

Some questions related to the ministry's cross-ministry initiatives, specifically with first nations. My understanding from the service plan is that the ministry assists bands with implementation of independent tax systems, self-taxation for band lands and helping bands assess and collect property taxes. I understand that the government has provided grants.

Will the minister provide some detail on that grant activity last year and for the years ahead?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Could the member just rephrase his question so that we get exactly at the question he's asking — restate? I'm sorry.

G. Robertson: My question is on the amount of grant moneys that have been provided to first nations through the cross-ministry initiative on first nations. How much is being provided to those bands — last year, this year and going forward?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We don't have that exact number with us. We undertake to provide it to the member in

due course. But let me just say this. Our ministry will work with each and every first nations band that wants to look at its development of its self-taxation system for band lands. That is a commitment of our government. It's a commitment of our ministry, and we will work with the first nations of British Columbia, should they want to pursue this matter.

G. Robertson: My understanding from the minister is that he will provide some detail on that. Thank you very much.

A question about the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement — TILMA, the agreement with Alberta — and its impact on the ministry. What involvement does the ministry have in establishing contacts with the professional groups — in particular, business groups — that will fall under TILMA's labour component?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the TILMA agreement is the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Development, and of course labour matters are the responsibility of the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services. Those questions would be best directed to those ministers.

G. Robertson: Maybe specifically to the small business component of this, then. Will the minister ensure that B.C.'s small businesses benefit from maintained or increased levels of environmental protection and ensure that the highest standards are upheld through this agreement for B.C.'s small businesses and their competitiveness?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Again, the agreement is the responsibility of the Minister of Economic Development. But let me tell you very clearly. Our ministry is committed to making sure that we have the most small business–friendly jurisdiction in Canada. We lead Canada today. Our goal is to lead Canada tomorrow and into the future.

That's why we have introduced a taxpayer fairness and service code. We're into our third edition now. That's why we have consultations throughout the province. That's why we have six forums established or planned — have to go through the permanent round table later in the spring — on how we can assist small business achieve the goals that they want to achieve, whether it's between skilled and skillable workers, whether it's looking at export markets, whether it's taking opportunities on the 2010 Olympics.

We have a wide range. Our ministry is committed to working with small business in every region of the province to make sure that they are competitive and that they, too, always enjoy prosperity in British Columbia.

G. Robertson: I'm referring specifically to concerns that have been raised with my office by small businesses that are exporters, that are successful businesses in B.C., and that are concerned that the TILMA — the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement with Alberta — potentially lowers the standards for environmental protection here in B.C. and compromises their ability to compete and market their products.

Is the minister taking any steps directly with the Minister of Economic Development to ensure that standards remain the highest possible, at B.C. standards, and are not rationalized down by this agreement affecting small businesses?

The Chair: Member, again I would say that I think the minister has made it clear that the administration of the TILMA is through the Minister of Economic Development and also through the Minister of Labour. As pertinent as those questions are, they'd be best directed to those ministries.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm surprised. I'm surprised at the member. If he has received concerns, my office has been very open to him for briefings. This issue has not been raised in briefings before estimates. In checking my correspondence file — I keep a fairly detailed file of members' requests and my responses — I have not received any information from this member on these matters.

But as with all members of the House, whether they be the government members or the opposition members, if they have concerns and observations, I would be pleased to receive them and work with them for resolution so that small business in British Columbia can enjoy and can continue to enjoy prosperity.

G. Robertson: Obviously another sensitive topic for the minister, I'm sure. We don't seem to be able to engage this government in any kind of open debate about TILMA and its potential impact on small business — specifically for this ministry — on communities, on municipalities, on all the regulatory framework that exists here in B.C. that comes into question as this agreement is implemented on April 1.

A question about the petroleum registry that was referred to in the energy plan update — the oil and gas policy section. The Ministry of Small Business and Revenue was named in the energy plan update as working in coordination with the Minister of Energy on the development of the petroleum registry. Can the minister clarify the cost and staff time to develop that registry?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We are working together with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Before any decisions are made on moving forward on a registry, we will be developing, in cooperation with them, a business case. Once we have the business case developed, we will be making the appropriate decisions on whether we move forward or don't move forward. Our goal is to have a registry that makes it streamlined and simplified for government to make sure that the royalties and revenues that should be accruing to us are accruing on a timely basis.

As we know, we are seeing unprecedented growth in northeastern British Columbia, with respect to our resource petroleum. We think it's important to work in

partnership with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources on this matter.

G. Robertson: Are there staff time and expense associated with the petroleum registry business case project?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It'll be spent within our existing budgets, which everyone is fully aware of now. Ministry staff will devote the required time to it. Should a business case be developed and approved by me and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and our deputy ministers, then the appropriate staff time will be allocated to them.

G. Robertson: Maybe the minister would just clarify approximately how many FTEs are dedicated to this project in the year ahead.

Hon. R. Thorpe: No individual FTEs are dedicated to this. Again, it's about a team working together to achieve the priorities that are established by a government and the deputy minister to get completed in any given year.

G. Robertson: We'll leave that in the nebulous zone in terms of how much energy is going into it.

A question here specific to small businesses in the wine business, as independent wineries, some of which are in the minister's riding, I would assume. I'm curious if the minister has had correspondence or meetings with independent wineries which are not involved in the VQA and are concerned about their ability to sell their wine into the liquor distribution branch for a comparable premium to the wineries which are part of the voluntary VQA program.

G. Robertson: Is the minister taking steps to support these small businesses which are in a strange situation in terms of their ability to get comparable return for their product?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Late last year the chair of the wine growers, Mr. Bill Eggert, sent me a letter requesting a meeting. I asked for further information. He provided that information, and about three, four weeks ago, I organized a meeting with the member for Penticton–Okanagan Valley, the Minister of Agriculture, the Solicitor General responsible for the liquor distribution branch and liquor policy and me.

It was a very positive and constructive meeting. Unfortunately, at that point in time, the Solicitor General had another issue, and he had to cancel at the very last minute. I understand — I think it was late last week — that the Solicitor General and the Minister of Agriculture did meet with this group. I haven't been briefed on it because, as members know, I had other priorities last week. So I understand that meetings have been taking place and people are working together to try to find solutions.

G. Robertson: That's an encouraging development. Maybe I'll just ask the minister if he is committed to seeing through this process, working with these other ministers, to rectify the situation. Will he have an ongoing role in solving this?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the Minister of Small Business and Revenue, I will in time get a briefing from the ministers responsible, namely the Solicitor General and the Agriculture Minister. As the minister responsible for small business, I take my job very seriously, and I will continue to work to bring the parties together so that a solution can be found.

G. Robertson: Just a final question or two on the minister's office before we move to B.C. Assessment. Maybe we didn't quite get to the question around political staff in the minister's office.

Can the minister share with us the names of the political appointees that are employed by the minister and his ministry this year?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I appoint no political appointees in my office. But I do have four staff members in my office. My ministerial assistant is Sam Howard. My executive assistant is Pamela Hollingsworth.

My receptionist is Amanda. I'm sorry, Amanda. I know your last name, but I have difficulty pronouncing it, so I'm not going to try. I have Lisa Johnson, who is my administrative coordinator. I have four ladies that work in my office, and as I said earlier, they do a tremendous job.

G. Robertson: A question specifically about the staff time in the minister's office, himself included, which is dedicated to meeting with lobbyists. Can the minister comment on time specifically dedicated by the minister's office to meeting with lobbyists?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We don't keep records of time spent with people that want to come for meetings. We have a very open office in my office. Hopefully, we strive to get people in very quickly to my office to see me. My staff work virtually around the clock to provide excellent customer service. Again, we do not keep records by individuals who attend meetings and how much time they spend with us. We try to address the concerns of British Columbians that ask for us to meet with them.

G. Robertson: Is the minister aware when he has a meeting, whether or not his meeting is with people who are registered on the lobbyists registry?

G. Robertson: So there is no tracking of any of these meetings in terms of whether they are in fact lobbying or not? The minister meets with anybody regardless of circumstance?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I meet with British Columbians, with organizations, with individuals, with MLAs who bring constituents to my office, who ask for meetings. We meet with as many British Columbians as want to meet with us.

G. Robertson: Could the minister just comment. Through his ministry, what are the total value of contracts beyond EAS — you can go beyond; we have canvassed EDS Advanced Solutions — which the ministry has engaged in this year?

G. Robertson: That's the only contract that's additional to Advanced Solutions? One contract for professional services?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I misspoke. The answer is about $2.1 million, not $1.2 million.

G. Robertson: That is a single additional contract for professional services and the only contract in addition to that with EAS?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That would not be for a single contract to anyone. My deputy minister and her executive team from time to time will identify the need for special resources, based on projects. They will then proceed and follow government tendering processes and selection processes. That is the overall budgeted amount, not identified with any one contractor but a budget amount based on experience over the years. That is in the budget.

G. Robertson: Were any of these contracts for professional services specifically for communications or public relations?

G. Robertson: Were any contracts awarded by the ministry last year or anticipated for this year specifically for advertising?

G. Robertson: How many of these contracts were related to public consultation?

G. Robertson: Can the minister give some detail on the amount of that contract and the length of time that it is in place for?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Staff advise that the amount is about $200,000. It was for Dallen Consulting, and it pertained to the Small Business Roundtable.

G. Robertson: Is that contract completed, and if so, are there contracts anticipated in the coming year for public consultation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I understand that there are two public consultations remaining in that particular contract with respect to the contract.

Hon. R. Thorpe: The public affairs bureau falls under the minister responsible for Finance, and those questions would be best addressed to the Minister of Finance.

G. Robertson: So the minister has no involvement in choosing how the funding is spent? Is it all dictated by public affairs bureau decision-makers?

Hon. R. Thorpe: To my knowledge, the public affairs bureau has its budget answering through to the Minister of Finance. With respect to the public affairs bureau, my interaction with them is based on content and laying out programs, not about printed material.

G. Robertson: Of the contracts the member has mentioned for professional services, how many of these contracts were untendered?

Hon. R. Thorpe: My deputy minister and the executive in my ministry take the procurement policies of the government very, very seriously. I have been advised that the procurement policy was followed 100 percent of the time.

G. Robertson: I'd like to move to questions on B.C. Assessment, if you want to switch up staff.

The first question specific to B.C. Assessment: will the minister clarify the salary, benefits and bonuses for the CEO?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, first of all, I am joined by and I should acknowledge Doug Rundell, chief executive officer of B.C. Assessment, and by Rob Fraser from the assessment portion of our ministry.

We will all recall that yesterday was Doug Rundell's birthday. He advises me that his base salary is $167,000. He has no bonus program. He does receive the typical benefits, including a car allowance. He leads an organization that is committed to continuous improvement in customer service.

G. Robertson: Is that salary base what is budgeted for the coming years for B.C. Assessment?

G. Robertson: I'm curious. Is that public information — the compensation due to the CEO?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Perhaps, hon. Chair, the member is not aware of this, but all those salaries are in the public accounts that are issued every year.

G. Robertson: Nice to have that clarification. It seems it hasn't been easy for us to find out all of the answers to all of the questions on Crown corporation and public agency salaries. Are there any other Crowns or public bodies that the minister is responsible for?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The Property Assessment Appeal Board. It's a quasi-judicial board that reviews property tax appeals after they've been through the review panels.

G. Robertson: Will the minister just lay out how compensation related to the Property Assessment Appeal Board is structured?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The appointments to the assessment appeal board are done through an OIC through cabinet. The salaries to those individuals follow Treasury Board and cabinet guidelines, and the appeal board is funded through a thousand dollar vote with a funding requisition through B.C. Assessment.

G. Robertson: A question within B.C. Assessment, taking from their audited financial statements that ended December 31, 2005. There was a forecast of 717 full-time-equivalent staff; only 681 were actuals. I'm curious if there were fewer activities undertaken by the authority in these years that resulted in significantly lower numbers of staff being employed?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I've been advised that yes, the forecast for 2005 was 717. The actual was 681. B.C. Assessment had a major undertaking in that year called "value B.C." They did not need as many staff as they originally forecasted, and that's the reason for 681 versus a forecast of 717.

G. Robertson: With respect to the B.C. Assessment contract that has been in place with the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority, particularly around implementation or cost-associated revenues and costs associated to produce the first roll for the parking tax, is there an ongoing contract? Is there work taking place with the GVTA related to the parking tax?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We did enter into a contract for that service, and we do have an ongoing contract for that service.

G. Robertson: Will the member share some of the specifics of that contract — the value of that contract and the term of it?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, the contract is ongoing. The initial contract was a fee-for-service for all B.C. Assessment costs, including capital, training, etc. Currently, B.C. Assessment is negotiating a fee schedule with TransLink on a going-forward basis.

In the year 2005 it had been advised that the contract had a value of about $3.8 million and in 2006 a value of about $2.1 million. As I said, negotiations are currently ongoing, and no contract has been finalized.

G. Robertson: The minister has no doubt heard a great deal from small businesses in the Greater Vancouver regional district that have been impacted by the parking tax. Has the minister taken any active role in reducing or eliminating that tax, working with the Minister of Transportation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, I am on record as one opposing that tax. However, the previous government had a legislative provision put in that TransLink was able to follow. They did follow the laws of British Columbia and exercise their legal rights to do that. I, personally, have been opposed to that parking tax.

G. Robertson: Has the minister called on the Minister of Transportation to increase funding to TransLink in order to offset the costs that are currently being covered by the parking tax?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Funding arrangements for TransLink and with respect to transportation would be best addressed to the Minister of Transportation.

G. Robertson: I'm curious if the minister is advocating on behalf of the small businesses in the GVRD, working with the Minister of Transportation to provide adequate funding to TransLink in order that they aren't forced to go with the parking tax and severely impact small businesses in the region. Is the minister taking an active role in that advocacy?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have made my views with respect to the parking tax very well known. I am against the parking tax. TransLink has a number of other revenue options available to it to pursue. In fact, I don't think that the member is saying that once again the treasury of British Columbia should cover someone else's shortfall. But TransLink chose to go down this route. TransLink will probably have to find alternatives if it wishes to actually listen to the concerns of small business. On behalf of small business, I am opposed to that parking tax.

G. Robertson: Well, I know that small businesses in the region would be pleased to hear that the minister was taking a more robust and active role in opposition

to the parking tax and, specifically, given the privilege of his office, was taking an active role in working with the Minister of Transportation to, in fact, ensure that TransLink is adequately funded, not by small businesses in what is a fairly regressive manner. Small businesses have clearly made that known, but the minister has the ability to work with the Minister of Transportation directly on providing for a more reasonable solution here. I, of course, encourage him to do that on behalf of the small businesses in the GVRD.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of 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.