Hansard — Tuesday, May 15, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		7997

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7998
	Dry grad
	H. Bloy
	May Day Hyack Festival
	C. Puchmayr
	Healthy choices in school vending machines
	K. Whittred
	Child Care Provider Appreciation Day
	C. Trevena
	Turn It Off Day
	I. Black
	Economic benefits of mining in B.C.
	J. Horgan

Oral Questions		8000
	Role of Liberal officials in RCMP investigation of government staff
	C. James
	Hon. W. Oppal
	B. Ralston
	J. Kwan
	S. Simpson
	R. Fleming
	G. Robertson
	D. Chudnovsky
	B. Simpson
	Hon. M. de Jong
	J. Horgan
	M. Karagianis

Committee of the Whole House		8004
	Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21) (continued)
	N. Macdonald
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8008
	Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 21)

Committee of the Whole House		8008
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 22)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	C. Trevena
	J. Brar
	N. Macdonald
	N. Simons
	S. Fraser
	C. Wyse
	L. Mayencourt

Reporting of Bills		8022
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 22)

Third Reading of Bills		8022
	Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 22)

Committee of the Whole House		8023
	Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 32)
	G. Robertson
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	G. Gentner
	M. Karagianis

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8031
	Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 32)

Second Reading of Bills		8032
	Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	J. Horgan

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		8033
	Estimates: Ministry of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. Kwan
	D. Routley

C. Puchmayr: I have the Seniors Outreach Support program of the Centre of Integration in New Westminster here today, and I will just name them off. They're up in the gallery: Amy Kapinga, Marie Malo, Agnes Biakudia, Hanna Diggs, Anita Saniford, Agnes Ofori, Janis Jones, Ometa Gittens, Charles Gittens, Henry Mwandemere, Kazimir Nzazi, Mrs. Nzazi, Paul Mulanga and Roslyn Simon. Please make them all extremely welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: Joining us in the gallery today are several members from the Minoru Seniors Society from my riding of Richmond Centre. I'd like the House to join me in welcoming president Georgina Hamilton, along with members of the executive Jacob and Lily Braun, Eleanore Mitchell, Bill and Melvena Sorenson, Joyce Johnston and Iris Reid. Please join me in making them feel welcome today.

C. Wyse: In Cariboo South, the Ashcroft area is renowned for its performing arts, art and the artists. Today I would ask you to join me in welcoming Pauline Ogilvie, one of the Ashcroft area's renowned local artists.

Hon. T. Christensen: Today marks International Day of Families. It's very fitting that we're joined today by a number of workers from the Ministry of Children and Family Development who are specifically dedicated to two programs that are geared towards reconnecting children, their families and their extended families in their community.

We have a number of people joining us from A Child's Roots are Forever program, as well as the Family Finders program. I hope the House will join me in welcoming Jennifer Popeil, Frankie Kelly, Carolle Harder, Melanie Laird, Jessica Heath, Lynne Thanos, Darlene Hall and Jennifer Donison. Each of these individuals makes a real difference in the lives of children in connecting them with their family and extended family. Please join me in welcoming them to the precinct today.

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have my dear friend Gian Sihota, his wife Mrs. Kamal Sihota, his uncle Mr. Sucha Singh Sihota from India — a retired major — and their daughter Roma Sihota. Please join me to welcome them.

R. Sultan: In the Legislature today are 30 students from one of the jewels in the crown of the West Vancouver school system, Ridgeview Elementary School. These 30 students are accompanied by several parents and two of their teachers, Ms. Kerry Fairburn and Ms. A. Rice.

I must say that I've had a written correspondence with each of these students, who have grilled me on life at the Legislature. Now they've come to see it in the flesh, so would you please make them welcome.

J. Horgan: This is an introduction of some great distance. I've just confirmed with my colleague the Minister of Energy that while my son was travelling in Bulgaria, he happened upon his stepdaughter. So the spirit of collegiality that the minister and I have is now being shared by our children on another continent. I didn't want to miss the opportunity.

R. Lee: Joining us in the Legislature today are 30 grade 5 students from Holy Cross Elementary School accompanied by some of their parents and their teachers, Mrs. Sabina McCloskey and Miss Lena Fernandes. They are here to learn about the Legislature and how government works. Will the House please extend a very warm welcome.

J. Yap: Further to the introduction by the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services, I'd like to welcome a few more of the wonderful seniors from Richmond and the Minoru Seniors Society, who are here for a field trip in Victoria to witness democracy in action here in the House.

We have in the public gallery the following folks: Jean Fey, Beverly Phillips, Barry and Kay Ogilvie and from my riding of Richmond-Steveston, Daryl Whiting and Wayne Colling. Would the House please make them welcome.

I. Black: I have two introductions to make today. I would first like to welcome members from the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation, Allan Lamb and David Dunne, as well as representatives of the RCMP locally and Dr. Jocelyn Pedder of RONA Kinetics, who are into the interesting area of biomechanics. They are all here today with respect to an announcement on booster seats on the front steps. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Secondly, we all have our role models in this world. Two of mine are here today. My mom and dad are here. Would the House please make them feel welcome as well.

D. Hayer: I'm pleased to introduce two sets of guests who are here in the House today. Some of the very special guests include Jane Adams, who is the new president and CEO of Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation, and my wife Isabelle Martinez, who is one of my volunteers and who is also a volunteer director of the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation.

This foundation has raised over $45 million for equipment in the past 15 years for Surrey Memorial Hospital. Now they have a new fundraising campaign underway to raise $15 million for the new Surrey Memorial Hospital's emergency centre, which will be state

of the art and will triple the size. At the same time our government has invested more than $220 million to improve the health care infrastructure in Surrey. Would the House please make them very welcome.

H. Bloy: I rise in the House today for a very special occasion on behalf of myself, my brother Randy, my sister Debby and our extended family. Today is the special birthday of my dad. My dad Robert Bloy turns 93 years young today. [Applause.]

Thank you for acknowledging that. I know he watches every day. It's great that we have family that watch us here in the House every day. I want to wish my dad a happy birthday and all my love.

Hon. L. Reid: Further to the booster seat announcement today, I'd like to welcome to the precincts the two booster children who were so very kind to assist us today, Annie and Jack Blundell. One is six, and one is eight. They're exactly the audience we are hoping to reach with our booster seat announcements today. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: I also have another special guest. That's my son. Anthony Singh Martinez is here. He was 12 years old when I was first elected in 2001. He was constantly one of the key volunteers on our team in Surrey-Tynehead and is one of the hardest-working members in Surrey. Would the House please make him very welcome.

H. Bloy: The month of May marks the beginning of an exciting time in many students' lives across the province — high school graduation. I'm sure some of the members in the House can remember.

Today I want to talk about dry grad. Dry grad can help develop an attitude among students in the community that a good time can be had without alcohol or drugs, increasing awareness of the dangers of combining drinking and driving.

It is with great pride that I announce two high schools in Burnaby, Burnaby Mountain Secondary and Burnaby North Secondary, that are both strong supporters of dry grad. Many dry grad ceremonies encompass a theme such as the one hosted by Burnaby Mountain Secondary, a Night in Neverland. The night will include dancing, playing casino games, food and over $2,000 worth of prizes to be won.

Recently, B.C. liquor stores encouraged customers across the province to donate $1 for each purchase to support dry grad celebrations in their communities. Burnaby schools received $15,000, and Coquitlam schools received over $25,000 towards dry grad celebrations.

Many other companies, such as Lougheed Town Centre, participated in fundraising and awareness events as well. Fraser Health has donated over $400 to each high school throughout the Fraser region, and they have produced a video But I AM in Control. I can tell you it is worthwhile for everyone to see, and it will be shown to all high school students.

With further support and increased awareness about dry grad celebrations, we can continue to provide our students and communities with a safe graduation season. Congratulations to all graduating students. You are our future. Have a safe, happy and dry grad.

C. Puchmayr: This Saturday is the first day of the May Day Hyack Festival in New Westminster. It includes sporting tournaments, multicultural festivals, art exhibits, heritage displays, fireworks and more.

On Victoria Day at noon in Queen's Park stadium, the honourable Hyack anvil battery does a 21-anvil salute to the Queen. It's very interesting. They have two very heavy anvils. They put a shot glass of gunpowder in between them, and they light them with a long red-hot poker. It's quite loud and makes a lot of noise. It's quite a spectacle. It sets off a lot of dog alarms as well.

Wednesday May 23 is the 137th May Day. The member from Port Coquitlam spoke about their May Day. Ours goes back to 1870, and I'm sure some of the members on the other side recall that first May Day in New Westminster. They might have read about it because they're such great historians.

This is an incredible event. There are over 70 events, and most of them are free of charge. They include a dog agility show that is absolutely spectacular and bands playing in the park on Monday. There's a carnival. There are fireworks down at Westminster Quay.

It's an incredible festival. There's more information available on the Internet. If you go to hyack.bc.ca, log on and get more information. We hope to see you next Saturday, not this Saturday coming up, for the great Hyack parade with, over 140 participants from Canada and the United States, including the Seattle Seafair Pirates. It's an incredible display with marching bands and motorcycle drill teams. I'm sure that most of my colleagues on both sides of the House will be there with me, enjoying this great festival.

K. Whittred: Childhood obesity is a serious problem with serious long-term consequences. The scope of this issue is discussed in detail in the report of the all-party legislative Health Committee.

Some of us in this House can remember schools actually without vending machines. Everyone in this House can picture vending machines stocked with pop, chips, Cheezies, chocolate bars, gummy bears and suckers.

I'm proud to say that vending machines stocked full of junk food are a thing of the past at North

Vancouver's Carson Graham School. Located in my riding, it is the first school in British Columbia to give students the only option of a healthy snack. Filled with apples, vegetable dips and even some healthy chips, the vending machines are said to be a hit. From all reports, the healthy snacks are so popular that they can barely keep the machines stocked to meet the demand.

The goal of the Ministry of Education is to have all school vending machines dispense only healthy snacks by 2009. Congratulations to the North Vancouver school district and Carson Graham School for taking this important step to ban junk food. Let them be an example of the difference a healthy choice can make in a student's life and be a model for all schools in British Columbia.

C. Trevena: I rise to speak about Child Care Provider Appreciation Day. It's great that there is such a day. Today is the day. It's a day where we can acknowledge and celebrate child care providers.

In most households these days, both parents work because they cannot afford not to, so they need child care. Single parents also need child care because they too have to go to work, and they need support for their children. Some parents who are not at work also choose to opt for child care.

All these people appreciate their providers. Parents talk in glowing terms about those who look after their children — that is, if they can find child care. If you talk to a parent about child care, the story soon turns to the desperate hunt for it — the phone calls, the visits, the wait-lists, the trips from one centre to another to find space and the trek across the city because the only available space is 40 minutes from home or work.

There are the rural communities where there may be only about seven spaces to start with for the whole community. The demand is there, but no one can actually afford to open up a new centre.

Parents are forced into difficult choices. Do they quit work? That's if they have the luxury to be able to afford to quit. Do they leave their child with a neighbour or a friend or a relative? There's the 72-year-old grandmother who's looking after her two-year-old autistic grandson, or the young woman who wants to get off welfare and go back to school but can't find child care or the nurse who hasn't gone back to work because she can't find child care.

Child care providers nurture our children. They provide early education, socialization, learning through experience and learning through play. They deserve to be appreciated. Parents know this. They want this choice, and they want the best possibilities for their kids.

If we truly wanted to appreciate child care providers, we'd invest in their hard work. We'd ensure that providers could pay staff a living wage and create more spaces. Without those commitments, Child Care Provider Appreciation Day is little more than a rhetorical flourish.

I. Black: "There's got to be 50 lights on in this house." It was a line that I recall hearing often as a child. I think my grandfather and then my parents took ownership of it, and it was up there with: "Are you trying to heat the whole neighbourhood?" or "Were you born in a barn?"

The first of these heartfelt expressions of parental affection has a theme consistent with the day of significance in our energy plan's objective to be energy self-sufficient by 2016. Tomorrow, Wednesday, May 16, is Turn It Off Day in British Columbia.

B.C. Hydro, in partnership with the non-profit group 30 Days of Sustainability, is asking British Columbians to turn off all unnecessary lights and appliances in order to reduce their electricity use.

We've been a net importer of electricity for each of the last five years, and with our economy growing by leaps and bounds, the gap between supply and demand could grow even worse. The first and best way of reducing this gap is to conserve more. Turn off your computer, your printer and your photocopier when it's not in use. Add to that your DVD players, VCRs and the stereo systems in your homes.

If all families in B.C. that usually leave their computers and monitors running 24 hours a day turned them off when they're not in use, the province would save 330 gigawatt hours per year in electricity. That's almost 2½ days of our province's annual power consumption. Replace your incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent lights whenever possible. Unplug your cell phone, camera and other battery chargers once the charging is complete.

We all have an individual role to play, and more than 120 businesses have pledged their support for the day through B.C. Hydro. In fact, the government of British Columbia is the largest employer participating in tomorrow's event. So we ask for your leadership by encouraging your family and friends to participate. For goodness' sake, turn off those lights when you leave the room. Grandpa would be proud.

J. Horgan: Mining Week is an opportunity for those of us representing urban areas to reflect on the importance of mining to our economy. Mining, by the numbers, is a compelling story. The average compensation in the sector is $94,000 a year. Direct employment is nearly 10,000, with another 28,000 in indirect jobs. It's not just the jobs and economic spinoffs in rural British Columbia but jobs and economic activity that the industry generates in our cities, large and small.

In addition to the economic benefits, there are the more tangible, less talked about attributes of mining in B.C. Michael McPhie of the Mining Association reminds us today in the press that the footprint from mining on the natural environment, in terms of the

land base, is less than 28,000 hectares, or 0.05 percent of the province. For that modest impact on the land base, we extract the minerals to manufacture a wide range of consumer goods that most of us would be lost without.

Our coking coal from the Elk Valley is an indispensable component of the steel that shapes our rapid transit systems and forms the strength of the Vancouver skyline. But the industry is not without its challenges. On the environment front, the industry is working hard to limit impacts on water and the land, which have been the source of first nations life for generations. Progress has been made, but much work remains to be done.

Of all our resource industries, mining is the most affected by fluctuating commodity prices. As we celebrate Mining Week this year, the prices have never been better. Slumping international markets in the '90s meant that development was deferred. Since 1995 world gold prices have increased by 78 percent, lead by 221 percent, zinc by 209 percent and copper by over 330 percent.

Good times for mining are good times for all British Columbians, provided the industry continues to respect first nations and the environment. As we acknowledge the industry and all that it means to B.C., let us also remind the mining community to keep sustainability at the forefront of all that they do in British Columbia.

C. James: Today in court we learned that following a meeting with the Premier, B.C. Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert met with the police on June 24, 2005, and told them that laying charges against Mr. Basi for dirty political tricks would embarrass the Liberal Party.

My question is to the Attorney General. Will he inform this House: what specific instructions did the Premier give Mr. Reichert in advance of Mr. Reichert's meeting with the RCMP?

Hon. W. Oppal: The Leader of the Opposition well knows that we're not going to comment on evidence that's before the courts. That's obvious.

C. James: The public expects answers from this government when it comes to very serious allegations involving a court case, involving political dirty tricks alleged in the Premier's office.

In an RCMP document marked "Kelly Reichert. Not for disclosure," we learned that Mr. Reichert told the Premier that the charges would be recommended for dirty tricks. According to the documents read in court, the RCMP asked Mr. Reichert if the potential for harm to the B.C. Liberal Party should take precedence over good prosecution. Mr. Reichert said it would.

Again, to the Attorney General: does he believe that protecting the B.C. Liberal Party from political embarrassment is more important than protecting the public from political corruption?

Hon. W. Oppal: I believe in a fair trial for the men who are now charged in the Supreme Court.

C. James: I think perhaps we should remind the members on the other side that they in fact did not take a vow of silence. They took an oath of office when they came into this position.

In 2003 the Premier said: "The important thing is that an investigation is carried out thoroughly and diligently by the RCMP." Two years later his party is refusing to answer and trying to cover up allegations into political corruption.

Again, my question to the Attorney General: when the Premier met with Mr. Reichert before the meeting with the police, did the Premier tell Mr. Reichert to fully cooperate instead of trying to cover up?

Hon. W. Oppal: We believe in the independence of the courts. We believe that the court….

Hon. W. Oppal: We believe the court will come to a just and fair decision, and it will do us no good to comment on allegations that are before the court.

B. Ralston: The first obligation of the Premier is to uphold the law and maintain the highest ethical standards in the province. The Attorney General speaks often of the sub judice rule, but in certain cases there are exceptions. Where this kind of allegation is made, the public has a right to know what went on in that conversation between Kelly Reichert and the Premier.

My question to the Attorney General is: will he inform the House who ordered Kelly Reichert, the executive director of the B.C. Liberal Party, to attempt to sidetrack the RCMP investigation into the B.C. Liberal Party dirty political tricks?

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to quote a statement here attributed to the member for Nanaimo. "It is essential to the rule of law…

Hon. W. Oppal: …that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with. High-profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public that were later deemed prejudicial."

B. Ralston: I would suggest to the Attorney General that the sub judice rule has exceptions. This is one case where there ought to be an exception, where it's a matter of the highest and paramount public interest to know what went on in the Premier's office.

B. Ralston: …of the highest ethical standards and the upholding of the law here in this House today.

Hon. W. Oppal: If the rule has exceptions, the hon. member for Nanaimo didn't think so.

J. Kwan: "One of the things we've done in B.C. relatively well is that we have set up a process where these sorts of investigations can take place and where there is no political interference." From the Premier in 2003.

According to documents read in court today, the RCMP asked Mr. Reichert if the potential for harm to the B.C. Liberal Party outweighs the public good in prosecution. Mr. Reichert replied: "Yes." Is this what the Attorney General would call no political interference?

Hon. W. Oppal: "According to documents filed" — that doesn't prove anything. The documents may have been filed; the documents may not be accurate. Any allegations or any evidence that is let in a courtroom may be factual. It may not be factual. That's why it's dangerous to jump to conclusions and come to premature judgments. It's wrong to do that.

J. Kwan: Will the Attorney General then commit today in this House that he will ask the Premier if he directed Kelly Reichert to advance the arguments that protecting the B.C. Liberal Party from political embarrassment is more important than protecting the public from learning about political corruption?

S. Simpson: We've heard the Attorney General talk about integrity in this House. The reality is that the integrity and the ethics of this government and the public interest are what is at hand, and they are not being served by this Attorney General and this government on this issue.

The revelations in court today suggested there were dirty tricks that occurred by political operatives of the government from this building — that Mr. Reichert was aware of that. He spoke to the Premier. Sometime shortly after speaking to the Premier, he then interfered in matters. That's the allegation made in court today.

The question I have is…. As was noted, the Premier's job is to uphold the law. The Premier's job was to tell Mr. Reichert not to proceed in that way. Clearly, he either didn't tell him, or Mr. Reichert didn't listen to the Premier's advice. We don't know what that is. Will the Attorney General get those answers and get them into this House for us tomorrow?

Hon. W. Oppal: Regrettably, we don't know the answers. That's why we're having a trial. That's why we have a trial. That's why we have a judge. That's why we have witnesses who testify under oath, where wild allegations are not made. In an objective environment of the courtroom, the facts will come out. We'll wait for the facts to come out.

S. Simpson: If we want the facts, presumably they're easy to get. The Attorney General could ask the Premier what happened in that discussion. That's what we could do.

The Premier has continually talked about being open and transparent and wanting this trial to proceed that way. Let's have a little openness. Let's have a little transparency. Demand of the Premier that he tell the people of British Columbia the makings of that discussion with Mr. Reichert.

Hon. W. Oppal: Let me see if I've got this right. There's a trial going on in Vancouver alleging serious criminal allegations. So right in the middle of the trial we should call the Premier and put him under oath. To do what? You know, this is how….

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, it's amazing to me how little they understand of the judicial process, how little they understand the….

Hon. W. Oppal: There are very serious allegations that are being made in a courtroom. You know, there's another side to it. We call that fairness. If there are allegations being made by Crown witnesses, they may be refuted by defence witnesses.

At the end of the day, the judge and/or jury will make up their minds. That's how the system works. It doesn't help the system to make wild allegations, make findings of fact without hearing any of the cross-examination or any of that. To do that in this House — it serves no useful purpose.

R. Fleming: You know, this government is content, apparently, to keep the public in the dark for something that happened in 2003, and there are disturbing allegations coming out about political interference. Again, to the Attorney General: does he not feel…?

R. Fleming: Does the Attorney General not feel that he needs to revisit his colleague's hollow assertions about political interference in light of discussions revealed by Mr. Reichert?

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the same answer. It's not appropriate to comment on allegations, anything that goes on in a courtroom. I'm not going to do it.

R. Fleming: The president of the B.C. Liberal Party asked the RCMP, on tape and off tape, if the B.C. Liberal Party's involvement in organized, dirty political tricks…. If they could be spared that embarrassment by steering the investigation away from charges that might bring that into evidence…. That is an outstanding finding.

The Attorney General — to him again. Conversations are alleged to have happened between the party….

R. Fleming: Mr. Reichert informed the Premier about the investigation. Does the Attorney General not feel it is appropriate to ask the Premier about what his involvement in this investigation has been?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, when the House adjourns today, I'll be quite prepared to tell the member outside the difference between a finding and an allegation. There's a special prosecutor that's appointed. The reason a special prosecutor is appointed is in order to avoid any suggestion of any political interference or any political influence.

G. Robertson: This is about the public, the people of B.C., confidence in the integrity of the Premier and the Attorney General. Will the Attorney General commit in this House to asking the Premier to fully disclose his role in this political interference to the people of B.C.?

Hon. W. Oppal: No, this is about preserving the integrity of an independent system.

G. Robertson: The Premier's first duty, again, is to uphold the laws of B.C. Hon. Speaker, the Attorney General's job is to make sure that happens.

Will the Attorney General condemn the actions of this Premier and his party for the cover-up of their dirty tricks campaign?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm quite content to have Madam Justice Elizabeth Bennett make the decision as opposed to some ill-informed MLA.

D. Chudnovsky: The Attorney General has the opportunity in this House today, in this House of the people today, to clarify for the people whether he can assure the people of British Columbia that this government has not been involved in dirty tricks. He can do that. He can assure the people of the province today that the Liberal Party has not been involved in dirty tricks. He can assure the people of the province today that the Liberal Party and this government have not been involved in cover-up. He can choose to do that today.

Hon. W. Oppal: No, my job is to protect the integrity of the system. That's what my job is.

D. Chudnovsky: I would suggest to the hon. Attorney General that it's the job of the Premier to protect the integrity of the province. So I ask the Attorney General: will he request of the Premier today that the Premier reassure the people of the province that the government wasn't involved in dirty tricks, that the Liberal Party wasn't involved in dirty tricks, and that the Liberal Party and the government were not involved in a cover-up?

It's the Premier's job to protect the integrity of the province. The Attorney General can choose today to suggest to and ask the Premier that he do that. Will the Attorney General make such a request?

Hon. W. Oppal: One of the cherished principles in our democracy that operates under the rule of law is

the independence of the courts. The courts operate independently of the Legislature, and it's a good thing they do, because this is a perfect example of why we ought to retain independence of the courts — listening to some of the irresponsible comments that have been made in this chamber here today.

B. Simpson: The Attorney General has just indicated that his job is to protect the integrity of the system. The Attorney General's job is an interesting and unique job because, on the one hand, the Attorney General has a political role to play in cabinet, and he has a role to play as the top law enforcement officer in the province.

So far the Attorney General has chosen to act as a political operative and to protect the Liberal Party in this case and to protect the Office of the Premier.

B. Simpson: My question is to the Attorney General. Will he take a step back and act as the top law enforcement officer of this province, maintain the integrity of the system and answer this question: what is it that the Attorney General is going to do, based on the allegations of interference from the Premier's office? What will he do as the top law enforcement officer to examine those allegations?

Hon. M. de Jong: This Attorney General is a learned member of the bar. This Attorney General was a member of the bench for years and years and earned the respect of British Columbians. He does not need….

Hon. M. de Jong: This Attorney General does not need to be lectured to by an individual member who so clearly doesn't understand the role of the Attorney General and so clearly doesn't understand the importance of an independent judiciary in British Columbia.

B. Simpson: It's nice that the minister of defence rose again in the House today. I recall yesterday…

B. Simpson: …that the minister of defence rose in this House to impugn the reputation of a member on this side with all of the self-righteousness that he's showing today.

My question is very clear, and the role of the Attorney General is also very clear. The Attorney General has a political function in cabinet and a function as the chief enforcement officer. We're asking him to act as the chief law enforcement officer and act on the allegations that the Premier's office is involved in this case.

Will he step back from his political role and act as the law enforcement officer that he is supposed to be and investigate the Premier's office and the allegations that have been made today?

Hon. M. de Jong: I shudder to think what would be the result if, God forbid, there were a day when a member with the attitude, approach and disregard for an independent judiciary, which this member clearly has, were ever in a position to be sitting on this side of the House. I shudder to think what would become of one of the most sacred principles that guides our democracy, and that is an independent judiciary. This Attorney General understands that principle…

Hon. M. de Jong: …and the members on the opposite side of the House clearly don't. Thank God we have an Attorney General who does understand the principle.

J. Horgan: It's good to see the House Leader on his feet giving aid and comfort to the Attorney General. Maybe I'll pose my question to the House Leader, because he was here in 2003 when the police came into this building and took out documents that led to the events that we're seeing before the courts today.

But the Attorney General wasn't here for Steve Vander Wal. He wasn't here for Prem Vinning. Dirty tricks — known, committed, done, happening again. We have evidence before court today. We have public comment today about the integrity of the government of British Columbia and the Premier's office.

I'm asking the House Leader: will he stand in this place and put the public interest ahead of the interests of the Liberal Party?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's the difference, you see. The member apparently didn't understand what I said earlier. Evidence doesn't become factual unless a judge says it's factual, so you don't rely on evidence. You

J. Horgan: Well, certainly the Attorney General can separate himself from this place if he chooses. But the Premier, the head of the executive council for the province of British Columbia, has an obligation to speak for the public interest — not for his partisan interests, not for the B.C. Liberal Party, but for the public interest.

Will the House Leader today commit to get a response from the Premier to these allegations of dirty tricks and corruption inside the Premier's office? Will he commit to that today?

Hon. M. de Jong: This Premier, this Attorney General and each member of this government, I'm happy to say, understand the fundamental importance of protecting the independence of judiciary. We will do that duty….

If I see people making signs again in this House, they will be thrown out. Understood?

Hon. M. de Jong: We will do that duty, Mr. Speaker, because we understand it. Sadly, members opposite apparently do not.

M. Karagianis: Well, the whole problem is not tainting the evidence in this case. The problem is the fact that there is no prosecution right now in the dirty tricks being played within this government. There is no prosecution looking into why the Liberal Party interfered with the process to determine whether prosecution should proceed.

Madam Justice Bennett cannot make any decisions based on that, and frankly, the Attorney General can't have it both ways. He cannot invoke sub judice on the one hand and then move to cover up political tricks and dirty games at the same time.

M. Karagianis: The Attorney General has an obligation to the public of British Columbia and to this House to deliver to us in this House a report on why the Premier interfered and to tell us in this House….

M. Karagianis: The Attorney General has an obligation to the public of British Columbia to come clean and explain why this government is not rushing in to assure the public that these dirty tricks are not part of this government's agenda.

Hon. W. Oppal: I think I've already answered the question several times. You know, this is why we have a trial. The trial will….

Hon. W. Oppal: We have a trial. The trial will conclude. It will come to a decision, one way or the other. Why don't we wait?

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007, to be followed in due course by Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007; and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, the continued estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 21; H. Bloy in the chair.

N. Macdonald: I'll finish off with one last comment. The minister asked rhetorically, I think, at the end, what people who had asked for legislation similar to this would say about what is being put forward here. I think the clear answer to that is: the expectation is that when we put something forward, we have it thoroughly thought through.

I've had the opportunity — and I'm going to allow this to move on now — to say very clearly that I think this part, removing the opportunity for grievance, weakens this bill substantially and means that the proper process which should be in place has been removed.

I think I've been clear on that, and certainly the minister has been clear that she has an opposing view. With that, I'll allow this to continue unless my colleague has a question.

D. Cubberley: This being the last section of the bill proper before we go into related amendments, I want to raise a matter which speaks to the issue of developing the on-line registry.

In particular, this bill will create two on-line registries — one of those, and by far the larger one, for certificate teachers who are members of the college. The other registry is much smaller but nonetheless of the same design, based on what we understand from the bill, for a smaller group of teachers who teach under permission established by the inspector of independent schools.

There will of course be costs associated with the creation of registries. In the one case, presumably because the inspector reports to the minister, the costs belong to the minister. In the other case, the registry is being mandated for the college.

The bill appears to be silent on the issue of costs for the creation of the registry. I want to ask the minister if that's by intent or oversight and what proposal there is, if any, around the financing of both the registries.

D. Cubberley: So we're doing this differently between the independent school sector for non-certificate teachers and for certificate teachers reporting to the college. Maybe the minister could give me the rationale for that.

Hon. S. Bond: We expect the College of Teachers to manage this within the resources that they have.

D. Cubberley: I'll ask the question again, because that didn't respond directly to the question I asked. The question I asked was….

We have two categories of personnel who are captured by this registry. One portion of them in both public and private is certificate teachers reporting to the college. Another portion of them is permitted to teach under permissions provided by the inspector of independent schools. Registries are being mandated for both of them.

One of those is going to be provided for by the minister, presumably — and the minister can comment on that — and funded for the inspector of independent schools. The other is going to be required to be paid for by the employees themselves through the College of Teachers.

Let's leave it there. I would like a rationale for why they're being treated differently.

Hon. S. Bond: The College of Teachers is a self-regulating body, and we believe they have resources available to manage the costs.

D. Cubberley: Again, there was a rationale about the College of Teachers, but not one around the inspector of independent schools and the on-line registry there.

Let me try it another way and see if we can get a little closer to it. If the college is expected to pay for it through an assessment of its members, are those who teach under letters of permission in independent schools expected to pay to the inspector of independent schools an assessment to cover the costs of the on-line registry? And if not, why not?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite would know that the College of Teachers is a self-regulating body. We believe that there is capacity to manage these resources. While independent teachers do pay fees for certification, they are not a self-regulating body.

D. Cubberley: I'm not sure what the connection is between student safety and being or not being a self-regulating body. This is a matter of providing resources that create a public registry for discipline. In the case of one set of teachers who have the privilege of teaching in schools that are endorsed and approved by the Minister of Education — from what I understand of the minister — they will not be required to pay fees that will cover off the costs of creating this registry. That is something that the minister appears to be prepared to do for them.

On the other hand, in the case of teachers teaching in the public schools, the minister feels that that's something that they can quite comfortably afford to do for themselves. I would just like to understand the difference in the standard being applied. As to the fact that the teachers are in a college and that the others are not in a college and report to an inspector, I'm not sure what that has to do with paying for an on-line registry.

Hon. S. Bond: We believe that the College of Teachers has the capacity to manage the cost, and that's what the expectation will be.

D. Cubberley: To follow that, you believe that teachers teaching in separate schools and independent schools don't have the resources to pay the costs. Is that it?

Hon. S. Bond: The independent school teachers are not a self-regulating body.

D. Cubberley: I'm not sure what that had to do with my question. They may not be a self-regulating body, but the obligation is being placed in the same

Both levels of schooling are endorsed by the same minister and fall ultimately under her regulation. I'm simply trying to probe as to why the minister is willing to pay the costs for one registry and mandating that the costs be paid for by others in the case of another.

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, this question has been asked and answered. We believe that the College of Teachers has the capacity to manage these costs, and that will be the expectation.

D. Cubberley: I will move on, after concluding that that question was asked, but not answered in the spirit in which it was asked — and it was asked three times. I will take from that that the minister intends not to answer that question, and move on to the next one.

Regarding the registry that will be created, given that this is something that is going to have to report the same classes of discipline and infraction between teachers teaching under a letter of permission and teachers who are certificate teachers and that it will involve the creation of the same kinds of software and hardware to make this available to the public, has the minister considered mandating the sharing of the template so that there is a consistent standard between the two registries?

Because she is committed to investing in the registry required by the inspector of independent schools, would she consider sharing the template with the college so that we don't have redundant investments in costs?

Hon. S. Bond: We would certainly consider all of those kinds of discussions. We did not want to pre-empt that with not having the legislation passed. We're in the very early stages, and as we formulate a plan, we would be happy to have those kinds of discussions.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate that amount of openness. I think I'm going to attempt to move an amendment that would mandate that the minister reimburse the college and the inspector of independent schools for costs reasonably incurred. I'll pass it to my learned colleague, who can tell me whether it's in order or not, with a copy to the minister.

The Chair: The motion is not in order. The amendment is not in order. It involves the expenditure of public funds. Please continue, Member.

I think I've made my comments. I would ask that when it does come to implementation, olive branches be extended in this regard and that it not be a continuation of the relationship that prior government has had with the College of Teachers — and an opportunity, therefore, to build bridges rather than to bomb them.

D. Cubberley: This takes us into the longest section of the bill by far, which has to do with amendments to the Independent School Act that are more far-reaching in some respects, although they accomplish the same ends. It appears to be replacing a very small amount of regulation with a much larger amount in the case of independent schools.

I'm interested in the minister's characterization of the status quo prior to this coming into force with regard to independent schools. I would understand that the provisions in place would apply to certificate teachers. They would be similar between independent schools and public schools.

For that group of teachers who are teaching under letters of permission or some other method — they're authorized teachers, I believe, in the act…. Is information kept on those teachers currently by the inspector of independent schools? For example, is the discipline information about them kept currently in the way that it's kept by the College of Teachers for certificate teachers? What's the status of oversight and regulation of them at this moment?

Hon. S. Bond: If you are a certified teacher teaching in the independent school system, your information is with the College of Teachers because that's who certifies you. The point in this additional section is to bring the independent school process into alignment with the expectations of the public school system.

D. Cubberley: That was my surmise, and the minister will forgive me if I wasn't entirely clear about that. I'm not talking about the certificate teachers in particular. I'm talking about the group of teachers within independent schools who are authorized teachers, who are reporting to the inspector of independent schools and not to the college.

My question is: what are the policies and procedures in place to date? Does the inspector of independent schools maintain a discipline registry of some kind? Does the inspector of independent schools notify, in some public way, independent schools around disciplines that are filed currently? What is the practice currently?

Hon. S. Bond: No. I tried to make that clear in my answer, and I obviously didn't. That provision is not in place currently. The whole point of these provisions is actually to bring that into place, and these changes will now mirror the public school circumstance.

D. Cubberley: That was the reason for the question, really — to get at the fact that there is a group within independent schools who are not under any kind of regulation at the present time that would parallel the regulation that's applied currently to certificate teachers.

I think it's important, because when we talk about schools and teachers, people think most readily of the public school system. Really, all the talk in this

chamber has been about the public school system. Here we have a very substantial change to an unregulated sector within independent schools that is very important and hasn't been canvassed at all.

I have a couple of questions. One is: what percentage of the teaching cadre in independent schools is authorized teachers — just in percentage terms, rough terms? What percentage of people teaching in independent schools would this capture? And is there history that we are aware of, with disciplines within this group of teachers who are directly under the purview of the inspector, that has not come to light publicly — where there have been problems?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the statistical breakdown of that particular group of individuals, but we'll work to get that information to the member.

D. Cubberley: So part of the answer there is that we don't actually know what's going on.

D. Cubberley: I did ask, as well, whether there was any history within a group that's unregulated currently — about the kinds of practices occurring where people are hired on or retained in employment who have committed significant offences and where those offences are not being transmitted in some fashion to other employers or to the inspector of independent schools because there isn't a system of regulation in place at the present time. I'm asking whether that has occurred.

We have a tremendous concern for kids' safety here. I'm looking at an unregulated sector, currently, which is directly under an officer of the ministry. It's very important that we have some sense of what's going on in that sector.

Hon. S. Bond: The answer that I gave in terms of not having the data was that we don't have the data in front of us, but there is a process for teachers who are teaching with a teacher's certificate. And there is an independent teacher's certification process, so a teacher can be decertified.

The answer I provided was simply that I don't have the data in terms of the numerical breakdown of how many teachers are certified through the College of Teachers or through the teacher's certificate program.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps we can, as we roll along through this, get an estimate of the number of people who teach in independent schools and then the percentages, certificate and non-certificate. I heard a number from somebody — that it's between a third and 40 percent who may be authorized teachers at independent schools. I don't know how large the teaching body is in total for independent schools, so I don't know how many individuals that may cover.

It's interesting, actually, just to reflect on the fact that in all of the talking that has been done about the need to improve visibility around discipline and give the public a better sense of what's happening in these schools, there hasn't really been any explicit mention of the fact that this sector is currently not under the same kind of regulation that certificate teachers are and that there may not be a formalization of the kinds of practices of making public discipline that the college has in place.

If that is true, then we certainly have to welcome regulation of the sector, because there certainly is the possibility for kids' safety to be badly compromised in circumstances where there is less transparency and accountability than there is in the public school sector, or for certificate teachers teaching in the independent school sector as well. That's to be welcomed.

This being a very long section, I want to raise some other questions about this, but I think I can probably do it in the "Online registry" section. Unless there are others who wish to ask questions, we can roll through some text.

In this section we break out the record of disciplinary action, which I believe is what will appear in the on-line registry. The three significant areas of abuse, which are featured in the on-line registry for certificate teachers reporting to the college, are broken out here. But the subclause which governs all other infringements of code of conduct doesn't appear in this section. I'd just like a comment on that.

I believe I understand why that is, but I want to raise another question about it. The Roman numeral clause that requires the reporting that, after being explicit about three areas that must be reported, says all areas must be reported…. That's not present in this section. Could the minister comment on it?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the expectations are similar. But as the member opposite knows after our discussion this morning, that is a reference directly to the College of Teachers. You can't transfer one body's set of expectations directly to the other group, but in fact, the expectations are similar.

D. Cubberley: I think this is an important point, because in the case of the college, which is a self-regulating body and has a well-developed code of conduct for teachers, there's a supervening requirement that all disciplines deemed to be an infringement of that code of conduct be reported on an on-line registry.

In the case of this registry, which is applying to people who are not a self-regulating professional body but are entirely under an authorization flowing from the inspector of independent schools, there is no requirement for disciplines outside of these three areas to appear in the on-line registry.

There are a couple of questions here. One of the questions here is the absence of a code of conduct for people who are operating in schools approved by the Minister of Education under the administration of her officer and who have exactly the same exposure to children as people who are certificate teachers but who have a lesser obligation, if you like, to come to a uniform code of conduct placed on them by the design of this thing.

I think one of the responses I might hear is that there is no code of conduct for these people. But that creates in my mind a problem, and it's a question that I would like to explore a little bit because the public interest enters into this.

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is somewhat correct in the fact that there are two separate groups of individuals being involved. But the expectations are the same. The management tool is different.

There is the College of Teachers, which works with teachers who are certified through the college. For authorized teachers, there is another factor at play. That's the inspector of independent schools, who works with the independent teachers certification process to actually look at the criteria.

There is not a comparable mechanism in terms of reference to that issue, but the expectations are the same. For the first time in the province this will align the two systems. It currently does not exist for the teachers that the member opposite has brought to the floor today.

D. Cubberley: I'm fully supportive of making that happen, and I believe it's very important because there is the same exposure to children and there will be the same problems over time — perhaps to a lesser degree because it's a smaller group of people. But these are people, and this is a classroom, so the same dynamics are at play.

The challenge that I have here in taking the minister's response at face value is that I should have faith in the inspector of independent schools to apply a similar standard. But there isn't really anywhere in the act where we have left that discretion to the college, for example, to determine whether it is or isn't in the public interest.

Here the bill is simply silent. It's not placing an obligation on the inspector of independent schools to operate in a particular manner, to disclose discipline of a particular order outside these three categories.

I think that is a bit of a flaw, if you will, in the way the bill is crafted. I have no doubt that the inspector has the best intentions in the world, but there isn't really any guidance given here other than what the minister has said, which is that we would have the same expectations. But the bill doesn't say that we have the same expectations, so I think that is a bit of a challenge.

There probably should be something created for those who are given an authorization to teach by the inspector, something analogous to the code of conduct that is placed on a certificate teacher. It's for the very simple reason of creating a level playing field and making it not arbitrary on the part of an individual occupying the job of inspector to determine what should and shouldn't show up in an on-line discipline registry.

I would urge that government consider that, because this is a sector that's off a little bit in the shadows, if you will, that we see as not as regulated. We're bringing it into regulation.

I think it's very important for the public comfort that it be dealt with in the same way. But it's also very important from a practical standpoint that if we believe that every form of discipline that breaches the teachers' code of conduct for certificate teachers must show up on an on-line registry…. There's an element of fairness. If we truly believe that all of those things need to be there for certificate teachers, then they need to be there for non-certificate teachers as well.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 21, Teaching Profession (Teacher Registration) Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee on Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 22; H. Bloy in the chair.

D. Cubberley: This is a bill with a lot of things in it, so there are a number of different levels of discussion that we'd like to get into. The initial change proposed in here under section 2 — "the British Columbia certificate or diploma" change — essentially, as we read it, takes the power to issue diplomas back into the minister's fold. I'm interested just in hearing the minister's rationale for repatriating fully the power to issue diplomas.

Hon. S. Bond: This is housekeeping. This is the practice. It has always been the case. This is just to make that perfectly clear. It is practice, and it has been the case.

D. Cubberley: I have to acknowledge some ignorance in this area, just because you can't know everything about everything. I had the impression there were some arrangements and some circumstances currently where others were enabled to issue a Dogwood. There may even be connections through corporations operating offshore where Dogwoods are part of the business that they transact.

So I'm interested in knowing a little more about that. Are there circumstances currently where others have the right to issue a Dogwood? What experience has led to this change, if that is in any way connected to it?

Hon. S. Bond: There certainly is a section of the bill that deals with business corporations, but only the minister can issue the graduation certificate. That has always been the case, and this is simply to clarify what current practice is. It is a housekeeping amendment.

D. Cubberley: Well, I just have to go a little further than that. I appreciate what the minister has said, that it's a housekeeping amendment, but it's interesting that we're clarifying the practice. I'm curious to know what led to any doubt about it. Was it simply an assumption within the existing legislation that only the minister had the right to issue a diploma? Or does this clarification offset something that is ambiguous in existing legislation? Why is there a need this late in the game to construct an exclusive right in legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: This is a housekeeping amendment. This is practice. Part of what we do when we review legislation and, also, practice is simply to clarify, once and finally, that the only person that can issue a graduation certificate is the minister — whoever it is in this office.

So in fact, there's no new practice here, and it wasn't a major issue. It is a housekeeping amendment made to clarify current practice in legislation, and that's done all the time on numerous issues.

D. Cubberley: The minister must forgive me, but it's my naturally suspicious mind. When you read stories about corporations operating offshore who have some ability to ultimately lead someone to a graduation certificate from a B.C. public school, one wants to have the sense of how that gets done. Like how the minister accomplishes what is being constructed as an exclusive right to issue here….

Where there are entities operating in another country that are enabled to provide lessons and courses that ultimately lead to graduation in circumstances that may be remote from the public school system in British Columbia or even from British Columbia itself — operating in another country — how is the right, which this is simply clarifying, currently given effect? How does the minister approve those diplomas currently? How is that done, and how is that regulated?

Hon. S. Bond: Only the minister can issue graduation certificates, and it must be based on the requirements that are laid out in legislation to meet those. This simply clarifies that information, and this is a housekeeping amendment.

D. Cubberley: Taxing patients. Sorry, I've drifted into health care. I didn't mean to. That would be double-billing.

Mr. Chairman, if the minister would be patient with me and just elaborate a little bit for me how, in the case of a school operating remote from British Columbia, for example…. My assumption would be that the minister does not approve, in the literal sense, all diplomas in the province because she would be terribly busy if she were doing that. There would be a spike in activity that would be especially incomprehensible as to how one person could ever do it. So there must be some operation through agents.

I'm interested to know, in a remote sense, if there is a corporation that is a school operating offshore, how does the minister issue the certificate and how is the quality guaranteed?

Hon. S. Bond: There are clear criteria outlined as to how a person meets a graduation requirement. That particular body provides information to the ministry. The ministry and the minister then move forward with a graduation certificate. Only the minister can actually issue a graduation certificate.

D. Cubberley: I want to talk a little bit about the reimbursement of expenses for designated educational activities.

I would like the minister to explain in her view what this section is actually about. When one reads it,

it appears to potentially enable an extremely broad range of activities. When members on this side of the House look at legislation, we always try to imagine what it could be used for and what could be constructed using the power that's being conferred on government. So I would like to hear from the minister and go from there.

Hon. S. Bond: This is the extension of something that already exists in public education, and that's the ability to receive credit for a course that's outside of the public education system. A really good example of this is a child's opportunity to learn Punjabi, and that's only one of a myriad of examples. There may be no opportunity in some particular school settings for a child to take Punjabi at the level they would like to in order to get a language credit.

Currently in public education that's permissible, and they receive credit. What this allows is the opportunity for those courses that are accredited and approved…. So in terms of the scope that the member refers to, in fact, there will be very clear criteria about when and how this reimbursement might take place. But this is to ensure that our students have the opportunities they want and in some cases they are unable to get within public education.

D. Cubberley: Well, I'd be very interested in hearing what those criteria would be. I have to say that because of the potential potency of this — without any brackets being placed around it, without any fence being placed around it — I am very interested to know what the criteria would be and how hard and fast they would be. And if they're hard and fast, why are they not actually in the bill?

Hon. S. Bond: What this is about is looking at choice for students and how we make sure they get the kinds of choice they want. What's created here is the opportunity for there to be some modest degree of reimbursement for parents who find that the options their child needs are not necessarily available within the system.

Again, I use language because as I have travelled across now almost 50 school districts, one of the largest concerns that has been expressed is an ability for students to receive language training in courses that don't exist within their schools, and there are reasons for that.

I think the key message here is that this is not about replacing; this is about enhancing. All of the details in terms of how the process is set up will be determined in regulation, and that will be done after consultation with our partner groups.

But let's be clear. There are already courses that are accredited and accepted in terms of credit granted to students when they go and take those courses. This extends the possibility of some modest reimbursement for those types of courses.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the minister's comments. Her imagery around what might qualify is certainly innocent enough, but one has to look at the sweep of the language and what it might enable. The fact is that without actually seeing a set of regulations…. Of course, the regulations could be changed very easily at any point in time even if they placed a tight fence, but without a tight fence, this is potentially a very broad-ranging change.

I don't think it would be too far-fetched to suggest that if someone wanted to, they could construct a voucher system out of this language. This could carry us into the realm of school vouchers. I happen to be of the opinion — and I think many British Columbians would be as well — that if we were going to go down the path of opening up a change that broad, we would want to have some discussion of that publicly before doing it.

It's very concerning to think that something that is as controversial as vouchers — that can have the kinds of impacts on public school systems that vouchers have had where they have been introduced — would be introduced with a sense of: "Trust me, because the regulations will tighten it up." I don't really think that's where we want to be at this point in British Columbia.

If we were going to have the discussion in advance of legislation coming in, which is what we should do — the idea should be put out that it's being considered, and there should be opportunity for people to say yea or nay and look at the implications of it in advance — that would be one thing. But for it to come in, in an omnibus bill of this kind, innocently enough in the way that it was prefaced by the minister but, I would suggest, anything but innocent in the scope of what would be permitted potentially under this.

This could have a major impact if interpreted in one way or another by a minister, and for that reason we have serious reservations about going down this path.

Hon. S. Bond: As I have travelled across this province and met with students and parents…. We can talk about consultation, but parents and students have said clearly that there is room for more choice and options.

This is not about a voucher system. This is about allowing students to have choice, like language opportunities that currently they can't access. Already these courses are granted credit when a child takes them. They come back to school, and they get credit. We're simply saying that this allows the opportunity for us to consider how there may be some reimbursement.

If the member opposite continues through section 2 and if we look at the guidelines that will be used, there will be ministerial orders that clearly outline types of educational activities or categories and the maximum amount that might be paid — establishing a limit so that a child simply can't do their entire graduation portfolio in that way. There are very clear expectations here.

This is about enhancing a student's opportunity. Credit already exists. We're simply saying that this allows us to assist parents in providing more options and choice for their students, and I've certainly heard that message loudly and clearly across the province.

C. Trevena: It's an issue of the argument about choice. It comes down to taking choice out of the public schools and putting it into more of a private sector.

I have a couple of questions for the minister on this section. She talks about this enabling parents to have that choice so their children can do certain courses that are not available in the public school system. This is obviously going to cost the school boards to provide the fees in the private sector.

I would like to ask the minister why that money, instead of going to the parents, isn't going to the schools themselves so that they can provide the courses and the parents then have the choice of keeping their children in the school to do the course.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, as a member representing what is a very challenging area of the province to provide choice and opportunity within public education, one would hope that as we look at choice…. This isn't about private versus public. This is about what students in the province actually need in order to be successful. There are schools which are too small, with the number of students they have in them, to offer a variety of programs. In fact, this process exists today. Students can actually go, get credit, come back and have that credit as part of their graduation.

This is simply saying that we want to validate that parent's and family's right to find a way to provide some of those enhanced opportunities. This isn't about taking away from what's available in public education. It's about supporting parents in providing additional choice for their students. We have hopes of increasing all kinds of choice within public education. I've seen fabulous examples of it. This isn't about public or private. This is about how we make sure that our students get every opportunity possible.

C. Trevena: I think the minister and I are agreed that we want to make sure that our students do get every possibility that there is and that they have the best education possible.

I'd like to ask the minister how this system would benefit a student at, let's say, Zeballos high school that has a limited choice. They're at the end of a logging road. How would they benefit from a system that would provide payment for them to go to another class for one certain course? Can the minister explain how this is going to help them — rather than money going into the school board to provide this for all the children?

Hon. S. Bond: There are places not only in rural but in urban British Columbia where the demand simply does not allow for courses to be offered. I met with a large group of Indo-Canadian families, for example, who cannot get Punjabi in the secondary school where their children attend. It's not because it's a money issue; it's because there aren't enough children to offer that.

I've been given a great example by a member. A particular math course was not available in the school where his daughter needed it to graduate. That allowed her to go to a college, take the course that was required, come back and receive credit for that. It isn't about why we aren't putting more money into the system. We're doing that as well. This is about that not being available to the student.

The parents had the choice of actually taking her to the college, filling in that gap which was not available, and then receiving credit for that. This simply says that we should, in a modest way, consider supporting parents who are put in the position of doing that for their children to take those courses.

C. Trevena: The minister in her answer from the preceding question had referred to the constituency I represented as being "challenging." She's quite right. It's a large, rural constituency with isolated schools and students who are trying to get equality of education and teachers who are trying to provide that. The minister at that stage said that this would help those students. Then in a second, subsequent answer she talked about an urban environment.

I would like the minister to explain how this non-voucher system that is being set up will help those students who are in small, struggling rural schools to get the equality of education that isn't at the moment available, no matter how hard the school trustees and the teachers work to provide it.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, there are great things happening in every part of the province. Teachers and boards are working extraordinarily hard, but there are also challenges, whether you're rural or urban. I happen to live in a rural-urban area of the province with a combination of schools.

We're trying to find as many ways as possible to actually expand choice and opportunity for students. The fact simply is that in some circumstances it is impossible for students, as in the case of the young student that I mentioned before, to get a course that they need or they want for graduation.

We're simply validating a process that exists today. Students today can go, wherever they live in the province, and take a course, whether it's a language course, a music class or a math class, in this student's case. They can come back to school and be granted credit for it. It already happens.

All we're saying is that we should provide an opportunity for parents to receive some modest reimbursement for those choices because the system, despite the best circumstances we could hope for — we are facing declining enrolment — can't offer a particular course. To me, that's not only practical, but it makes really good sense for students who need those choices in the system.

C. Trevena: I'd like a bit of an explanation. Let's again use the Zeballos example because it's isolated, or Tahsis, where we've got a class from Captain Meares graduating on May 26.

Assuming there was a student at one of these two schools who wanted to take a specialty math class that

isn't available because they are in an isolated community. How would this system, which will benefit a student possibly in Campbell River, where they could go to North Island College or Nanaimo, where they could go to Malaspina or any other urban environment…? How will this system of paying parents to take the children out of the public system help those children in rural communities compared to those in urban communities?

Hon. S. Bond: I'll try one more time. This is not about taking children out of public education. This is about children who cannot receive a particular program within public education.

Let me give the member opposite another example. We are aware of a student, for example, who lives in 100 Mile House, for whom music is not an option at this point in time in terms of the type of music program he or she wants. In fact, we know that parent and family have made a choice to take Royal Conservatory piano lessons in order to get a music credit. They don't get that in 100 Mile either. They drive to Kamloops to do that.

I want to be perfectly clear about this. This isn't about taking students out of public education. This process exists today. Students today can go, take a course and get credit. We're simply saying that if that is a choice the parents have made to have children actually finish those opportunities, there should be a built-in provision for some modest reimbursement.

C. Trevena: To go back to the urban example, the minister mentioned that there are a number of parents who wanted their children to move on with Punjabi. I wondered why the minister or her staff would not be working with the school board to make sure this was being provided within the schools.

Hon. S. Bond: Maybe the member opposite should spend some time in some of those districts. The challenge would be that sometimes there are three or five students in a school. Together in a community there might be a hundred, but they don't all go to the same school. There are physical limitations of how many classes one can offer in a school, and school boards make tough choices about how they allocate their dollars.

In fact, in the case of Punjabi, many of those children can receive Punjabi in their elementary school programming. A program does not exist for them in secondary school. We're saying they should have the opportunity to study, for example, Punjabi or another language of their choice and receive some way of supporting that decision.

C. Trevena: I do understand what she's saying. It's clearly a system that is running, and she wants to give parents, as she says, choice. I would like to know from the minister how much is actually budgeted for this. Is this being divided on a per-school-district basis, or is this coming from the ministry directly to the parents?

Hon. S. Bond: Legislation is about bringing forward the ideas of change. We have consultation to do. We have to create minister's orders in terms of how this rolls out. We don't have a budget line set aside for this.

We're going to look at the consultation and discussion. We think this is a great opportunity for parents and families in British Columbia, and we will work through the regulatory process to sort out exactly how this rolls out. I'll be very interested to see how supported it is by families.

C. Trevena: My colleague from Saanich South mentioned earlier on that there was still some concern that despite the minister saying that it's all set out, that it is quite prescribed where it will be used, the ideas and the details are still very much there in the ether, and they haven't been drawn up on how this is actually going to work.

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite follows through section 2, there's actually a complete list of what needs to be considered. So we're not presenting a done deal here; we're presenting a legislative framework that allows us to build on what is an exciting concept for families in this province.

The practice of external accreditation exists today, so that's not new, and I'm a bit surprised by the reaction to this piece. This already exists, in fact, and we're simply saying that because it does, we believe that we should consider supporting parents who put their children into those opportunities which already receive credit.

J. Brar: The minister made a comment about Punjabi a couple of times, so I would like to clarify with a few questions. The government of British Columbia made a commitment to provide Punjabi classes through the school system. Those classes are at this point in time available to students, but there are, of course, certain conditions and requirements which apply to those classes.

My question to the minister is: how is this new process going to impact the commitment of the government to provide Punjabi language classes through the school system?

Hon. S. Bond: We continue to have an aggressive strategy for adding languages in the province. In fact, we are contemplating and will be adding Korean. We are seeing increased attendance in Mandarin language courses, in grade 10 in particular. We're going to continue to add courses wherever it's feasibly possible within the public education system. That's our commitment, and we're really excited about adding those courses as well.

This is for those very difficult circumstances where there is simply not the number of children necessary for a school district to make that choice. So we're looking at adding courses within public education. We're looking at on-line language opportunities. I've been really impressed with some work that can be done in terms of distributed learning in language areas. This provides a third option for families.

J. Brar: I would like to kind of emphasize the question I asked the minister, and I would like to ask the

minister to provide a direct response to that. My question is: will this new system impact in any way, or a negative way, the commitment of the government to provide Punjabi classes through the school system — yes or no?

Hon. S. Bond: The answer was clear. We are going to continue with that commitment. We're not only going to add Punjabi, but we're adding Korean, and we're looking at additional Mandarin and Japanese languages as well. The answer is: we will continue to add classes as they fit within school districts, and school boards make those choices as well.

This is an additional opportunity, and I would think that the member opposite would embrace additional opportunities for language learning when it is impossible for some school districts to offer those courses. This isn't about taking away from opportunity; it's about adding to it.

J. Brar: If there's no impact, the answer is pretty simple for the minister to say that there will be no impact on the existing Punjabi classes. I didn't hear that answer, though.

Let me ask the question this way. If, in an area where we have Punjabi classes going on, there are ten students in a class and three of the parents decide to go and get these classes through this system, the new system, through a private provider…. The requirement of that school is that there have to be ten students in a class, but three students have been taken under this new system, and therefore, there may not be any class in the system. How is the minister going to respond to that kind of situation?

Hon. S. Bond: The question has been asked and answered, and I simply highlight the point by saying that this process already exists in public education. Students can already do this.

J. Brar: Again, I didn't get a clear answer from the minister that if in a school where we have a class going on of ten students and three of the students chose to go this route through the private provider, whether that class will still exist or not. I didn't hear the commitment from the minister that that class would still exist. In my opinion, as for the requirement and the rules of the school, that class will not exist because the number of students will go down as per the minimum number required for that class.

The minister mentioned that she had consultation with the Indo-Canadian community. I would like to ask: where was that, and when did that take place?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the exact details or dates of that. It was an informal conversation with people who had requested to meet with me about Punjabi language. We'd be happy, I'm sure, to share that information. I don't have that with me at this point in time.

J. Brar: When we make substantive changes to the existing system, we certainly consult with the community and with the right type of people. There are a number of people who in my opinion should be consulted, particularly when making this kind of change.

As the minister mentioned, the minister has met with a number of Indo-Canadian families or individuals. I would appreciate — if the minister is really serious to consult the community — to consult the right kind of people…. The right people must be part of the consultation process to make it more inclusive.

I will leave with that comment, and my colleague will continue the questions on this particular section of the act.

N. Macdonald: Just questions, then. The minister had said that much of this is going to come with regulation, but I'm sure the minister has thought through the issue of how this is going to be paid for. If the minister could just run through how the courses are going to be paid for. Are they going to come through the district, or are they going to be grants that go directly from the province? Are they going to be grants that come through the province and then are deducted in some way from the district's grant? Could you explain the thinking that has gone into this around budgeting?

Hon. S. Bond: This is the legislative framework, and if the member opposite would look at subsection 3, there's much work to be done. We have made no decisions about how it's going to be paid in terms of the process. We're simply putting in place a legislative framework to allow us to continue the consultation and the implementation of a program that would respect a parent's right to make those choices for their children.

N. Macdonald: There are implications as to whether this is a supportable section or not. There are implications upon how it's going to be set up. It depends very much on how it's going to be set up. One of the complications around this voucher system is that there are implications for the school district and for other participants in the system.

I think that the scenario that my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge laid out is one that will possibly exist around the size of classes. If you then remove certain people by giving them different opportunities, you create complications. You also create complications around the funding that is available for schools and for a board if you have a system in place that would remove part of that funding. There are complications around planning. There are complications around the type of courses that you can offer.

The question is: before putting this forward, why would that not have been thought through by the minister? Why would you not consider how you're going to fund it and how you're going to have school boards plan for this?

Hon. S. Bond: We're putting in place the legislative framework to allow us to have this discussion. This has not been finalized in terms of how to work it through. We want to talk to the B.C. School Trustees Association, for example.

Let's be clear. Parents across this province are already making this choice. They have to in some circumstances. This is not about a voucher system. Children today, and the member opposite would know this, go and take courses elsewhere because they require them, and they receive credit for those courses. That exists today. This simply puts a legislative framework in place that allows us to have discussion with our partners about how we might implement this. Those decisions have not been made.

N. Simons: Did the minister refer earlier to the Royal Conservatory of Music as an example to illustrate this particular section?

N. Simons: If I understand correctly, it's possible that the ministry might be in a position where they'll be reimbursing for courses, including those under the Royal Conservatory of Music?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm concerned that I mentioned the Royal Conservatory of Music. The fact of the matter is that the principle of this bill is that students do that already today. They go and take lessons because they can't get the programs that they need, and they receive credit for it. This simply verifies that principle.

N. Simons: So this has nothing to do with the cost associated with that — in the minister's example regarding the Royal Conservatory of Music?

Hon. S. Bond: No. In fact, what this says is that this builds a framework that allows us to provide, potentially, some form of modest reimbursement for those courses that students receive credit for that are accredited and actually approved by the ministry.

N. Simons: I'm well aware of the credit one can get for studying music in the high school system, and I think that's good. I do happen to know that it's a very costly endeavour to attain any degree from the Royal Conservatory of Music. It involves, probably, a lot of personal instruction from music teachers on a one-to-one basis.

I'm just wondering if that was the right example to use when discussing the merits of this particular section and whether or not it will in fact allow parents to be reimbursed for private music lessons. I'm just wondering how that all fits in. I'm not sure. Maybe the example was inappropriate.

Hon. S. Bond: The scope and the categories and all of the definitions around what would be supported are yet to be determined. They would obviously be accredited.

If the member opposite looks at the subsections listed, very clearly it says that there would be a maximum amount that would be paid. This is not about funding a child's entire Royal Conservatory program. I had a daughter that actually danced ballet, and I can imagine what those costs might be. It's not at all about funding an opportunity like that.

Also, in subsection (3)(d) it talks about setting different amounts and different limits for different educational activities. So in fact, it's not about funding a child's musical career. It's about: is there a credit course that the student needs to complete their graduation requirements? If that's the case, this builds a framework that allows us to consider that.

D. Cubberley: I just have to say, in summarizing on this section, that the minister has attempted to give us comfort that this will be about a very limited range of activities with very modest costs and the like, but I'm afraid that the language as written is absolutely wide open. Anything could be driven through here the way that this is constructed.

The message I'm getting from the government is: "You should trust us on this kind of thing." I'm afraid the track record doesn't lend itself to trust in this case.

If this was going to be done, it should be framed around a public discussion first. Then the parameters, the fences, that would contain this so that it might be acceptable and we would have a clear idea of what it would be and the comfort which needs to be embedded in it that this isn't some kind of new monster that would allow the minister to designate activities that school districts would then be required to pay for out of existing budgets….

I think that all of that is rather too much trust, and I'm afraid we think that this should not be in the bill in this way at this time. We don't want to see a voucher system introduced by the back door or by sleight of hand into British Columbia. We think that if that is what's contemplated, it should be discussed openly.

D. Cubberley: The member suggests that it's a bogeyman, but the bogeyman lives very close to us here, and we know how persuaded you are by the bogeyman. So there may be a degree of paranoia, but it's based on reality — doesn't mean it won't happen.

For those reasons, we are going to have to differ with the government on this item in this bill, and it may actually not be the last one.


	YEAS — 43

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis

S. Fraser: My question is on section 3(c), third down: "'first nation' means a 'band', as defined under the Indian Act (Canada), located in British Columbia."

Hon. S. Bond: I'll just answer it this way, and if the member opposite isn't satisfied, we'll try it again.

This is a relatively standard definition that's been added. It's been added so that if a first nation requests the use of personal education numbers, we can actually assign them. But it's only at the request of the first nation. This is here so that it gives us the ability to respond to the first nation's request, and as I've been advised, that is a common definition that's used in other areas. This is so there's an opportunity that if asked by a first nation, we can assign a PEN number to their children.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. For clarification, the amendment…. What brought that on? Was there a request? Were there requests from first nations, from aboriginal peoples in B.C.? Why the change now?

Hon. S. Bond: We are putting this in place so that it would allow first nations, at their request, to actually track the achievement of their children. That's how you do that. It's with a PEN number.

We currently have no ability to do that. So we've had discussions with the First Nations Education Steering Committee and others, who've suggested that there may be particular bands who want to have a PEN number for their children, as their children move through the system or through band schools into public schools. We use PEN numbers with children in public education. This simply allows that same opportunity for first nations children.

D. Cubberley: This is an important section of the bill, much larger than the small amount of text that's provided for here. There's been a very long history of lobbying to try to get government to pay attention to the fact that existing voluntary regulations within schools have created a very uneven landscape across B.C.; that there are significant instances of bullying, which take very specific forms, and affect various subpopulations within the school and across B.C.; and that there is a need for much more uniform application of codes of conduct.

There's been a lot of discussion — much of which preceded my time in this chamber, but which I was aware of — around specific forms of conduct that require some regulation. One of those, one of the most obvious ones, is around bullying on the grounds of homophobia, which is a very common thing that is encountered in schools across B.C.

The question that I want to lead off in asking is that once again, in bringing this in, it enables a code of conduct for students, but it doesn't provide an outline of mandatory content of that code. I'm interested for the minister to tell the House why it reads that way, rather than being more specific — why that choice was made — especially given the very lively and concerned discussion about this that led up to the introduction of the bill.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a simple answer. We want to have a discussion with our partners, and certainly the members opposite are always encouraging us to consult.

We expect, first of all, to take this to the Education Advisory Council, which meets and provides advice to the minister. So in fact, there will be the creation of provincial standards. We did not do that in advance of the consultation. We expect to talk to our partners about how this should be defined.

D. Cubberley: Interestingly on this, there were some processes of consultation that preceded the legislation. In fact, there were some initiatives originating on the government side which proposed a very specific set of contents for a code of conduct.

There has been much engagement of partners, and there have been many reform efforts in individual school districts across British Columbia to try to both

raise the profile of specific forms of bullying and to put in place programs that would counter them effectively.

While I am the first among a group of people who are given to recommend consultation and would always be in favour of it, there had been considerable consultation. I doubt very much that there will be anything new by way of identifying the specific forms of activity for which the code of conduct should be responsible and should bear specifically on.

Again, there was a long history to this. I'm just interested to know why the process appears to be at square one when in fact the process is relatively well advanced, I think.

Hon. S. Bond: I would hardly think that making school codes of conduct mandatory is at square one. That's a huge step, and it recognizes the work that's been done. In fact, the work that has been done will be reflected in this discussion. We simply will be meeting to work through what the provincial standards will look like, but certainly the previous consultation will inform that discussion.

This is a huge step forward. It will recognize the extraordinary work that was done in particular by a government member on this side of the House. We're very pleased about moving this forward. This is about how we implement.

N. Simons: If I may, just for the record, state the correction was from a private member. I believe that the private member had put forth a private member's bill which would have identified and specifically recognized the need to protect sexual-minority youth and children. This is a blatant oversight from this government. This is what has happened.

This is unfortunate in the extreme. It might be a big step in the minister's shoes, but unfortunately, for the gay and lesbian community of this province it's a sad day. It's a sad day that the most bullied, the most victimized group and the most obviously bullied and victimized group in our school system has been left out. It was in, and it has been removed. A reference to gay and lesbian and sexual-minority youth — queer youth — has been eliminated, and they are in need of protection.

They are in need of this protection, this overt and specific protection. I will say why. It is because without that explicit mention, the codes of conduct can continue to be applied in an uneven fashion. They can be applied by people who do not agree with the particular lifestyle, as it's referred to by many, and who may not have the same interest in enforcing these regulations or enforcing a code of conduct that includes the protection of gay and lesbian children and youth.

I think the government needs to answer that specific question. Why was that eliminated from the private member's bill when it was put into this act?

Hon. S. Bond: The bill on the floor of the Legislature today respects the value of honesty and integrity and protecting all children in public education. It is a significant step forward to recognize that there was inconsistency in codes of conduct across school districts. This bill makes certain that there will be codes of conduct in place.

As I pointed out earlier to the members opposite, there will be discussion about how the provincial standards are created and how they're implemented.

N. Simons: Let me quote from the McCreary Centre study. "All young people, regardless of sexual orientation, deserve the opportunity to grow and thrive in their communities and their families, reaching the promise of a healthy and productive adult life. Understanding risks and protective factors in their lives can help guide strategies for creating those opportunities."

I would submit that a protective factor includes the specific reference to them. They will feel included, they will know that they are protected, and they'll know they'll have rights. The answer that they need to go through court in order to have their rights protected is a failure — a legislative and regulatory failure.

This is doing nothing for the little queer youth of B.C. This is doing nothing to protect them from the perceived discrimination, from perceived harassment and from actual harassment.

Victimization in school. Sexual-minority teens were generally more likely to report having experiences, and 50 percent in this very large longitudinal study in British Columbia felt they had been harassed, excluded or even assaulted in school. Madam Chair, I think when you look at statistics like that, it's almost like what isn't being said is so loud, and it is so clearly missing from this legislation.

If you ask any queer adult in British Columbia, they will understand. They will understand the need to protect young people before they have self-identified. I think that one protective factor would be the actual stated position of government that they are interested in at least protecting these young people.

I give full credit to the private member representing Vancouver-Burrard for knowing that this was an important inclusion in an act. Its omission is very, very obvious. It's an omission that is unfortunate.

The suicide rate…. Madam Chair, you look at all of the health indicators for queer youth in our schools, and they're higher in terms of negative outcomes than for any other group. How could they be so systematically ignored in an act that purports to protect children and youth in our school system? How could the biggest group of the most victimized population be specifically ignored? I find that troubling; I find that problematic.

I don't think that the minister's explanation is satisfactory. Whether you're a young child in Vancouver-Burrard or a young child in a rural part of Peace River or anywhere else, you should feel, you should know that there is a standard in this province to which we must all strive, not one to pick and choose if the principal, the PAC, or the group of teachers or parents who happen to get together on that particular subject understand the need to protect children who are in those vulnerable categories.

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, I don't know if there are other members in the House who wish to speak to this or not, but if there are no other members who want to speak at this time….

D. Cubberley: I wish to give you an opportunity to, Member. I would like to move an amendment to this section, so I will submit that to the Clerk and see if that's in order.

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, this is an amendment that would specifically identify that a board's code of conduct must explicitly protect students from homophobic bullying. The intent of this would be to…. This is not exhaustive, but it is illustrative, and I think my colleague has indicated why. This is the most prevalent form of bullying, with often….

D. Cubberley: It's the most prevalent form of bullying, with typically the absolutely most devastating of consequences in people's lives. It's very important that this issue be addressed in an even-handed manner across schools in British Columbia. If we are attempting to create a tolerant and pluralistic society, which I believe our education act gives us a visionary commitment to, then it is essential this form of behaviour be addressed. This was very much a part of the discussion which preceded this bill coming into the House, which was a broader public discussion than the one we're having in this chamber today.

But as my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast indicated, this is something which has disappeared from view. It is a disappearance that we think should not have occurred. Therefore, we're moving an amendment that we hope the House will support. We are certain that the broader public supports this, and we feel very strongly that it should have been part of this bill.

N. Simons: Yes, I think that it's important to identify not only the safety factors associated with queer youth…. I use the word "queer" because it's the common parlance now, and it encompasses a variety of sexual minorities.

I believe that more important perhaps to the minister is the attachment to school and the success in school. I would submit that any child who feels safe in their school system and who feels wanted and respected and actually feels acknowledged on the basic level of acknowledgment…. If a child or youth feels acknowledged in their school, their chances of feeling successful or being successful in that school system are much greater.

The McCreary study indicates that queer youth are less likely to find school enjoyable. It probably will have an impact on their outcomes, and I understand that to be of primary concern right now.

School operates as a protective factor. In my growing up and that of the colleagues surrounding me, we had parents, we had teachers, we had community, and we had religion. We had various forms of protective services. We cannot count on every child having those same supportive structures around them.

Just as much for the young child in the lower mainland or in the interior or wherever they happen to be, they need to know that it's explicitly stated that they will be recognized, acknowledged and protected. That's why I believe, in part — for many reasons, in fact — that we need to specifically mention…. I believe it's the specific mention that is necessary to make this have the breadth of fairness we would like it to have.

With that, Madam Chair, I believe there are other members who'd like to speak to this amendment.

C. Wyse: I, too, rise to speak in favour of the amendment. I wish to share with the House my experience of being in the classroom for a very long period of time. Assuredly, one of the items that is brought to challenge in a school situation is sexual identity. One of the biggest putdowns is sexual orientation. Assuredly, removing any doubt about a school being a safe place for all students requires this particular item to be itemized here in this legislation.

This aspect of challenging a student and challenging their security rests around this particular area. This aspect can't be left to what happens around the province with the various groups. This is a responsibility that assuredly rests here in this legislation — to send out the message loudly and clearly throughout all of British Columbia that the school will be a safe environment for all students, regardless of their sexual orientation.

L. Mayencourt: This is an issue that has been the focus of a lot of my work over the last several years, and it's something that I feel quite passionate about.

As most people know, I'm a gay man. I grew up in Surrey; I went to school there. I was subjected to bullying. I witnessed people being bullied. I at times tried to avoid being in contact with people that were being bullied, because I didn't want to give them the support. If I gave them the support, that would mean I was one of them, and I would become the target.

As a young person I grew up with a fair bit of fear in my school life. The effect of that was that I chose not

to become fully engaged in a lot of activities. I decided that I would protect my sexual orientation, my identity, from my classmates. It took me several years after graduating from high school before I was able to recognize and talk to my friends and my family about the fact that I was gay.

A young man by the name of Hamed Nastoh grew up in Surrey. He was 14 years old, and he was taunted regularly for being gay. According to Hamed, he was not, and I accept that. According to his mother, he was not. I accept that.

Nonetheless, he was targeted, and people made fun of him. One night he sat down and wrote a note to his mother and said to her what had happened. Then he walked over to the Pattullo Bridge and jumped into the Fraser River.

I cannot express the sadness that I feel or the connection that I feel with Hamed — partly because we grew up in the same neighbourhood, partly because we were both struggling with people that might want to make us a target of bullying. So I have always….

I can remember the morning that Hamed died. I was with Christy Clark. We were in opposition at that point, and I said to her: "You know, there is something wrong with our school system that it doesn't protect kids from that kind of harassment." We made a pact on that day that, given the opportunity in government, we would do our very best to address that issue.

I remember a young lady by the name of Dawn-Marie Wesley, who was taunted by a bunch of girls because they just didn't think she was cool and hip. They told her that they were going to kill her. She went home one night and wrote a letter to her mom, told her what happened, and then she went downstairs and took a dog leash, wrapped it around a pipe and hung herself.

I cannot stand what happened to her. I cannot express my sorrow adequately as to what occurred to her and her life and what her mother lives with every day.

I had the pleasure of meeting a young man by the name of Azmi Jubran. I think Azmi is about 20 now. He went to school in North Vancouver, and for four years in the hallways of his school he was taunted for being gay. He wasn't gay, but he was taunted for it. They beat him up. They set fire to his shirt. They threw him into lockers.

I met a young man in Prince George who was taunted for being gay. He was gay. He was fairly comfortable with it, so he was pretty open about it in school. One day in the midst of being taunted, someone threw an open bottle of urine on him.

I met a young girl, Emily-Anne Galbraith, who was in grade 3 and being taunted because she had a hyphenated name: Emily-Anne. She was too sick to go to school because of it, and it was a terrible experience for her. One day when she was wearing white pants to school, someone put a chocolate doughnut on her seat. She sat down on it, and you can imagine what it looked like. Her teacher would not allow her to go home and change out of her white pants with the brown stain.

I met a young girl, who would not want me to tell her name, who was in a school in Whistler. She was accused by another girl of trying to come on to the other girl's boyfriend. She was beaten quite severely by six or seven girls. It's my recollection that is incomplete there — but by a number of young ladies from that school. They tormented her. They threatened to kill her. They went through an extraordinary period of time where the family tried to keep this young lady in the school. Eventually they moved her to Squamish, and she never wanted to see Whistler ever again. She has made out all right.

I have met many thousands of students in British Columbia over the course of the last six years. I have been to assemblies where there are hundreds of kids. I have been to small groups where it's just a group of little kids that are talking about effective behaviour support or some program that they've developed. I've got to tell you that I'm deeply touched and moved by the kinds of efforts they make.

I know the efforts that they make, make a difference, but I am always struck by the fact that when I ask people to stand up if they've ever been bullied, if they've ever seen anybody bullied or if they've ever bullied someone themselves, almost without exception 90 percent of the students stand up. All of the students are joined by almost all of the teachers.

I have spent a long time trying to look at this, and one of the flaws in our system has always been that the province has never required that school districts put in a code of conduct. That's the key. That's the key, because the flaw in the legislation is that a school district may develop a school code of conduct.

I've spent a lot of time, and I've produced a couple of bills that I've put forward in this House. I have made it very clear in the Safe Schools Task Force report and in the legislation that I've put forward that I think it's important — as important as the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast said it was — to specifically name homophobia or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

I have always believed it should include those who are considered to have a gender identity in question. I also believe that we have in the Human Rights Code a document that is extremely important, which talks about the ways in which adults can be discriminated against in our society. All British Columbians have embraced our Human Rights Code, which says it's wrong.

I've always wanted to be able to say that the Safe Schools Act or this piece of legislation would say that the Human Rights Code needs to be observed in the school codes of conduct in British Columbia. I've always believed that. The amendment that's moved is a really…. I know it's heartfelt. I would like very much to see it pass, along with 16 or 17 other items that are listed in the B.C. Human Rights Code.

I have fought this battle for six years. I've given everything I possibly could to make this thing pass. I've given everything. I've talked to everyone. I've talked to the Minister of Education about it and the

Premier and others in my caucus. They know where I stand, and they know what I believe, and they support me. I know they do, or I wouldn't sit on this side of the House. I wouldn't sit in the House here. I know that they are trying the very best that they can.

This one little move, changing it from "may" to "should" is huge. It's huge. There is no way around it. It's huge. It is important to me to see that it gets passed, because I see it as the first step of many that we will have to take.

The minister has taken a lot of heat for putting one word in there, and I know how much heat that is, because I've experienced it, too, as I've travelled around the province — from school districts that say, "We don't have a problem," to parents that say, "It's not a good idea to do it," and all that sort of stuff. I've seen that around this province, so I know how huge that is.

The amendment talks to homophobia. It's not enough. It isn't just homophobia. There is racism; there is sexism; there are religionisms; and there is ageism. Every kind of "ism" you can think of under the sun is there. So I can't support that particular amendment.

What I can do is offer up everything that I know about this to members here in the House, to the Minister of Education and to the people of British Columbia that happen to be listening today. That is that this is a fine first step. We need to get to a point where school districts are obliged, legally, to have a code of conduct. That code of conduct has to be based on provincial standards that can be set by the Minister of Education.

We will have a chance in a few minutes, when this amendment is voted on and we find out whether it passes or not…. We will go back to section 4. We will vote on that, and we will talk about that. I will bring up the questions that you've brought up and that members opposite have brought up. I will ask the minister about her views on the specific naming of homophobia and gender identity and sex and age and all of that.

I don't know what her answers are going to be. I think I know the woman very well, and I think that she will confirm her commitment to making sure that all kids are protected from all of those "isms," including homophobia.

What I will do is continue the fight. This has been six years to change one word. It is important that we do it, and I thank you for the opportunity to speak to the bill.

D. Cubberley: Just in closing, I want to thank the member and all members for their comments on it. That was heartfelt and very difficult at points to listen to, simply because of the human tragedy that was revealed.

We have put the amendment up in part because while we're very, very supportive of the direction, we're very concerned that there are no specifics in it and that this could become an exercise in a kind of vague prescription around codes of conduct rather than something that is targeted to the profound change that's needed.

It's for those reasons that we want to put, and persist in putting, a specific content up, because this is the kind of content — the first among equals, if you will — that needs to be mandated in a code of conduct and that we need to hear, from government, a commitment to.

Hon. S. Bond: I think all of us have been moved and appreciate the passion and the views that have been shared on both sides of the House. But I don't think I could say it any better or any more accurately than my colleague and friend who has said clearly that while this would be something that one might want to support instantly, from our perspective, bullying is about children who may be overweight, maybe about children who are…. There are issues with race. There are considerable other lists of definitions and descriptors that we could add.

So while we appreciate — and this is a very difficult discussion to have heard or participated in…. We will not be supporting the amendment that's been tabled. We have committed to working through a process that would see the provincial standards for codes of conduct set. I can only once again reiterate how important the work is that our colleague has done in bringing this issue to the floor of the House, to a place where there will be consistency across British Columbia, and school boards will be required to have codes of conduct in place. But we will not be supporting the amendment.

N. Macdonald: Just to speak in favour of the motion. Certainly, I appreciated the passion that members have brought to this. I understand that for the minister as well, there is a commitment to deal with this issue.

The reason I think it's important to go ahead is because my experience in high school is that of course bullying does take place, and of course the attempt is to limit it. In putting together a code of conduct, the most difficult part will be including the protections that we've talked about today. That is going to be the most politically contentious. It is going to be the most difficult for boards. I think that we're agreed here that it's a step that needs to be taken. It's sensible to me that it's a decision that we can make and insist that boards, as they put together their codes of conduct, specifically deal with this one issue.

There was a report that I think my colleague here mentioned was just completed today or in the past week. None of the information that they give would surprise us, but I think the figure that's here, in terms of discrimination and in terms of people that have experienced abuse…. This report done on youth in B.C. says that for sexual orientation, people — bisexual teens and so on — are 20 times more likely to face incidents of bullying. You have gay and lesbian teens indicating they're 50 times more likely than heterosexual teens to be victims of abuse.

To me, it makes complete sense to proceed with this amendment, especially given the speeches we've heard today. If this place works the way I think many of the public would expect it to work, we should be moved by the debate that takes place here. Too often it seems that that does not happen. Certainly, in listening to the

debate, I think anyone who has listened, the members from both sides, would be moved to see the importance of supporting this motion. I certainly intend to support it, and I hope others will as well.

D. Cubberley: I have a question as to whether an amendment can be moved verbally.

D. Cubberley: I would like to propose an amendment to the bill that would make the mandatory code of conduct for students consistent with the principles of the B.C. Human Rights Code.

D. Cubberley: I would just like to speak in favour of this amendment. I don't want to speak long. I think that from the tenor of debate in here, we've heard considerable support for that on both sides of the House, and we should put it to the test.

Hon. S. Bond: You know, we've been clear throughout the course of this discussion that first of all, this is a major step for school districts across the province. We have said that we will now insist that codes of conduct be put in place in every school district across the province. We have spent considerable time drafting a bill that is now on the floor of the House. We've said to the critic and members opposite that the next step for us is to bring together a group of people to discuss how best to implement this.

Obviously, one of the considerations that would take place at that time would be the scope and nature of the codes of conduct. We've already made it clear that we would more than welcome the representatives that have spoken today to come and be a part of that process. But in fact, we are clear. We want codes of conduct in place. We're going to have a discussion about how this moves forward.

Again, that discussion will include a discussion about the Human Rights Code and how that applies to school districts and how it may or may not be incorporated. But we are not going to support the motion that's made on the floor of the House today.

N. Simons: First of all, I think it's probably contrary to what the minister said — that they spent a lot of time. This is a section that I think is one section, and it has to do with changing one word. Despite evidence to the contrary, the minister seems to think this is a big step.

Well, this is a very small step. It's a one-word change, and what the opposition is proposing — and rightfully so, I might add — is to recognize the Human Rights Code of British Columbia and make it part of that act.

Unless the minister has some specific problem with the Human Rights Code, there should be no reason not to include it as a reference in this particular act, so at least we know that the codes of conduct that are established, willy-nilly, across the province have at its basis at least, the fundamental principles that we ascribe to here in British Columbia.


	YEAS — 32

Mayencourt	Brar	S. Simpson
Fleming	Farnworth	James
Kwan	B. Simpson	Cubberley
Hammell	Coons	Thorne

L. Mayencourt: A question to the minister. I'd like to explore some of the possibilities that exist for us down the road. There are a number of individuals that I've worked with through the Safe Schools Task Force, through the Safe Schools Act. These include individuals with the Human Rights Tribunal.

I've had the opportunity to work with the Human Rights Tribunal and the Community Legal Assistance Society. Also, as was mentioned by the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, the McCreary Centre has done a lot of work on this as well. There is also the Gay and Lesbian Educators of British Columbia and, of course, some of the work you are doing around the social justice piece in grade 12.

When we do that consultation with the school districts, can we include those individuals? And have you got in mind either individuals or organizations to include in that?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we certainly do intend to speak to partner groups. We would be happy to work with the member to work through how we can have the discussion be informed about those matters that have been discussed here today. To the member: we certainly intend to include those participants in the discussion and would welcome the member being involved in that discussion as well.

L. Mayencourt: As the minister knows, I will always be ready to do that, and I'm sure that those other partners will be as well. Perhaps the amendment which was just defeated was a little bit…. It was drawn up hastily, and it might have had implications that could not have been acceptable or possible for government. I appreciate that fact or that potential.

I would just ask if the minister would support in general the direction that would make all of the various items under the Human Rights Code part of the provincial standard.

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly appreciate the challenge that the member faced in terms of an amendment on the floor. There are a number of things that are important to consider. There are always or may always be unintended consequences. So let's be perfectly clear. While it's easy to draft amendments on the floor of the House, we also need to be thoughtful about legislation in terms of what the consequences might be.

We need to be careful about the fact of law of general application when we talk about the Human Rights Code, because though it might not expressly be referenced, obviously, it is contemplated. As I said to the member previously, one of the discussions we will have as we explore the codes of conduct is on the application of the Human Rights Code — how that impacts this, what the consequence might be.

While it's easy to draft on the floor of the House, we want to make sure that codes of conduct are drafted and put in place correctly. We will certainly have a conversation that includes a discussion about the Human Rights Code.

N. Simons: Well, I'm sorry. That seems to me like a bit of a copout. If you think about unintended consequences, Madam Chair, you should think about the young children in this province who do not have specifically stated in their codes of conduct in their schools, as required by law, protection from bullying and harassment, and that's on the record.

That's what's been voted on today, and it's unfortunate that the vote has turned this way. I think the government has a long way to go to protect the vulnerable children in our school system.

Hon. S. Bond: Hon. Chair, I move the amendment to section 25 of Bill 22, the Education Statutes Amend-

D. Cubberley: Madam Chair, just because I'm preoccupied with things, can you clarify: did the minister introduce an amendment to the statute? And this is about the removal or destruction of individual identifiers?

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the minister taking the initiative to bring the amendment in. We had actually drafted an amendment, not quite the same as this but to deal with making anonymization part of the bill. We think it's very good practice to do that, and we also noted that the Information and Privacy Commissioner had recommended it, so we're pleased to see the government side do that.

This is part of grooming a bill. I naively, as a first-term legislator, like to think that it's something we can do in the chamber, to actually improve legislation, and I appreciate the government taking this step in that direction. We will support the amendment.

D. Cubberley: I just want to weigh in briefly on this one. This is an item which I think is — we'll see if the minister will live to regret this — although perhaps well intentioned, the kind of thing which will not be appreciated by the membership that the mailing system is intended to allow her to communicate with.

I think it's not a particularly noble use of the college to try to take a self-regulating profession and require that profession to deliver messages from the minister to it. It is not a good idea; it's a bad idea. The minister has very many tools that she can use to communicate directly and indirectly with teachers and all people working within the education system. To take the step of taking a self-regulating profession and requiring that it distribute information supplied by the minister, we think, is not an appropriate step.

If you put yourself in the position of a teacher, this will be a conduit for essentially what are like mass-distribution flyers coming from the centre. It's not really a good idea. It's not a good idea for the college to be put in this position, and we are therefore opposed to this section of the bill.

Hon. S. Bond: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 22, Education Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a third time on the following division and passed:


	YEAS — 42

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Campbell

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate of Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 32; S. Hawkins in the chair.

G. Robertson: In section 2, will the minister clarify the implications of this amended definition of "farm" for the small holdings in B.C. in farmland?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Thank you for the question. There is no change here other than to provide better customer service, for example. This will give us the flexibility on late filings. In the past when people missed the deadlines, we were bound by the legislation. This will create flexibility and will actually assist those in rural areas and farms throughout British Columbia.

G. Robertson: In assisting those farms by providing that additional leeway on deadlines, what are the implications for the provincial treasury?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We estimate none at this point in time. We don't think there will be any at all.

G. Robertson: Does the minister have an accurate sense of how many parties are affected by this and how many farms this will benefit?

G. Robertson: Are there any implications other than the leeway on the deadline, extending the deadline, for farmers or farmland in B.C.?

G. Robertson: In section 12 the new definition of "strata accommodation property" is added here. There are a great many details, some of which were discussed in second reading, related to this change and the ensuing taxation related to occupancy.

Can the minister identify what implications this will have in terms of net impact on revenues for municipalities and regional districts?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, it is very difficult to estimate a number. What we're actually doing is reflecting the realities of a marketplace based on taking into account a substantial court case.

We estimate at this point in time, on a provincial average, a number in the range of $3 million to $4 million per year, when you look at all the communities that we believe are impacted. At the same time, my belief is that we also have to take into account…. For instance, the new construction for 2006 is a substantial number and ranges in total, I think, about $21 million, $22 million or $24 million. It's very hard to just take one number and say that this is the impact of that. You've got to look at a variety of things.

In some communities where they are now going to have the ability for the additional hotel tax, an amount of 2 percent — for argument's sake, Whistler, which now has that ability…. It's about $7 million additional revenue they're going to get from that. That was retroactive to July 2006, I believe. Over a five-year period, on that part they're going to get $35 million.

It's very hard. I don't think it's quite fair…. I'm not suggesting that the member was suggesting this, but when you just look at one part, obviously you're going to get a certain picture.

What I'm saying is for the municipalities and regional districts, etc., when we take into account the court case, we know we're doing the right thing here. There have been a number of things that are actually going to assist municipalities, regional districts and the province as we move forward.

G. Robertson: It sounds like if you look at the big picture, as the minister describes it, it may all work itself out in the wash. What we need to ascertain here in this debate on Bill 32 is specifically what costs will

be borne by the communities. The minister mentioned Whistler in particular, and he mentioned a $3 million to $4 million a year average provincially. Does the minister have detail on exactly which communities are affected adversely by this change?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We have estimates of key communities — for instance, Victoria, approximately $600,000; Whistler, about $1.2 million; Parksville, $59,000; Tofino, $2,500; Kamloops rural area, about $275,000; Penticton, $2,000; Vancouver, $1.4 million. The rest of the province makes up the difference, and that's why I say the range is about $3 million to $4 million.

G. Robertson: Can the minister clarify what consultation is taking place with all of the communities that are affected?

Hon. R. Thorpe: My deputy advises me that senior staff talked to all of the major communities. My deputy did that, and other staff talked to the other communities. Also, there were discussions with UBCM.

I apologize to my staff for not introducing them when I first spoke today. I'd like to acknowledge to the House that my deputy minister, Robin Ciceri, is here; Rob Fraser, who has been working diligently on quarterbacking this through; and Karen Dunham.

G. Robertson: The result of the consultation of the ministry staff…. I'm curious if there were any tangible results — if any changes were effected when this legislation was drafted — in how municipalities would be affected by the legislation, based on those consultations. Or was it purely for information purposes?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We had extensive consultations and discussions with Whistler and also with the hotel and resort industry, the tourism industry of British Columbia.

This is an issue that has been outstanding in British Columbia for 15 years. We talked, taking into account the court case that said we should be moving to actual use. Quite frankly, to my recollection there was never any voice of objection to moving to actual use.

People understand that; they accept that. I remember the tourism association in one community in particular saying to us that we should try to resolve this because it was becoming so difficult for owners in that particular community. The community was Whistler. There was some concern that they may move the units out of the rental pool, which everyone in Whistler knows would not have been a helpful thing. So that's the answer.

G. Robertson: Is there any revenue change for the province resulting from this legislation and this section?

G. Robertson: So all of the net differences in terms of taxation, based on usage at this point, are borne by the municipal level. Is that right?

Hon. R. Thorpe: There is no direct adverse effect on the province. I think it's important to realize that when we went through this, we actually approached it from a principles basis. Let me just go through the principles, if I could. I've always found it difficult that when you focus only on dollars and cents, you do not make some of these things stand the test of fairness. So we developed a number of principles.

The first was to support the resort development strategy in all regions of the province of British Columbia. Second, to support the tourism strategy in doubling tourism industry revenues by 2015. Third, to improve customer service. Fourth, to promote fairness and equity. Fifth, to improve consistency in assessing conventional and strata hotels, minimizing the financial impacts, being administratively feasible for B.C. Assessment, being consistent with the British Columbia Supreme Court ruling and having no impact on existing class-1 owners.

G. Robertson: On section 17, the designation for ski hill properties. Within section 17, what are the eligibility requirements as anticipated by this legislation for the designation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Moving forward on the ski hill issue — and I do appreciate the member asking this question, hon. Chair — it was done working in partnership with the industry. The ski hills that are impacted are Whistler Blackcomb, Big White, Silver Star, Fernie, Sun Peaks, Mount Washington, Cypress Mountain, Panorama, Seymour Mountain, Apex Alpine, Kimberley Alpine, Red Mountain, Whitewater, Kicking Horse, Hemlock Valley and Mount Baldy.

On the review, the ministry worked closely with the Canada West Ski Association and with B.C. Assessment. B.C. Assessment focused on what were deemed to be the province's major hills, and for these purposes narrowed that on those hills that consistently had 50,000 or more ski visits per year.

G. Robertson: Were there ski hills that were maybe around 50,000 or just below that threshold, which were left out of this designation?

G. Robertson: Does the minister have any sense of why Grouse Mountain did not want to participate in the process?

G. Robertson: Were there any other ski hills, ski areas, that were not included in this designation that are around the 50,000-skier mark?

G. Robertson: In terms of the change here by which ski hills pay tax according to the number of people skiing there, what is the anticipated change to revenues flowing to the province created by this measure?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The industry worked very, very closely and had been working on this for a couple of years. A year ago we were hopeful that we could bring some change. Unfortunately, as the industry wrote me and apologized, they could not find consensus. They did find consensus, and that's why we were able to move forward with B.C. Assessment. I must say the staff at B.C. Assessment did a great job.

Interestingly enough, in reaching this new methodology, which I guess creates certainty and consistency for the hills…. Looking at the methodology that they all accepted, the estimated tax will move from about $2.9 million to $3.1 million. Of course, that will go to the communities and regions in which these ski hills are located. I must say that this is the result of the industry bringing forward its approach and working with B.C. Assessment.

G. Robertson: Were there any voices in the industry, ski hills or communities that expressed concerns regarding these changes?

G. Gentner: I'm very concerned with the authority that cabinet may have in designating port competitiveness. We've seen a competitiveness review many years ago, and municipalities have been on the hook ever since.

Just briefly to some of the quick designations on eligible port land. Unfortunately, I wasn't there for the briefing. Nevertheless, just for the record, can the minister explain to us what is defined as a navigable waterway?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that that term is the waters that are navigable as defined by the Coast Guard.

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, I couldn't hear the answer from the minister. Could he maybe turn up the volume somehow?

It's my understanding, and I've been advised by staff, that navigable waters are those waters as defined by the Coast Guard.

G. Gentner: I would assume, therefore, that it would include such things as rowboats and almost anything.

G. Gentner: I look forward to the day that I'm on the front bench, so I can listen to the minister. For some reason, the audio isn't coming to me.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Apparently, the member did not hear. To his question about whether rowboats qualify or not, I have no knowledge whether rowboats qualify.

G. Gentner: It's important. I don't want to be facetious here, but there are a number of harbours throughout British Columbia that may be eligible port land. I know that in my community Ladner Slough is intertidal. Without proper dredging, we're seeing it being filled up. Nevertheless, there are fishing boats using it, etc., so there's some discrepancy or misunderstanding, maybe on my part, about what is known as eligible port land.

To the minister, does the meaning of eligible port land or what could be an eligible port land have to be consulted with FREMP, the Fraser River Estuary Management Project?

G. Gentner: For the designation of eligible port land, what is the relationship or consultation with the Fraser River Estuary Management Project?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We are not setting the definition here. The definition of an eligible port is consistent with other legislation in British Columbia today. This is not a new definition.

G. Gentner: Well, relative to the amendment act itself, did the ministry consult at all with the Fraser River Estuary Management Project?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I do not believe that the Fraser is impacted by this legislation. In fact, the areas that are impacted by this are North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, Vancouver, Delta, Port Moody, Surrey, Squamish and Prince Rupert.

G. Gentner: So the Fraser River Port Authority and lands thereof are not impacted by this?

G. Gentner: That's a huge swath of land, the lower mainland. It consists of two major port waterways. One is Burrard Inlet and those that are under the authority of the Vancouver Port Authority and, of course, the Fraser River Port Authority, which follows its way all the way up to Mission. I would have to assume that there is a legitimate port under statute by the government of Canada called the Fraser River Port Authority.

Again I'll ask the question. Is this legislation, including the eligible port land, applicable to all port authorities on the Fraser River?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me once again say that the areas covered by this fall under the jurisdiction of the municipalities of the city of North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver, Vancouver, Delta, Port Moody, Surrey, Squamish and Prince Rupert.

G. Gentner: Therefore I take it as yes, because the only port facility in Surrey is along the Fraser. I have to ask the question: why isn't New Westminster part of this statute?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Just to assist and perhaps provide some clarification, the designated port properties that this bill covers are the city of Vancouver, Centerm Terminal; city of Vancouver, Agricore United; city of Vancouver, Vanterm; city of Vancouver, Pacific Elevators; city of Vancouver, Cascadia; city of North Vancouver, James Richardson International; city of North Vancouver, Saskatchewan Wheat Pool; city of North Vancouver, Lynnterm West Gate; city of North Vancouver, Neptune; city of North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate; city of North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate berth.

City of Port Moody, Pacific Coast Terminals; city of Prince Rupert, Prince Rupert Grain; city of Prince Rupert, Ridley; corporation of Delta, Westshore; corporation of Delta, Deltaport; corporation of Delta, Fraser Surrey Docks; district of North Vancouver, Fibreco; district of North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate; district North Vancouver, Lynnterm East Gate berth; district of North Vancouver, Dow Chemical; city of Surrey, Fraser Surrey Docks; district of Squamish, Squamish Terminal.

Those are the folios, the designated port properties that are impacted by this — none others to my knowledge.

G. Gentner: Has the ministry consulted with all municipalities that are involved with this or are going to be impacted?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, thanks for the question. I must say that these changes are the direct result of a Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling. The formula for determining the new land process ports was developed in consultation and endorsed by the Wharf Operators Association, which represents the major port operators in British Columbia. The amendments have been reviewed with UBCM and affected local governments.

G. Gentner: I know there's a regular process. Excuse me, it's been a while since I've been involved in that process, the assessment board, the quarter revision, etc. What is the appeal process for a municipality relative to disputing what cabinet may designate as an eligible port land?

Hon. R. Thorpe: They go to the review panel, and from there, they go to the appeal board. From there, should they wish to, they go to the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

In subsection (7): "In making regulations under that subsection, the Lieutenant Governor in Council may provide for the use of a consumer price index published…." If cabinet decides not to use the consumer price index, what other framework do you foresee cabinet using?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It is our intention at this time to use the consumer price index.

G. Gentner: The bill says "may," so I'm assuming that's quite an open-ended ability by cabinet. Is that not correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The intention that we have worked under has always been — and it has been my intention and the intention of my staff, the wharf operators and the folks at B.C. Assessment — that we would be going forward on the consumer price index methodology.

G. Gentner: All the municipalities in question here are going to be affected by this. Can the minister explain to the House right now what the total tax revenue is for all the municipalities with the current tax scheme that's been in place for 2006?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We do not have that detailed information here with us with respect to those individual properties that I talked to you about — what their tax bill was for 2006.

G. Gentner: The assessment authority does go through reviews. Can the minister therefore give us an idea what the foreseen or the projected increase of taxes is on those same lands by 2010?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We actually do not know what the tax bill is going to be in 2010 because we do not know what the assessed values are going to be. We're in 2007. We have no idea what the CPI is going to be, which we have every intention of applying, so it would only be by speculating that we would have any idea what the tax bill would be in the year 2010.

G. Gentner: That's the point, isn't it? Cabinet has arbitrary authority now to make a decision, with or without the consumer price index, on what the land is going to be appraised or assessed at, which will have a direct impact on municipalities that are trying to deal with operation budgets, capital budgets, etc.

I guess another question I have here is: will berthing corridors in the ports remain tax-exempt?

G. Gentner: Some time ago the current provincial government — back, I think, in 2003-04 — through a

tax relief initiative for lower mainland ports, decided to roll back certain rates for the ports. Of course, one of the benefits to the ports — not to the municipalities, I might add — was that berthing corridors were tax-exempt. Will this remain under this act?

G. Gentner: The initiative was to finish within five years, by 2008. So I'm taking it, therefore, that's what this whole purpose is — to continue with what the province had done or to give a break to the ports and arbitrarily decide the value of the zoned industrial shipping lanes.

Can the minister tell us what…? I have to ask the question because a lot of municipalities are wondering whether or not there will be any compensation for municipalities if the province decides to assess the value of these properties lower.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think that in fairness to the member, the member is confusing two separate issues. First of all, the member should clearly understand that this amendment is a direct result of a Supreme Court of British Columbia ruling in a particular case. I might also add that a number of municipalities were a part of that court case as interveners, etc.

With respect to the properties that I mentioned, the overall assessment of those properties is not going down. That's the one thing. The other issue that the member seems to be interjecting into this was something that our government did which the former government had talked about but, unfortunately, never got around to doing. It was the port competitiveness, which was a direct result of my colleague the Minister of Finance's responsibility. In my understanding that expires, as the member said, in 2008.

The Minister of Finance, as a commitment to the municipalities that are affected, has already begun a consultation process with those to look at the situation to see how they move forward, hopefully with the intent of reaching an understanding that is acceptable to all parties as we move forward.

M. Karagianis: I see that this part of the act here is about to make some significant amendments to the structure of the assessment authority by removing the assessment commissioner and moving to a board of directors and CEO.

Could the minister please explain why this particular system is being followed? What is the rationale for the change from the current system, and what is the significance of this change?

Hon. R. Thorpe: These amendments will ground B.C. Assessment in modern governance practice and provide for greater public accountability by a Crown corporation. The amendments clarify roles and responsibilities of select key decision-makers like the chief executive officer, like board composition, lines of accountability, communications, reporting requirements, and responsibilities for implementing government's priorities and public policy.

M. Karagianis: Thank you very much. What significant changes will this make then from the current commissioner-based to the board-of-directors-based running of this assessment authority?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, historically the positions of the assessment commissioner and the chief executive officer have been filled by the same person. This dual role has resulted in confusion from time to time in roles, responsibilities and lines of accountability. Currently, as I said, one individual acts as both the assessment commissioner and the chief executive officer. The assessment commissioner is responsible for administering the property assessment system, while the chief executive officer is responsible for the overall management of B.C. Assessment.

Neither of these roles involves a requirement to consult with the board of directors of B.C. Assessment. This has created unclear lines of accountability in terms of respective roles of the assessment commissioner, the chief executive officer and the board of directors.

Our government developed a Crown agency accountability system in 2005 to define roles, responsibilities and accountabilities of those persons involved in Crown agency governance. A central principle of this system is that a board of directors must play a central part in governing the organization.

The amendments to this act, including the legislating of the chief executive officer's responsibilities and reassigning the assessment commissioner's duties, will clarify lines of accountability and make the governance of B.C. Assessment consistent with the Crown agency accountabilities.

M. Karagianis: That makes perfect sense when the minister explains it that way.

Up to this point the CEO/commissioner has not reported to the board. What authority has the CEO and commissioner actually reported to? Who up to this point has had the governance and oversight of that position?

M. Karagianis: This, then, is in fact a very significant change. Now there's the expectation in the act that the CEO is one singular position. There's no duality of positions. Secondly, he or she is under the direct authority of the board. In fact, that board has all and

complete authority over that, and the autonomy has been removed completely from that CEO's position.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, the member is correct. The chief executive officer is now accountable to the board of directors of B.C. Assessment, should this legislation pass. We believe that is going to provide good accountability. We believe that is going to be good for the organization. We believe that it gives a very strong role to B.C. Assessment's board of directors.

We have a great chair in Lillian White. We have members of the board of directors from each region of the province, so we have total representation from all parts of British Columbia.

We believe that this move to the Crown agency accountability system has been long overdue, and we're pleased to have this clarification, this opportunity to bring forward this modern model for the operation of B.C. Assessment.

M. Karagianis: I will probably ask some questions later on, on the composition of the board. Do you anticipate that the board will change as a result of this legislative change?

M. Karagianis: I see that this is a change around how conflict between this act and any other act has been handled in the past and how it would be handled now. Can the minister explain why the shift, what in fact the implications are for this and why this is being done?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that the act was introduced in the early '70s, and we're modernizing the act through these amendments, through these changes, to ensure that we have a modern Crown agency model.

M. Karagianis: Is the minister saying that there is actually no significant difference now in how conflicts between this act and other language in other acts, then, as we know?

The minister and the government have been quite busy in the last couple of years looking at deregulation. It would seem to me that we would be looking for ways to ensure that under the move to deregulation, issues around how various acts conflict with each other would want to be minimized. Does this do that? Or in fact, does this change significantly how conflict has been dealt with before?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We believe this bill brings forward a streamlined, simplified approach for B.C. Assessment. We also have been working very closely with the board, and the board through to the chief executive officer, to strive to have an approach of continuous improvement in customer service.

B.C. Assessment introduced a number of changes this year in how they deal with taxpayers in a proactive approach, and they are committed to striving for a continuous improvement in customer service — in other words, a much more proactive approach as opposed to a reactive approach.

M. Karagianis: I guess my question would be, then: can this act be overpowered by some other act of government? Can it be sort of overauthorized? Can some other act take precedence over this?

M. Karagianis: I see in this section that this is beginning to define the shift, I guess, from membership. Members now become directors. It also prescribes an allowance set out by the minister for these positions. Is this new in any way?

M. Karagianis: So these positions have always been remunerated and have always had travel and incidental costs to them, have they? Has there been any significant change in that whatsoever?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. They have been consistent. Before we formed government, members of the board were receiving remuneration, and they do now. That is all consistent with policies and practices put in and approved by Treasury Board.

M. Karagianis: Perhaps, then, the minister can explain why it needs to actually be written in detail into the act. Why would it not just stand under the existing terms of reference of the board?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The language that was in the bill before was out-of-date language. The language and terminology put into the bill as proposed here is consistent with the modern language used and consistent with the language used in other legislation where directors and the authority to pay directors is part of that legislation.

M. Karagianis: Are these — the remuneration and travel expenses and stuff — all laid out in the public accounts?

Hon. R. Thorpe: They are consistent with Treasury Board directives with respect to remuneration guidelines for appointees to administrative panels. This di-

rective is issued pursuant to sections 4 and 27 of the Financial Administration Act and other applicable enactments.

M. Karagianis: Under "Powers and duties of the board of directors," there is certainly some very strong language now around what the board is expected to do. They must manage the affairs of the authority or supervise the management of these affairs.

The authority that's given here is a significant change, as we discussed earlier, from the old structure, and the board may do a number of things here. In effect, they become the de facto managers.

What is the role, then, of the CEO, given the authority that the board of directors has over all of the day-to-day management?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The board of directors will set overall direction of the organization. The chief executive officer will execute that direction on a day-to-day basis and manage the operations of B.C. Assessment in a very effective and efficient way, as per the direction that that individual receives from time to time from the board of directors.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, the language around "must manage the affairs" is a significant shift from the kinds of boards of directors that often do broad policy work. There are various kinds of board structures here around how they interact with the management of the organization. This is really much more hands-on.

I would ask the minister again, then…. Really, the CEO is relegated to a management role, much like any other staff within the assessment system.

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, I think the chief executive officer plays a very key and important role in B.C. Assessment, as a chief executive officer does in any Crown corporation.

In 1997 the Auditor General examined governance relationships and practices throughout the province and identified opportunities to improve Crown corporation governance. In 2005 we established broad provincial standards for board governance practices, setting out a model of principles of good governance. The characteristics of good governance include transparency, participation, responsiveness, effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and strategic vision.

The board of directors is accountable for the mandate of B.C. Assessment. The board has the ability to delegate its powers and duties. The role of the chief executive officer is legislated. The chief executive officer is appointed and accountable to the board of directors.

M. Karagianis: I do see that under section (2)(a), it does say that by resolution or bylaw the board of directors could "exercise the powers and perform the duties of the authority under this Act." So this really does give them a much more direct, hands-on role.

Does the board of directors…? Are they in the active duty of performing their oversight every single day within the assessment authority? Is this a five-day-a-week, seven-hour-a-day job for all of these board members?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, it is not. These are not hands-on, day-to-day members of the inner workings of B.C. Assessment. They are there to have oversight, to ensure that the goals that have been established and are established by B.C. Assessment are carried out in a timely way and an efficient manner by the chief executive officer and the very capable senior management and field team that we have at B.C. Assessment.

No, there is no intention here to have the directors of B.C. Assessment involved in the day-to-day measurement and involvement of the organization.

M. Karagianis: In part (3) of that section it says: "The board of directors must submit to the minister reports in the form, with the information and at the time required by the minister." Are these actually public reports that are made, or are they strictly private?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No, every year a detailed annual report is tabled in this House on behalf of B.C. Assessment. I think, quite frankly, we're getting close to the time, coming up in the very, very near future, that again we will be tabling an annual report — a detailed annual report, I might say — that the board and the chief executive officer and the chief executive officer's team are working on and putting together.

M. Karagianis: Under section 41, it does say that the board is being charged "to develop and administer a complete system of property assessment" and "to give directions respecting the preparation and completion of assessment rolls." Is the board actually coming up with something new? Is there a cost here, or is this simply, again, language that's been adjusted because of the shift away from a commissioner to a board of directors as the management authority?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's a very good question. This is language that was in the bill before, under the tax commissioner, and has now been assigned to the responsibilities of the board because the tax commissioner no longer exists.

M. Karagianis: There are no new costs being incurred here? This is not building a new system or retrofitting a system or developing anything new here that's a cost?

M. Karagianis: This is a section that lays out the appointment of directors and the chair of the board and all of the kind of processes that would occur there.

How are these appointments done? How are the actual appointments selected? What skills are required? What is the application process for members who would like to sit on this board? How are they chosen? I know the minister alluded to regional representation, but what are the other skill sets and what are the criteria for applying for a position on the board?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Board members are put through our board resourcing process. We do look and make every effort to ensure that we have regional representation from all parts of the province.

We also look at ensuring that we have a set of skills that individual directors bring forward, whether it be legal, financial, marketing, some assessment or real estate. We are looking for a skill set combination that comes to the board and that complements the other skills of other members.

I am very, very pleased, as I've mentioned earlier…. Our board chair, Lillian White, is an exceptional chair and does a great job on behalf of all British Columbians.

M. Karagianis: Would the minister anticipate, given the shift now to slightly new authority of the board and new responsibilities of the board members, that there would be other skill sets that you may be looking for that are not currently available on your board?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That is a possibility, but I would in those instances take advice. I do meet with the chair. I try to meet with the chair on at least a quarterly basis, just to see how things are going.

The chair does an annual review on individual directors. We are continually discussing the skill sets needed and if we have the right skill sets, but I would be looking for input from the board chair on the skill sets that she believes are needed should any changes be required.

M. Karagianis: As with the previous question I asked, what process is followed here in appointing new employees of the authority? What kind of credentials would be sought? Seeing as the board is now in a position of taking on some of the responsibilities of doing this, is there some new process that's expected to take place here?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. Overall, there's no significant change. This just formalizes it in the legislation. The human resource function at B.C. Assessment is a very professional organization. Obviously, they will be led on a day-to-day basis by the chief executive officer.

The chief executive officer, no doubt, from time to time will have consultations with the board chair and the board to talk about such issues as how we're going to ensure that they have the adequate staff, any new techniques required and any changes that need to take place with respect to duties as the world we live in continues to change. But overall, there will be no change.

The day-to-day management will be the chief executive officer, and the board will set the necessary authorities in place with the chief executive officer to ensure that modern governance is in place at B.C. Assessment.

M. Karagianis: Again, the board and the authority "must establish and maintain an accounting system…." Is this new? Is this the existing accounting system? Is there a cost to this?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It is not a new concept. It is modern language that fits in with the overall Crown governance procedures of our government.

M. Karagianis: Just to clarify, so this is simply the existing accounting system, and this is really just the language saying they must maintain that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, there's no new accounting system envisaged at B.C. Assessment.

M. Karagianis: In this section it does say: "Despite section 20.3 (5) of the Assessment Act, if made before January 1, 2008, regulations under section 20.3 of that Act may be made retroactive to the extent necessary…for the purposes of the 2007 taxation year…."

I spoke yesterday during the budget response to the fact that I'm very conscious about municipalities being able to plan and have certainty around what their tax roll will look like. I'm sure the minister would understand that communities cannot have any surprises as they move through their taxation process. What are the implications on municipalities of this retroactivity?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We announced in January of this year with respect to the port lands that it was our intention to move forward. This amendment here puts that into effect, and that is completely consistent with the British Columbia Supreme Court ruling with respect to the port lands. That's why this is here.

The member asks a very, very good question with respect to how we work with municipalities and how we inform them, etc., because what B.C. Assessment does is the basis of the municipal taxation system as they go forward.

We do finalize the assessment rolls in the new year before the assessments go out, but we do provide, for planning purposes, estimates in October of each year, which then allow the municipalities to work through and build their planning models so that they can have some sense of what the assessment base is going to be and what they may or may not have to do with increasing or decreasing their various class tax rates.

M. Karagianis: The minister alluded earlier to much of this being predicated because of port designations. Is the minister saying that it's unlikely that there are any severe changes from the expectation of a municipality to the actual assessment roll?

Certainly, in the case of ports I would think that…. I believe that earlier there were some questions asked about expectations on the value of port lands. It would be very difficult to try and judge in October what lands might be worth a year later. We've seen that the real estate market and the cost and price and value of land are very unpredictable and often have escalated at a much more dramatic rate than even municipalities could anticipate.

If in fact the minister is saying that, retroactively, the value of port lands or other significant real estate holdings could change dramatically, how would municipalities have an assurance of that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. If I wasn't clear on that, let me just clarify that. With respect to the port lands, I think the benefit that has come out of the negotiations that have taken place as a result of the B.C. Supreme Court ruling is the fact that now municipalities are going to have certainty because there is a formula. There is a formula, and there is a baseline, and there will be an indexing based, as I said, on the CPI. So that certainty will be there on a going-forward basis for those port lands that were affected by the B.C. Supreme Court ruling.

M. Karagianis: Subsection (1.1) under here caught my attention because it says: "Subject to the requirements of subsections (2) to (4.2), an owner may, with leave of the board, appeal to the board if the owner failed to file a notice of complaint in respect of the owner's property within the time required…."

I'd like to know: why is this being included? What is the significance of it? And is this a new approach to appeals?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member asks another excellent question. This is a provision so that if an individual finds himself, for example, of ill health and unable to meet the filing deadlines, they would have an avenue of appeal through to the board.

M. Karagianis: Does this in any way trigger taxation penalties, the waiving of taxation penalties? Is that the purpose of this? I know that often people who have not appealed their assessment then end up with taxation that may be beyond their abilities to pay and could certainly trigger a whole series of actions that could end up with default in taxes. Often this does happen as some seniors become frail of health or perhaps unable to deal with the pressures around assessment and taxation in a given year.

Is this an allowance there for that appeal even after the taxation period — to appeal those as well?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Again, I think, an excellent question. We have to remember that we're dealing here with the Assessment Act. We're not dealing with the taxation of municipalities and regional districts. They have to deal with that themselves.

This does give individuals that find themselves, through no fault of their own, in exceptional situations — for example, ill health — the right to appeal. This does not preconclude or define what the benefits of that appeal may be. It just gives them the right to appeal.

M. Karagianis: Is there a time frame within which that appeal could be done? I would expect that it can't be endless. Obviously, the minister fairly says that the government can't be responsible for the actions that municipalities take. So what is the time frame in which this can occur?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Hon. Chair, I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 32, Assessment Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I call second reading of Bill 30, Innovative Clean Energy Fund Amendment Act.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that Bill 30, entitled Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007, be introduced and read a second time now.

I am pleased to present Bill 30. British Columbia's new energy plan puts our province at the forefront of environmental and economic leadership. It ensures public ownership and stewardship of our energy resources and maintains B.C.'s low-cost advantage.

We are backing up our aggressive greenhouse gas targets with a $25 million innovative clean energy fund to develop clean and alternative energy sources, not just in electricity but in transportation and the oil and gas sectors. The clean energy fund underlines our commitment to environmental protection, economic diversification and innovation in clean, renewable energy. This fund will support future innovations in energy technology and help bridge the gap experienced in bringing innovation through the precommercial stage to market.

The fund will support the development or adoption of precommercial clean energy technologies or clean energy technologies not currently used in B.C.; reduce the environmental impact of the use, production, generation, storage, transmission, delivery, provision or conversion of energy; demonstrate or promote B.C. clean energy technologies that have good potential for market demand in other jurisdictions; reduce the cost or improve the reliability of clean energy sources or associated technology; and support energy efficiency and conservation.

To provide moneys for this fund, we move to amend the Social Service Tax Act to implement a proposed levy of 0.4 percent on all final sales of electricity, natural gas, grid propane and fuel oil that is not transportation-related.

What does this mean for the average person in British Columbia? The average cost for a residential electricity consumer would be approximately $3 a year. A residential natural gas customer will pay about $5 in one year. Customers using both would pay about $8 a year. Home-heating-oil customers will pay approximately $8 a year.

British Columbians are concerned about climate change and sustainable environmental management. We're also proud that we are leading the way in setting aggressive greenhouse gas emission and clean energy targets.

In order to meet our future energy requirements and our continued high standard of environmental protection, we need greater investment and innovation in the area of alternative energy by the both the public and private sector. The fund will provide an incentive for new investment in energy technology, create local economic development benefits across the province and benefit our environment.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to get up and participate with my colleague the Minister of Energy in the discussion and debate around the Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act. This was, members will recall, a component of the throne speech in February. There was much discussion and concern at that time of what the level of the taxation would be, what the impact on hydro rates would be and what the impact on natural gas rates would be.

I'm pleased that in the minister's opening remarks he quantified that to the best of his ability, and I know that the staff back at the ministry would have crunched these numbers. It looks like about $11 for people living in my constituency who heat with heating fuel and who have hydro for their electricity needs.

I wanted to spend some time on the notion of how this was presented back in February. You'll recall, hon. Speaker, that there was much ado in the throne speech about the transition needed in the energy sector in particular but also in a whole host of areas, certainly transportation. Everyone will agree that we have challenges there.

Hydroelectricity is the backbone of the system here in British Columbia. It's clean; it's green — always has been and always will be. So the notion that the energy sector is an area where we can make strides toward the government's goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 is a bit misleading.

The minister and I canvassed these issues in estimates. I'm sure that when we get to committee stage on this bill, we'll get a better opportunity to do that. But we have green energy in British Columbia. It is the pride of many of us. Certainly, those in the Peace country, where the minister is from, and in the Kootenays along the Columbia Basin have made significant sacrifices to provide this green energy for the rest of us in British Columbia.

Noting the time, I'll adjourn the debate and reserve my right to pick it up again at the next opportunity.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ASIA-PACIFIC
INITIATIVE AND THE OLYMPICS

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll start by introducing some of the staff that have joined me this afternoon to assist us. On my immediate left is Doug Callbeck, who is an assistant deputy minister in the ministry. To my right is Mike Carter, who is also an ADM. Directly behind me is Kevin Regan, who is the director international for the ministry.

I just wanted to start with some very brief opening comments, not to go into a great deal of detail, but just to set the stage for some of the challenges and opportunities that the Ministry of Economic Development is faced with.

First of all, on the issue of challenges, I think the one biggest challenge that is facing the economy of our province as we go forward is around labour market issues and the availability of the labour force that we're going to need for the future to make sure that we actually maximize the economic growth that we are going to be seeing in the province in the years ahead. It is an issue that gets raised with me in every corner of the province. Whoever I'm talking to — particularly employers, but community leaders as well — recognizes that the skill shortages that we're witnessing in some specific areas are real and that specific action needs to be taken to ensure that we do everything we can to make sure that we meet that challenge.

In that vein we actually have a lot that is underway today. We have just in the last few weeks released the WorkBC strategy, our labour market strategy, which really sets out the tremendous growth in jobs that we are anticipating in the province over the coming 12 years. The economists have indicated that we can anticipate about a million job openings in the province over the coming 12 years. During that same period of time we will see about 650,000 students graduate from our K-to-12 school system in the province.

If we are going to meet the labour market needs in the future, we have to find some new and innovative ways of doing that. There's no one solution to that. It's not a case of saying that we can rely on immigration from other countries. It's not a case of saying that we can rely on immigration from other parts of Canada.

It's not a case of saying that we have to put more effort into apprenticeship training programs and skills development in the province. It's not a case of saying that we have to get underrepresented groups who have higher unemployment rates today into our labour force. The answer is really that we have to do all of these things, and we have to make sure that we are focusing in all those directions.

Over the course of the estimates I hope and anticipate that we can get into more discussion about some of those various labour market challenges. I would certainly welcome ideas and suggestions of additional things, perhaps, that the province could be doing to ensure that we are meeting the labour market challenges of the future.

If you look at the opportunity side, the opportunity is actually very significant. One other significant report that the ministry published this year was the Asia Pacific Initiative. I was going to say it's been the culmination of a lot of work. It's actually not the culmination of anything. It's actually a point in time of the evolution of our Asia-Pacific strategy in the province.

The Asia Pacific Initiative is not really the beginning of a process or the end of a process. It's actually a document that sets out what the opportunities are that exist for the province with regard to our relationship with the Asia-Pacific countries across the Pacific Ocean. It sets out what government is doing across all ministries with regard to the Asia-Pacific region and what we can and need to be doing in the future to capitalize on those opportunities.

It is a strategy that really has involved and engaged every single ministry of government. The Ministry of Economic Development is the lead ministry on the Asia-Pacific initiative. But we have very strong partnerships with every single ministry when it comes to their particular area of activity and the things that they need to be doing to refocus their energies and refocus their resources, so as to make sure that we are recognizing that the future of the British Columbia economy is going to be so dependent — and increasingly dependent — on our growing relationship with the Asia-Pacific region.

Again, it's one of those areas, like the labour market challenges, where there is no end to the things we could be doing and the things we could be spending money on or focusing resources on. But like everything in government, we have to be strategic. We've got to make sure we're getting good value for every dollar that we have available to us. We need to be tapping the resources of others to leverage those dollars and make sure that we're maximizing the benefit.

We also know, out of the Asia-Pacific initiative, that the rest of Canada is watching British Columbia. The rest of Canada is looking to British Columbia to provide the leadership for Canada as a nation into the Asia-Pacific region. So the Premier has had significant discussions with his counterparts across all provinces, engaging them in the kind of collaborations and partnerships that we can get involved with where British Columbia can lead. We can truly maximize those opportunities.

I think some of the other opportunities that are coming to the province in a major way are around the Olympics. I know that as we go through this estimates process, I'm anticipating and expecting — and, quite frankly, hoping for — lots of really good questions about the Olympics so that we can actively engage in that discussion.

Speaking of our relationship with other provinces, we've also had the unfolding of a breakthrough agreement with the province of Alberta — the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement — about which there has been a lot of discussion at the community level. There have been lots of e-mails buzzing around, and I know that there has been a lot of misinformation as well.

Hopefully, before we conclude these estimates, we can also have a chance to get into a good discussion about what TILMA is and isn't. Hopefully, by the end of the process, everybody — whether they're watching it through the broadcast or reading it in Hansard or have the opportunity to be here with us in this Douglas Fir Room — will better understand what the TILMA agreement with Alberta is all about.

With that, I welcome any questions and comments from the opposition. Actually, one thing that might be very helpful is if the opposition critic might give us a sense of how the opposition would like to approach the various subjects that are before us in this particular ministry.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the minister and his staff for the estimates that we're going to embark on. I'm looking forward to the discussion.

I also note that the timing is going to be very tight in that there is still a lot of business before the House and lots of estimates to be done. To that end, we will endeavour to ask the questions here in the Douglas Fir Room. Short of that, if we're not able to get all of our questions on record, I know that the minister has in the past…. I'm sure he will continue to extend the courtesy of ensuring that we have the opportunity to either follow up questions with him in writing or to engage with his staff more directly so that we can get those direct answers.

Also, I want to say that if we don't get a chance to canvass sufficiently in a particular area, it certainly is not because the area is not important but simply because we ran out of time. Time is of the essence as we are heading toward the end of the session here, with this week and then, of course, one more week before we adjourn for the spring session. To that end I will outline for the minister the areas that we will be embarking into and the order in which we will be engaging in those discussions.

I will spend the first part of the estimates in what I call the trade files. Certainly, that would include the Asia-Pacific initiatives and, of course, the other initiatives as well, beyond Asia. We'll be looking into those. We will, of course, be talking about some of the recommendations that arise from the Asia-Pacific Trade Council and their recommendations, to get a sense of where things are at.

We will then get into the area of specific industry economic development initiatives. I'm particularly interested in the aerospace industry and matters related to that industry in the ministry.

I would then like to canvass with the minister a little bit about the marketing and promoting of British Columbia — initiatives that the government has undertaken. Then we will go into the regional economic development component of the ministry, which I know the minister shares with other ministers as well.

Then we'll move on into the Industry Training Authority, for which my colleague the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith will take over the estimates debate. Then we'll move on to the Olympics, for which of course my good colleague the critic for the Olympics, the MLA for Surrey-Newton, will be stepping in. Then we'll move on to the TILMA file.

I understand that because of staffing issues, that's the preferred order that the minister would like, so we have arranged our estimates and critic questions in accordance with that order.

With that I'm going to begin first with the trade files component of the minister's area of responsibility. Could the minister please tell this House where the trade offices that the government has are located at this point, I guess, internationally?

Hon. C. Hansen: I thank the member for that sequencing of items. That works great. It means that not all the staff will have to wait around for their particular section to come up, so it will give them the opportunity to get back to their offices, where I know they are very busy. So thank you for agreeing to that.

With regard to our offices internationally, at this point the provincial Ministry of Economic Development does not have any offices, per se, internationally. We do have representatives that are working abroad, full-time representatives working on behalf of British Columbia.

We have four in Europe. They have been there for some time, and I know that we had a chance to discuss that in depth at last year's estimates. They are the same four individuals that are in place as they were before. While they don't have a base of operations, they have their home base, if that's the right way to put it. In the case of two of them, they actually reside in Germany; one resides in the UK; and the fourth resides in Denmark. But they are on the road constantly.

They actually go to where we need them to be. They are meeting constantly with potential investors and other industry representatives in Europe to facilitate inbound investment and attracting industry and business to come to British Columbia. So that's four of them.

We also, through the provincial government, generally…. Through the Ministry of Forests there is an office that FII has established in Shanghai. That is the Dream Home Canada office that is located in Shanghai. Also, the Ministry of Forests has an involvement, although it's not a dedicated office, with a presence in Tokyo and also in Korea.

Tourism B.C. has an office presence in Tokyo, in Taiwan and also in the UK. While they are not part of the provincial Ministry of Economic Development — they report through their respective ministries — we in the ministry work quite closely with those B.C. government offices abroad.

We are also in the process of engaging representatives for the province, to be located in the Asia-Pacific region. The member may recall that last year in estimates, we talked about the four representatives of the province that we will be engaging. That has not been on the time schedule that we had originally hoped for.

I think if the member went back in estimates last year, she would discover that I had indicated that it was our expectation that four representatives in Asia would, in fact, be in place by the end of the fiscal year. We did not meet that goal. We have now identified one of those individuals.

In fact, I have just heard that after a lengthy contract negotiation — we had actually identified the person some time ago — we were able to finalize a contract for the individual who will be in Shanghai, and that was just earlier this week. We are working with that individual now to find out when it's an appropriate time to make that announcement and basically tell British Columbians who that individual is and the great resumé that that individual brings to the table.

We are also actively trying to finalize an arrangement with a representative to be based in Tokyo, and that negotiation is going on as we speak. We had hoped, out of our advertising that we did, that we would also be able to identify an individual to have their base of operations in Korea and another to have their base of operations in Taiwan.

We have some very specific requirements for that job, some very specific skill sets that we are looking for, and did not feel that we got that type of skill set out of the applications that we received. So we may have to go back and readvertise and continue to seek out the right individuals to flesh out the four people that we are looking for. We are also looking at other markets, including India, southern China and Beijing, as other areas where we are endeavouring to have representatives in place.

Then, finally, we are also putting an individual in California to assist us, particularly with the technology sector. As the member knows, we have a growing technology sector in British Columbia that has some pretty close linkages with Silicon Valley and other technology industries in California. We expect to very shortly be able to announce that we have an individual to assist us in that regard as well.

J. Kwan: It sounds, then, like there are now four people in place in Europe, and that the government is attempting to get four people to be in place…. This would be what the minister would call "in-market representatives," as I take it. That would be the term to describe these individuals.

There are four in Europe and four in China but only one in place at the moment — shortly to be announced in terms of who that individual is. There will be one representative in Tokyo, one in Korea, one in Taiwan, one in India and one in California.

According to my count, that's 11. Is that correct? That's what the minister has budgeted for in terms of in-market representatives overseas.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is right. The term that we have used in the ministry is "in-market rep." As the ministry staff will know, I am not a fan of that term because I don't think it properly reflects the role that they need. It's one of those terms that we start to use inside government and that sort of gets ingrained. But when you go out and talk to somebody, an official from another country, and you say, "Well, we've got an in-market rep," they sort of look back at you as if to say: "What's that?"

These will be agents of the province that will be working in these. But the member is correct. That is what we have referred to as "in-market reps." The ones that we have in the budget right now are the four that we have in place in Europe today, and we have the budget for four based in Asia. When I say that we were initially targeting certain areas, what we are targeting, first of all, is to get the right people with the right skills sets and the right market knowledge.

Just as an example, of the four people we get in place in Asia, if we have one person who has a specialty in technology, that person may in fact be working in different countries when we need somebody with a technology expertise. We may have somebody else that has an expertise when it comes to attracting investment to come into British Columbia, and that person, in turn, may be working different markets, whether it's Hong Kong, Shanghai or Tokyo, etc.

We do have one person that we have identified — we should be in a position to announce that person very soon — who will be based in Shanghai. From there we are also trying to finalize one for Tokyo, and we have budget for two others.

We need to find the right people. We're not going to say that a person necessarily has to be located in this city or that city. We want first of all to find the right person with the right skills sets that we are looking for. It would be a nice matrix if we could actually get the cross-section of the skills sets that we need, so the four of them can complement each other, and also wind up getting the geographic distribution and language skills sets. It would be optimum as well. It's not an easy process trying to come up with the right four individuals. That covers eight individuals.

The ninth individual that we have budget for is in California. As I mentioned, we expect to be in a position to announce that person very soon as well. The other ones…. We're looking in the case of some of the other centres. We may also look to contracting for services, not necessarily the eight full-time representatives around the world that I've mentioned. We may look to contracting services in various markets as well.

J. Kwan: That's nine — I'm just going to call them — in-market representatives for the time being. It took

me some time to learn that term, and I'm going to stick with it until I can find another one, because I didn't know what that meant either. It was very strange. I eventually memorized it, and now it's stuck in my forehead.

That's nine in total that the minister's got. The placement of them, though, will vary. The minister mentioned the time line in terms of one in China — in Shanghai, more specifically — that will be coming on stream fairly shortly. The one in California will be coming on stream fairly shortly, it sounds like. Then the other ones are on the way. It sounds like Tokyo may be getting one fairly quickly.

What about Korea, Taiwan and India? What's the time line for those representatives?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is correct. We are very close to being in a position where we're going to be able to publicly announce who the individuals are in Shanghai, in California and in Tokyo. In the case of Korea, that probably will take a bit longer.

I guess a year ago I set some deadlines. We wanted to have these people in place by the end of the year. Quite frankly, I'm reluctant to set time frames on this because I think what's most important to us is that we get the right people. Even out of the first round of advertising we did not get what we felt were the right applicants for the positions in Korea.

We want to proceed with that. We are expecting a report of the South Korea Market Advisory Group, which is part of the Asia-Pacific Trade Council. That will help guide us in how we actually approach the Korean market.

In the case of Taiwan, if we can't identify an appropriate full-time person to be the British Columbia agent in Taiwan, as we had hoped a few months back, we may look to establishing some kind of a part-time contract with an individual that would focus specifically on investment attraction into British Columbia.

In terms of India, the reason that Don Fast, who's my Deputy Minister, is not here with the estimates process is that he's actually in Asia. As part of his trip to India he has been looking for an appropriate representative or agent for British Columbia who could serve us for that particular market. Initially, that may not be a full-time person. We may in fact contract for those services. When he gets back I'll have a chance to better understand what his recommendations are going to be.

J. Kwan: It follows, then — in terms of future questions related to that — that I, too, will wait for the deputy minister to come back to report out to the minister. Perhaps then we can arrange for a meeting to get the updates accordingly. No point in asking the questions if the minister is just going to tell me that he won't know until his deputy is back. I'll just park that for a minute.

The minister talked about the need for specialties in terms of the individuals. I get it that you need to find the right person to be on the ground, although I question the notion that having an in-market representative is sufficient to do his job. As the minister already knows, and I don't want to belabour this point, I'm of the view that we need to have a trade office there.

You need to have an on-the-ground location where people can identify you and see you as visible to be promoting British Columbia, to be engaging with business opportunities and so on. I'm not going to get too much into that, because that just will end up being, I suspect, a rhetorical debate, and that wouldn't be helpful.

In terms of the specialties that the government is looking for, what are those areas of specialties, then? Has the government mapped out that plan, or is the government waiting for the person with the right specialties to show up? They say, "You're the person," and the hiring gets done and then the work and the plan is developed.

Hon. C. Hansen: The sectors that we are looking for are really being guided by the reports of the Asia-Pacific Trade Council. In the various markets…. They have now completed the China–Hong Kong market advisory group report. There's also the India one. The Japan one is actually very close to being finalized, and as I mentioned earlier, the Korea one is also being developed. Out of those reports and those market advisory groups that are active, we are getting their expert advice in terms of what the sectors are that we should be focusing on in those various sectors.

Certainly, technology is one that is very important to us. The forest sector is very important, and we have some strengths in that regard today, but we want to build on those. Investment attraction is important, and we realize there is a growing interest in British Columbia as a destination for investment. We need to have that expertise.

I think if you look at the matrix that we are interested in, we're looking for individuals that have existing, established relationships in those markets. So that's not something where you can take somebody from Vancouver and send them to Shanghai and sort of say: "Go to work for us." We want somebody that already has existing relationships in those markets.

We want individuals that have language skills. In the case of the individuals that we have identified for Shanghai and Tokyo, they both have absolutely first-class Mandarin and Japanese language skills.

Then the third area is that they also have to have knowledge of British Columbia, because they will be our representatives, and we need to make sure that they represent our province well in their discussions in those markets.

Finally, the sector area — the expertise that they have knowledge in. So we say: "Can we get the magical four people that cover all of those bases?" Probably not. If we can find the right person that has good contacts

and good relationships locally, good language skills, a good knowledge of, let's say, the technology sector, but maybe they don't know British Columbia that well, we may have to deal with that in terms of bringing them to British Columbia and running them through the crash course on what British Columbia is all about.

In fact, in the case of the four Asia representatives, that's exactly what we did. They have been to British Columbia on a regular basis and part of their trips to British Columbia has been building their knowledge of British Columbia.

So if we wind up with a particular gap…. One that comes to mind might be education, which is an area that most of the market advisory groups in the Asia-Pacific Trade Council have flagged for us as an area where there is big opportunity for British Columbia to be a destination for students and, also, an opportunity for us to sell educational services into those respective countries.

At the end of the day we may not have an individual that has that particular expertise, but we may be calling on them to develop that expertise so that they can properly represent and promote that sector as a course of their responsibilities.

J. Kwan: Does the minister think that it's sufficient — and I'll use China as an example — where it sounds like we have one in-market representative there for all of China to try to tap into the market?

So take as an example…. Juxtapose that to Alberta, where they have a significant presence in China. The Alberta China Office has four offices made up of what they call the Great China Team. In fact, most recently they also opened up an office in Beijing.

To that end, they have a fairly significant investment in China, as an example, where they want to get into the Chinese market. We know that is an important market to get into. But in British Columbia, it sounds like we will soon have one in-market representative in all of China. Does the minister think that's sufficient in trying to compete with the other jurisdictions who are also trying to get a share of the Chinese market?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer to the member's question is no. It's not sufficient obviously. But one of the other very significant opportunities that we have next year is with the establishment of B.C.-Canada Place in Beijing. We have an opportunity that no other jurisdiction around the world really does, with the exception of London, England, and that's the ability for us to establish a presence in Beijing during the 2008 Summer Olympic Games to market British Columbia.

B.C.-Canada Place is going to be a very major undertaking. We can get into it in more detail, I'm sure, when we talk about the budget of the Olympic secretariat. That will be an office, a facility, a pavilion where we will be marketing all aspects of British Columbia. It is our expectation that at the end of that, it will lead to a permanent facility in Beijing.

We are talking to FII. They are also interested in establishing a permanent facility for the marketing of forest products into China. That is the direction that we are heading with regard to Beijing.

We have had great access to high-level officials in Beijing that we would not ever have been able to dream of having access to, were it not for the fact that we are going to be hosting the 2010 Olympic Games. Therefore, the doors have been opened for us to have this marketing presence in Beijing in 2008.

I think the member is also correct that China is obviously a very huge country. It is very difficult — in fact, it's impossible — for British Columbia to establish a presence in every single major economic centre in China. So we have to pick our targets very carefully.

We know that we have great opportunities for us in Beijing, in Shanghai and in Guangzhou. Guangzhou is, of course, a sister city to Vancouver, and Guangdong province is a sister province to British Columbia. There we have a great opportunity to open doors for us.

The member was talking about the presence that Alberta has. We have been actively talking to Alberta about how we can share resources internationally, whether that means that we co-locate our representatives with their representative or whether we share representatives that can be there to fly both the British Columbia flag and the Alberta flag in a particular market presence.

We've been working hand in hand with them. This is actually an initiative that came out of the last joint B.C.-Alberta cabinet meeting that we had in April of last year, where the specific suggestion came up that both provinces should be working to collaborate internationally. We think there are some big opportunities there.

J. Kwan: It sounds like there will be a permanent trade office after the Beijing summer games. So that's not in this year's budget. I guess that will be for 2008. Am I correct to assume that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. We're working with other ministries as well. There is an opportunity for us to work with Tourism B.C., with FII on forestry, to look at how we properly fund these offices.

Beijing could be one example. In other communities we're looking at how we can co-locate the British Columbia presence and what makes sense. Some of these — if you look at Tourism B.C. or FII today — have existing facilities and existing leases.

It's not always possible that we say, okay, starting next month we're going to set up something new. We are working through that process as to exactly where we can establish the British Columbia presence and how we can collaborate, whether it's with Alberta or with other ministries, to make sure they're properly funded.

J. Kwan: One of the key things, I would imagine, for these in-market representatives to work effectively is that while they're on the ground, limited as it is, for one person to be working all of China or one person to be working all of California, for example.

Having said that, in any event there would be at least one person on the ground trying to hustle up economic opportunities for British Columbia. To that end, how does that then relate back to the ministry back home in British Columbia? That is to say, how many staff are allocated to support the work of the in-market representatives, and how would that operate?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll use the term in-market reps, too, for the purpose of this discussion.

The in-market reps that we have in place today in Europe are supported by three staff people based in Vancouver. It's actually interesting. They wind up putting in lots of evenings and weekends, of course, because of time changes, but they do a great job of supporting the four individuals that we have in Europe.

In the case of Asia, we are going through a restructuring in the ministry today to create an Asia unit within the ministry. There will have 17 FTEs within that Asia unit. It's partly taking the pre-existing capacity that we had, but we're also in the process of recruiting some new staff for the ministry, including, as the member may have noticed, a director for the Asia-Pacific that we advertised just a few weeks back and are in the process of trying to select.

Beyond that, really everybody in the ministry has a role when it comes to the Asia-Pacific initiative. For example, if we have a company from Asia that is looking at investing in British Columbia, we put them in touch with the regional staff we have around the province that will assist with things like site location. If we have a company that wants to explore sourcing product from British Columbia, whether it's a technology product or a natural resource, our ministry, based either out of the Victoria office or the Vancouver office, will in fact work closely, as they have done all along. The other is with the resources of other ministries. Forests and Tourism we've talked about, but other ministries have their own active Asia-Pacific relationships that they build on from a British Columbian base.

When we put these individuals in place as our full-time permanent representatives on the ground in the Asia-Pacific region, they will be supplementing and complementing the work that is already being done and planned for, from a British Columbian base. It is, I think, a network of support that is going to be there — not necessarily to solely work through the full-time representative, say, in Shanghai, but that person in Shanghai will expect to bring added value to our ability to build our relationships in China.

J. Kwan: The minister advises that they will be setting up an Asia unit with 17 FTEs. That, in part, is good news, I think. We'll see how it pans out in terms of how it is organized and how effective it is in conjunction with the one in-market representative in China, the one in-market representative in the various different locations.

I do note, though, that there will be times, I expect, with competing demand of resources to actually do the work. I suspect there's no shortage of work even for the 17 FTEs and the in-market representatives. When the competition for resources to support these in-market representatives arises, how will the government then determine which workplan takes priority?

I'll give one example to the minister. When the Premier planned his trip to China, I know that a number of different ministries were at work to try to organize that trip and the plans related to it, and that really consumed the ministry extensively.

To that end, the ministry was not able to even contemplate, as an example, ensuring that B.C. had representatives at the SME in Hong Kong, which is pretty significant. It's one of the larger, if you will, events that take place in Hong Kong internationally. The ministry, as I understood, didn't have the wherewithal to organize that, because everybody was consumed in trying to organize the trip for the Premier.

I would expect there will be a competing demand for the resources, not because staff members are not capable, but simply there are just not enough resources to do that. Does the minister anticipate that? If so, how will the minister resolve that challenge?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is 100 percent correct. It does put a huge stress on the staff, and they do a fabulous job actually. The planning for the Premier's trip last November was extremely time-consuming, and it did mean that staff had to put other files aside in order to make sure that the Premier's trip was a 100-percent success, which it was. I think that was the right thing to do because having the Premier in those various centres opened up all kinds of doors for us. That was an extremely successful trip.

In fact, not only was that trip time-consuming in the months leading up to it, but it's been time-consuming in the months following it as well because there is significant follow-up. I think, as the member knows, if you want to make those trips a success you've got to plan them well and with good lead time, and then you've got to do the follow-up.

It's something that we have been criticized about as Canadians, not just British Columbians, in the past — that Canadians don't do a good enough job on the follow-up. It's one of the reasons why this Asia unit is being staffed up, so that we actually have the capacity to support these kinds of efforts.

I think there are limited resources. There always will be. I, needless to say, would love it if I had our whole budget doubled for the Asia-Pacific Initiative. I know that's probably not realistic, but I might still work for it anyways because the sea of opportunity that is there is huge. With our available resources, we've got to target carefully.

We will be taking the advice of the Asia-Pacific Trade Council, which is set out in the various reports that they have produced to date. We will be focusing our efforts based on the strategic opportunities that are there and on the significant expert advice that we're tapping into.

J. Kwan: The in-market representatives. Who do they report to within the ministry, and are they required to produce workplans? If so, is it possible for me to get copies of these workplans?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, we have a very specific contract that is put in place for each of the representatives. For the four that we have in Europe, each of them has a contract, and they have very specific deliverables that they have to deliver on in order to fulfil the terms of their contract.

It's not the case of them saying: "Go out there and find the opportunities." They are answerable back through our staff in Vancouver on a daily and weekly basis, and they have to deliver on these specific objectives that are set out in the contracts.

That's one of the reasons why it has taken some time for us to get to a point where we can announce the new representatives in Shanghai, Tokyo and California. We have been working through what is a very detailed contract for the various deliverables that are expected of each of these individuals.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be making those contracts publicly available once they're signed?

Hon. C. Hansen: I gather that if someone was to FOI these contracts, we would provide them. There would be certain things that we would have to sever that I guess would be of a personal nature to the individual. But we would have no hesitation in providing those contracts with the kind of severing that would be expected through an FOI process.

J. Kwan: The minister will send it to us? Okay, great. Thanks. It would just save, in terms of efficiency of the bureaucracy, taxpayers more money than in going through that process. I appreciate that.

Could we also get the reports, then, from the in-market representatives as they report out to the government what they have achieved and their progress to date?

Hon. C. Hansen: What will be prepared is an annual summary of the deliverables that our various representatives have delivered on. So in the case of the European reps now, because they've been there for some time, they have a listing of how many contacts were made, how many seminars they conducted on behalf of the province, how many industry meetings they participated in — that type of thing. Those are the kinds of deliverables. What there would be is an annual summary of that which we would be more than pleased to make public.

Then the other thing to point out, I think, is that the Vancouver-based staff are in regular communication with these. They will wind up having group conference calls, so a lot of the reporting is in fact done verbally in terms of what their activities are and what we expect of them during any particular week. That happens on an ongoing basis. But the accountabilities that flow from their contracts, which are against the deliverables that are in the contract, we will be providing those on sort of an annual, summarized basis.

I guess the discussion that we just had here is whether or not it would be in the annual report itself, but we will endeavour to make sure that that information is made public when it's available.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate it if the minister can make sure that a copy is sent to the critic — I guess in this instance it would be me — when it is public.

In terms of the deliverables, or measures of accomplishments, if you will, the minister mentioned some examples such as numbers of meetings, seminars, etc. My question is: how does one go about following up in measuring the deliverables on actual contracts that were signed or business opportunities that yielded actual development, if it's a development? Are there measures as such that are included in these contracts?

Hon. C. Hansen: Because our experience with these full-time reps is relatively recent, even in the case of Europe, there are phases that we will go through. Initially when we talk about the deliverables, it's around the actions that they have to take. Now, when you start talking about what is the ultimate result, the ultimate result is around investment, attraction of businesses and jobs created in British Columbia as a result of their activities. That is, first of all, much more difficult to measure, although we are tracking it.

Then the other is around the time frame that it takes. Our reps in Asia are starting to show some success stories when it comes to investments, for example, and business interest in British Columbia. But that often can take anywhere from two to five years from the time that they start working a file until it actually matures into what the ultimate objective is.

In the first phase we track things like the number of corporate calls that they make; the number of visits in major markets within the territory; the number of investment opportunities that they've been able to identify; the number of client executive visits to British Columbia from their particular region; seminar delivery, where they can actually go out and do seminars on investment attraction — in fact, when I was in Europe a little over a year ago, I was able to participate in one of these investment seminars that our representative was conducting in Austria at the time, and that actually led to some very specific and targeted business interest in British Columbia in the bioenergy area; corporate calls to support exporters; and attendance at key sector events that are taking place.

Those are the kinds of things that are built into the deliverables that we track in the short term, but we're also tracking the longer-term results, and that's specifi-

cally around investment, business attraction and job creation that takes place in British Columbia. We don't have the specific, hard results of that yet, only because we're not far enough into the process.

J. Kwan: Built in, I assume, to the contract in terms of the long-term deliverables, and so to that end, the minister said they would be tracking it. Does the minister have targets set up in terms of this long-term range of two to five years: these are how many jobs we hope to achieve with this particular in-market representative; these are how many investment dollars we hope to achieve; these are how many jobs we hope to create or whatever the case may be? Do we have some targets set up for these in-market representatives to strive towards?

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess if you start looking at a contract like this in terms of what the deliverables are, we obviously want to make them as specific in terms of the end result as possible. The problem with things like investment attraction and job creation is, first of all, it's difficult to track and to quantify in a very specific way that an initiative by a particular representative of British Columbia operating internationally results in X. We will do our best to track that.

The short answer to the member's question is that we have not set specific targets in terms of job creation or investment or business attraction for the specific individual representatives. What we have done — sort of that one step farther back — is set targets for the number of calls they have to make and the number of leads they have to generate. That's what's actually built into their contracts.

Because we're talking sort of this two-to-five-year time frame to actually have a successful initiative, it would be very difficult to tie the individual's remuneration to that end result, which might be five years down the road and difficult to quantify. We can quantify in terms of the number of calls they make and the number of initiatives they bring forward, and that is tied into their contracts. If they don't deliver on those deliverables, then they don't get paid.

J. Kwan: I think that's one measure of deliverables. Those are easy, really, to track — right? But whether or not that approach and the in-market representative approach would actually yield the results that we hope is another big question mark. I think the ultimate deliverable, which the minister mentioned and acknowledged, would be in the area of investment dollars, for example — job creation, etc.

If we don't actually build that into those contracts, I would think we don't necessarily know effectively how well the representatives have done in their job and capacity. So I would encourage the minister to look into that and build that in. I understand that you need time to do that. It doesn't happen overnight. You drop your parachute in and say: "Hey, I'm here. Do you want to create some jobs in British Columbia?" People go: "Yeah, okay. Give us ten years, and that may happen."

I get that it takes time to do that. The government has embarked on a process where the service plans are three-year plans, for example. At every juncture some expectation of actual deliverables and to quantify them beyond calls and seminars and the connection work of these in-market representatives, I would think, would be essential.

A page could be taken from Europe, for example. These in-market representatives have been there. Maybe we can go down that road and ask the minister: how much have they actually delivered in terms of ultimate deliverables from the in-market representatives in Europe?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is a program that is reviewed regularly. When we set specific deliverables for them, it's not to say that a representative of the province is going to be…. We're not in a position to say to that individual that we expect them to deliver on $2 billion worth of investment. They are the facilitators. They don't have the control over reaching that end objective.

They do have control over how they facilitate it and how they can promote it — the number of meetings they can set up and the opportunity to get interested parties to British Columbia so that they can be face to face with a B.C. company that wants to engage in that particular investment. We can bring the parties together, but we can't make them dance, basically.

We will be tracking and will be reviewing on a periodic basis the success of the representatives. We will be looking at what kind of investments materialize, but we're not in a position to actually tie a particular job creation target or a particular investment number to their contracts, because they don't ultimately have the control over those end decisions.

J. Kwan: With the in-market representatives in Europe, could the minister share with me — and we don't have to go through all the details here today — the reports, if you will, that those representatives have issued to the ministry and the government's assessment of their accomplishments to date?

Hon. C. Hansen: I was just trying to see how much specific detail we had here that might help answer the member's question. If you look at the European representatives during the 2006 calendar year, they completed 800 corporate calls. That generated 167 investment opportunities that are now being worked on and followed up — being pursued both from their end and our end in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The 167 investment opportunities that are being followed up on both ends. From the British Columbia end, in terms of ministry support staff, are staff being assigned to follow up with all 167 leads to see how we can materialize those investment opportunities into reality?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer is yes, they are all being followed up on. But they're being followed up

For example, some of them are on the agriculture-food side, so we'd be working with the Ministry of Agriculture. In fact, in some cases we turn that file over to the Ministry of Agriculture folks so that they can do the appropriate follow-up. Others would be in the area of forests, and we would be turning those over to the Ministry of Forests.

Ultimately, we do track them because we want to be able to identify the successes that flow from their efforts.

J. Kwan: When a file is turned over to another ministry, does that ministry report back to this ministry, the Ministry of Economic Development, so you know whether or not that lead actually yields fruit? Or does it just disperse into other ministries within the government, and then it's over to them?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes. We do get feedback from those ministries, and we continue to work with them. We see our role in the Ministry of Economic Development as being in some cases the lead role, if it's something directly relevant to our ministry. But even when it pertains to other ministries, we still see that we have a quarterback role to oversee. We facilitate the discussions back to the in-market reps that might be working that particular file from the overseas end of it. So we still continue to play a coordinating role.

Ultimately, we are confident that these initiatives are going to produce significant results for the province. We want those numbers so that we can share them broadly to actually show the success that we have been able to accomplish. So yes, we are tracking them.

J. Kwan: I'll look forward to receiving those regular reports from the minister, with all these in-market representatives and the achievements that they have been able to accomplish in their capacities.

I do wish them well, I have to say. If they are successful, it means we, British Columbia, will be successful. Why I'm asking these questions, of course, is to make sure that we actually have true measurements and accounts of their activities and that at the end of the day, they actually produce for British Columbia. In fact, if this is a method that doesn't work, then we need to acknowledge it. We need to fine-tune it, we need to change it, and we need to put other approaches and other models in place.

I do worry, from this perspective, that the in-market representatives would not have enough presence in the various jurisdictions where they've been located — that they don't have enough resources to drive those opportunities, both overseas as well as back home. If we're having to compromise our resources accordingly because there are too many low-hanging fruit, if you will, at some point in time if you don't have the baskets to catch them, you're going to miss those opportunities. I think that's really to the disadvantage of British Columbia.

We often say — and I know the minister would agree — that if you invest up front in these areas, it will yield a return. But you have to invest up front, and if you don't invest up front, the return is not going to come to you. They are not going to come knocking on your door, in other words.

You have to be there on the ground to seek it out, to follow it up and to have the resources to drive it. Otherwise, the opportunities will be lost, and it will be tough for us to break into that market. The opportunities to establish our foothold, if you will, will be lost. That would be missed opportunities for B.C.

I'll be looking forward to receiving that information from the minister when it is available.

In terms of one specific area related to the in-market representatives — and I'm just going to segue a little bit into the aerospace industry for a moment — did any of the individuals in Europe handle the aerospace industry file?

J. Kwan: What opportunities presented themselves to British Columbia in this sector?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are several companies that our representatives in Europe have been working with. I'm not at liberty to talk about the specific companies, because they are making decisions around where to locate plants, for example.

I think there are big opportunities for the B.C. aerospace industry. We've been working closely with them and trying to support the industry in British Columbia. We are also looking to grow the industry as we attract other companies that would be interested in being a part of this cluster in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: The strategic industry branch that existed in the ministry was stripped in 2002-2003. What is left of that branch?

The Chair: Members, Minister, we hear those famous division bells. We will take a ten-minute recess to accommodate the bells.

Hon. C. Hansen: Before the break, the member was asking me about the strategic industries branch. She is correct. That branch has been part of the restructuring that has taken place in the ministry. The functions that were there are no longer industry-specific but rather

are looking at various areas such as technology and venture capital investor services.

Also, we are working more closely with the industry associations — for example, the Aerospace Industry Association of British Columbia. I may have the title wrong. But that's the type of association that we are in fact working more closely with now under this new structure than we were able to do in the past.

J. Kwan: I'm glad the minister talked about the Aerospace Industry Association of B.C. because I met with them, and they told me that they have grave concerns with the dismantling of the strategic branch of the ministry. To that end, they were very concerned that there isn't really anybody in British Columbia who is advocating on behalf of B.C. in the industry and liaising with the federal government. In fact, they were very concerned that there would be lost opportunities in what is called the industrial regional benefits that B.C. should accrue from the sector.

I wonder if the minister can advise who is now undertaking this work in trying to ensure that Ottawa is aware of our concerns and to ensure that British Columbia gets our share of the industrial regional benefits. In the latest round of contracts that were let, which were the procurement contracts to the tune of some $16 billion in the sector, how much of that actually came to British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I should introduce another staff member who has joined us. That's Shannon Baskerville, who is also the ADM in the economic competitiveness division.

I share the member's concern. In fact, when you look at the regional allocation of opportunities in the aerospace industry across British Columbia, we are constantly trying to ensure that the initiatives that are being driven by the federal government don't show undue favouritism to any one particular part of the country at the expense of British Columbia.

We have had numerous discussions with federal government representatives on that. I have specifically raised this issue with the Minister of Industry, Maxime Bernier. This is also a file that has been very active by the deputy minister, Don Fast. So if you were to ask the question of who in fact is leading on this file nationally in terms our relationship with the federal government, it's the minister and the deputy minister.

We have not been promoting the view that we deserve a certain percentage or a certain share. What we're promoting is an open and transparent procurement process where the B.C. companies that do have expertise can in fact win the contracts without any particular bias being shown by those that are allocating the contracts.

We know we've got an aerospace industry that can compete nationally and win those national contracts, but they need to make sure that they're operating on a level playing field, and that's exactly what we are promoting.

J. Kwan: I suppose, on the one hand, I take comfort in the notion that the minister is actively taking an interest in the file, in advancing the issues with our federal counterparts.

On the other hand, I also note how busy a minister could be. He's inundated, I'm sure, with many other important files as well. How effective it really would be at the end of the day to have staff on the ground whose job is to ensure that B.C.'s interests are taken care of and heard in that wilderness called Ottawa — which is not easy at all. I appreciate that the minister is taking it up — better than some other ministers who wouldn't actually even raise the issue. So I appreciate that.

Let me just put on the record some of the concerns from the sector amid some of the answers that the minister can endeavour to find for the sector, because to date they still cannot get this information. Try as they might, they are not able to get that information.

I don't have to have the answers today — some of these questions might well be too detailed for the minister to answer in this session — but rather, the minister can give that information to me when he's able to gather the info.

The B.C. companies in the aerospace industry tell the opposition that they need the government to ensure that the IRBs continue to be a priority when Crown procurements are made, that the coordination to access information about the IRBs is there to facilitate opportunities for B.C. companies, that we actively support the IRB-related business development opportunities, and that we encourage Western Economic Diversification to actively participate in the IRB process.

More specifically, they are looking for information regarding the total value of the IRB contracts. How many IRBs have been fulfilled? What's outstanding? Generally, there really is just a lack of information. While there's a website that one can go to, to try and get some general information, and it does provide for a list of current and potential projects that the IRBs are attached to, the lists are very high-level, detailed information. What the sector wants is specific information around this.

The Aerospace Industry Association of B.C. believes that prior to 1993 some 35 percent of the IRBs were fulfilled in western Canada and that since 1993 the average has dropped to 20 percent. Based on their understanding, it is continuing to drop.

Western Economic Diversification has significantly reduced its monitoring of the IRB opportunities in Ottawa, while we need to continue to make sure that there is oversight and that the return actually comes to B.C. They are not asking the government for freebies per se, but they are asking for the government to take on an advocacy role and fight for these opportunities.

I wonder if the minister could also get the information for us. Of that $16 billion worth of contracts coming out of the procurements in Ottawa in this sector, how much of that actually came to British Columbia? What is the share that we got out of this $16 billion in

the latest round of procurement? If the minister can endeavour to get that information for me, I would really appreciate it — and more particularly, to get that information for the industry.

Hon. C. Hansen: We will endeavour to get that information for the member in the next little while. As she says, I'll probably respond to her in writing with that kind of information.

Generally, the provincial government's track record of advocacy for the aerospace industry has actually been pretty successful, I think, and acknowledged by the industry.

There was one case a little over a year and a half ago involving the maintenance contract for the Hercules aircraft for the Canadian Forces. There was some dispute as to whether or not it should in fact come to the company that had rightfully won the process, and that was a B.C. company. We intervened very aggressively and were successful in making sure that that particular contract didn't get moved sideways to a company other than the one that had put in the best proposal.

There are other examples like that where we've worked with specific companies and put the power of our influence with the federal government to work to ensure that the companies that deserve to get those contracts were the companies that were awarded.

To answer the more specific information that the member is looking for, I will endeavour to get that to her over the coming weeks.

J. Kwan: Yes, I appreciate that fighting for one specific company, and particularly the bigger companies with the bigger contracts, would be one aspect of the responsibility of what was formerly the strategic industry branch. But what I'm also talking about, and equally important, would be the smaller companies which don't get the attention of the government to be their advocate, to be that particular company's advocate.

The industry needs an advocate in that sense. There are a lot of smaller companies, and then also the spinoff with those larger companies, through which they'll get the benefit of those contracts from other companies. The nature of that industry is such that there are a lot of spinoff factors in relation to it.

Some of the concerns that were raised from the sector were the range of companies, big or small, and the need to make sure that that advocacy is done in Ottawa on a day-by-day basis to make sure that Ottawa doesn't just listen to the eastern block, if you will, because they are closest to home, they make the loudest noises, and they get the biggest contracts. We're so far away that nobody hears us, and we're kind of shouting and screaming in the wilderness.

To that end, there's the one case where I think we do need to have a regular representative there to be our representative on the ground. It's great that the minister and the deputy are there, too, and we need that; make no mistake about that. But we need a staffer on the ground for these industry-specific areas to be fighting for our interests. That would be my point.

If the minister can endeavour to get that information in terms of the specific details, I would appreciate that, and we'll pass it on to the industry sector. We'll look forward to ways of how we can advance the industry, not just on a case-by-case basis.

I'm now going to move on to another area around, I guess, the trade files. The minister mentioned earlier these Asia-Pacific Trade Council reports, of which two have come out. There'll be more forthcoming, I'm sure. Can the minister please advise this House which of the recommendations from these reports the ministry has adopted and implemented, and which ones have they not?

I also get it that there are a number of different recommendations here in these reports. If the minister can't give me a full report on that, I would be happy to receive that in writing at a later time as well.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's not the kind of report that is going to result in something on paper that I could send to the member. The advice we got from the Asia-Pacific Trade Council….

Now, over the four market advisory groups that are in place, there are two that have actually produced and finalized their reports, which the member indicated. There are also the Japan and the Korea groups; we've had the benefit of their advice, even though their reports are not yet finalized or made public. That's been the input that we got. That really became the basis upon which we developed the Asia-Pacific initiative.

In the Asia-Pacific initiative it sets out these specific actions of government, and those reflect the recommendations that we have received from the Asia-Pacific Trade Council. We've approached the reports of the Asia-Pacific Trade Council with a sense of: let's get on with moving forward on these recommendations. That doesn't mean we're going to implement all of them in exactly the way that the trade council has recommended.

We may take a slightly different approach to achieving that particular recommendation. The question is: do you then tick that off as a recommendation achieved or not achieved? In fact, on the vast majority of them, we have been able to proceed.

I think the other thing that the member will notice is that there is some duplication of recommendations across the two reports that are out and, certainly, in the Asia-Pacific Initiative. She will see it in the Japan and Korea reports when they come out. Those are issues, for example, that cover all parts of Asia-Pacific — around things like branding, for one. Another one is education, where there are common themes throughout the various reports.

I guess the short answer to the member's point is that I'm not in a position to send her a specific report that ticks off the yeses and noes in terms of recommendations that we have been able to implement already. But they are reflected in the Asia-Pacific Initiative.

J. Kwan: Okay, then I'm forced to go through each recommendation one by one, which I really don't want to do in this set of estimates. Let me go, then, to one recommendation here, in 7.1 and 7.2, which calls for the expansion of the provincial nominee program and to increase the capacity to assess credentials.

Hon. C. Hansen: I appreciate the two examples the member raises. In the case of the provincial nominee program, we have in fact already proceeded with implementing that recommendation, so we will be expanding the provincial nominee program this year by 50 percent. In terms of the number of applications that we'll be able to process, we have increased the staff in the PNP program to enable that.

In terms of international credentialing, that again is an area where we have made and will continue to make new initiatives. One is around the Skills Connect program. We've got $13.5 million that is budgeted for that program.

That has largely been matched by federal dollars, so we will be able to do even more than we'd initially hoped for. In fact, we are now in the process of expanding the Skills Connect program to include health sector workers as well, which is the latest development in that area.

J. Kwan: On the credentialing question. One of the issues that has surfaced and been recommended for consideration is for the government to establish an assessment team, if you will.

I'm referring to doctors in this instance, whereby the assessment team would be able to, to the tune of some $70,000 per assessment for a period of time with a foreign doctor…. In that sort of fast-tracking assessment process, one would be able to determine whether or not that particular individual has the credentials to practise in British Columbia. That's one suggestion.

In fact, at St Paul's, which is a teaching school, I've been advised by contacts I have there that they have the capacity to take on such a task. But what they really need is the financial support for it.

In terms of that kind of assessment of credentialing, is this something that the minister will be advancing within this ministry? I just use doctors as one example. There are obviously other professions that one can undertake. But to use that as one example, is that something that the minister will look into and take up and try to see if they can advance it within government?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have in the international qualifications branch a group that is…. They don't have responsibility for the credentialing, because that's done by our various regulatory bodies. But as the member knows, those regulatory bodies will relate to the provincial government through a variety of different ministries. In the case of the physicians, as she mentioned, they have the College of Physicians and Surgeons that is responsible for the credentialing.

I know that in the area of recognition of credentials for international medical graduates, there has actually been some good progress made. In fact, I was talking to somebody just a month or so back who was involved with the association of international medical graduates, and she was telling me how pleased they are with the progress that they think they're making with getting foreign credentials for physicians recognized through the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

I do happen to know a little bit about the residency program for international medical grads at St. Paul's, only because of my previous life as the Health Minister. But 2001 was when they actually increased the number of residency positions from two to three. I can remember at one point somebody challenging me, "Not enough," and I said: "Well in fact, we doubled them." It went from three to six. That still was pretty low, and I understand they're now up to 18. So there is some progress being made in the residency positions.

We have been doing a lot of work with the various regulatory bodies, regardless as to which particular ministry they relate to, because there is a lot that can be done collectively to help speed up the credentialing process. I know that there are many people who speculate that somehow these licensing bodies have artificial barriers to getting foreign credentialed individuals recognized in British Columbia. But in reality I think many of these licensing bodies don't have the capacity to do things like the translation services that are necessary — translation of documents that come from other countries, trying to evaluate the bona fides of a particular educational institution that's in another country.

Yet when you bring together all of these regulatory bodies, they're all facing the same challenges. So there is merit in us generating the cooperation and collaboration among these licensing bodies so they can share that kind of information. They can share access to translation services, they can share background information on particular education institutions and training facilities that are located in other countries and how to best verify the education attainment of a particular candidate.

Actually, in about a month from now there's a workshop coming together of all of the regulatory bodies looking at how we can help facilitate that kind of collaboration so that the credentialing process can be sped up.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that. What I'm talking about is a different process, and that is a process of assessing the qualification of a particular individual on the ground. In the case of a physician, the physician would then be in a hospital, and then that person would be partnered with the evaluating physician, who is qualified to do this evaluation — to follow this person about and to see whether or not the person can actually perform in his capacity as a physician or nurse in a particular area, or wherever the case may be.

After a certain period of time of that assessment one would then be able to determine whether or not that individual should be licensed without having to go through all the other rigmarole — residency and all

of those kinds of things — to fast-track that process and to go into directly assessing the qualification of that person on the ground. That's what I'm talking about.

That proposal was actually made from the professional associations, who said: "Look, in fact, the government can save a lot of money." While it seems like $70,000 is a lot of money to invest in one particular person's assessment, the long-term effect in terms of the benefits of that person yielding back to British Columbia in our critical skills shortage in a variety of areas would be manifold. Of course, that individual would also be paying taxes as well. So that's what I'm talking about.

I wonder whether or not the minister is looking into that kind of approach in the assessment of credentialing, and I don't mean just dealing with the regulatory bodies but rather to look for a fast-track approach in doing this.

Hon. C. Hansen: Those are the kinds of innovative approaches that we would certainly encourage.

But I think we also have to recognize that these regulatory bodies are arm's length from government. They have a responsibility to protect the public interest and to ensure that individuals who are licensed in that particular occupation or profession do in fact have the training and experience necessary to be peers with those in British Columbia who have already received that particular accreditation. Within the regulatory body, there is a shift towards recognizing competencies and innovative ways of achieving that.

Out of some of the discussions we're having with the various regulatory bodies, including at this workshop that's coming up, we will be looking at best practices in terms of how we can fast-track so that one profession can learn from another profession in British Columbia about ways of ensuring that the public interest is protected, but we get there faster, and we get the credentialing process faster.

We can learn from other jurisdictions, which is the other thing that we're looking at, in terms of how some of these innovations such as the type the member described have been utilized in other jurisdictions. We want to import some of those best practices to British Columbia as well.

J. Kwan: Well, maybe B.C. can break new ground in terms of doing something like this and establish our own best practices in that regard.

I'll be very happy to…. I'm very interested in advancing this file in some tangible way that would benefit the professionals that are on the ground who have the skill sets and the training but are unable to break through for one reason or another to do the work that they love to do, that they've been trained to do and are qualified to do — and, of course, to also meet British Columbia's needs in terms of the shortage in these areas. I think it's a win-win for all of us.

I'd be happy to set up the meetings for whoever the minister designates as the person that perhaps could talk to the individuals who I met with, who told me about this approach, to evaluate it and then to hopefully devise a program that would implement it. I think that will make a difference. I offer that up to the minister any time his staff or even himself, if he'd be interested, want to engage in that. I'll be happy to endeavour to set that up.

I'm going to leave that for a minute. I am noting the time. It is 25 after four. In estimates, time is of the essence. I'm not going to be able to go into all of the recommendations in these reports, as much as I would love to. What I think I'm going to do, then, is ask if I could meet with the ministry staff at another time to go through them in more detail outside of the estimates process — just to find out where the progress is, where things are at and where the government is hoping to go in some of these areas in fuller detail, if that's okay with the minister.

Hon. C. Hansen: We'd be pleased to set up that kind of a briefing and go through whatever details she'd like to.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, Minister, for that. I will certainly take that up, and I'll get my staff to set it up accordingly.

I would like to ask some questions, though, around the Dream Home China initiative, to which I know the ministry is partnered up with the Ministry of Forests in this regard. Can the minister advise how many single-family houses have been built in China with the assistance or participation of the Dream Home China initiative?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is an initiative of FII, which is totally within the Forests Ministry. We have partnered with them, and we have tried to assist them on some of the marketing initiatives. I don't have the specific details on that.

When I was in Shanghai at the end of May last year, that construction was underway at the time. Those specific single-family units were well under construction at that time. Off the top of my head, I couldn't tell you exactly how many units were involved with that particular project.

J. Kwan: In that spirit, maybe I can just put two or three questions to the minister, and maybe the minister can ask his colleague to provide the answers to them.

The first question is: how many single-family houses have been built in China with the assistance or participation of the Dream Home China initiative? Where are those houses? Is the promotion of building Canadian-style single-family houses still a goal of the Dream Home China initiative?

At the end, what is the projected time frame for the government to achieve the goals that have been set out in the Dream Home China initiative? When can we learn of the results of that particular initiative? I'll leave those questions to the minister to find out from his colleague.

I'm going to take a few minutes of my colleague's ITA time into the Marketing and Promoting British Columbia initiative that the ministry is responsible for.

I know there are advertising campaigns throughout British Columbia now where the government is trying to promote and recruit investors to British Columbia. This is the WorkBC recruitment campaign. Could the minister please tell this House how much is being invested into this campaign?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member's question was specifically around the advertising budget. The advertising budget for the Ministry of Economic Development itself is a million dollars a year. I don't have the specific breakout of the WorkBC initiative, the advertising campaign that we have underway right now, but that is by far our largest advertising initiative in the ministry.

J. Kwan: When it's feasible, maybe the minister can get the breakout of that advertising budget for me and what programs or initiatives it has gone into.

With respect to the WorkBC recruitment program, are all of those ads placed in British Columbia?

J. Kwan: Given that I would imagine part of our target to attract and to recruit to British Columbia would be putting advertisements outside of British Columbia, has the government endeavoured to put any ads outside of British Columbia — investment opportunity ads and those kinds of things? If so, where? And how much is being invested in that?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are two phases to our campaign around WorkBC. The first phase is around the initiative that is underway right now. It is very specifically targeted at…. The reason we're advertising in British Columbia is because we believe those are the best individuals to get the message out that in fact we have significant job opportunities in British Columbia.

One of the challenges that we have nationally is that Alberta gets all of the attention. Alberta clearly has a bigger worker shortage than we do, and they command the national media when it comes to those kinds of stories. What we see is that as workers are migrating to find jobs in Canada, they get as far as Alberta and they stop. So for us to go out and try to advertise in Toronto or Montreal or Atlantic Canada, we would require a huge budget in order to make any kind of an impact at all.

Just to back up a little bit, the genesis of this idea actually goes back to Expo 86, when there was a campaign that was undertaken to invite the world. It was a postcard campaign, where British Columbians were encouraged to send postcards to their friends and family around the world inviting them to come to B.C. for Expo.

We sort of picked up on that idea, but brought it into a 2007 context whereby we can use technology, the Internet, for British Columbians to reach out and invite somebody they know to come to British Columbia to fill one of our unfilled job vacancies.

The Chair: As a division has been called, the Committee will recess until after the division.

J. Kwan: We're fast running out of time. I'm going to just put this on the record and ask the minister if he would agree.

In the area of economic development in the regions — that's regional economic development — I haven't even begun to ask questions related to that. What I would like to do, instead of spending that time in the estimates here today, is to engage in a fuller discussion with the minister's staff at a briefing. I could get my answers dealt with in that forum, if that's okay.

What I'm going to do, then, is pass the mike over to my colleague the MLA for Cowichan-Ladysmith, who will engage in questions around B.C. Is Calling and the ITA.

The Chair: As the division has been called, the committee will recess again until after the division.

D. Routley: Thank you to the minister for allowing this opportunity and to the staff who are attending.

Some general questions about the budget. Of the total budget, what percentage and how much dollar amount is being spent on programs and foundation programs like ELTT and ACE-IT?

Hon. C. Hansen: Of the total budget, there is about $87 million that goes specifically into training — $6 million to high school programs, approximately $45 million into apprenticeship programs and about $35 million into the ELTT programs, which are the entry-level trades training.

D. Routley: How many participants are there in the ELTT and in the high school programs?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are about 6,900 participants in the ELTT programs. In the high school programs, which have actually been just a huge success story for the ITA, there are currently about 5,200 participants. That's a very significant increase from the approximate 860 participants that were in the high school programs just as of three years ago when the ITA was first established.

D. Routley: What is the rate of continued participation amongst ASIP students? How many ASIP students continue with their apprenticeships?

Hon. C. Hansen: Because the ASIP program is a very recent program, we don't have those stats yet. The ASIP program was started in 2005, so the first of the participants in the high school ASIP program are, in fact, now graduating. But there is every indication that there is going to be a very high continuation rate of those students staying in the trades and pursuing their apprenticeship programs, subject to graduation.

Anecdotally, we hear of and I've talked to some of the students in the high school programs who are just extremely enthusiastic about getting into their profession. Most of them are snapped up very quickly by employers, whether it's a summer job when they're, say, between grade 11 and grade 12, or whether it's a permanent job after graduation.

D. Routley: At a recent meeting I heard Mr. John Stevens mention that he estimated that 25 percent of the students continue in the training. Since it's very difficult to assess just how many registered participants there are versus how many active participants there are in terms of people actually being trained and still current in their training, does the minister think that the ELTT and ASIP programs are performing to a satisfactory level, if indeed those are the continuation levels?

Hon. C. Hansen: If you look at the way the ASIP and ELTT programs are set up, all of the participants are in fact actively involved in training, by definition. All of the participants in ASIP and all of the participants in ELTT are actively involved in training.

In terms of those who continue on to their relevant trades, that's something that has not been tracked in the past. Even going back to the days of ITAC, that was not tracked as to how many went on to formalized apprenticeship programs afterwards. Just in this last year, ITA has started to attract those individuals, so we will have some stats that can help guide our decisions in the future.

D. Routley: In fact, many industry people, as well as labour people, are pointing out that ELTT participants are not being hired with favourability. They are not being granted preferential hiring or any preference based on their minimal training.

It is speculated by many of the people I have spoken to that in fact the effectiveness of the spending is questionable. If the ongoing participation after the ACE-IT programs and the high school programs is only 25 percent, does the minister feel that that's an adequate performance?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think it's important to differentiate between the ACE-IT participants and the ELTT participants in this regard. There is every indication that there is a very high uptake by the ACE-IT students, but as I mentioned earlier, the first of the participants in ACE IT are now just at the point where they're graduating. But we have every expectation that there will be a very high continuation rate for those individuals.

With regard to ELTT, I think what the member has flagged is actually one of the challenges that we were facing. In fact, one of the discussions that I had with officials two years ago when I first took over responsibility for this ministry was the fact that the ELTT program…. There was probably too much emphasis on ELTT at that time.

In fact, if you go back to the initial budget two years ago, there was a budget of about roughly $70 million for the Industry Training Authority. About $50 million of that was going into ELTT, and about $18 million was going into apprenticeship programs. We've now completely turned that upside down so that the majority of the funding is going into training programs for apprentices. There has been a reduced budget for the ELTT programs.

We will be evaluating. Nobody could state with any certainty that there is only 25 percent going on because nobody has those stats today. That would be pure speculation. But we will have those stats as a result of the tracking that is now being done.

The Chair: As a division has been called, the committee will stay recessed until after the division.

J. Kwan: I just want to put on the record that in terms of the order of things, the TILMA questions that we were going to ask tomorrow are now going to be tabled in the fall, and those questions will be asked when the debate on Bill 17 is before the House. My understanding is that the two House Leaders from the government side and the opposition side have agreed to that. So we're going to table our questions from the estimates debates relating to TILMA when we debate Bill 17.

To that end, we'll engage in our questions now on ITA, and then move on to the Olympics for the rest of the estimates debate.

D. Routley: The minister is confident that the participation rate and continuation rate from ACE-IT

programs justifies his satisfaction with the performance of the program. But overall, it's unclear how many people are actually training — how many of the registered apprentices in the province are actually still engaged in their training.

In an article April 25 of this year in the Journal of Commerce, it's pointed out by Dan Mott, chairman of CITO, the Construction Industry Training Organization, that of the 17,000 apprentices registered, only 11,000 have attended trade schools. The other 6,000, in his words, are simply lost in the system.

He goes on to say that contact is being made by telephone with all of those participants or people registered as participants. Can the minister tell us if he knows where those 6,000 are and what they are doing?

Hon. C. Hansen: The 17,000 number that he references is the number of registered apprentices that we have currently in the construction sector alone. I think, as the member knows, we have over 33,000 — in fact, I think it's over 34,000 — registered apprentices now in the province. Half of those would be in the construction sector. Now if 11,000 of them have attended trade school in the previous 12 months, that's actually a pretty good number.

We are adding about 1,000 registered apprentices a month into the construction sector. So if a new apprentice is working on a jobsite as a registered apprentice, indentured with an employer, and is lining up the actual formalized training program at some point, say, in the following 12 months…. It would be quite reasonable to expect that 6,000 of them currently would not have got to the point where they would have been attending their formalized trade school training.

I think that the stats that the member puts out are probably quite plausible, and there is a logical explanation for it.

D. Routley: In fact, those numbers stay on the books for 18 months. Since there is no requirement for attendance to technical training as there was in the past, it's very unclear as to whether those people will have any hope of completing their training.

In the past there were also counsellors who worked with the apprentices to ensure that their training occurred on a scheduled basis. Currently there is none of that support. Could the minister tell me how many counsellors are employed to support apprentices in continuing and attaining their training and their certification?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to point out to the member that there has never been a requirement in the past, whether they were talking about the time of ITAC or any other point, where there was an absolute requirement that apprentices engaged in the formalized training.

What we are finding right across Canada today is that apprenticeship programs in every province are having difficulty getting the apprentices to take the time off of the jobsite to actually engage in their formalized training. It's particularly a problem in British Columbia and Alberta and other provinces that have low unemployment rates right now, and very hot construction markets in particular.

In many cases, it's the employers that are actually going to the employees and saying: "We really need you on the jobsite." Or it's the employees that are saying: "Look, I'm making so much money now. I'm getting so much overtime at time and a half and collecting some pretty good paycheques."

They're making a very conscious decision to put off their formalized training. In fact, you will often find that as unemployment increases in the construction sector, the participation in the formalized classroom work and the demand for that increases.

It's one of the reasons why the government brought in the tax credit program for trades training — to give the added incentive not only for the employers to get their apprentices into their classroom work but also to give an incentive to the employees to get on with their formalized training and push through to completion.

The good news is that we're seeing a significant increase in the completion rates over these last 12 months. I think that's heading in the right direction. As more of those new apprentices get into the system — a significant increase in the number of apprentices — we will start to see those completion rates go up even more.

The whole situation with counsellors has not changed in the last 12 months. I know last year during the estimates process we thoroughly canvassed the role of counsellors in the apprenticeship programs. Twelve months ago when we did the estimates, there were no counsellors being employed by the ITA at that time, because those dollars were reallocated to programs on the ground that provide actual training.

Basically, the situation has not changed since we did estimates last year, and it was thoroughly canvassed in Hansard at that time.

D. Routley: I think the role of the counsellors is a very good one. It's well established that they have contributed to higher completion rates in other structures and in the past. I wonder if the minister could tell me how many counsellors were employed over the previous two and three years and compare that to these past 12 months.

Hon. C. Hansen: Since the ITA was established three years ago, there have not been any counsellors employed by the ITA during that period of time. We are not aware of any evidence that shows that having counsellors engaged results in higher completion rates.

There are times in the history of the province when there may have been higher completion rates, but that can be explained by the unemployment rate within the construction sector at the time and cannot be attributed to counsellors.

If the member has any specific evidence that does actually prove what he just said, we would love to see it, because we're not aware of it.

D. Routley: The folks running the programs in Burns Lake would support the idea that counsellors are vital, particularly when it comes to aboriginal students and apprentices. Consistent support and guidance through that process is very effective, and they have achieved higher completion rates than the ITA itself generally advertises.

Since there have been really huge deficits on our reserves and in those communities, it seems to me that we might want to look at what they are doing, why it's working. If they say it's because of the counselling support, then perhaps that is good support for the position that counsellors do in fact improve the completion rate. Does the minister agree with that?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are in the process of expanding training programs around the province for first nations communities. One of the recent examples of that is the rollout of the mobile trades training facility. While it's not specifically dedicated to first nations communities, it will provide a great service of actually taking training into those communities.

We are looking for how we can support aboriginal trades training in a significant way and looking for new ways of accomplishing that. We're working closely with the federal government in this regard. There is the aboriginal human resources development agreement in place that will help us to focus some of those training programs specifically on first nations. We will be working with first nations leadership to see how we can tailor those programs in ways that best meet the needs of those first nations communities.

D. Routley: Also in support of the idea that an involved structure that guides apprentices and supports them can be found from the 2006 joint board survey of the building trades…. They show 4,570 apprenticeships and active trainees, and the completion rate there is 95 percent. This is attributed by that organization to the consistent support that's given to apprentices.

If we can point to that example, the Burns Lake example, and an aboriginal community, and we can point to the painters who operate a school independently and also have an over 90-percent completion rate, then those kinds of supports are important to apprentices. Does the minister foresee investment in those kinds of student supports for apprentices?

Hon. C. Hansen: The ITA has actually done some analysis of specific completion rates in the province for apprentices, both in terms of union and non-union. There is not any statistical difference of any significance between the completion rates.

The building trades may claim 90 percent. We haven't seen evidence of how they come up with that number. The ITA stats show that it's closer to about 40 percent, which is comparable to the non-union completion rates.

D. Routley: I think the folks who did the joint board survey and those involved in that school would be interested to hear that claim, because of course they have a long history and they have a consistent output of apprentices.

Coast Mountain Bus Co. has an 82-percent pass rate and a 98-percent completion rate with the same kinds of student supports to apprentices. Would the minister disagree with those numbers?

Hon. C. Hansen: This issue is one that came up at the recent annual general meeting of the building trades council that was held here in Victoria, which I attended part of. I know that subsequent to that, the ITA has provided the building trades council with specific reports around completion rates. We would be pleased to provide those reports to the member if he would be interested in them.

His example of Coast Mountain Bus is primarily in the area of heavy-duty mechanics. The completion rate for heavy-duty mechanics in the province is about in the 80-percent-plus range, regardless as to whether you are looking at union or non-union.

D. Routley: The number of provincial certificates issued hit a high in 1996-1997 at 4,471 and hovered between that number and 3,800 for approximately three years until 2000. After the implementation of ITA, the rate began to drop to a low in '03-04 of 2,328. Currently in '06-07 the ITA website lists 3,551 provincial certificates issued. John Stevens used the number 3,200 in the meeting that I attended.

Does the minister agree that during a very important time in addressing the oncoming skills shortage — between the years 2002 and 2005 — we lost considerable ground in addressing the skill shortage by the decrease in the numbers of certificates issued?

Hon. C. Hansen: I gather it's quite difficult to compare the certificates issued today to those in the late 1990s because it would be a bit like comparing apples and oranges. In the late 1990s there were actually other things that were counted as being completions or certificates granted at that time which are not counted today, so you can't do the direct comparisons.

If you look over the three-year time frame of the Industry Training Authority, at the time that the authority was first established three years ago, there were 2,378 credentials or certificates of qualifications that were granted.

In fact, it has gone up steadily during that period of time. As the member indicated, in this latest year it was at 3,551, which is — what? — probably about a 50-percent increase in that period of time alone.

D. Routley: That may be, but in fact the numbers went down so significantly — almost a 50-percent reduction in the numbers of certificates issued. The number of certificate programs that were changed could hardly explain approximately the 5,700 reduced number over a five-year period from 2002 until now. So with the disarray that the field of apprenticeship

training experienced after the dismantling of ITAC, it has taken several years for it to begin to come back to previous levels.

I think if we look to Red Seal endorsements that have been issued, also from the website, we can see that the high was in '97-98 — 3,096 Red Seals issued. After the implementation of ITA that number went to a low in '03-04 of 1,883. It decreased by almost half, and then that continued. There has been slight improvement. The '06-07 numbers are 2,121 but still well below the high of ten years ago. Does this represent an adequate addressing of the skills shortage in the minister's eyes?

Hon. C. Hansen: If you look at the time period from when the ITA was established, we have seen an increase in the number of Red Seals issued. We know that that trend will continue, given the number of additional individuals that we have registered in Red Seal apprenticeship programs.

We have seen in the time that the ITA has been in existence a more than doubling of the number of registered apprentices, from 14,676 when the ITA was first established to now in excess of 34,000.

We also know there are many apprentices who are working as many hours as they can instead of actively progressing towards getting their specific credentialing. We anticipate that the tax credit program — the way it's been structured — will be one more incentive for both employers and employees to work towards completion of their apprenticeship programs.

D. Routley: If we look at only the period since ITA was established until now, we would be looking at far too narrow a window, though, wouldn't we? We would see the pit of the decline in Red Seal endorsements and, as I said, a slight increase. In fact, since the ITA was established, there is still a decrease. It was 2,566 the year it was established. We're still at 2,121. We had gone down to a low of 1,883, which is 1,200 completions below the high of 1997-98.

The skill shortage was obviously foreseeable. The demography of the province was evident, and the trend was evident. The population was aging. Those coming from other jurisdictions tended to be older, tended not to be those who might address our skill shortage, and yet we see these numbers.

The tax incentive program may offer some support, but what other steps has the ministry taken to address this deficit? Clearly, there's a deficit. The need has increased. The labour market has become tighter, and yet the endorsements are lower than they were when we had a larger workforce and less demand.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think to reiterate some of the things that we've already discussed in terms of the impact that the economy is having…. As I mentioned earlier, we know that completion rates will decline as unemployment rates decline. That's something that's true not just in British Columbia but nationally.

The other thing is that the completion rates are an issue right across Canada. This is not unique to British Columbia. There are things that we are doing, including the tax credit program, which we know will make a difference. We have also reallocated some of the ITA budget away from the ELTT programs, as I mentioned earlier, and shifted those dollars to the apprenticeship programs so that there are more resources there.

We have also seen the ITA budget itself go up by a pretty significant measure. Last year it went up — let's see; I'm just trying to get the numbers right — by $13 million, and then in the coming three years it's going to go up by another $39 million, which is reflected in the fiscal plan that's before us with these estimates. There are more resources being put into apprenticeship programs and a shifting of resources to apprenticeship programs.

We are also putting more emphasis on things like the ACE-IT program. I think when you can actually get more kids at the high school level involved in trades training, that's pretty exciting. To go from 860 students in high school involved in formalized apprenticeship programs to over 5,000 involved today is a pretty good track record. I think it bodes well for the future and is a testament to the priority that this government is putting on making sure that the skills needs of the province are going to be met in the future.

D. Routley: As a former school trustee, I was often really struck by the number of kids who were choosing trades. It was really encouraging, actually, over the last few years to see that happen.

When there is absolutely no way to judge how many of those students are continuing, absolutely no way, as the minister has said, to judge the effectiveness of that spending…. Yet the minister applauds its performance and says that it's great. He's sure of it. Yet we have years and years of accomplishment from the building trades, for example, and other established apprenticeship programs that the minister previously has disputed in terms of whether their figures were accurate. Well, at least for years and years they've had a consistency that can be judged, and yet the minister would downgrade the importance of that. I just wonder why that might happen.

It's clear that the involvement of labour in the apprenticeship system is vital. The ITOs rely on labour's input in order to establish standards, in order to design programs. Yet when it comes to governance, to having a voice at the table of those organizations, that is not facilitated.

Doesn't the minister think it would make sense to bring a greater involvement of the trades, a greater involvement of the labour movement, which has a long history of providing this training very successfully? Wouldn't it only make sense to involve them at a greater level, at the governance level?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the apprenticeship programs that are put forward by the building trades are excellent. I've heard nothing but good things about the

programs that they offer. In fact, the ITA has expanded the program that the building trades are offering and put more resources there to facilitate that. In no way would I diminish the efforts that the building trades are making and the contribution they're making to apprenticeship programs in the province.

We do have building trades…. Actually, a member of the board of directors of the ITA comes from a strong and a proud union background in the building trades. So we have that voice and the benefit of his expertise right at the board of directors level of the ITA.

D. Routley: Perhaps the minister could answer whether or not he thought representation from labour at the governance level of the ITOs would help facilitate more rapid and successful implementation of their training programs.

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to go back to look at the reason why the ITOs are so important and the reason why we are establishing them…. The feedback that we got from a lot of employers was that individuals would come through the training system, through skills training being offered by post-secondary institutions in the province, and from the employer's perspective, they would hire them and have to retrain them. They did not feel that the individuals, the students or the apprentices, were always getting the kind of training that was relevant to the particular workplace. So we said to the industry: "Fine. You help develop what those programs should be that are going to meet your needs as an employer."

We've made it quite clear that we expect the industry training organizations to be industry-driven, that we are there to help facilitate that. But they are in fact helping to structure how those training programs should be set up going forward.

We've left it up to the individual ITOs to make a determination as to whether or not they wanted to have participation via the trade union sector. Some have welcomed that input, and some have brought in advisory groups. There are different ways that that input is being sought. But it's not something that we're going to dictate from government, because that would actually run counter to the whole rationale and the whole approach that we've taken to setting up the ITOs in the first place.

D. Routley: In fact, the resource training organization, only after fighting and kicking, was dragged into allowing four spaces on the board of governors. Still, no meeting can occur without a quorum that puts the weight of vote on the employers' side.

When the minister talks about inviting industry in to advise on what measures are needed, what training is needed, what flexibilities are needed, does the minister leave out of his description of industry the workers and the labour organizations that represent them? It seems to me that the industry is made up of them and the management of the industry, and those two seem inextricable. When those two are pulled apart, we see the problems that we're seeing now.

Hon. C. Hansen: When it comes to the program design for these various programs, they will — in fact, they always — involve trade union input into how these programs are designed. But if the member is advocating going back to a system that we had under ITAC, where the governance was 50-percent private sector and 50-percent union…. That is not a model that we felt worked, and it's not a model that we're prepared to go back to.

We do believe that this needs to be employer-driven. It is the employers that are hiring certified individuals who have certificates, but they need to ensure that the training they get matches what is required on the jobsite. If you look even at the construction industry, I understand about 18 percent of the construction workforce in British Columbia is unionized today.

There is opportunity for those unions to have input into the design of programs. I meet with union representatives. I get their views, and I make sure that they have input, whether it's at the level of program design or whether it's at the minister's office level.

D. Routley: According to the building trades representatives that I have spoken to, they are at the point of threatening: "Either we're in or we're out." They are expected to participate in setting standards, designing courses, designing programs and helping implement them, but they have no voice guaranteed by the structure at the governance table. If that important stakeholder is feeling pressured away from the table, how can that be positive for our outlook on addressing the skills shortage?

When trips were made to New Zealand five years ago to look at this model and to evaluate its effectiveness, those who attended those trips were warned that excluding stakeholders from the table would be negative to the outcomes. Yet when the program was implemented here, there was no guarantee of a role at the governance table for workers. Can the minister explain why that occurred?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think I've canvassed that area. The ITOs are being driven by industry. They are being structured by the industry to ensure that the programs that are being developed in that sector are going to meet the needs of the industry. There are various models in terms of how they seek input from employers, individual employees or participants in the program, or seek input from unions that may have an interest in that particular sector.

There is not a one cookie-cutter model that would fit every ITO. There are varying degrees of involvement, varying degrees of unionized labour force within the various sectors, so we have left it to the industry to structure that. As I say, I've had some very good meetings with the representatives of the building trades. In fact, I spoke at their conference when it was here in Victoria just a few weeks ago. I am always willing to get their input.

D. Routley: The Competition Council and the Progress Board both point to the need to address the skills

shortage as being the number one threat to the sustainability of the economy. It seems a very important signal they are sending.

Given that, is not completion rate more important than it ever was? The minister has said that the industry…. Also, I would like a definition from the minister's office of the word "industry." On the one hand, he says employers; on the other hand, he says industry. My understanding of industry is that it encapsulates the whole spectrum of stakeholders, so either it's employers or it's industry, and that's everyone.

Doesn't completion rate become that much more important? The minister has said that industry is hiring certified individuals. That's becoming harder and harder. Not only is it becoming harder and harder to hire certified individuals, but it's becoming harder and harder to have the adequate number of mentoring-certified individuals on jobsites. Doesn't all of that point to a need for more counsellors, more student supports, more support to get students back into their technical training to complete their Red Seal training?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think we have canvassed this in terms of the initiatives that this government has underway to encourage more skills training and to encourage more completion.

If the member is suggesting to me that I should take several millions of dollars away from what is actually providing training programs to apprentices and divert that to fund a counselling program in the province, then maybe he might want to make that clear. I think that we were able to free up dollars that had previously gone to fund counsellors around the province and put those where they're actually going to make the most difference, and that's to ensure that apprentices can get access to the formal classroom training that they require.

D. Routley: No, I am not suggesting that at all. What I am suggesting is that it would be more effective if those supports were in place. If it is more effective, the money that is being spent would be spent more effectively and more efficiently, and we could have a better idea of whether it's achieving the goals that we have.

As far as I can see, we have very little idea of whether it is achieving those goals or not. We don't know what the completion rates are. We don't know how many people are actually training because they're held on the books for 18 months, and the ACE IT students are included. We don't know how many of them are continuing.

Basically, we know very little about how many skilled workers we are actually able to inject into the system. Even at that, we don't know what levels are needed. In a moment I want to canvass the numbers that are available versus the common perception. But wouldn't that suggest to the minister that the types of student supports I've suggested are exactly the place where the minister should direct his attention and that that would ensure that the money being spent is being spent effectively and that maximum benefit is derived?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, we've had this discussion a little bit earlier in terms of whether or not having the counsellors in place actually adds to completion rates. I think the member mentioned earlier on that there were examples from other provinces, but we are not aware of any evidence from other provinces that indicates that having the counsellor system in place, as ITAC had it, was in fact adding to completion rates. But there are systems of support.

If you look at the ACE IT program, the member keeps talking about how there's no evidence that significant numbers go on to apprenticeships. As I've explained, that's because this is a brand-new program. They haven't had a chance yet to go on to postgraduation apprenticeship programs. Just now, today, in May of 2007, the first group of them are actually going through their graduation.

There is good support in place for the 5,200 participants in our high-school level apprenticeship programs. Also, through the college system in British Columbia, there are good systems of support for all of the students, whether they're involved in apprenticeship programs or other programs.

D. Routley: Yes, we have had that conversation, and my interpretation of the answers remains the same. On the one hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing to very successful completion rates in those union-supported trade schools. That is evidence that the minister may try to refute, but he would have a hard time doing so. They have a long track record versus a program that's brand-new and yet deserves the applause of the minister, based on registrations. The registrations, as far as I can see, do not connect to completions or continuations.

When we talk about a skills shortage, people assume that we're talking about a shortage of workers. In fact, there are workers available. I wonder what steps the minister has taken to maximize the attraction to other tradespeople in other parts of the country and the province who are unemployed.

Hon. C. Hansen: A lot of the worker recruitment programs that have taken place, for example, over the last year, whether they be in other parts of Canada or other parts of the world, are driven by employers and employer associations. So we play a supportive role.

In the case of some of the missions that have gone to Europe, for example, to attract skilled workers, we have sent along with them officials from my ministry to support them and to facilitate the application pro-cess for the provincial nominee program. That has been very successful. I've had great feedback from employers. Other employer groups have had recruiting drives that have gone to other parts of Canada, and again we have supported them with staff support from the ministry.

There was something else I was going to add to that, but it slipped my tongue. Hopefully, it will come back.

D. Routley: When it comes to B.C. Is Calling, how much has been spent on that program?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm glad the member mentioned that, because that was the next point I was going to make — about the recruitment campaign that we have underway with B.C. Is Calling. It's to reach out to skilled workers — well, all workers — particularly in other parts of Canada, to explore the idea of either coming home to British Columbia or moving to British Columbia if they haven't lived here before.

We have a budget in the ministry under STOB 67 of $1 million for advertising. I don't have the specific numbers, as I mentioned to your colleague earlier, for that campaign. It is by far the largest advertising initiative that we have in the ministry. The majority of that would be consumed by this campaign, and the actual specific details would come out in Public Accounts.

D. Routley: Is the minister aware that as of March 9, 2007, there were a total of 213 bricklayers, 1,935 unemployed electrical apprentices and 6,912 unemployed journey-level electricians? There were 394 unemployed ironworkers. This is Canada-wide. There were, in Alberta, 97 operating engineers; there were 68 in Newfoundland. Painters, drywallers, tapers and glaziers: there were 270 unemployed. In Alberta there were 450 plumbers unemployed. The list goes on.

Pipefitters: 1,005 in Alberta. In B.C. on that day we had 112 plumbers unemployed, we had 156 apprentice plumbers unemployed, we had 239 pipefitters unemployed, and we had 203 unemployed from the metal trades. The list goes on. Sheet metal workers: there were 900 unemployed in Canada on that day.

What steps have been taken for us to bring those people to address this shortage?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, if there are any skilled tradespeople in British Columbia in the construction-related sectors who are unemployed today, I know of a lot of employers and employer associations who would love to be able to contact them. There are clearly jobs that are going unfilled in the province today because of the shortage of skilled workers in the construction sector.

We could actually get into a long philosophical discussion about this, and it's a subject that I actually enjoy talking about. That is the barriers that we have in Canada to interprovincial mobility. It does not make sense that we have jobs that are going unfilled in British Columbia, and yet we have significant numbers of people in exactly that profession in other parts of Canada who could fill those jobs. Yet if you look at the way a lot of federal government programs are structured, it actually discourages people from travelling to other parts of Canada to pursue their careers.

We are working to recruit those individuals. The WorkBC website obviously goes far beyond just the B.C. Is Calling initiative. When we get individuals from other parts of Canada who have the skills we need, who would like to explore opportunities, they can go into the WorkBC website. It's got a tremendous wealth of information and resources for individuals from other parts of Canada to help them make the decision to move to British Columbia. That's a website that we're going to continue to expand going forward to make sure that it has even more beneficial information.

D. Routley: Well, that's wonderful, but B.C. Is Calling…. I wonder how many local calls B.C. is making, because on that date there were 150 unemployed ironworkers between Ontario and Quebec. Yet we have a notorious situation on a bridge in B.C. where there is quite a confrontation over the use of foreign workers while B.C. workers are unemployed.

It seems when there were building trades out of work on that day, the total…. And these are Red Seal, so there's no barrier to their mobility. They are Red Seal trades, so they can work in any province. There were 14,430 of them unemployed on March 9 — 14,430. So I wonder how many local calls are being made by B.C. Is Calling.

Hon. C. Hansen: When I talk about interprovincial impediments to labour mobility across Canada, I'm not talking about the credentials. I'm talking about all of the other things that we have structurally built into our economy that discourage workers from exploring employment opportunities in other regions of the country.

B.C. Is Calling is a brand-new program. We do not yet have the data in terms of it. I can only tell the member anecdotally that we've had tremendous feedback from people who think it's great. I've had one mother, of a son who left the province in the late 1990s to go to Ontario, who said she thought the program was great. She was able to send a message to her son that it's time to come home to B.C. because there are great job opportunities. Then through the website we can plug them into exactly where those job opportunities are.

I think it's actually a shame when there are unemployed tradespeople in other parts of Canada who are not willing to move to British Columbia to take up the jobs we have available and that we do have to rely on the recruitment of foreign workers. If we can find additional ways of enticing workers from other parts of Canada to British Columbia, we'll certainly explore that.

In the meantime the B.C. Is Calling initiative is obviously a great tool that we've put into the hands of our fellow British Columbians to help us in this task of encouraging workers to move here from other parts of Canada.

D. Routley: Canada has always been built on immigration and always will be if we are to remain competitive. We fully support that approach. Although when we have unemployed people in these trades in B.C. and in Canada, it seems not to be a good idea. Although people would perhaps celebrate this program if they benefit from it, I don't think they would if they do not benefit from it or it hurts them.

When employers apply under the PNP, they must pay the travel to and from Canada and the medical expenses. And yet the biggest impediment that I've encountered in my discussions with these very unemployed tradespeople is the fact that they don't get living-out allowance. They don't get travel money to where the jobs are.

On the one hand, this provincial nomination program provides travel to those from foreign countries to Canada and back. We don't see the same consideration for these unemployed workers in Canada and in B.C. Can the minister offer any hope for them?

Hon. C. Hansen: Under the PNP program, we do not provide travel costs for workers coming into British Columbia. It's employer-driven. In fact, the employers have to pay to have an application processed through PNP. It's really up to the employers.

I know employers that are desperate for skilled workers, and if they could identify a skilled worker in other parts of Canada, they would be quite willing to provide travel expenses to those individuals. But it's really up to the individual employers to address those with their prospective employees in other parts of Canada or indeed other parts of the world.

D. Routley: In fact, those employers, I think, will not pay for those expenses unless they have to. On the other hand, they can pay for the expenses of workers to come to Canada. When we look at the RAV line, the experience there was that we had skilled workers from South America working for $3.50 an hour. That was their starting wage, before any of this controversy hit. They were earning that kind of wage while unemployed workers with the same skills in Canada who are paid $35 an hour were unemployed. Does that make sense to the minister?

Hon. C. Hansen: I am not aware of the details in terms of the RAV line. I understand that that is an issue that is before the Labour Relations Board today. We have laws in British Columbia, whether it's our Labour Code or employment standards, that require all workers who are working in British Columbia be treated and remunerated in accordance with the laws of the province.

D. Routley: Then those laws are not being properly implemented, because these workers are not receiving the same standards as Canadian and B.C. workers. As a result, other workers see that as a downward pressure on their circumstances. When we can see that there are unemployed people in B.C., the minister talks about the unemployment rate. It's at 4.2 percent. Am I right?

Let's compare that to 6½ percent, a 2½ percent difference, yet this causes a drive to overlook B.C. workers and bring workers from elsewhere.

I'd like to point out to the minister that in October 2006, of the 700 journeymen boilermakers, 66 percent were employed and 33 percent were unemployed. Of their apprentices, there were similar numbers: 65 percent and 35 percent. January 22 to January 31, 2007, the same numbers were taken this year, and of the 700 journeyman level, there were 300 employed, 43 percent of them; and 400 unemployed, 57 percent. Of their apprentices, only 40 percent were employed and 60 percent were unemployed.

When we look to electricians, we see similar numbers. I'd say that the electrician numbers point to the fact that the ITA's purpose of being flexible and answering industry needs is failing. We already see the switch to commercial construction from residential construction in the lower mainland and a shortage of commercial electricians versus residential electricians, who are now beginning to join the unemployed ranks.

So far the ITA has not predicted that shift, has not accommodated it, and as a result we see lower mainland electricians from the IBEW local. There are 800 employed, 77 percent of them, and 190 unemployed; 123 electricians are unemployed. On Vancouver Island 84 percent of their apprentices are employed, but 16 percent weren't, and that was in January of this year.

The numbers are similar for other trades. The electricians in the interior and the north: 47 percent were unemployed; 58 percent of their apprentices were unemployed. In the Kootenays in January of this year, 50 percent of the journeymen were unemployed — 50 percent — and 29 percent of their apprentices were unemployed. Ironworkers: 88 percent were employed and 12 percent unemployed in this province.

We see the need to invest this money in the B.C. Is Calling program. We see an effort to address the barriers of foreign workers coming to Canada by insisting that employers pay their travel and transport, but we don't see the same considerations extended to these unemployed workers in B.C. I wonder what the minister will do to make better use of these people who are British Columbians, who are unemployed and who are Red Seal certified tradespeople.

Hon. C. Hansen: The numbers that the member has just entered into the record are absolutely unbelievable. They are not credible numbers. There are skill shortages in basically every one of the professions that's he's talking about. If we have unemployed electricians in British Columbia today, then they're not looking for a job. There are jobs that are going unfilled for electricians in the province.

If the member is talking about the percentage of the union membership in those locals who have been offered jobs by the union, then those numbers might make sense. But he was saying that these are individuals who are absolutely unemployed, and that is not credible. Nobody that reads Hansard on this, as to the

numbers that the member just spouted, would recognize them as having any credibility whatsoever.

D. Routley: Not the minister but certainly the people who are unemployed would give that some credibility.

When the minister said that advertisements were running inside B.C. only, was he referring to the B.C. Is Calling campaign?

D. Routley: How will the performance of the B.C. Is Calling campaign be judged?

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess one of the first areas of feedback that we will be able to measure is the number of hits that we get on the B.C. Is Calling website, the number of people that are looking to download one of the messages, whether it's a voice mail message or an e-mail message. Ultimately, it's going to be a measure of the number of people who are moving to British Columbia from other parts of Canada.

D. Routley: How is the minister accounting for public tax dollars spent on supporting ITOs?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's part of the financial statements that are put out by the Industry Training Authority.

D. Routley: What accountability measures are in place for those dollars? How do the ITOs report the effectiveness of those dollars?

Hon. C. Hansen: Each of the ITOs produces a service plan. Those service plans are public. The three initial ones, the three of the ITOs that we launched first, have their service plans up on the website now. The three new ones that are being structured will have their service plans up on the website within the next month.

D. Routley: What reporting must they do in terms of how they use those public dollars?

Hon. C. Hansen: Each of the ITOs produces financial reports for the ITA, and those are provided to the ITA on a quarterly basis.

D. Routley: I think I'm running out of time, but I'd like to encourage the minister to listen to some of the advice that is coming from quarters that aren't necessarily directions he's used to listening in. I know that sounds rather disrespectful, but I think that the effort early on with the ITA was to place the entire enterprise of apprenticeship and skills training in the hands of employers.

Obviously, employers have a unique and invaluable perspective on the needs of their own industries, but they are not the only voice in industry. There are other voices that should — and, I think, need to — find more attention from the minister and from the government.

I would encourage the minister to work with all the stakeholders productively, in a way that wouldn't leave so many feeling excluded from the process, whether that was…. Obviously, that wasn't the minister's intention, but that has been the effect. In closing, I would like to encourage the minister to work positively and productively with the stakeholders, those people affected by the decisions — particularly, workers.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 31

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Lali
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Robertson	Karagianis	Evans
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Macdonald
	Conroy

	NAYS — 43

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Campbell
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Hawkins
Bennett	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad