Hansard — Wednesday, May 16, 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		8057

Tributes		8057
	Opposition caucus softball team
	M. Farnworth

Introductions by Members		8058

Tributes		8058
	Opposition caucus softball team
	C. Evans

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		8059
	Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 37)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8060
	Woodlots
	C. Trevena
	Lori Wikdahl
	R. Hawes
	HaidaLink wind power project
	G. Coons
	Steveston water park
	J. Yap
	Emma Peterson
	G. Gentner
	West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society
	R. Sultan

Oral Questions		8062
	Role of Liberal officials in RCMP investigation of government staff
	C. James
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Government role in partisan media activities
	B. Ralston
	Hon. G. Campbell
	D. Chudnovsky
	Role of Liberal officials in RCMP investigation of government staff
	S. Simpson
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Government role in partisan media activities
	L. Krog
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Role of Liberal officials in RCMP investigation of government staff
	R. Fleming
	Hon. G. Campbell
	J. Kwan
	Government role in partisan media activities
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. G. Campbell

Reports from Committees		8067
	Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture, final report
	R. Austin

Committee of the Whole House		8067
	School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20) (continued)
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. S. Bond
	N. Macdonald
	C. Wyse

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8079
	School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 20)

Committee of the Whole House		8079
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	Hon. I. Chong
	C. Wyse
	C. Evans
	Hon. P. Bell
	Hon. J. Les

Reporting of Bills		8087
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Third Reading of Bills		8087
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007 (Bill 35)

Committee of the Whole House		8087
	Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 33)
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8093
	Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 33)

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		8094
	Estimates: Ministry of Economic Development and Minister Responsible for the Asia-Pacific Initiative and the Olympics (continued)
	H. Bains
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. Kwan

C. James: Visiting us today in the House is a Rotary group exchange, which is a unique cultural and vocational exchange opportunity for young business and professional people between the ages of 25 and 40. The program provides travel grants for teams to exchange visits between paired areas in different countries. For four to six weeks, team members experience the host country's institutions and ways of life and observe their own vocations as practised abroad.

Today in the House we have seven individuals on this program, visiting us from Brazil. They include a journalist, administrators and a physiotherapist. They're with their host, who is a longtime community activist, a former city councillor and a longtime civil servant, Pieta Van Dyke. Will the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: As I think all members would know, May has been proclaimed Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month in British Columbia. Today all Members of the Legislative Assembly are wearing red carnations to help us raise awareness about this terrible disease of MS.

Joining us in the gallery today are two leaders from the MS Society of Canada. Mr. Todd Abercrombie is the executive director of the MS Society's capital region chapter, and David Shrive is a board member with the MS Society of Canada. I would ask all members of the House to please make these gentlemen very welcome and to thank them for their leadership in combatting the terrible disease of MS.

M. Karagianis: We have many honoured guests today, but it's a particular thrill for me to be able to introduce a strong activist for social justice and first nations, an inspiration, a sister to me, a representative from the Gitxsan people: my friend Trudy Spiller. Would you all please make her welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined by a number of individuals today who are strong supporters of the aquaculture community. Included in that group are, from the Aboriginal Aquaculture Association, Richard Harry, Alvin Sewid, Harold Sewid, Tim Williams and Marguerite Parker; from the Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation, Chief Moses Martin; from the Ahousaht First Nation, Keith Atleo, chief councillor, Harvey Robinson, councillor, and Sidney Sam; from the Gitxaala First Nation, Vern Jackson, Matthew Hill and Tim Ennis. On a sad note, Chief Clifford White had hoped to be here today but was unable to, due to a death in his family.

They're all strong supporters of aquaculture in the province. There are also 15 individuals representing different organizations, companies, feed suppliers, and so on, joining us today, who all support this industry that employs 3,000 people and represents $350 million. I'd ask the House to make all these ladies and gentlemen very welcome.

C. Trevena: I too would like to recognize some first nations guests in the House, and I hope the House would make them very welcome.

In the gallery today are Chief Darren Blaney of the Homalco First Nation and Chief Bob Chamberlin of the Kwicksutaineuk-ah-kwa-ah-mish First Nation. Also in the gallery today is Claire Backman from Marine Harvest.

I noticed, looking up in the gallery…. I won't name everybody, but I notice that Mary Ellen Walling of the Salmon Farmers Association is here, as is Stacy Stokes. Richard Harry has already been mentioned. I also see that Don Millerd from Brown's Bay Packing, one of the big employers in my constituency, is in the gallery. I hope the House would make them all very welcome.

R. Cantelon: Joining the member for Nanaimo and myself today are two guests of ours in the gallery, Garth Johnstone and Greg Keeling, who paid an exorbitant amount to a charity of their choice for the privilege of having lunch with us. Please make them welcome.

L. Krog: I just want to add to the kind words of the member for Nanaimo-Parksville. He actually picked up lunch, and I owe him for half of it right now. I declare that to the House.

I also want to mention that Garth Johnstone is the grandson of Archie Johnstone. That firm was founded in 1954 in Nanaimo and employs 45 union employees and is prospering. He's the grandson of the founder and is running a fine operation. I add my words of welcome to him.

A. Horning: Visiting us today from my riding of Kelowna–Lake Country is Gord Ivans, chairman of Black Mountain Irrigation District. He is accompanied by Bob Hrasko and Don Dobson. Would the House please make them welcome.

M. Farnworth: It's my opportunity to inform the House that last night, in the spirit of healthful exercise — I know the Minister of Health will be most interested in this — members of the opposition engaged the media gallery in a game of baseball, which was energetic and vigorous. The opposition won 15-13, which I think is great.

Some notable media stars were struck out on numerous occasions. But more importantly, we were able to have that great game, Mr. Speaker, because of the unbiased umpiring by yourself.

S. Hawkins: I would like to take this opportunity to introduce 30 public servants seated in the Speaker's gallery who are participating in a full-day parliamentary procedure workshop offered by the Legislative Assembly. This workshop provides a firsthand opportunity for the public service to gain a greater understanding of how important their work is to this Legislature. Could you please make them welcome.

S. Fraser: There are a number of introductions that I would like to make today. I see Spencer Evans in the gallery from Creative Salmon. Chief Moses Martin was mentioned already, but he's one of my constituents. Chief Keith Atleo from Ahousat is also one of my constituents.

I'd also like to introduce seven chiefs down from the Wet'suwet'en First Nations. We have in the gallery today Chief Goohlaht, Lucy Namox, from the Big Frog clan. We have Chief Samooh, who is Herb Naziel, also from the Big Frog clan. We have Chief Woos, who is Roy Morris, from the Bear Wolf clan; Chief Gisdaywa, who is Walter Joseph, from the Bear Wolf clan; Chief Madeek, who is Jeffrey Brown, from the Bear Wolf clan; Chief Mutt, who is Billy Naziel, from the Beaver clan; Chief Dzigdot, Ronald Austin, from the Cariboo and Small Frog clan. Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

J. Yap: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House another group of Rotary group study exchange, young professionals who are here from Taiwan. This is a group that includes Jason Teng, Sophie Huang, Emerald Wu, Celesta Chen and Josh Feng. Accompanying them is their host from the Tsawwassen Rotary club, Garry Shearer. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Coons: I have a number of introductions to make. But before I start, I would like to recognize that a friend of mine, a teacher who used to live in Prince Rupert, is down here working for the ministry — Wael Afifi.

I'd also like to acknowledge and recognize some of the visitors from the north first nations. We have Chief Elmer Derrick from the Gitxsan nation and Gerald Amos from the Haisla nation.

A number of my constituents. We have Eugene Bryant from the Allied Tsimshian Tribes of Lax Kw'alaams, my good friend Conrad Lewis from Kitkatla, Ed Gladstone, Reg Gladstone, Mildred Gladstone and Betty Gladstone — all from Kitkatla. Can we please make them welcome.

D. Hayer: I have two sets of introductions. First, I'm pleased to introduce to the House today some very special guests. They are friends and community leaders. First, Del Dalminder Singh Virk, who is a notary public and has served as a director on many organizations in Surrey, and his son; Nev's father-in-law Prithipaul Singh Chhina, who was a past president of the Kitimat Sikh temple, and his wife Kiranjit Kaur Chhina from Kitimat; as well as Kiranjit's sister Harinder Kaul Chatha and her husband Satpal Singh Chatha, who are visiting from Chandigarh, India. Would the House please make them very welcome.

The second set of guests is a special guest who lives in Surrey–White Rock. He's also a good friend of mine. He works in the community and in the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce. His name is Ethan J. Huberman. He is the chief executive officer of HI-PERformance Enterprise Inc. He has also helped in many ways in Surrey and in White Rock. Will the House please make him very welcome too.

S. Simpson: I'd also like to make a few introductions of people who are here for the tabling of a report today. Ivan Thompson, who is from Smithers and with Friends of Wild Salmon, is here with his children — Laurel Thompson, who will be attending Camosun College in the fall, and Jeff Thompson, who will be at the University of Victoria.

I'd also like to welcome Pat Moss from Smithers, who's with Friends of Wild Salmon, and Catherine Stewart of the Living Oceans Society. Please make them welcome.

J. Kwan: Visiting the Legislature today are 40 grade 5 students from St. Francis Xavier School. They're accompanied by ten adults and their teacher Aurita Joseph. They're here to learn about the Legislature, about what MLAs do and the great history of the contributions of the Parliament Buildings to British Columbia. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Gentner: It's a great deal of pleasure to introduce to the House today 30 of North Delta's finest students from grades 4 and 5 from Richardson School, teacher Shelley MacDonald and parents. It's a school where my daughter attended many years ago, and they're here to learn.

I'm expecting that all members will be on their best behaviour. I think they're in the gallery, and their eyes are clearly on that side, by the way. Could the House please make them very welcome.

Also, it gives me real pleasure to introduce to the gallery for the first time my brother Brent Gentner and my parents Clifford and Doreen Gentner, who had to bear the many eventful adolescent years of yours truly and therefore deserve a round of applause.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is a friend of my daughter-in-law Nikki — Amy Bready. She is a registered nurse who works in the emergency room in Chilliwack. She was here this morning with the B.C. Nurses Union and told our caucus some pretty compelling stories about violence in her workplace. Could the House please make her welcome.

C. Evans: The comments of my House Leader notwithstanding…. Of course, the House Leader is always right, but in this case he missed a little bit of the point. The rule amongst elected people has always

Based on the common understanding amongst all of us of the wisdom of this rule, both government and opposition members know that regardless of skill or morality or truth, the press must always be allowed to win.

Last night that unbroken record — stretching right back, I would bet, to the Magna Carta — was broken. When members and staff and friends and children of the opposition caucus.…

C. Evans: Even children of the opposition caucus cleaned the clocks of the press in public at softball. We did this for the benefit of history. We did it on behalf even of government members, who have hitherto been too afraid of the press to even consider such combat. The only thing that tarnished the moment, hon. Speaker, was an absolutely awful umpiring job by a person who even I am afraid to mention in here.

I hope that all members will join me in congratulating the opposition for its historic effort to strip away the power of the scribes. Now that the precedent has been set, I encourage even government members to consider such an activity in future.

Mr. Speaker: Member, I must demand an apology and a withdrawal of that. [Laughter.]

C. Evans: Mr. Speaker, because I understand the inability to see is a disability that we all respect, I withdraw my comment.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing as I think we have introduced just about everybody, anyone that wasn't introduced, welcome.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (MEMBERS'
REMUNERATION AND PENSIONS)
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2007

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on April 30, 2007, the report of the Independent Commission to Review MLA Compensation was delivered to you. Shortly thereafter — I think the next day — it was tabled in this chamber.

Bill 37 seeks to implement those recommendations contained within the report dealing with the MLA compensation package and the reinstatement of a defined-benefit pension plan.

Dealing firstly with the compensation, Bill 37 does the following. It sets the basic compensation for each member at $98,000 per year, and it establishes the additional salaries to be paid to the party leaders, cabinet ministers and parliamentary secretaries, Speakers and caucus officers, consistent with the report's recommendations.

Secondly, Bill 37 re-establishes a defined-benefit pension plan to be administered by the Public Service Pension Board. Under the terms of the pension, members would contribute 11 percent of their earnings. Consistent with the report, members would be entitled to pension benefits calculated on the following basis: 3.5 percent of their highest three-year average earning times the number of years of pensionable service.

Before qualifying for any pension, a member would have had to have served six years. The maximum pension that may be received is 70 percent of the highest three-year average earnings which, at the accrual rate, would require 20 years of pensionable service.

A full pension would not be payable until age 65 and a reduced pension starting at age 60. The legislation authorizes the purchase back of pensionable service to June 1996, prior to April 1, 2007, on the following basis. For the period May 17, 2005, to March 31, 2007, the plan participant must pay 50 percent of the cost of the pension benefit resulting from the purchase. For the period preceding May 16, 2005, the plan participant must pay 11 percent of the sum of the member's annual earnings and the amount that the government paid toward the member's voluntary RRSP.

Going forward, I can advise members that I am advised that the annual incremental cost of this pay and pension package is estimated at $8.3 million. With respect to one-time costs related to the pension buyback, I'm advised that, assuming all eligible individuals choose to exercise their full buyback rights, the total one-time cost would be $42 million, of which individuals would contribute $8 million.

If passed, this bill provides that this pension and pay package is deemed to take effect April 1, 2007, and shall apply to all current members and to all future members elected in subsequent elections or by-elections. However, for current members of this assembly, the bill provides an option.

For current members who disagree with the panel recommendations and do not wish to be bound by the pay and the pension provisions of Bill 37, the member may opt out of both the pay and pension provisions by providing written notice to the Speaker within seven days of this bill receiving royal assent. Notice to opt out is permanent and irrevocable. In such a case the member would continue to be paid in accordance with the terms of the existing compensation package.

The government recommends Bill 37 to the House and, in advance of what will be a free vote for government members, urges all MLAs to carefully review the provisions of Bill 37.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by the House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 37, Legislative Assembly (Members' Remuneration and Pensions) Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about woodlots. Woodlots are one of the smaller forms of forest tenure but ones which in many cases are the epitome of all we hear about sustainability. As one woodlot owner said to me: "We're like the family farm versus industrial agriculture."

In woodlots you find the reality of stewardship, of looking after the resource. It's not just a matter of making a living now, but it's for future generations, for families now and in years to come. To make it work, you have to look after it. Often you find yourself walking through a woodlot and finding it hard to work out where any logging has taken place. It is truly selective logging.

There is also a community responsibility. If a woodlot owner decides to strip-log, he won't only ruin his future; he'll likely upset his neighbours and the community. Woodlots are largely in small communities, and it's never good to upset your neighbours. You're only going to see them at the mailbox, in the store or on the ferry.

I think that's one of the reasons why woodlots work in small communities. Woodlot owners are our neighbours. Their woodlots are their back yards and back onto ours, so there is clear community accountability. They also make communities work, running their own sawmills or using others in the community.

There are a number of woodlots in my constituency of North Island. On Quadra Island alone there are seven operating and another due to start up, which is going to be run by the Cape Mudge First Nation. At any one time, one of them will be running, employing local people and using local services.

It's not a rural idyll. They are faced with the forestry issues of stumpage and the shift to electronic filing more suited for the big operators. It is unquestionably hard work. But woodlots are important for our communities' health and for our forests' health.

I would urge members of this House to go out, hike around a woodlot and see for yourselves the part they play in our province's forestry fabric.

R. Hawes: On a cold day in February 2002, Lori Wikdahl made a decision. At that time illness had left her virtually bedridden. In her words: "I found relief in nothing. I had no hope. I was lost." You see, Lori suffers from multiple sclerosis. On that day she decided she would no longer succumb to her illness.

She began walking a few steps each week and soon was walking every day. A few months later she struggled through the 10K Super Cities Walk in Abbotsford. In New Brunswick on May 1, 2003, Lori Wikdahl began a trek across Canada to raise awareness of multiple sclerosis.

This is a debilitating disease that attacks the central nervous system, often robbing its victims of mobility, coordination and speech. There's no known cure.

On February 7, 2004, Lori Wikdahl poured water she had gathered from the Atlantic Ocean into the waters of the Pacific in Stanley Park in Vancouver. She was the first woman to walk across Canada, and in doing so, she became a beacon of hope for the thousands who suffer from this most debilitating of diseases. In two weeks Lori will take part in the Great Walk, a very difficult trek between Gold River and Tahsis.

This is Multiple Sclerosis Month. I can think of no better way to recognize this than by recognizing the courage, tenacity and determination of Lori Wikdahl. These are surely the traits needed for all victims of MS to survive.

Thank you, Lori, for the example you have set for all of us and the hope you have given to those who really need it.

G. Coons: I'd like to acknowledge an event so significant that it will blow you away. The NaiKun Wind energy group and the Haida Nation recently announced that they have entered into a memorandum of understanding to establish HaidaLink, a proposal that would connect Haida Gwaii to the mainland energy grid at Prince Rupert. This large-scale offshore wind farm will provide a cost-effective, clean, domestic energy source to serve the growing electricity market in British Columbia.

The first phase of the proposal, a 320-megawatt project located in the waters of the Hecate Strait off the coast of Haida Gwaii, is to begin construction in 2009. This first part of the project alone could provide power to 120,000 B.C. homes. When fully operational, the five-phase wind farm will generate enough electricity to supply more than half a million homes in British Columbia.

Arnie Bellis, chairperson of the Haida Power Authority and vice-president of the Council of the Haida Nation, recognizes the need for clean energy on Haida Gwaii. Currently the majority of their power comes from burning diesel. He believes that HaidaLink will be a win-win for everybody.

The island can eliminate most of its diesel generation by connecting to the B.C. Hydro grid, and the project can provide the Haida Nation with a sustainable economic opportunity.

The recently signed MOU is contingent upon NaiKun successfully completing the environmental impact assessment process as well as the construction and operation of phase 1. The Haida Power Authority will be the primary shareholder of HaidaLink, with a

As the region is particularly rich in crab and migratory seabirds, a full and thorough environmental assessment review is required by each of the three governments — the Haida Nation, the province and the federal government.

This is a great opportunity for B.C. and the Haida Nation. As the world recognizes our true potential, we must ensure our green energy policy enshrines public ownership of all our valuable renewable resources.

J. Yap: I'd like to highlight a truly great project that is underway in my riding of Richmond-Steveston and nearing completion by early June 2007. I'm of course speaking of the Steveston water park. Located within Steveston Park, this water park will encompass the community spirit of Richmond, maintaining a nautical theme in keeping with the heritage of the Steveston community. The park is heavily used already by children in the surrounding neighbourhoods, and this new water park will attract kids from all over Richmond.

The water park will be one of the most inclusive on the lower mainland, if not in all of British Columbia. With two sections — one catering to preschool children and the other focusing on the more advanced interest of school-aged kids — it will attract children of all ages.

But the feature that sets it apart from the rest is the fact that the Steveston water park will be able to meet the mobility requirements of all children. This means that those in wheelchairs will also be able to enjoy a cool dip on a hot day, thanks to a water-ready chair donated by the Rick Hansen foundation.

This project's success is a true testament to the hard work and dedication of the Steveston Community Society, who have worked tirelessly to fundraise and promote the benefits of bringing this unique water park to Steveston. I want to commend the directors and many volunteers for their efforts, in particular president Ben Branscombe and vice-president Jim Kojima, who have been instrumental in moving this project from conception to reality.

Also making this water park possible were the financial contributions from the city of Richmond, the province of British Columbia and many community-minded private donors who combined to enhance the atmosphere of the community and bring a whole new level of fun to Steveston Park. Please join me in applauding the efforts of those involved.

If you find yourself in Steveston this summer, please don't hesitate to take a run through the water yourself.

G. Gentner: Many accolades are expressed here regarding our remarkable young people — our Little Leaguers, our hockey teams and even caucus softball teams. I want to share with the House remarkable Emma Peterson, a grade 10 student from Burnsview Secondary School in North Delta.

Emma took first place in NASA's international essay competition judged by 24 NASA scientists. She's the first Canadian to have won. The contest — mounted by NASA in a bid to inspire what they hope will be the next generation of engineers, scientists and astronauts — asked students to imagine living and working 50 years in the future. They were to write an original essay describing how air and space transportation had changed as a result of the successful implementation of new technologies by 2057. This amazing young woman, at 15, competed with peers that were two to three years older than her.

Her mom calls Emma a normal typical kid who plays competitive soccer, snowboards, and produces films and documentaries. Last year she went to a writers fair and slipped a copy of her sci-fi novel under the eyes of a representative of a major publisher. He was so amazed at what he saw that he stopped all interviews and began reading and editing her book on the spot.

J.R.R. Tolkien, H.G. Wells and Asimov — move over. There's an agent in New York right now marketing Canada's next Atwood.

Sorry, Mom; Emma Peterson is more than your typical average kid. She epitomizes British Columbia's future.

R. Sultan: That famous Viking warrior King Canute went to the beach one day, put down his chair and ordered the tide to stop coming in. He almost drowned, but he made his point to followers who were constantly reminding him of his great government powers.

We could use King Canute on Ambleside beach in my riding. The tide rolls in, big waves undercut the seawall, and our once sandy beach has been transformed into a patch of gravel.

Enter the West Vancouver Shoreline Preservation Society. These concerned citizens have been analyzing shoreline erosion in our community. They show photos from 60 years ago that show a wide, kid-friendly beach; today, rocky shingle. What's going on?

Beaches are changeable things. Ours has been adversely impacted by the Cleveland Dam, by the dredging of the First Narrows ship channel, by the relocation of the mouth of the Capilano River, by private bulkheads, by B.C. Rail causeway and by a stormier ocean environment.

Working with the municipality, the society has tested various remedies. Pilot projects capture beach material coming off the hillside and appear to be work-

ing. More ambitiously, one can envisage offshore reefs to capture sand before it disappears into the ocean deep.

It's not easy to replicate Mother Nature, but thanks are due to Ray Richards, Jack Wood, Beryl Allen, Chuck Brawner, Bruce Knight, Tim Arnold, Hugh Hamilton and Kevin Webb — I might also mention my son, an ocean engineer, named Nels — for putting their collective talent to work in order to preserve our Ambleside beachfront heritage.

C. James: The Premier's ultimate responsibility is to the public and to the law. When B.C. Liberal Party executive director Kelly Reichert met with the Premier in June 2005 and told him that the RCMP were contemplating charges, why didn't the Premier say it was inappropriate to have that discussion and end the meeting? Why did Mr. Reichert leave that meeting with the Premier and begin the cover-up?

Hon. G. Campbell: From day one I have called for an independent, open, unfettered investigation, and I have called for that to be carried out without political interference. Frankly, the Leader of the Opposition should understand this. It is important in our system, it's important in our judicial system, and it's important in a democracy that there not be political interference in judicial processes that are underway.

This opposition has, for the last number of days, called on the government to interfere politically in a judicial process that has not seen one single witness…

So let me tell the Leader of the Opposition this clearly. We will not interfere. We will not comment on issues that are arising from the court, because we believe it is time for government to stand up. It's always time for government to stand up for the rule of law and the independence of the judicial process.

C. James: I'm pleased that the Premier has finally gotten the message. Political interference by the government is exactly why we're asking these questions.

Following the meeting with the Premier, Kelly Reichert went to the police and pleaded with them to protect the Liberal Party from embarrassment. That comes…

Again to the Premier: when did the Premier know about this cover-up, and why is protecting the Liberal Party more important than protecting the public from B.C. Liberal corruption?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, the only shame here is the Leader of the Opposition, who doesn't understand the independence of the judiciary, the importance of an independent prosecutor that has been established….

Hon. G. Campbell: This government has been very clear from the outset. We want a full, independent, unfettered investigation. If prosecutions are necessary, they should be carried out. That is carried out by an independent prosecutor.

The Leader of the Opposition has an obligation to understand what independence of the judiciary means. This government understands it. This government is going to stand behind independence of our court processes, because that is a fundamental tenet of our democracy in Canada.

C. James: Well, the Premier may think he can hide behind the court process, but apparently he forgot to tell that to the rest of his members, since the Attorney General actually spoke about the issue yesterday outside the House.

Yesterday the Attorney General leapt to the defence of the Liberal Party and said there was absolutely no reason for dirty tricks because the B.C. Liberals were in power.

Well, again to the Premier: if the Attorney General is right and speaking out about this issue, then why did Kelly Reichert leave a meeting with the Premier and try and involve the police in a cover-up?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's appalling, frankly, that the Leader of the Opposition tries to shield herself in this House with those sorts of statements. Here's what the Leader of the Opposition said just a few months ago.

Hon. G. Campbell: November 2, 2006: "The Attorney General should leave this case to the courts and keep future comments to himself. It is essential to the rule of law" — this is the whole opposition that was saying this — "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 to be prejudicial."

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker. We will not prejudice this trial. We will not politically interfere in the courts, because that's what's critical to justice today.

B. Ralston: The allegations we're discussing arise in part from an RCMP report that speaks of knowledge of the commission of political dirty tricks at the highest levels of government. This report was credible enough that the Attorney General felt he had to comment on it yesterday outside the Legislature.

Will the Premier advise the Legislature what he knew about political dirty tricks of operatives acting for the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, it's surprising to me that I have to talk to someone who claims to be an officer of the court about the independence of the judicial process. It is really amazing to me. We did not put these words in the opposition's mouth. This is what the opposition says: "It's essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with."

Let me say, hon. Speaker, that I concur with that, and I am not going to sacrifice at the altar of political expediency one of the fundamental tenets of Canadian democracy.

B. Ralston: If the Premier won't say what he knew, will he say when he knew it?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me be perfectly upfront with the opposition. I want all the opposition to understand this.

Hon. G. Campbell: The opposition leader herself said just last November that there should be no political interference. It is essential to court processes. The opposition critic said that high-profile prosecutions have failed because politicians felt compelled to make comments in public that were later deemed prejudicial.

Hon. G. Campbell: From day one this government called for a full, independent, unfettered investigation. There was an independent prosecutor. There is a judicial process in place. It is only right for those people who are elected to public office to serve the public interest and protect the independent judicial process.

D. Chudnovsky: …those of us on this side have been demanding that this government come clean on whether political dirty tricks are being run out of the Premier's office and the offices of cabinet colleagues. During that time the allegations have mounted each day.

For weeks the Premier, the Attorney General and the Minister of Finance have all refused to stand in this House and denounce this type of activity. Yesterday the Attorney General, outside this House, commented on the evidence and the allegations.

Today in the House we're asking the Premier to comment on the allegations as well. Will the Premier stand in this House today and denounce dirty tricks and cover-ups?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let's recap. For weeks now the opposition has been advocating political interference in the independent judicial process. For weeks now the opposition has come in, with the shelter of this House, and made allegations which in their mind are free from any sort of consequence.

The fact of the matter is this. From day one this government called for an open, independent, unfettered investigation. From day one we called for no political interference.

Hon. G. Campbell: …is that that side — and we know from their record — believes in political interference. This side of the House believes in the independence of the courts for all the people of British Columbia.

D. Chudnovsky: Will the Premier do today in the House what the Attorney General did yesterday outside of the House? Will the Premier denounce dirty tricks and cover-ups in the House to the people of B.C. today?

Hon. G. Campbell: There's only one group in this House that deserves denouncement from anyone, and that's the opposition. Unlike the opposition….

Hon. G. Campbell: This is what should actually take place in these instances. There should be independent investigations. It should be unfettered; it should be free of political interference. Anyone who runs for public office knows that is a requirement.

The only group that doesn't seem to understand that political interference is not appropriate is the opposition. How desperate do you have to get to undermine one of the most fundamental tenets of any democracy and the rule of law? The opposition is saying to politically interfere. We will not politically interfere.

S. Simpson: The Premier should understand we're not talking about something that is before the courts here. We're talking about dirty tricks. We're talking about the dirty tricks that have been condoned by this government. We're talking about the dirty tricks that are coming out of offices of this government, and you'll know….

S. Simpson: We're talking about dirty tricks — dirty tricks by this government, condoned by this government, out of the highest offices of this government. They're not before the courts, and part of the reason is because the executive director of the Liberal Party, after a discussion with the Premier, went and begged the RCMP not to lay charges. That's why they're not before the courts. That is interference. That's interference.

S. Simpson: These aren't allegations from this side. This is a police report filed in the courts. This is a police report.

S. Simpson: My question is a simple one to the Premier. Will he confirm or deny that the conversation with Mr. Reichert occurred? And if it did occur, what advice did he give Mr. Reichert before he interfered?

Hon. G. Campbell: I assume from the question from the member opposite that he thinks the independent prosecutor isn't doing his job. If he feels that way, he should say that to the independent prosecutor.

These are the facts. The fact is that for our system to work, it is not appropriate for political interference to take place. The fact is that for our system to work…. We actually concur. I concur with what the Leader of the Opposition said.

The opposition can change their minds on all sorts of things. We've seen them do that in the past. But this is one thing that this government will not change its mind on. We will not be commenting.

S. Simpson: The question isn't whether the special prosecutor is doing his job. The question is whether the Premier is doing his job.

The Premier's first job is to uphold the law in this province. His other job is to uphold the integrity of this government. Both of those are in question today. So for once in this whole discussion…

S. Simpson: …will the Premier put the public interest first — ahead of the B.C. Liberal Party and his government — and tell the people: does he condone these dirty tricks, or will he stop them?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think that the member opposite has made an important point. In fact, the public in British Columbia are going to judge this government's actions, just as the public of British Columbia will judge that opposition and its actions.

This is a government that believes in an independent judiciary, that believes in the independent judicial process, that believes in no political interference in any of those processes. That's an opposition that believes in political interference first, political interference second and political interference always, evidently.

L. Krog: The simple reality is that British Columbians expect answers. More importantly, they deserve answers. The Attorney General said he doesn't condone dirty tricks. He's determined, and he commented outside of this House, that the Liberals had no reason

My question to the Premier is very simple. Can he tell us on what basis the Attorney General came to that conclusion?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, it's great to hear from the critic for the Attorney General, who actually articulated a principle that was very important just a few months ago. He's now articulating a different principle. A few months ago it was important for politicians not to interfere. A few months ago the critic for the Attorney General said…

Hon. G. Campbell: …that high-profile prosecutions have failed in the past because politicians felt compelled to make comments.

That's critical. Our politicians on this side of the House will not be making comments. It is not correct to make comments. We will be protecting the independence of the judiciary. When the courts have ruled, then the public will know what the situation is, and they will make their own judgments.

L. Krog: I wasn't aware that the charges before the court were for political dirty tricks — not so far. But for a month the Attorney General said he wouldn't comment on the case, and yesterday he did. Now the Attorney General has said the allegations can't be true.

He's obviously come to that conclusion. Will the Premier tell us if the Attorney General is right? It's a simple question. Did the Liberal Party engage in a taxpayer-funded dirty tricks campaign or didn't it?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member can wriggle, and the member can squirm, but the fact of the matter is that the principle remains the same, Mr. Speaker. The principle is to protect the integrity of the courts. Again, we have an officer of the courts who doesn't seem to understand that. That says an awful lot about the opposition.

Let me be clear about this once again. This government will not interfere with this process, as we said from the first day. It should be unfettered, it should be open, it should be independent, and it should proceed to its conclusion without political interference. That was our commitment then, and it's our commitment now.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, it's too late for the Premier to say that he won't politically interfere. Mr. Reichert already has, and it's on tape.

R. Fleming: …the Premier about the investigation? And will the Premier today outline the political interference that has occurred from his party leadership and his cabinet colleagues in the matter of political dirty tricks?

Hon. G. Campbell: You know, Mr. Speaker, in two years we're all going to go to the polls, and we're all going to be judged for the actions we take — both sides of this House.

Hon. G. Campbell: So they're going to…. The people of British Columbia….

Hon. G. Campbell: The people of British Columbia will decide whether they want to support a party that believes in the rule of law and an independent judiciary, or one that believes in political interference.

The people of British Columbia will decide whether they want a party which has brought our economy back from the brink of destruction and from the fiscal mismanagement of the dismal decade of the 1990s. The people of British Columbia will decide whether they want a party that's given us the best health care system in Canada.

And, Mr. Speaker, the people of British Columbia will be deciding whether they want to have a party that stands on principle or political expedience.

J. Kwan: When Kelly Reichert met with the Premier and was told by Kelly Reichert that charges would likely be laid for political dirty tricks, did the Premier tell Kelly Reichert not to politically interfere with the RCMP investigation? Or did the executive director of

the B.C. Liberal Party just ignore the Premier's advice, who happens to be the leader of the B.C. Liberal Party?

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, let me try and say this in a way that the opposition will understand it. This is actually an important part because….

Hon. G. Campbell: I believed it in November of 2006, and I believe it in May of 2007. I believed it in 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2001. I've believed it as long as I've been involved in public life, and I would expect everybody else in this House to believe this as well. That is, it's essential to the rule of law that the integrity of the judicial process not be interfered with.

Now, for some reason — out of, I guess, desperation — the opposition has decided that that is no longer a principle that they're willing to stand for. So let me be clear. This side of the House, this government, will always stand for a free, independent judiciary — free of political interference.

J. Kwan: The fact is that political dirty tricks are not before the courts. There are no charges being laid, at least not yet. The fact is the RCMP documents released yesterday marked "Kelly Reichert. Not for disclosure" show Kelly Reichert asking the RCMP not to recommend charges for dirty tricks, because the details of the tricks would be embarrassing to the B.C. Liberal Party.

My question to the Premier is this. Will the Premier put his oath of office ahead of his political interests and tell British Columbians what transpired in that meeting with him and Kelly Reichert?

Hon. G. Campbell: All members in this House are required to uphold their oath of office — every single member of this House. Part of our oath of office is to maintain the independence of the judiciary.

While I intend to carry on as I said I would from day one — to allow this process to reach its full conclusion — when that conclusion is reached, I think the people of British Columbia will judge. They will judge a government that has stood for principle or an opposition that stood for political expedience.

M. Farnworth: We have heard a litany, over the last few weeks, of dirty tricks coming out of the Premier's office, coming out of the highest reaches of the Liberal Party of British Columbia. We have received no answers in this chamber — not one, hon. Speaker. Yet the Attorney General feels it's okay to stand outside this chamber and say that those things aren't acceptable and he doesn't believe them.

The Premier has talked about principle. Well, if he doesn't want to answer in this chamber, when he leaves this chamber, will he stand outside and tell the media…?

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, my question to the Premier is simple. When he leaves this chamber, will he say that dirty tricks are not one of the principles that he believes in?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite can rest assured that when I leave this chamber, I will say exactly what I said when this started. We need to have an independent review. It has to be an independent investigation, and it has to be free from political interference.

Let me say, hon. Speaker, that I am perfectly willing to stand before British Columbians in two years and be acceptable and accountable for the actions this government has taken. I am perfectly willing to stand on a government's record, which is to create better employment, more employment — lower unemployment than ever in the history of this province.

I'm willing to stand on the record of a government that has opened up opportunity in British Columbia in every region of this province. I'm willing to stand in a government that stands for principle, which says that

we will not politically interfere in our courts. We will not do that until that court proceeding is concluded.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say this. I hope the opposition will go and look at themselves in the mirror, see what they actually said just six months ago, and tell British Columbians why they've changed their mind and political interference is a better route than judicial independence.

R. Austin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the final report of the Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 20, to be followed, ultimately, by committee stage debate on Bills 35 and 33. In Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued debate on the Ministry of Economic Development.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 20; S. Hawkins in the chair.

D. Cubberley: It's an exciting challenge and my first experience of dealing with three pieces of legislation in two days — actually in 24 hours. They all have their own complexity, and that makes it a lot of fun and very stimulating.

We had had some discussion on a number of sections of this bill, and we're now into a series of sections dealing with specialty academies, then trades programs and musical instrument programs, which endorse or allow the charging of fees in quite tightly defined circumstances. We all know the general history of how we got to the place of considering this part of the legislation, and I won't go over that ground.

Following the striking down of existing provisions by the courts, there's been considerable public discussion around several areas which I believe are captured quite accurately in the four sections that have a bearing on these kinds of fees. We heard a lot, after the court decision, from families, students, trustees and educators in the areas of sports, recreation — not so much trades, for my part, and not so much as was part of the public discussion — and especially music programs.

Those voices said very strongly and publicly that if there was no ability to charge fees in the instance of specialty academies and no ability to charge for musical instrument rentals in the schools, that programs would be lost and that choice would suffer. There can be debate around this, I know, but the point was made by the families that these are programs that are additional to core requirements in schools. They're not part of the core curriculum.

They are, if you will, an innovation, in the case of specialty academies, in the way that programs are delivered. This allow things that cannot by their nature easily be made available in a school as part of the core curriculum to be made available when there is an audience amongst the families with kids in those schools. I know those voices very well, because I happen to represent a suburban constituency with a large number of schools.

I know them well because I also have and have had a relationship, prior to becoming a legislator in this chamber, with the schools in my district — the high schools in particular and probably with one high school better than others, which is Reynolds. In the area of specialty academies, in particular sports academies — which is what the families tend to call them — I understand how those programs work.

I also understand that in the case of a school like Reynolds, the possibility of creating a soccer academy has made a tremendous contribution to the school, both for the kids who have been enabled to make their way into that kind of program and have that experience and also for the school as a whole, in gaining a reputation as an innovative school and having an ability to, if you will, strut their stuff a little bit around achievement and innovation.

The idea that was conceived there — and there's a great deal of credit due to the teachers and the principal at that school for conceiving it — has spread and continues to spread around the province. More and larger urban centres, I believe, and not evenly in those centres…. As it's understood better, other schools have been attracted to it, and it offers tremendous advantages to the kids who get to participate in those programs.

In the case of Reynolds and other schools, as well, they have been anxious to keep the program open to people, irrespective of financial means. That's certainly one of the important issues in canvassing this clause and the idea of enabling it.

I want to say also that I have heard and met with, as I know the minister has, many, many parents. Many, many letters and several organizations advocate on behalf of both the specialty academies and on behalf of music programs, and they marshal very persuasive arguments.

As I say, I have an understanding of how those programs work. I think every high school in my con-

stituency has an academy program, in different areas — hockey at one, soccer at another and lacrosse at a third, I believe.

There are fees charged in those programs. The fees are required to enable the purchase both of access to higher levels of coaching skill and access to recreational facilities or sporting facilities that could not reasonably be provided at a high school. In the instance of Spectrum, part of the pooling of funding is to be able to secure access to ice time.

One of the things that the bill does set out — and I am pleased that it does that — is to say that if fees are going to be charged, there has to be a real hardship policy in place. We'll have a chance to canvass that a little more under the specific clause.

I think it's very important and it should not be underestimated that in legitimating the idea of being able to charge fees for this kind of thing, it is tremendously important that a balancing element be put in place. As we in this chamber know only too well, people don't come to school with the same resources. While some kids' families will be able to marshal the resources for this kind of thing, other kids' families may not. It's absolutely necessary for fairness and equality that there be a means of access to the program if we go ahead and create the power to have these fees.

The bill makes these conditional on having a hardship policy in place, and I think that is a very good thing. It's certainly what the families that I spoke with around Reynolds and their organization were advocating, and I'm pleased to see that that's included in the bill. We strongly advocate it, and we will want to make sure, if the bill should pass, by chance — and it may — that upon implementation the hardship policy requirement is taken seriously. I won't belabour that at this point.

It's important to say and acknowledge as well that there are also dissenting voices on this issue. I'm sure members opposite are aware of them. They are people who want to see public education provided entirely free of fees. I respect that position and believe that in a better world — not a perfect world but a better world — it would be how all education would be provided. It would be fee-free. I think it's a goal that we should be aiming for and not one that we should be moving away from.

I think the people who advocate that position have a really clear image of public education as having an obligation to provide equality of access and as it being a process of levelling up, of redistributing opportunity to people. I personally believe that public education is probably the most important redistributive mechanism we have created and that it allows opportunity to come to people who otherwise might not have access to it.

I do think in a better world, which hopefully one day we can get back to creating, that it will be the case that there are absolutely no fees for anything. I also believe, along the lines of the families who took the trouble to contact me, to lobby me, to persist in making sure that I had some awareness of this problem — about sports academies and music programs in particular — that to prevent any assessment of fees for these kinds of programs, either for instrument rentals or for sports academies, would actually have the effect in practice of reducing access to these kinds of programs for kids from all walks of life.

I spoke with a lot of people about this over the interim, the period of time we've had since the court struck down the existing legislation. I want to say, in regard to specialty academies before passing to a question, that I'm a supporter, along with that very wide range of people and interests that have asked to be allowed the privilege of assessing fees so that certain activities can occur. I'm a supporter of those in the very limited and specific areas that are being targeted here, in this case the specialty academies. But I have to say, as well, that in all of the conversations that I had with people, all of the aspects that are in this bill were raised by them with me except for one.

There's one aspect in here that I didn't hear, frankly, raised at any point in the public conversation — it was never raised with me privately, and no interest group that I'm aware of has asked for it — and that's the requirement that decisions regarding the creation of specialty academies be subject to approval by school planning councils.

This is something that almost has a Martian quality to it in the way that it dropped in from outer space. It's counterintuitive, as well, to myself and to my colleagues and to virtually all of the people that I've spoken with about this, none of whom knew it was coming — that planning councils be given a veto over whether you would fund specialty academies.

I want to begin by asking the minister if she could tell the House why she's proposing, in this case, to elevate an unrepresentative body over trustees, who are elected directly by the taxpaying public to oversee the spending of their money. Why did she choose to elevate that body over an elected body in determining whether a specialty academy could exist?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, the critic's comments reflect very accurately what this government is responding to. I literally spoke to hundreds of parents and, most importantly, students who said we need to protect choice through specialty academies, band instrument rental and trades materials. In fact, this section of legislation absolutely reflects what government heard, and we're committed to retaining those kinds of choices within public education.

The member opposite spoke about hardship policies being in place. I can honestly say that as a former school board trustee and chair, one of the things that was most important to us was the whole issue of equity. We had very clear hardship policies in place. School districts across the province today are required to have hardship policies in place, and they work.

School trustees care about equity. They care about children, and they use that frequently to make sure that children have access to these programs. I'm very confident that boards will continue to act in that way with the new legislation.

The member asks about the role of school planning councils and why it was important and where it came

from. It came from this government's belief that parents have a critical role to play in meaningful decision-making in schools. We've said that since the day we took office, we believe it today, and we continue to say the same thing.

What this ensures is that when we are going to look at a new program being created at a school — which may impact a neighbourhood and the children that attend that school — parents have a critical role to play in making sure that that's what the community of parents is interested in having happen. We did not hear a specific request for this, but continually and constantly as I work with parents and travel across this province, there's a message from parents: "We want roles in public education. We want a meaningful role."

One would think that if we want to work through the possibility and the ongoing role of fees being charged for some programs, then absolutely parents should have a meaningful role in that decision-making process.

D. Cubberley: I think we would agree 100 percent about parents having meaningful roles in the processes. But to confer on an unelected body — at least an unrepresentative, unelected body, which in some cases may not actually exist — a veto over whether elected trustees, who have the responsibility for deciding how taxpayer dollars are spent and who have to face election and have to deal with parents directly…. To pick a body which I think the vast majority of parents don't know exists and give it a veto is a curious codicil to place on this policy.

The question I have is: why would you pick a body that most households couldn't name as even existing, that most parents don't know exists, that plays no role in the life of the parents' relationship with the school and that is much further away from parents than, say, parent advisory councils are? Why give it a veto?

Hon. S. Bond: In some ways I beg to differ with the critic. The representatives that are on school planning councils are our parents. They're actually closer to parents. I remember this as a locally elected school board trustee. Would that I had been recognized globally in my community for being a school trustee. That would have been a wonderful thing.

I would suggest that the parents who sit on school planning councils are chosen by parents in that community, and in fact, the expectation with this piece of legislation is that school planning councils also must communicate with the parent advisory council.

This is about giving parents the opportunity to have a meaningful decision about whether or not fees will be charged for a program that's going to take place in their very school. We don't think that's unreasonable, and it keeps it very close to the very group of people that it's going to impact.

D. Cubberley: The very group of people that it's going to impact are the parents who are sponsoring the proposal for the academy, because they are the ones who will be paying the fees. I would submit that in most cases, those are not parents who are going to be on the school planning council.

I'd be interested to know whether the minister knows how many schools actually have school planning councils in place. What percentage of schools have school planning councils in place, that are functioning?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have the exact number, but the fact of the matter is that schools are required by law to have a school planning council. Indeed, the member opposite is correct. There are some school districts in which that has been a challenge.

One of the challenges we had in one particular school district was that teachers chose not to participate in school planning councils from day one. That was a challenge, but school districts and schools are required to have school planning councils in place.

There is inconsistency across the province, and we're working with the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils on how we can strengthen school planning councils and make sure that schools are abiding by what is law.

D. Cubberley: What I'm hearing from the minister is that while they may be required by law, they aren't in fact in place in all schools or school districts. They aren't up and functioning, which could be a reflection of the fact that they are having some difficulty, shall we say, establishing a role for themselves within schools and maintaining credibility with parents, educators, school trustees, administrators and others who work in the school system.

I'm surprised for the minister to say that she doesn't know how many are actually up and running. I would think….

D. Cubberley: No, but I would think that if you want to give a veto over spending to a body, you would want to know whether that body had warm bodies on it or not. I will ask once again: what percentage of these are actually at work with warm bodies on them and functioning in the school in some fashion?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the critic, we don't know the exact number. Most recently, I have sent a letter to school districts asking for, first of all, compliance with the law in British Columbia, and we expect school districts to have school planning councils in place.

We are working with the school districts to make sure that there is consistency across the province. The critic is reflecting concerns that have been expressed by school trustees when I met with them and most recently in letters that we've received.

We've been clear. We are going to work with school trustees to sort through the issues that are of concern to them, but we also have heard from parents about how important it is for them to have a significant and meaningful role in this decision-making process. That's what the legislation reflects.

D. Cubberley: I have to say, as a parent with a child in school, that I haven't heard any parents talking about it, and I go to the school fairly regularly. Also, as critic for Education, I have spoken with many of the parents and received the letters from them lobbying in favour of this ability to have a specialty academy.

I have to say that I went over those letters, and I never saw one letter in there that requested more opportunity for parents outside of the ability to engage in support of the specialty academy or to participate directly in institutions. I never saw a letter which said: "What we really need here is for the school planning council to have a veto over these fees that we are trying to be able to assess for specialty academies." I have heard no parents ask for it.

What I have heard, and I think it's really important…. This bill is an omnibus bill. It makes wide-ranging and very important changes to public education.

Those changes are not without controversy, which the minister is fully aware of. One of the largest controversies that has occurred is with school trustees. School trustees were among the most prominent interest groups pressing for the ability to be able to, in these very defined areas, have fees assessed to facilitate programs. The school trustees were well positioned, I believe, to be strong supporters of the legislation that was being brought in, and the school trustees are not strong supporters of this bill.

How did that happen? It didn't happen entirely because of this clause which is embedded in the bill. It happened, in part, because the bill removes substantial authority from school districts in a way that was done without any consultation or warning and has dramatically upset that group of people who are now looking over their shoulder and wondering whether the system of co-governance, which has prevailed in the province, is in fact starting to be undermined by changes initiated by government.

The school planning council…. The dropping in of this veto fits very well with some of the other things, like the dropping in of an appeal process without any public discussion before doing it. It fits in very well with that part of the bill. It is in our opinion and, respectfully, most unfortunate that there wasn't discussion prior to suggesting this kind of thing. To step to legislation with no discussion, to refer to parents who aren't identified, to not be able to refer to any interest groups that are asking for something and to say we'll try to put a fence around it after we pass broad-ranging legislation is, quite frankly, not a very good approach to crafting legislation.

It does make it look like sausage-making, quite frankly, and we need to move away from that. We don't want to do things that way, because it unnecessarily gets people riled up, and it has. It has.

I want to read briefly from a North Vancouver school district letter which was sent to the minister. She'll be aware of this, but I think it's important that the House gets a sense of how trustees see this bill. This is a bill they were positioned to support until these things were done. This is Chris Dorais, North Vancouver school district. Having commented on other problems in the bill, Chris Dorais suggests:

I ask the minister candidly here: why would you not simply have brought in a requirement for consultation, which would have created an avenue for meaningful discussion? It would be a formal requirement before proceeding with the development of any proposal to refer it to a school planning council for comment and to refer it to a parent advisory committee, as well, for comment, and simply leave it at that. Why would you bring it in as a veto?

Hon. S. Bond: As I said to the member opposite previously, this is not about a specific request to give parents more meaningful roles in public education; it's an ongoing commitment of this government to say, since 2001, that we're going to have parents involved in meaningful ways. That includes a balance when we're bringing a piece of legislation to the floor which, in fact, will allow school districts to create fees and specialty academies in schools where those parents' children will attend.

We believe that what's absolutely essential in order to bring balance to this bill…. I appreciate the concerns that the member opposite is expressing on behalf of B.C. school trustees. While I can certainly agree that I didn't receive hundreds of letters asking for school planning council validation, every single time that I visit the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils — who, as the member opposite would know, is the provincial organization representing parents — they continue to say: "We want meaningful and significant roles in public education."

We've been committed to that since 2001. We believe that it is reasonable, if a school board is going to add a new program which will change the face of a school and also charge fees for which parents will be responsible, that ultimately they should have a significant role in that decision, and that's what the bill says.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the comments from the minister, and BCCPAC is certainly an important organization. But I would suggest with the greatest respect…. For example, BCCPAC recently passed a resolution calling for the passage of a bill to protect

anaphylactic students. That does not mean that the minister will act on that, nor should it. The minister should take that as one piece of advice and consider it with other pieces of advice.

I'll resist the temptation to tell her other pieces of advice in that regard, but I don't want to resist the temptation here, because it's a very important public purpose that we're discussing.

I think this particular provision strikes trustees as being one brick too many being added to the backpack. I think that if you look at the April 2 letter from trustees, it was trying to alert government to the fact that it was overswinging. I just want to read it into the record, because it's important. These are the strongest institutional proponents, the strongest interest group, asking for the ability to be able to do this, to create these specialty academies.

In consequence of those concerns, and those are substantial concerns, "we urge you to replace the provision for school planning council approval of the establishment of specialty academy fees with a provision that provides SPCs with the opportunity for input."

I would submit to the minister on this that the opportunity for input is really what she described parents as wanting to have. If the SPC is a vehicle for that, we should have a mechanism in this bill that allows for input to decisions, that rewards participation by allowing that avenue of input, and we should do the same for parent advisory councils.

To give a veto to a body which is not representative of the community and has an ability to guide the expenditure of taxpayer funding, some of which comes from the local level, is inappropriate. I would seek the minister's response.

Hon. S. Bond: Only a brief one, Madam Chair, because I've answered it on numerous occasions. In fact, we believe, if there is going to be a fee charged for a program within their school and they're going to pay the fee, that parents should have a significant role in making that decision.

D. Cubberley: Well, I'm going to seek to place an amendment on the floor — because we do think that it's important, given the interest represented here — that would alter this in the way that trustees and others have asked, and which I think accords with common sense.

There's a copy for the Clerk and a copy for the minister. I'll await the decision.

D. Cubberley: I believe that some other members may wish to speak to this. I think I've made the case that's embodied in the actual amendment. I would urge members to recall what we did yesterday afternoon when we looked at a piece of legislation that the government had before the House, Bill 22, which involved modifications to PEN numbers. In recognition of the fact that there was something missing from the bill, the minister brought in an amendment to the bill, which we supported. That amendment improved the bill. I think that's an important thing for members of the House to keep in mind.

We have an opportunity here to improve a section of the bill that is not at issue by taking out a provision which can only offend and will not, I would submit, achieve the purpose that the minister has stated for its being included.

I'll cede to other members who may wish to comment, but this is an opportunity to improve this bill.

N. Macdonald: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this amendment. It's an amendment that I think the House should support.

It would be interesting if I knew the full history of how the school planning councils came to be. My sense was — and this was at a distance — that Christy Clark made a speech and made plans or spoke to the parent advisory committee and made a commitment to in-

volve parents more. As an elementary school principal, you need the parents involved. I think that that has always been the way it is, and it remains so.

The mechanism that the government came up with…. I think it was when Ms. Clark was the minister responsible. It could have been with Mr. Christensen. No, I'm sure it was with Ms. Clark. She came up with the idea of the school planning council, and she mandated it for schools.

The question that the critic asked the minister about how many schools do not have school planning councils is a significant one. The government will give, with this legislation, significant powers to the school planning councils. I would make two points. First, I think that's the wrong place to go. Second, there are complications with the school planning councils — that system.

I can tell you, as a principal, we had an obligation, as the minister pointed out, to have a school planning council set up. I had it at my school. Especially with elementary schools, it's easier. I had a very active parent advisory council that were fully involved in decisions that we made at a certain level. I can tell you that it was a challenge to twist arms to get them to go to the school planning council.

I was lucky to have a teacher that would volunteer. When they volunteered to do that, it meant that they weren't available to do something else, and that's one issue. You have a finite amount of time. I would have preferred it if the teacher had worked with the badminton club or something else. She had to give that up, because there are only so many evenings that are available. Instead, she was good enough to come on the school planning council.

Then you have to convince a number of parents to come on and deal with issues that at times they don't feel are within their purview. They are difficult issues. You are dealing with a school planning document that you can certainly explain and get people to understand, and then they will pass it. But there's very often the illusion of real input, rather than the reality of real input. That is just the nature of what is being dealt with often at school planning councils. That was my experience.

To have a group of parents together is always a useful thing. School planning councils, as the trustees made it clear to the minister, are a group that change often. They are a group that it is very often difficult for a principal to put together. People are busy in their lives. They give up an evening to come and participate at the school, and they really want to know that it's meaningful. Very often they don't want to sit and do the things that the school planning council asks them to do.

That was my experience. It was still a lovely group to sit with. We did accomplish some things.

To use this as a mechanism that would give some veto power, I think, is just inappropriate. It doesn't make sense, and I think that on the ground it wouldn't work. I guarantee you the school planning council would give their views on this, that it is something that of course the school planning councils would participate in and that they would be fully consulted. If the PAC or the school planning council was against something going forward, well, I would be surprised if that's something that the principal would then push.

Trustees are the ones that are responsible, and it makes complete sense to leave those sorts of decisions with school trustees. To muddy the waters — and I think that's a term that the trustees use — by giving some sort of veto power to the school planning councils makes no sense at all to me.

I see it serves a political process. It allows the minister to go to the PACs and say, "Here, this is what I've done for you," but in practical terms it does not make sense. Philosophically, I think that the critic has very clearly laid out, similar to what the trustees association has laid out, that it is not a sensible way to proceed as well.

I certainly think that this is a reasonable amendment. It is one that will improve this. It would be my hope that it's one that would be supported. I thank the critic for putting it forward, because it's very sensible.

C. Wyse: I, too, would like to rise in support of the amendment that has been put in front of the House. There's an aspect that I would like to elaborate upon, and that is programs that are offered as a district program. That becomes an issue in rural districts, whether it be a band program, for example…. Given the set of circumstances without the amendment in place, it requires the endorsement of an unknown number of planning councils. It brings a destabilization into the system, albeit possibly inadvertently, but it in actual fact does do that.

The amendment allows for the consultation that has been suggested, but it allows it to be obtained in exactly that fact without undermining the general responsibility that has been assigned to local trustees. In doing such, they have not taken into account such programs that I have mentioned from a districtwide basis.

Where I'm from, in a rural district, it is not uncommon to have many of these planning councils that simply are not functioning. When you get into programs that deal with "must," then how do you keep them running when legislation makes it mandatory? How do you offer districtwide programs that would require more than one of these planning councils to come together? You increase the chances of not having that type of a situation being allowed to obtain the conclusion that the ministry is attempting to do here.

I would suggest that there are a number of reasons why the ministry would be interested in actually supporting this very sensible resolution, the amendment that is put into place. I don't believe that the intention is to destabilize the local government through the board of trustees, but by leaving this type of legislation as it reads, that in actual fact becomes one of the outcomes.

Once more I would like to thank for the opportunity to have been able to present this point of view on behalf of the more rural districts across the province.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to just move a little bit into the trades program area and ask how fees and the potential hardship policy relative…. I should not ask too much at once. The potential in the trades program that's being conferred here is to charge for what? Just to give a sense to everyone in the chamber what it is that this will do.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the resources necessary for many trades and apprenticeship programs are extremely expensive. This would allow the school district to either charge a rental fee for tools that are provided for a student or require the student to bring their own tools.

D. Cubberley: I'm assuming that…. I'll date myself in framing the question this way, I know. It's been a long time since I was around a high school shop, and I'm not entirely aware of how much shop is actually taught at schools of a general kind, currently.

The impact of allowing fees around a trades program won't prevent or begin to exclude or preclude the provision of more general education around the use of tools in any apprenticeship area that a student might have access to. Does it risk in any way, for lack of a better term, professionalizing involvement in training that's consistent with trades training but isn't part of an apprenticeship?

Hon. S. Bond: This does not impact industrial arts programs or anything like that.

D. Cubberley: Unless there's another member on this side who wants to raise an issue here, I'd just like to pass to the requirement for a financial hardship policy. We can use the instance of musical instruments or any of the areas to illustrate this, but the minister had commented before on the importance of a hardship policy.

I would say it would be impossible for members on this side to support this part of the bill if we did not believe that this would be meaningful policy. At the same time one recognizes that, even with a hardship policy in place, it's less than an ideal situation because it involves elements that are extremely sensitive for individuals who are in the position where they lack the resources to participate on their own dime.

I want to ask the minister for some sense of comfort around how this is going to work and to what extent and in what ways we will ensure that the no-hardship policies around these fees are meaningful so that people of lesser means are not precluded from involving themselves in these programs.

Hon. S. Bond: As the member would note by looking at the legislation, the section says that if a school board actually wants to offer specialty courses or charge fees, they must have a policy in place to prevent children not having access. You know, that is an essential component. They will not get to do the preceding parts if they haven't actually got a policy in place.

I can only say again, as a former school board chair and trustee, that virtually every school board in the province today already has a hardship policy in place and they, as school trustees and staff and others, are probably more concerned than the critic and I could ever be about ensuring that access is in place for children.

So you don't get to do the previous parts of the section unless you have a demonstrated policy that clearly says that all of the fees of the board are subject to a hardship policy.

D. Cubberley: I agree with the minister about the importance accorded to this by trustees, but I'm also mindful of the fact that in practice, on the ground, it's typically the teacher who is the person who will deal with this situation. I have tremendous respect for the sensitivity of teachers in the handling of that, but it's a very, very difficult issue. I don't envy them to be in the position of dealing with it.

I took some time over the summer to talk to some teachers who do deal with this in relation, in particular, to specialty academies — to get a sense of how they handle it. What I'm really looking for here is an indication or an assurance that we're moving in the same direction.

Of course, we have to move from the rather dry language of the bill to try and conjure how this would work in reality, what that obligation that we're saying will be placed on school districts would look like around this. To make it a little more concrete, I want to ask a question as to: "Would it mean this?"

Would it mean, in effect, having a no-hardship policy in place, that school district staff would be prepared to waive fees in part or in whole to ensure that no student is denied access to a program or activity — a student qualified for that activity or program? Would that be a fair interpretation of a no-hardship policy?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm certainly not going to comment that that would be the only language or that it would be the template language, because every policy, every board, has a slightly different way of expressing it. What the policy has to capture is this: that they have a procedure in place to facilitate participation by students of school age, ordinarily resident in British Columbia, who would otherwise be excluded from the course, class or program because of financial hardship.

I think that the legislation is very clear. They must have a process in place that if there is a child who could be excluded from a program because of financial reasons, they must ensure that child has access.

D. Cubberley: I just wanted to ask the minister a question on this. We canvassed this in the early going

Why a requirement that a board can only operate an early learning program with the prior agreement of the minister? Why not allow boards to operate early learning programs if they decide to operate early learning programs? Why have ministerial approval for an early learning program?

Let me just very succinctly say that we are beginning a series of early learning programs across the province. Boards will enter into an agreement with us to host those programs. They will be based on early learning and focused on pre-literacy skills in particular. We know that will make a difference, so they will be required to enter into an agreement.

This is not to take away or diminish community-level programs that exist. I want to be very clear about that. I do not want there to be concern about those community providers and programs that currently exist.

We are very excited about a new program called StrongStart British Columbia. It has a series of principles that look at a focus on pre-literacy. We are providing funding to boards for that. We want to see those programs focus in that way, and they will be asked to have an agreement with the minister to offer those.

D. Cubberley: I love the coordination, Mr. Chairman. It's a wonderful thing, isn't it? I should have gotten involved in it much sooner, and in future I will always have that level of organization.

Section 37 is a very innocuous section in the bill, but at some level it's going to have a potentially profound impact on public education and non-public education in British Columbia — at least as I read it, considering there are only eight words being removed from the current act.

This is certainly not an inconsequential change. I'd be interested, before launching into other questions, to get a sense from the minister as to why this language is being taken out — what the intent of removing this language is.

Hon. S. Bond: While there are a number of words, this is about providing opportunities for children in different ways within public education, who may not be successful in the current system the way that it is structured.

It's also about looking at best practice. It's about looking at areas like perhaps trades and technology and clustering a group of children in a school where we can learn about best practice. But it is very much to allow for choice and opportunity to meet the needs of children in different ways within our public education system.

D. Cubberley: Within public education — that's interesting. One of the things that was reported publicly about a meeting that was held…. Obviously, we have to create the connection back to this. A meeting was held on the minister's behalf with some interest groups around the possibility, I believe, of an autism school on a new model.

Certainly, what was reported out from that meeting was that what was discussed was not a school that would be within public education. It was a school that would be outside of public education — delivered in a different manner, funded in a different manner and not under the direction of a school district.

I'm interested to know whether this in any way, shape or form is connected to that. I perceive a connection. A discussion began occurring publicly before the bill came in but has certainly not been denied as the direction that I'm aware of.

I guess they were being called model schools in the newspaper, or provincial schools. One doesn't see any denial of the fact that there is looking at models that are not within public education. So when the minister framed it as being innovation within public education, I had the impression that it's maybe innovation without public education.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, first of all, we haven't determined any model, and I think that's an important thing. What we are doing is responding to parents who feel that public education the way it's currently structured does not meet the needs of their children.

I know that the critic and I, in estimates and various other venues, have certainly talked about the fact that we need to make some changes and that there are certain groups of children for whom the system is not working very well. We need to sort out how to do that.

This is about listening to what parents have to say about their concerns. Of course, we are going to listen to any parents who come to us and talk about the pros and cons, and that's exactly what happens any time you suggest change.

But to the member opposite's point, there is no model. There is no specific model. This is an opportunity for us to discuss innovation. This is not about an independent school. This is about a relationship with the Ministry of Education and finding ways to support children that help them be more successful. I think that's actually something we should be bold enough to think about.

D. Cubberley: I can assure the minister that I'm bold. But to come back to what's being said…. The minister says that it's not about an independent school. But her staff, at least, have had a meeting with interest groups where there was a discussion of something which, in every regard that I could imagine, was in fact an independent school. She can deny that staff had that meeting, but I have seen and talked to people about the meeting.

There was a very public approach by a former Minister of Education regarding a private contract to

deliver a model school. So the range of innovation that the minister is considering is certainly not limited to things that are not independent schools. In fact, really all of the proposals that we have heard about so far, which have not been very well fleshed out…. The ones that have been more fleshed out, because they leaked out, have in fact been independent schools.

Is there something in here that I'm missing that would prevent these being independent schools — the model schools being fully independent schools?

Hon. S. Bond: I said to the critic that this would be under the School Act, not the Independent School Act — any model that we are contemplating. You know, maybe the member opposite has not heard about any other opportunities. He reflects on a model that I can't even attribute to being able to describe.

We have no specific proposal in front of us. We have made no decisions. This is enabling legislation to allow us to talk about opportunities for students in this province that might involve innovation and might involve schools within schools. There's just a world of possibility that we need to explore to ensure students' success.

Let me give the member opposite an example of that. In a recent visit to Bella Coola there was a proposal — just a general discussion — about the opportunity to offer a provincial school based on aboriginal carving and how it has brought together a number of cultural principles, working within graduation requirements.

Those are the kinds of exciting proposals that are coming to us. When I say proposal, I want to be thoughtful. I do not have a piece of paper that says: "Here's what we want to do." It's: "Here are our ideas. Please let us work through this with you."

This is enabling legislation. We think that's appropriate, and of course we're going to discuss options of that nature with parents who have those concerns.

D. Cubberley: There are so many interesting aspects to this that I hardly know which one to begin with, but I want to come back to the comment that the minister made early on about hearing from parents regarding the public classroom that, as currently structured, doesn't meet the needs of their children.

That's one of the things that I've heard the minister say. In fact, when I asked a question in the House about this in question period, the minister made a similar comment about the public school system not meeting the needs of special needs kids.

Yet at the same time, the minister is saying that the system is working well. The cap on special needs kids in the classroom and the conversation that takes place when the cap is exceeded are all meaning that the appropriate resources are going to the special needs kids in the classroom and that the system is fine the way it is and no additional resources are needed. I'm having difficulty squaring those two things.

The system is working fine the way it is with the funding that we put in place and the programs that we have in the system; and then on the other hand, the system isn't working well for certain parents, and we need a model that's outside the inclusive classroom.

D. Cubberley: Why not? I think it's a fascinating topic. I mean, someone once remarked that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds, but I don't think this is a foolish consistency we're looking for. We're looking for consistency in statements about public education in British Columbia, and that's not foolish.

Hon. S. Bond: I'll resist the temptation to make this any longer than it needs to be.

Of course I talk about the success of public education in British Columbia. I am an advocate for public education, and our results for the vast majority of children are outstanding. Having said that, I am concerned that 11,000 children in this province do not graduate every year. I would point out to the critic that when I speak about the success of children, I don't single out children with special needs. I'm talking about aboriginal children, other children, typical children who are not meeting success.

Of course we should explore options. That's what our responsibility is. If 11,000 children a year do not graduate, I would suggest that we need to make some changes. For the vast majority of children, our system is one of the finest in the world. Yes, there are those two circumstances — a system that for 79 percent of our students is outstanding, but unfortunately it's only successful for 47 percent of our aboriginal children. We do have some challenges. This is an opportunity for us to explore for all children, not simply those children with special needs.

There is one statement, hon. Chair, that I must correct and will do clearly. This is not about moving away from an inclusive classroom. The principle of inclusion will continue to be the model for delivery in British Columbia, and I certainly hope that the member opposite would help me in being clear in that message. We do not want to cause concern for families who have children with special needs. I have met, as recently as this weekend, with members of families who have that concern.

We can simply say this: the model of inclusion remains, and it would be unfortunate if a statement like "outside the inclusive classroom" is something that would be repeated. That is not accurate in fact. The principle of inclusion remains in place today and will in the future in this province.

D. Cubberley: There won't be any argument on this side of the House against the value of the inclusive classroom. We support it as a principle; we support it as an idea. The fact is that when you look at it, especially from the point of view of special needs kids, science suggests that it works for them. That's where the evidence lies.

Where there's less evidence — and this is where I want to probe the minister's thinking — is that pulling some kids out and dropping them into model schools

has beneficial effects. Surely the minister, in evoking the 79-percent success rate and 21 percent not succeeding, is not suggesting model schools for 21 percent of the population. The mind boggles.

One could imagine what that might look like, and I would submit it would be ugly and beyond any financial means that we have available to us. The Minister of Finance is smiling, but she wouldn't be if you showed up with that proposal.

It's not working for some — 21 percent of them. Model schools are one way we can improve it for the 21 percent. Let's say that we were talking about autistic kids. What percentage of autistic kids would go to the autism model school? What percent would it be? Would it be 1 percent? Would it be Z\z/ of 1 percent? Would it be Z\z// of 1 percent? What percent of autistic kids would go to the model school? How would that have an impact on the autistic kids who are in the inclusive classroom? What impact could that have?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, the point here is that until we work to find a way to meet the needs of every one of those 11,000 children, we're not going to rest on this side of the House.

Now, the question is: how many of them will be in model schools? We don't even have a model school proposal in front of us yet. The member opposite should also be aware that while standing in the House and reflecting the views of the majority of parents is important, the member is actually criticizing the views of other parents who have come to us and said: "Please work with us. Please listen. Please find options."

It's not the government standing here today and saying that we are going to do this because we think it's the greatest thing on the planet. We are responding to parents who have said: "Please talk to us about our children and how we can work together to help them be more successful." I'm not sure how anyone could be opposed to that.

D. Cubberley: It's interesting. The minister always comes up with parents who have spoken to her about something, out of which we formulate legislation. But the parents are very select parents. Sometimes — often, in fact — they're not in groups, not named. They're running — shall we say, in the opinion being listened to — counter to what a majority of parents might feel who might have an interest in the area. So invoking these parents doesn't help very much in advancing the discussion, because they're largely unknown.

However, as a result of the kerfuffle around the secret meetings and the selective invitations to the briefing — which wasn't a briefing, which didn't happen and which staff weren't involved in, but were — and all of the other kinds of slipping and sliding with this thing that has occurred in public, there has been a little bit of copy and some statements by people.

What's interesting is that one of those interests that has lobbied the minister for a model school, which happens to be in the area of autism, did speak in public. She is highly critical of the situation in the classroom now. She dislikes the structure in the classroom at the current time. She does not feel there are adequate resources in place for her child in the inclusive classroom. She feels there are significant issues in public education. She says that she thinks, and I think that this is far too extreme, there's the illusion of inclusion.

I can't comment on what the parent of an autistic child struggles with, because that is a huge struggle. I met with parents from an agency in Burnaby, all of whom have autistic children or who work full-time in the field. All one can think after consultation with people of that kind is how very, very difficult the struggle is. But I was so impressed, and I'm sure that the minister would be as well, with how committed they were to the idea of an inclusive classroom and to keeping autistic children in the mainstream of society.

Their argument was twofold. In the first place, they said that the kids do better in the classroom with their peers. So at an achievement level, by being associated with other kids, they do better. But the more profound argument for not going to model schools for those parents was that the kids do better, are more independent and are more a part of society when they leave an inclusive classroom than they can be when they've been in a separate school where they are only with other autistic children.

That really was very strong for me to hear from parents: a very strong commitment to working with the school system. I think that all of the autistic parents — and I have not talked to that many, but all of those that I have had contact with — are very humbled by the struggle they face. They know they have to be engaged in advocating for their child within the school system, that it doesn't automatically happen. They all see challenges that are not currently and adequately responded to, but the majority of them that I have met are committed to seeing change within the public school system in an integrated, inclusive classroom.

What they're really looking for there is leadership, the kind of leadership that we see moving in another direction, I believe, inside this bill. But it isn't just the parents who have made the fundamental choice that the venue for their child is the public school system — even those who are talking to the minister in this area…. I raise autism because this was the first area that came up when we started hearing of proposals being floated for model schools.

Jean Lewis — executive director of Families for Early Autism Treatment of B.C., which was Canada's first advocacy group for autism therapy — who is an extreme critic of the school system, says there is no reason why what our kids need is not provided for within the public school system. She says, and I think this is very powerful…. This is somebody who is involved in talking about one of these potential model schools with the minister's staff. She says:

That brings us back to where the leadership is needed. I would argue very strongly that moving in the direction of model schools…. Imagine a model school for autism. How many families might actually be able to place a child in a model school for autism — 100 families, 150 families, 200 families? What portion of the autism community would that respond to? And what might happen in a school of that kind?

I would ask the minister this. An autistic child within the school system gets an allocation, I believe — staff are here and can confirm this — of $16,000. At a typical model school for autistic kids, one like the kind that might be run in Ottawa or the ones in the United States, it's $100,000 a year per student to inject the resources for those kids.

That would be fantastic. That would be absolutely fantastic. If you could do that, it would be wonderful. But what would the statement be for all the autistic kids in the inclusive classroom in the school? I'm raising this because I'd like the minister to respond to the real potential contents of this bill change, which will enable the creation of exactly these kinds of schools.

In part, the ask is for a response to the fact that separate schools do not advance autistic children in this case, and other special needs kids, as well, over the inclusive classroom in any regard. They increase maladaptive behaviour by taking them out of contact with their non-autistic peers.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, unlike the member opposite, I am not going to purport to be an expert in autism. I can understand where it is easy to stand up and make sweeping statements about segregation and about what the best method of serving an autistic child and family is, but I'm not (a) qualified or (b) prepared to do that.

The member opposite is actually criticizing parents today who have come and been prepared to stand up to say: "The system doesn't work for my child." Perhaps the member opposite would like to meet with some of those parents and point out that from his perspective, the autism model that should work for their children is this or that. I'm not prepared to do that.

The member opposite talks about leadership. Leadership is actually having the courage to challenge the status quo from time to time and say: "You know what? Maybe, just maybe, there are some children who we could serve differently in public education" — with all due respect to the member opposite.

He talks about silent meetings and one meeting. Well, for the member's information, I have spent the last year visiting 49 school districts in British Columbia and have met with hundreds of parents and organizations. To suggest that this was an "off the back of the envelope, we had one meeting" discussion is absolutely irresponsible and inaccurate.

There are parents in this province for whom the current system does not work, so let me reiterate and clarify. We are not moving away from inclusion in British Columbia. It's an important principle, and to those parents who choose that model for their children: we support that, we will continue to endorse that, and that will be the model of delivery for children in this province.

But that doesn't meet the needs of all children, and it's unfortunate that in this discussion the member opposite has chosen to single out an autism school. We're talking about opportunities much broader than that. I think it's because that's the sensational discussion. This is about culture and art and sports and technology and trades and perhaps — perhaps — a new approach for children with special needs in this province.

That's what leadership is about. It is about challenging the status quo, meeting the needs of children in new ways. We're going to listen to parents who have views on both sides of the argument.

D. Cubberley: I certainly agree that it's about challenging the status quo. The status quo that needs to be challenged the most is the status quo in the minister's mindset and the minister's office and the Ministry of Education about the adequacy of current funding and approaches for special needs kids within an inclusive classroom.

It may have gone past the minister that I was actually quoting from somebody who is part of the group lobbying the minister for this avenue — the one that she is promoting — thinking about change. I was inviting her to think back one level, which was presented by this very person, who said it's not the best approach. The best approach is to reform the inclusive classroom. That's the point that I want to make.

The other point I want to make…. Nothing that the minister has said so far has spoken directly to this to assure me in any way, shape or form that it's not the case. It would appear that one of the impacts or a potential outcome from this amendment is that it would enable the creation of charter schools in British Columbia. That, in turn, would begin to enable possibilities for more fully funding independent schools.

I do not believe that because an independent school has a direct relationship with the Minister of Education and has funding provided directly by the minister, that it is somehow operating within the public education system. To me, that doesn't mean anything. A company could come along with a proposal to operate a model school of any kind, and the minister might think that's a good idea. There appeared to be some interest in the idea being floated by the former minister which, as I understand, was a business proposal.

Nothing that has been said in any way, shape or form closes off the possibility that this will be the wedge that allows the possibility of the creation of charter schools in B.C. I have to say — not unlike the piece of material that we dealt with on Bill 22, which opens up the possibility of vouchers — that this opens up the possibility of charter schools. That is the full-meal deal. There we have the beginnings of the American-style education system.

Hon. S. Bond: Yesterday it was vouchers; today it's charters. The answer is no to that and no to this. The fact of the matter is that we have children who are not being served well, from their parents' perspective, in British Columbia. Our job is to actually find ways to meet the needs of those children, and it needs to be innovative.

I want to make this very clear to the member opposite. He made the comments about, you know, why we aren't reforming the inclusive classroom. Nothing in this legislation precludes us reforming the inclusive classroom. In fact, inclusion is here to stay in British Columbia, and we're delighted to contemplate how we might reform inclusive classrooms. In fact, our ministry staff works with professionals across the province all the time to do just that.

The good news about this bill is that we are going to lead. We're going to look at how we can begin to look at innovative ways in many areas that would…. This is an enabling piece of legislation. There are no models in place. There are no specific proposals on the table. We're simply looking at: how do we serve the needs of students more effectively in British Columbia?

D. Cubberley: Well it's very interesting. The minister talks about there being nothing preventing us from engaging in leadership to reform the inclusive classroom in British Columbia public schools. But nothing in the legislative agenda in any way, shape or form speaks to that, and many things in the legislative agenda speak to things outside of it. That's the reason why we have the concern that we have.

Politicians always want to put themselves on the side of positive change. It goes with the profession. I think it's almost impossible to avoid it. No one is going to stand up and say: "Hey, I've got a bad idea. We should do this. It's going to make change, and it'll be really bad." But you know, change isn't inherently good, and opposition to change isn't inherently bad. That's not a quote from the member for Saanich South. That's from the Progress Board's report, the last report on public education in British Columbia. They said: change is not always good, and opposition to change is not always bad.

They said something else. I think it was quite profound, and I think the mark has been missed in every piece of legislation that government has brought before this House this session regarding education. They said that in public education you are not going to make lasting change — change that will be accepted, embraced and adopted by all those who are stakeholders in the system — unless you involve the stakeholders in designing the changes.

The history of it in this province is that if you don't involve people in what it is you're trying to do and if you're not open about what it is you're actually trying to do, chances are there's going to be a lot of opposition to your ideas for change.

What I'm hearing from what is in front of us now does not give me any comfort at all that what I've invoked as worst-case scenarios is not exactly what is being contemplated through the changes that are proposed in this bill.

Symbolically, I'm going to venture to propose an amendment to delete section 37, 168(2)(a).

D. Cubberley: I think the Clerk should be allowed to consider it, in the interests of fairness and democracy.

D. Cubberley: It sounds as though it's possible, even though there was skepticism to begin with. This originates in skepticism and in the wisdom that is revealed in the Progress Board report to the minister and the Premier regarding the future of public education in British Columbia.

This is far-reaching change that's being proposed. This is not inconsequential. It's not housekeeping, as we heard the other day with another not inconsequential piece of change. This is not housekeeping.

This is the beginning of profound change, and it is change without discussion. It is change without consultation. It is change without any attempt, other than with meeting with a few select interests behind closed doors, to discuss possibilities that are enabled by removing this element of control.

D. Cubberley: I know it's difficult to hear this. I know it's difficult to hear it, but think how difficult it will be for the people of British Columbia to experience it if we let it go without opposition. We're not going to do that. We know you've got the jets, and we're unlikely to succeed. But we think it's important because this is fundamentally changing things without public discussion, and that's not a virtue.

That's something that we're here to look at and say: "Hey, we see that happening, and that's probably not a very good idea." If we were to embrace it or allow it to happen and say nothing, what we're doing is taking it on trust, and quite frankly, the track record does not argue that we should take anything on trust with regard to the management of public education.

The amendment is moved for those reasons, and that's why I support it. I would urge government members to desist from moving in this direction without public discussion, but I suspect they may not.

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

Hon. G. Hogg: The very bright, articulate and attentive students who are here today are from the vaunted White Rock Elementary School, which is also the school that I attended. They are here with parents, and it's a very good school.

Hon. G. Hogg: They tore down the other one. They've built a new one since I was there.

These wonderful students from White Rock Elementary school are here to learn about government. Their teacher Deborah Thorvaldson and many parents and attendants are with them.

They answered a number of very difficult questions, and they also were very good with a light sabre — being able to do that. Would the members of the House please make them feel most welcome.

Bill 20, School (Student Achievement Enabling) Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time on the following division and passed:

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate of Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007.

Hon. P. Bell: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House an individual who has entered his 52nd year today, the Minister of State for Mining. I would ask that the House please congratulate him on this special event, his 52nd birthday.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; H. Bloy in the chair.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move the amendment to section 0.1 standing in the name of the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services in the orders of the day.

L. Krog: I appreciate the enthusiasm of the members here today to get through this. My question is simply this: what's the purpose of bringing in this section?

Obviously, the section is placing a requirement on municipal government. I'm wondering: is this driven from the municipalities? Is this driven from government? And if so, what's the purpose of it?

Hon. I. Chong: I do have some staff who will be joining me if we need further clarification, but I think I can provide the member the following. It's just to add a requirement for municipalities to include in their financial plans their objectives and policies regarding their tax policy disclosures, so it is for municipalities.

L. Krog: To repeat my question to the minister: was this driven as a request through perhaps the UBCM and municipal government in general, or is this driven by the government?

Hon. I. Chong: It is a government initiative. Again, the purpose for this new section is to allow for more disclosure of the financial plan and for the public to have an opportunity to see some of the objectives of the municipalities in terms of their tax or where their tax revenues are anticipated to come from. So it is about more disclosure and more information for the public.

L. Krog: On section 3, which is a fairly substantive section…. Does this expand the abilities of local government with respect to tax-exemption programs? For instance, I'm thinking of the example in Nanaimo where the council has given tax breaks to landowners downtown in order to encourage the development of secondary suites and rental units to encourage people to live in the downtown core.

Is this driven by government, or is this a request from the UBCM or municipal governments?

Hon. I. Chong: Before I begin, I do want to just very quickly introduce some of the staff that I have with me and joining me now. I have Ms. Rena Bindra, Mr. Brian Walisser and Ms. Nicola Marotz, who have been assisting in the legislation that is before us.

I can say to the member that as the member is aware, currently municipalities use revitalization tax-exemption policies that are in place. This was brought forward as a result of some discussions that have taken place.

Municipalities are interested in broader authority to provide tax exemption for a variety of purposes. Just as an example, I would like to say to the member, there can be encouraging environmental revitalization as a possibility and encouraging revitalization in the downtown core as another example.

I think the member may recall that a number of years ago there was a revitalization program that municipalities had. There had been discussions with them, but they were very general. I can say, then, we brought this forward as a government initiative. We have had consultation with UBCM, and they are aware of it and have not indicated any concerns raised.

C. Wyse: My question regards the removal of, not having a designated area required — making it blanket. It removes the defined area so that it becomes wide open.

My question to the minister is: with that broadening of the selectivity with the removal of any defined area being there, does that open up the possibility for little restrictions so that therefore the bylaw then ends up being misused?

Hon. I. Chong: I would like to point out that currently if a municipality wants to continue to designate an area, they continue to do so. This section will allow a municipality to have a broader scope or broader authority if that is what they choose to do.

In terms of how to set this in motion, I guess, municipalities would still have to follow some basic steps, and that is, to have the program bylaw in place, which then would also require notice to the public. There would have to be an agreement as to the terms of how this particular exemption could take place.

It doesn't require any changes. Municipalities who are currently using this exemption, this revitalization section, if they choose to use it in the way it currently is…. But it does provide an opportunity. It's another tool for local governments if they wish to broaden the ability to look at areas beyond the designated area.

If I heard her correctly, this initiative has been ministry-driven. So my question is: with the answer that has been given, has her ministry considered the possible effect that TILMA — the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement — may have upon the

Hon. I. Chong: As he knows, TILMA does prohibit investment that distorts business subsidies. It does not prohibit municipalities from promoting the social, economic and environmental well-being of their communities.

As I've indicated, this allows municipalities an additional tool for how they use this section. Municipalities are free to use the revitalization tax exemption tool in a number of ways, or they could choose not to. That is still up to the municipality.

C. Wyse: Thank you. My apologies if I wasn't direct enough. My question is: has the ministry considered this proposed change underneath the TILMA agreement?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes. Consideration, of course, was taken regarding TILMA. Again, I would say that what TILMA does is prohibit an investment-distorting business subsidy. This does not prohibit municipalities from promoting their particular objectives in terms of well-being, the environment and revitalization in their communities. So if the member is suggesting that it violates TILMA, that is not the case.

C. Wyse: TILMA is governed by the enactment of legislation, and the challenges come after the horse is out of the barn, so to speak.

My question once more is: will this removal of a defined area increase the likelihood, if you like, of challenges? Because the bylaw has now become more open-ended and therefore with less specificity, does it increase the chance of TILMA challenges being made?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, TILMA is not about limiting a municipality's ability to do what is in the community's best interest and the public's best interest. TILMA does not constrain a local government's ability to establish or maintain bona fide, non-discriminatory measures, such as bylaws.

As I've indicated, this legislation merely expands the tool that currently is available to municipalities to ensure that those municipalities can and will continue to have the authority they need to do what is in their communities' best interest and the public's best interest. That is what TILMA permits.

C. Wyse: Is it possible that underneath the proposed amendment, then, this exemption could apply to one specific property only within a municipality?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to be clear on the question. He makes reference that it may apply to a specific property, but as it currently stands, the nature of tax exemptions currently are such that they can apply to individual properties or organizations. As he is aware, specific tax exemptions can be applied to charitable organizations for the work that they do, and to specific church organizations as well. Currently that is already in place in the tax exemption policy.

C. Wyse: I'm aware of other legislation that exists, but I'm attempting to ask my questions around the proposed part, which is Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, dealing with the revitalization tax exemption specifically.

My question once more is: given the proposed amendment with the removal of the requirement for having a defined area for the revitalization, is it conceivable that a single property could end up receiving the revitalization tax exemption — and only one property receiving it?

Hon. I. Chong: Currently under section 226 of the charter, a single property within a designated area can already receive the tax exemption, so nothing has changed in that regard. It's just the ability to eliminate the requirement to designate an area and the properties within that area.

I hope that clarifies it for the member on his question, as I say, as it refers to a single property. That is currently able to take place under section 226.

C. Evans: It's my understanding that by passing this section, we're bringing into force the capacity of a person who applies to the right-to-farm process and receives a judgment to have that judgment enforced as if it were an order of the Supreme Court. Is that essentially correct?

C. Evans: Then the real question becomes: what is the appeal mechanism, should the person who the order is imposed upon object to the process of the order having been made or to the content of the order itself?

Hon. P. Bell: It would be the normal appeal process through the Supreme Court that is already in place today. That would be the appropriate appeal mechanism in the event that the individual wanted to challenge the decision.

C. Evans: I am not a lawyer, so I do not understand very well the normal appeal process. It is my expectation, however, that it is only possible to appeal a judgment of the Supreme Court on the basis of process. In other words, you have to suggest that somehow the court process was lacking. You cannot, as is my understanding, appeal the judgment itself. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: Judgments of the Supreme Court can be appealed either on a point of law or on a point of evidence, depending on the circumstances of the

case. The appeal from the Supreme Court lies to the Court of Appeal for British Columbia. Most appeals that are heard in the Court of Appeal are based on points of law. However, it may well be argued that the verdict of the court below the trial court was contrary to the evidence.

C. Evans: I will ask my question either of the minister or the Attorney General, whoever wishes to answer. We are coming now to my concern. The judgment that we are interested in is a judgment that has been passed by the farm practices review board. If the review board makes an order which is considered inappropriate but there is no failure at law or in evidence — it is the order itself which is considered inappropriate — am I correct, then, in assuming that there is no possible appeal?

Hon. P. Bell: Section 8 actually provides for an appeal of a decision of the Farm Industry Review Board.

L. Krog: Noticing the amendment that's in the name of the minister with respect to section 42(c), which makes a change to section 86(3) of the Motor Vehicle Act, and this section adding the definition of "leased motor vehicle," I take it that the purpose of this is to attach liability to lessees, as well, for liability arising out of motor vehicle accidents. Is that the general theme of this?

Hon. J. Les: What this section does is create liability when the lessee lends a vehicle to a third party.

L. Krog: I take it that essentially what we're doing now is on lending done with consent and approval, as opposed to having the vehicle taken out of the lessee's hands by someone who either steals it or doesn't have consent or implied consent. Is that correct?

L. Krog: I take it that what we're really trying to do with a number of these sections, though not all of them, is to enable plaintiffs who would otherwise not necessarily be able to recover in a motor vehicle action to now be able to recover from the lessee or the lessee's insurers, as the case may be.

Hon. J. Les: I think I can answer the member's question this way. These several sections really serve as consequential amendments to section 18, which will follow shortly.

L. Krog: This is the section that causes great concern for the trial lawyers of British Columbia, for those who represent plaintiffs and others. The section essentially appears to restrict the ultimate liability of lessors of vehicles to $1 million, which is a lot of money to most people. To anyone who was injured in a serious accident where they suffer catastrophic injuries, if this is the only pool of funds available for recovery and you're a paraplegic, a claim that would be worth $3 million or $4 million or $5 million will now be restricted to $1 million.

Hon. J. Les: In the way the member opposite put the question, I think he tends to leave the impression that there would only be a million dollars' worth of liability protection. That is in fact not the case. It is a million dollars' of protection that is provided by the lessor. The lessee would carry their usual insurance, as any owner of a vehicle would do.

Just by way of background, perhaps, there are several types of operators of vehicles on the roads. There are those who own their vehicles outright. The only insurance they carry is the insurance that they in fact have bought — the usual third-party liability insurance, with or without the additional optional insurance package that is available.

On the other hand, about 40 percent of the operators of vehicles on B.C.'s streets and roads today actually lease their vehicle. That is what we're talking about here. They would buy their usual insurance as everyone else does. In addition to that, the lessor remains liable for damages as well, to the extent of a million dollars.

L. Krog: So I'm clear, what it effectively means is that if you have a lessee of the vehicle who is carrying what I will call inadequate insurance — a million dollars' third-party liability — and a plaintiff is injured by that lessee, and the claim is worth $5 million…. Assuming the lessee is not a multi-millionaire from west Point Grey or something, then their recovery will be limited to the million dollars. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: Again, that hypothetical situation, as put forward by the member opposite, would not be different than if it were an outright owned vehicle that was being operated. In this particular case, that million dollars of liability on behalf of the lessor would be available. In addition to that, the victim would also be protected by the underinsured motorist plan that is available to other victims as well.

L. Krog: As I understand it now, the leasing companies, generally speaking, require a significant amount of insurance themselves in order to protect themselves, and this in fact will enable them to reduce the cost of doing business. That is what I understand the effect of this section to be — that leasing companies who carry insurance on their fleet, who lease them out, will now be able to buy cheaper insurance, if you will,

because their claims will be limited to $1 million, as opposed to what they might well do in practice now. Am I correct in that?

Hon. J. Les: What this actually does, and I'm sure the member understands this, is it removes an unlimited liability. This has been recognized in quite a number of jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, in North America today it is only British Columbia and Alberta that allow this unlimited liability situation. Ontario very recently passed legislation that limited lessors liability to a million dollars. Two years ago, I believe it was, in the United States the liability was completely eliminated on behalf of lessors.

Currently, British Columbia and Alberta are out of step with the rest of the continent. We could have moved to eliminate liability entirely, but to keep us sort of in step with one of the major provinces in Canada, we decided to leave the liability on behalf of lessors at $1 million.

L. Krog: What I think I'm hearing from the minister is that the insurance industry in the United States, which has a great friend in George Bush in the White House and hates trial lawyers, has been able to secure passage of laws that will in fact protect the insurance industry, who otherwise would have faced significant claims to the leasing companies that they insured. What we're really doing here is coming into line and harmonizing with American government policy in order to protect leasing companies.

I mean, the effect of this essentially is: if I'm a plaintiff who has a significant claim and the insurance carried by the lessee has been inadequate and my claim exceeds that, formerly, prior to the passage of this section as it's proposed, I would have been able to go after the leasing company for my $8 million claim. Now, with the passage of this, I will face a limit of either the million dollars from the leasing company, if that's what they're carrying, or a million dollars from the lessee. But that's it, and I will kiss off $7 million of my claim.

That's what I understand the effect of this section to be. The minister can tell me if I'm right or wrong.

Hon. J. Les: With all of the different scenarios that are being painted by the member opposite we have to remember this, that it is pretty common practice in our society today for people to so-called lease vehicles. What in effect is happening is it's really an alternative mechanism for financing the purchase of that vehicle.

With this legislation the owner of that leased vehicle will be treated substantially the same, and their victims will be treated substantially the same, as in the case of an outright owner of a vehicle, or where the owner of that vehicle goes to the bank and obtains the financing.

Let's put aside all of the little theories here. The essence of this thing is that for people, if they are a victim, it is going to make little difference whether they are the victim of a leased vehicle owner or the owner of a vehicle that owns the vehicle outright.

L. Krog: I understand that we are now guaranteeing a class of owners or drivers, the lessees, who will be liable to plaintiffs who are victimized as a result of their driving. But the effect of section 18, which is the section we're dealing with, is to now change the law so that the leasing company that used to have unlimited liability will now have that liability limited to a million dollars and will thereby be in a position to reduce the cost of doing business because they won't have to carry insurance for an unlimited liability anymore. They'll only have to carry insurance sufficient to satisfy the million-dollar limit, as set out in this section.

Hon. J. Les: Clearly what this legislation does is put the onus of liability more or less squarely on the shoulders of the lessee. Whether or not it reduces costs in respect of leasing companies is purely speculative.

L. Krog: With the greatest respect to the hon. minister, I don't think even he could say that last one with a straight face entirely and suggest that he doesn't appreciate this will have exactly that effect. It will reduce the cost of doing business to the leasing companies and place potential plaintiffs in a horrible situation where they will not have a fund of money to recover from, which normally would have been available to them.

The fact is that the minister well knows this section is a gift to the auto industry. This is a gift taken out of the pockets of potential plaintiffs, who will now see their potential claims limited in a way that has never been limited before, notwithstanding what the minister says about how it happens in the great U.S. of A. to the south of us or in provinces other than Alberta and British Columbia.

At the end of the day, this is about a gift to the auto industry. The minister knows it, and I'd just like him to stand in this House and tell me with a straight face that he believes this will not reduce the cost of doing business for leasing companies.

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure if there's another way of saying it, but clearly — and I'll try this one more time — this aligns responsibility of the operation of a motor vehicle with the actual owner of that motor vehicle. If it reduces costs, the member might want to speculate on that. I understand completely the point he's trying to make, but I'm not going to engage with him on a round of speculation.

L. Krog: I appreciate that the minister may not wish to engage in speculation, but I would remind the minister that there are a number of people in this province who will happily review the Hansard records of the comments here today in the debate.

At the end of the day, this is indeed about a gift to the auto industry. This is indeed about limiting the

ability of plaintiffs in this province to recover in a way that has never been the law previously. I think it is, frankly, a horrible, backwards step, because the kinds of claims we're talking about are not simple whiplashes.

We are talking about the most catastrophic of injuries where people will face horrible lives, where they will be paraplegic or quadriplegic, and require enormous and significant care. These are the people who are being most seriously affected by the passage of this section. It is for that reason that the opposition simply could not support passage of this section. I think the minister well knows that.

C. Evans: It is my wish that sections 22 through 40 not pass at this time. I was advised by the Clerk that the appropriate way to express that was to rise at this point, less with a question than with a statement, and then vote against the passage of this section. That's what I'll do, because it's what the Clerk told me to do.

I will close my comments with an open-ended question for the minister. Can he give me comfort that I'm wrong…? Maybe the minister could be prepared to listen to my comments with an eye to telling me where I've got it wrong.

The Chair: Member, were you referring to section 23, then, which was part 1.1, "Integrated Land and Resource Registry"?

C. Evans: I'm kind of under the impression that sections 22 through 40 are all connected to the Land Act, but I am only rising to speak on section 22, unless it is the advice of the Clerk.

C. Evans: Hon. Chair, here's what I think is happening. A few years ago we in British Columbia moved to put the mining industry, which historically was a paper registry, on line, on the Internet. Workers within the government were challenged to find a way to make it possible to apply for mineral tenure exploration rights on line.

Some of those government employees came back and said: "You know what? We're doing this, but it would actually be just as easy to put all government tenuring rights on line. How about if we proceed?" The order was given to the civil service to proceed, and a couple of years ago the mining part was finished. It became possible to apply for mineral tenure on line, which is quite a wonderful thing to lots of my constituents and lots of people in the province.

It does, however, have the ramification that it is now difficult for people without computer skills to compete in applying for mineral tenure with companies or individuals who have excellent skills on the computer and who can apply for tenure faster or more competently or from greater distances than the old prospector with the stake and a piece of paper.

A few weeks ago I was invited quite kindly by the minister's staff to come and learn about the new provincial registry, which is called the integrated land and resource registry. What's going to happen, as I understand it, is that applications for grass, water, foreshore, timber, logging road or generally rural road access — essentially all tenuring rights, contractual rights with the Crown for land or resources inside British Columbia — will move to an electronic registry.

The staff showed it to me, and I think it's a wonderful thing. I was thinking about it from the standpoint of being an MLA. I was thinking: well now, when a citizen comes into my office and says, "I'm really worried about some guys applying for a woodlot in Percy Creek, my water right's on Percy Creek, and I wonder if they're going to conflict," and at some point I'm going to be able to punch in a bunch of numbers, and there's going to come Percy Creek onto my screen.

I'm going to say, "Yep, sure enough, there's an application," because it will show applications for Crown tenure or roads or water. If somebody comes in and says, "I have irrigation rights on this creek, there's a subdivision downstream, and they're applying for my irrigation rights," we'll be able to punch it in and, right in our constituency office, help a citizen to find out if that possible conflict is true.

In preparation for this speech, this moment, I went to my constituency office. You know, I asked the minister a question last year in question period: would he make it possible for us in our offices to have access to this system? He said: "Sure."

C. Evans: Well, at any rate, he said he'd take it on notice, and then he sent a civil servant to me who said: "I'm here for the minister to help you." We went to Nelson and typed all the numbers in, and we couldn't make it work. That's not the minister's fault. We just couldn't make it work.

After I met with staff on the basis of all of this, I went to my house. I typed in all of the numbers, and I couldn't do it from my house either.

Here's what I think is happening. A wonderful thing, a wonderful tool, has been invented by the excellent technology staff in the employ of the provincial government. It is going to make it possible for us as MLAs or rural communities or ranchers or first nations or anybody to keep track of what, I think staff said, are 7,000 applications a week — is that right? — for various forms of Crown tenure, from grassland to mineral rights.

If somebody applies to put a summer cabin on the lake and wants to put in a dock, that's an application for Crown tenure. If somebody applies to get a wood-

lot, that's an application for Crown tenure. All of that is going to be available on the Internet.

I think that's a wonderful thing. I appreciate the government for having built the system, and I appreciate staff for trying to show it to me — which, by the way, they can, so long as you're here in Victoria.

What I object to, what it feels to me is going on, is kind of like when Gutenberg invented the typesetting process for the Bible. For a small period of time, maybe a century or something, only the church had access to written material.

We are creating a system on the Internet that's changing forever how rural people have access to government, but in the majority of the communities that those of us who are rural members represent, the citizens won't have access to the system. I'm sure that the minister will say: "Oh, that's okay. You can still go down to the government office. You can talk to somebody, and they'll help you."

That's true, but the government office where I live is in Cranbrook, which is — what? — six hours from most of the people's homes. Never mind that. We can still drive to Cranbrook. But the faster it becomes electronic, the better the chance that some company in Vancouver is going to be good at it.

I'm 59 years old. They're going to hire some 23-year-old, and they'll go da-da-da, Bob's your uncle, and they're going to have water rights on my mountain, because I haven't even figured out how to get in yet. I can't get in from my home. The 23-year-old is literate. The government is changing literacy.

I have a list here of all of the rural communities — research staff prepared it for me — that are not connected to high-speed Internet at present. I'm not going to read it to you because we're limited for time, but if you go through the list, it says my community is connected.

I don't know a single person in my community that is connected. Why is it on the paper? It's because the Winlaw School is connected, so according to the government list of who is connected, Winlaw is connected. So if you're in grade 6 and you go to the school, you're connected.

If you're anybody else, you'll never look up your water rights or your grazing lease. People will be applying for timber on the mountain, and you're not going to be able to participate. Even if you argue that we could drive to Cranbrook and talk to a real live human being and fill out a piece of paper and talk about grass or water or timber or roads, I would argue that the business with the 23-year-old kid in New York will have more access than rural people to 7,000 tenures a week.

We have invented a beautiful thing, just like Gutenberg's Bible. It's like a wonderful thing, but we're saying that not everybody is going to have it. Is that okay? If you have contracts and if you have to sign a contract, wouldn't it be good if everybody knew how to read? Well, it's the same thing. We're making a contractual system with the government.

Sections 22 through 40 are wonderful. I'm in favour of every single one of them. But I want my…. I like the staff that built it; I like the system; I like the whole thing. I just don't like it that my folks don't get to play — or anybody else's rural people.

There's money…. There are millions, billions of dollars at play, and 60 percent of the wealth of the province actually comes out of the ground. It doesn't get earned in buildings like this. It doesn't get earned within 20 miles of this place. It's trees and water and hydroelectricity. It's grass, it's ore, it's gas, and it's all in contract with the Crown. It's not here, and we're not going to have access to the thing.

Hon. Chair, I'll finish this speech. I see that I'm losing your attention, and I thought that I was talking real life. Honestly, I did. I'll stop now.

My question to the minister is simple. Is anything that I just said not true? If it is true, could we agree to hoist this section of this bill until the very rural communities that are engaged with this legislation have access to the system that puts it into power?

Hon. P. Bell: I hate to be a bearer of bad news for the member, but a number of the things the member has suggested are not accurate. I'll start out by saying that the member had suggested a linkage between Mineral Titles Online and the integrated land and resource registry.

Those are two totally separate projects that were initiated at different points in time, and the only linkage between those two different registries is that they are interlinked in MTO. Mineral Titles Online does download to the integrated land and resource registry and is one of the more than 260 interests that are registered on that registry.

I will just reaffirm to the member…. The member had asked at the end of the last spring session if we would make that service available to MLAs around the province. I jokingly took the question on notice, given the length of time that it took the member opposite to get the question out and the fact that we were well beyond our 30-minute question period. But we did provide that service to the member and continue to do so.

I would point out to the member, as well, that in no way does this legislation limit the responsibility or the ability of each of the individual registries to continue to maintain their body of information. So the body of information that would be held by each of the different agencies…. As an example, the Ministry of Environment would maintain the water registries. They still maintain that information, and it's still available to citizens around British Columbia.

What the integrated land and resource registry does, as the member opposite pointed out, is provide the ability to overview a particular piece of land and see what sorts of different tenures are applied on that specific piece of land. It is not interactive in that you cannot lay another tenure on top of that at that point.

You cannot apply for a tenure through the integrated land and resource registry. It is simply a registry that allows someone to look at a particular piece of land and try and determine what sorts of overlapping tenures there may be on the land base.

I respect the member's comments with regards to the need to expand high-speed Internet throughout the province. I represent a number of small rural commu-

nities, including Tsay Keh and Kwadacha, which are both very, very small communities; Mackenzie, which has some high-speed Internet services; McLeod Lake, which has limited services; Bear Lake, which I don't think has high-speed. Well, they may now in the school system but not in other places.

There are many communities that I represent that don't have access to the level of high-speed that we would like to see. But I don't see that as a reason to not move forward on these amendments at this point in time.

I might also point out to the member opposite that what we are doing in this particular piece of legislation, other than a few housekeeping exercises, is simply requiring all agencies to post their information on the integrated land and resource registry. All of those agencies are within government, so the regulations we are applying here apply to only the different agencies and organizations within government. What this legislation does is ensure that when an individual looks at the integrated land and resource registry, they know they have a complete set of information as opposed to perhaps a partial set of information.

That's the real strength and importance of this particular piece of legislation. It ensures that when an individual goes on line and looks at the information on line, they have the full body of all different forms of interests on the land identified within that specific image. That is the value.

I hope that's helpful for the member opposite. I respect his comments around the need to continue to expand high-speed Internet services around the province, and certainly that's one of the objectives of this government.

C. Evans: I don't take issue with anything the minister said. I just take issue with the judgment that falls out of it.

I was raised in a different era, where power was money or guns or government or something. Today everybody says that information is power. What we're doing here is we're going to create a wonderful access to information that the people who live there can have, which means power is going to shift to the folks who have access, which I would argue is primarily the corporate sector, more urban folks, institutional folks.

The minister says that the rationale for this change is government ministries themselves trying to do a good job. Well, good. We need to stop it, because if you don't stop government from doing its job, they'll never care about connecting the rural people. The only way to make the government care about connecting the rest of the isolated communities to high speed is if government can't do its job.

They aren't going to do it out of largesse. They aren't going to wake up one morning and go: "Oh, those people matter." They're certainly not going to do it because it makes any difference to elections. It's a demographically forgotten group of people that make no difference to anybody except those of us who represent those folks.

This piece of legislation will shift power to people who can have access to the information. The minister is completely right. You can still apply through other systems. Ministries will still keep information, but power will be on that machine in places like this building and not in our homes, not on our ranches and not out there in some prospector's shack. We are going to change power and put it in institutions and in cities by this legislation.

The only way I see to stop government is for the minister to say: "You know what? I represent those people out there on the land. Those are my constituents, as Minister of Agriculture and Lands, and so I'm going to stop government from doing what it wants until we can all participate." That's the other part of the minister's job. That's his constituency — those folks out there on those ranches and those people out there in those apple orchards. We need to say to government: "You can't change until we can all change with you."

I think you should move this section, and I'm going to vote against it. Maybe if there are enough of us, we'll vote it down. It could be that the minister will now see his job differently, as representing all those rural folks, and say to government: "Stop till we're ready."

Hon. P. Bell: I would just point out to the member that this government has made significant progress on creating opportunities for rural communities to access high-speed Internet and that we continue to do that work. I think it would not be appropriate to allow this key initiative, something that's very important, to not go forward at this point in time, noting that over the next number of years certainly we're going to see virtually every small rural community in B.C. connected.

Hon. J. Les: I move the amendment to section 42 of Bill 35, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, standing in my name on the orders of the day.

L. Krog: Just to confirm that in light of the discussions in this chamber earlier today around these sections, this is in fact just the consequential section in the amendment necessary in order to bring into effect the extension of liability to lessees in making them owners within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act?

C. Wyse: Knowing our time limit, a question. Between these next two sections, changes require Vancouver as well as municipalities to develop and dispose municipal policies in relation to revenue sources, distribution of property value taxes and the use of permissive tax exemptions. My question is: could this make it harder in the future to justify any form of progressive taxation, since every source of revenue and expenditure must be itemized and tied to a particular policy and objective?

Hon. I. Chong: Just perhaps for clarification for the member, the sections and the changes to the Vancouver Charter merely allow us to replicate the same sections that are in the Community Charter. As the member will know, the Vancouver Charter, being its own charter…. Every time a change is made to the Community Charter, Vancouver wants the same opportunities or tools. We have to bring in the changes to the Vancouver Charter to allow for it. So that there are no other barriers or restrictions that there currently would be if we did not amend the Vancouver Charter, we're replicating what's in the Community Charter.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the information the minister has shared with me. This is a question I possibly should have asked earlier. Because this section simply does what had been done earlier, it provided me with the opportunity, in looking at this section and the next one, to ask that question of the minister. So once more, with that further explanation on my part, does the minister see that having these sections may make it hard in the future to justify any form of progressive taxation since the exemptions are now tied to all these policies I outlined earlier?

Hon. I. Chong: I cannot speculate as to how a municipal council may or may not establish how it wishes its tax policies to be. Simply, though, by providing the public with more information and better disclosure, it is about accountability and ensuring that Vancouver, as well as other municipalities, can develop and report out on their budget processes, their tax policies and their revenue sources, where it may be for the benefit of the public.

Again, I can't speculate on how Vancouver would consider this. I would just imagine that they would feel that they should be consistent with other municipalities.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 35, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2007, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call committee stage debate of Bill 33, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 33; S. Hawkins in the chair.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm grateful for the assistance of Richard Rogers, who is here to assist me.

L. Krog: I simply want to confirm that this is to allow — obviously, as it says — a substitute person. But does it also allow, in fact, for some hearer who has been partway through a tribunal hearing to be replaced by a substitute?

Hon. W. Oppal: What this really does is clarify that the temporary appointment of a member as a replacement for an absent or incapacitated member continues until the member being replaced returns to full duty or the member's term expires, whichever is earlier.

L. Krog: I simply wanted to clarify, and I'm sure it's not the case, but…. If you have a member of a tribunal who has heard half the hearing, becomes incapacitated and can't complete the hearing, this section would not allow their replacement to step in and complete the hearing on their behalf?

Hon. W. Oppal: That's not the intent. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the temporary appointment can continue during a gradual return to work by the appointee being replaced.

L. Krog: This particular section of the bill and others that follow from it are the ones that give the opposition the greatest concern. I need the Attorney General to confirm that the effect of this is essentially to remove access to the Human Rights Code for British Columbians appearing in front of various tribunals that they would otherwise formerly have enjoyed, or at least the opportunity to make that argument that they should have their rights under the Human Rights Code heard at a tribunal.

Hon. W. Oppal: It does not affect the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Tribunal. What it does is clarify the tribunal's jurisdiction to consider human rights matters in response to the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Tranchemontagne v. Ontario.

What it does is create options for a tribunal's jurisdiction over human rights issues. Tribunals to which the option applies will have the discretion to apply the Human Rights Code in their proceedings, including the jurisdiction to consider questions on whether enactments conflict with the Human Rights Code.

What this really is, is a response to a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada that tribunals may decline — may decline — to exercise jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code where the tribunal determines that another tribunal — i.e., the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal — is the more appropriate forum to hear it.

L. Krog: As I understand it — and the Attorney General will certainly correct me if I'm wrong — this appears to be a hammer when you really need a fly swatter to deal with particular issues that were raised in the Tranchemontagne case.

In other words, we are now effectively removing access to the Human Rights Code that would have formerly existed. In other words, you're setting out, particularly further on in the bill in section 43…. It essentially goes beyond the issue and in effect tells tribunals to which it applies that they have to decide cases as though the Human Rights Code didn't exist at all.

This is why I'm making these comments early in the bill. In this section we're essentially laying the groundwork for section 46 of this bill, which I respectfully suggest is a complete overreaction to the somewhat interesting and narrow legal issues — which I can't pretend to understand fully — that were raised in the Tranchemontagne case.

What section 3 does is set out, if you will, three options for how the tribunals can handle Human Rights Code complaints. It can authorize the tribunal to decline jurisdiction and set out what tribunal may consider. It authorizes the tribunal to decline to apply the Human Rights Code and provides that it doesn't have jurisdiction where there's a conflict between the Human Rights Code and any other enactment. Then it sets out at option 3…. It provides that the tribunal does not have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code — period.

Essentially we're setting up a model that may be very clear in terms of how the Human Rights Code will apply in any given tribunal, but it in fact is going to limit the application of the Human Rights Code and the ability of plaintiffs, if you will, before a tribunal to argue issues arising out of the Human Rights Code.

I would appreciate the Attorney General commenting on the record here today whether my understanding is completely off base and I've just received very poor advice on this issue or whether in fact what I've said has some validity.

Hon. W. Oppal: The Human Rights Code still applies. There's no intent at all in the legislation to remove the provisions of the Human Rights Code. What this really does is bring the legislation in line with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. It means that tribunals, in certain circumstances, may decline to exercise their jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code, in the event that that particular tribunal is of the view that the more appropriate forum to hear the human rights violations is the Human Rights Tribunal.

If an issue arises and the administrative tribunal is of the view that the complaint ought to go to the Human Rights Tribunal, then that's where it will go. That is in compliance with what the Supreme Court of Canada stated.

L. Krog: The practical effect of this is that someone who has started their proceeding in front of a tribunal

is now going to be faced with the prospect of having to go through two proceedings or two tribunals, whereas formerly they arguably could have said: "No, we want you to deal with the issue around the Human Rights Code as it applies in my case."

That's what I understand the effect of this section to be. We're now creating, if you will, the necessity for two types of proceedings or hearings, whereas formerly one would have sufficed.

Hon. W. Oppal: There are three options open here to persons who feel aggrieved. What it really means is that it permits certain tribunals to allow the Human Rights Tribunal, which has the necessary expertise, to hear the complaints.

No one will be without a remedy. The complaint of the human rights violation will still be heard. There are three options that will be available here, and they're set out.

L. Krog: Essentially the effect of this, though, is that a number of tribunals as set out in this bill will no longer be applying the Human Rights Code. I wonder if the Attorney General can confirm that that's the case.

Hon. W. Oppal: That's true. But they've never applied it in the past because they had no need to. That's the whole purpose of it — to transfer those issues to the Human Rights Tribunal, which has the necessary expertise.

L. Krog: This section amends the Evidence Act and confirms that electronic images are to be included with the definition of photograph, but the court itself is not obliged to provide any equipment, facility or technology to allow the facilitation of that being introduced into evidence.

My understanding is that the effect of this is that it is simply going to increase the cost of litigation at a time when court filing fees have been rising fairly steadily. The fees that have to be paid for each trial day have risen fairly steadily. I would appreciate the Attorney General simply confirming that we're shifting a cost from the taxpayer onto individual litigants by the passage of this section.

Hon. W. Oppal: No, what it really does is give options. As the member well knows, historically courts have only accepted in evidence original documents. What this does, in keeping with the technological changes, is allow for electronic images and all those other images of documents to be rendered in evidence, to be put into evidence, and kept in the course of an established practice.

They're admissible in the same way as original documents. What it's really doing is bringing technology into the courtroom. We would like to think that that would make matters more efficient by doing that. It doesn't preclude a person from filing an original document.

L. Krog: I appreciate the Attorney General's remarks, but subsection (2.1), which is added to section 35 of the Evidence Act says: "Nothing in subsection (2) requires the government or the court to provide or make available any equipment, facility or technology to allow or facilitate the introduction into evidence of any photograph in any form or format in which the photograph may be tendered as evidence."

Essentially, what it's saying is that you've got to provide your own technology. In other words, it will be up to the individual plaintiffs, as opposed to the court system now, to provide the technology in order for this evidence to be introduced. The effect of this, as I understand it, is to shift the cost from the court system, if you will, on to individual litigants if in fact this technology is not available in the courtroom.

Hon. W. Oppal: No, the intent here is to give statutory authority to the courts to accept this type of evidence as though it was original evidence. There is no statutory authority for the admissibility of that type of evidence. That's what it is.

It doesn't mandate that someone who does not have access to computers or any other form of electronics…. That person is not precluded from filing evidence.

L. Krog: As I read the proposed amendment set out in section 15, essentially this is going to provide for the family maintenance enforcement program to access or demand access to private information that would otherwise have been unavailable to them. Although one can only laud attempts to ensure that moneys that are legitimately owing to parties, whether for child or spousal support, is a good thing…. This is a significant change in the law, as I read it, with respect to private information.

The section sets out that it will include: "…concerns the particulars of the interest in that corporation of the debtor or immediate family member." So we're now extending it into the business interest, if you will, of family members, which otherwise wouldn't have been the case of the law.

I'm wondering if the Attorney General can confirm that my understanding is in fact correct, that this allows for information to be demanded, and presumably penalties to flow from that, that wouldn't have otherwise been available.

Hon. W. Oppal: Before I proceed, I want to acknowledge the presence and the assistance of Jill Dempster and Chris Beresford from the family maintenance enforcement program.

Section 8 currently permits the director to demand information about a payer's location but not a recipi-

ent's, and that can result in a number of difficulties — for example, where the program has received a payment to which a recipient is entitled and the recipient is no longer at the address shown on the program's file.

What this does is permit the director to be able to get information about family violence in order to take into account a risk of violence when deciding what enforcement steps to take. It gives more flexibility to the director. That's what it really does.

L. Krog: My reading of this section is that the court is now essentially going to be able to skip a step, if you will, before it imprisons a debtor that it has determined is capable of complying with the order, who can be imprisoned for up to 30 days. In other words, we'll get them into jail faster, essentially, if they're defaulting. Is that the correct reading of the section?

Hon. W. Oppal: What this really does is permit the enforcement process to kick in, but when the payer is already in court. There's no suggestion here that there's any unfairness involved. This involves a person who is already in court and has defaulted with respect to filing appropriate information, particularly in regard to his or her statement of finances.

L. Krog: As I understand the present practice, if in fact there was an application to imprison someone, it would be heard in a separate way.

The way that I read this section is if I've been brought before the court, am making an appearance and have not provided sufficient evidence to convince the court that I'm incapable of complying with the order, the court then and there, without a further hearing and on the basis of the evidence it has heard that day, can basically put me in jail for up to 30 days.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, yes, that's the purpose of the attendance. It's only when the person is in non-compliance that the option would accrue.

L. Krog: This represents a substantive change in what historically has been the law around joint accounts. It narrows it only for particular creditors — that is, creditors who have court orders for payment of support. If I'm Joe Swartz Lending and I have a judgment against Jim and Jim has his money in his account with his wife Sally, I can't garnish that account presently, and I won't be able to garnish that account as a result of this section. But if I have an order for payment of child support or spousal support and Jim is my ex-husband and he's married to Sally now, then I can garnish that joint account. That's essentially the effect of it.

Hon. W. Oppal: That's a correct assessment of the law. If the member wants us to extend the law to other areas such as the scenario he suggested, we might be able to comply with his suggestion.

To be serious, the purpose of this legislation is to prevent people who are in default of their maintenance obligations from mixing their funds with a new spouse, a new partner, a new friend or someone else — a third party — and take refuge in the fact that the account is a joint account and thereby beyond reach of the maintenance program. The whole purpose here is to assist spouses who haven't been paid and particularly to assist children who are the recipients of the funds.

L. Krog: I may be stretching things only slightly here. Because this is such a significant change, can the Attorney General outline whether this is the practice in other provinces in Canada, and if so, which provinces? Further, is the Attorney General contemplating changes to the law in general that would allow all creditors in British Columbia to enjoy a similar remedy, given that the Attorney General has raised that issue in this chamber?

Hon. W. Oppal: I knew that I shouldn't have ad-libbed like that. The answer to the second part of the question is not any time soon. To the first part it's yes, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario all have similar provisions.

In fact, the amendments that we're seeking here are really to bring us in line with other jurisdictions. It's been suggested, and I would suggest with some validity, that we are lagging behind as far as enforcement programs and enforcement legislation is concerned.

L. Krog: The effect of this section is to now require ICBC, on receipt of notice from the director, to refuse a licence to anyone who owes $3,000 or more. The practical effect of that is essentially that insurance agents will become enforcement tools or mechanisms for the collection of arrears of child and spousal support. I need the Attorney General to confirm that that's what we're talking about when talking about ICBC — that in fact it will involve my local insurance broker when I go in. Is that correct?

Hon. W. Oppal: Yes, the answer is: that's correct. What it does is provide another means by which the family maintenance enforcement program can collect

money from defaulting spouses. I might add that there are other jurisdictions, Alberta and Manitoba, that have similar provisions. In fact, in Australia you can't buy an airline ticket if you're in default.

We're not as draconian as people might suggest. Again, I would point out that the intent of this legislation is to assist spouses, often women who are poor, and children in collecting what's rightfully theirs by way of maintenance.

L. Krog: As much as I'm comforted by the fact that the Attorney General doesn't wish to see 1984 brought into the world and any draconian measures of the kind he's talked about, such as denying airline tickets — which would obviously mean that airlines are receiving all sorts of information they wouldn't otherwise receive — my concern, and it's been raised to me by a number of brokers across the province, is that in the real world most of the front-line folks who sell insurance are women. I would suggest respectfully that most of the people who are paying support orders in this province — and I know the able Mr. Beresford, who is beside the Attorney General, will confirm this — are men.

What the effect of this section will be is that those women on the front lines will face often very angry and, I would suggest, dangerous individuals and will have to tell them: "Gee, sorry, we can't allow you to relicense your vehicle, because you're in arrears."

In a perfect world, if the family maintenance enforcement program were in contact with those individuals ahead of time — therefore they would know they would have no chance whatsoever of getting it renewed, and they wouldn't bother to go into the insurance agent's office — that would be one thing, but I don't see anything in the legislation that says or guarantees that those people on the front lines are, in fact, going to be safe from the kind of potential attack that the insurance brokers are worried about.

In other words, you're in arrears. You've gone up over the magic $3,000 mark. What guarantee can the Attorney General give to those people on the front lines that they're not going to have to be the first person to say to Mr. Smith when he comes through the door — Mr. Smith, who has a record of criminal assault three times, has a volatile temper — that he can't have his licence?

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I can't give any guarantees, obviously, but the questions that have been raised by the member are valid concerns. We've had a number of conversations and meetings with the brokers associations.

I can say this: the safety of a person who works on the front line is really ensured by a notice process. This doesn't happen out of the blue. The family maintenance enforcement program only takes this type of action and seeks this type of remedy after it serves notice and the payers, the defaulters, are apprised of the consequences of non-payment.

Before there are any notices given to ICBC, the program itself will notify the payer twice so that the person who goes to the insurance broker's office well knows what the position is. So it will not be — in any case, it ought not to be — any kind of a shock or a surprise.

I'm advised as well that what happens in these circumstances now is that you don't necessarily have to show up with the money that you're in default of, but you have to make some kind of an arrangement. That's what happens. That's the practice.

L. Krog: Well, for the record, I want it noted that this is a serious concern. I hope the family maintenance enforcement program will take it into consideration and try and ensure that the potential incidents I'm talking about that are of great concern to the literally hundreds of people — thousands, indeed — who work in the insurance industry across this province…will face a very diminished likelihood of them being victimized by people who are going to be very angry about the prospect of not being able to renew their licences. Because in our automobile-driven world, those individuals will presumably require that automobile in order to drive to work to earn money to support themselves.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, you know, in the unlikely event that a person goes to an agent hoping to get their vehicle insured, they can still get a temporary permit. So the agents are permitted to do that. But it's important to note that this procedure, this process, has been in place in Manitoba with identical practices without any incident.

It's been in place in Alberta with, again, identical practices without incident, with a lower threshold in Alberta. The private agents who do vehicle licensing in Alberta have not reported incidents of violence against their staff. In my view, the special temporary permit ought to alleviate any concerns at that stage.

There might well be some angry people turning up, and there's no way of predicting that. But, you know, the real objective here is to assist those people who are recipients against whom there's been a default and, again, mostly poor women and children who are suffering in the circumstances. It's our duty to give the program more strength and to support the program legislatively.

L. Krog: Following what I had to say earlier in the course of committee stage of this bill today, we are now coming into all of those sections which set out tribunals that will not have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code; others that may apply it, but don't have jurisdiction over a question of whether there's a conflict between the Human Rights Code and any other enactment; and tribunals that may only consider application,

I appreciate that we're on section 32, but in fact the next serious sections of the act are the ones that apply this. I raise the point again that the effect of these sections will be that a number of tribunals which might well have had some interest in applying the Human Rights Code will in fact not be able to do so. That will include the director of the Residential Tenancy Act, for instance. So I appreciate that we're on section 32, but in order to assist me in dealing with these sections this afternoon and having regard to the time, I'd like the Attorney General to confirm that what I've just said is in fact true.

The tribunals which will not be able to apply the Human Rights Code whatsoever will be the Agricultural Land Commission, the property assessment review panels, the Property Assessment Appeal Board, the director of Business Practices and Consumer Protection, the Employment and Assistance Appeal Tribunal, the director of employment standards, the Employment Standards Tribunal, director of Manufactured Home Park Tenancy Act, Passenger Transportation Board, Petroleum and Natural Gas Mediation and Arbitration Board, director of Residential Tenancy Act, Safety Standards Appeal Board, superintendent of achievement of the School Act, B.C. Utilities Commission, and the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

Hon. W. Oppal: All those parties were consulted, and we were advised that the issue does not arise in those cases. The most efficient, pragmatic thing to do in the circumstances was to have the Human Rights Tribunal hear those types of complaints, where it's extraneous and where those issues don't arise in the legislative provisions in the acts that the member has alluded to. The bottom line here really is that no person who has a human rights complaint will be deprived of access to a tribunal.

L. Krog: The effect of sections 51 through 54, I take it, is simply to allow now for the mailing of tickets for parking offences and service of these tickets on individuals and corporations outside of the province and to allow for a simple method, if you will, of appearing electronically for prescribed offences. But I take it that the overall effect of these is to simplify the collection of traffic tickets, thereby expediting collection of revenue for the government. Is that correct?

L. Krog: This section allows the chief judge to designate an administrative judge, and I take it that at present that jurisdiction lies with the Attorney General himself. Is that correct?

L. Krog: I wonder if the Attorney General can outline the reasons for the change.

Hon. W. Oppal: Well, I think it's perhaps in furtherance of the principle of judicial independence. The chief judge ought to have the administrative independence to operate the court in the way he or she thinks is effective. I think it's appropriate that the chief judge have the right and the authority to appoint the administrative judges of the court as the chief judge sees fit, rather than have the Attorney General do it.

As it stands now, I'm sure the member knows that the chief judge is appointed by order-in-council. I think this makes good sense, and it reflects the administrative independence of the judiciary.

L. Krog: I couldn't resist standing and asking a couple of questions around this particular section. This allows the chief justice to "require a judge to attend a meeting, conference or seminar for a purpose relating to the administration of justice." It sounds like the bad schoolboy section to this hon. member. Perhaps some of our esteemed judges in the Supreme Court have been refusing to attend the appropriate upgrading to keep them in touch with changes in the law.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm not so sure I really want to touch that question, but in any event, what it really does is offer some consistency between the provincial act and the federal Judges Act. It's there for the purpose of providing funds for such meetings from the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, which is situated federally in Ottawa.

L. Krog: This is the section that basically means that the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal has no jurisdiction to apply the….

L. Krog: Sorry, did I say…? I meant to say 68. This is the section that provides that the Workers Compen-

sation Appeal Tribunal doesn't have jurisdiction to apply the Human Rights Code. Is that in fact the effect of this section now?

Hon. W. Oppal: The member's interpretation is quite correct, primarily because the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal deals with benefits, and human rights issues are not really relevant in the calculation of benefits. That's the reason. It's in the question of relevancy that this amendment is sought.

L. Krog: As I understand it, we have two types of justices of the peace in this province, judicial and administrative. Historically, judicial justices of the peace have included a number of high-profile but not legally trained individuals. I can think of a number of them, including a former leader of my party who was appointed, I believe, by the Social Credit government of the day. Also, one of the most famous writers on the subject of fishing in the history of British Columbia, Roderick Haig-Brown. I see the Attorney General nodding wisely.

I understand as it is now, there is a move afoot — this section deals with the appointment of individuals who have been appointed judicial JPs — to ensure that all JPs are now legally trained and are, in fact, lawyers. I'm wondering if the Attorney General can comment on that.

Hon. W. Oppal: The member's assessment or opinion is quite correct. It is the intention of the chief judge to appoint legally trained people to hear traffic disputes. But section 222 does not deal with that.

The purpose of section 222 is to validate the appointments of certain persons who retired not knowing that they had to be members of the public service. In each case, they retired from full-time work, and then they were reappointed to the courts as judicial JPs on a part-time basis. During that time they've rendered certain decisions, and what this does is validate what they did when they were in that state of legal limbo.

L. Krog: As much as I appreciate it's great to provide work for lawyers in British Columbia, or those who have legal training, the Attorney General raised in his answer to the last question what I understand to be the practice now: the move towards appointing only legally trained people, which in fact will result in a significant increase in expenditure on the taxpayers' part in paying for lawyers or legally trained persons to act as judicial justices of the peace as opposed to individuals who don't have the benefit of legal training.

I'm just wondering if the Attorney General has a concern about that. In other words, by moving to this system, it means the Roderick Haig-Browns of our society — individuals who enjoy enormous respect in their community, to whom people look for trust and judgment, people of great integrity — will no longer be able to do the fairly basic judicial duties that were formerly carried out by judicial justices of the peace, including some of the individuals I've referred to.

Hon. W. Oppal: I have the highest respect for the judicial JPs. I've known many of them who have gone through the system, and I know how diligent and how professional they have been in executing their duties.

However, the law has become more complex, and it is the intention of the chief judge as well as the ministry to eventually have a separate court that will deal with bail hearings. So the issues will become somewhat more complex.

Having said that, it would really be speculative at this stage to conclude that it will be more expensive to have lawyers hearing traffic tickets in the stead of JJPs. My understanding of what the chief judge has told me is that these will be at most part-time appointments so that if there are persons who are doing other things in their lives, they could sit in traffic court and adjudicate those cases on a part-time basis for a less than lucrative stipend.

Hon. W. Oppal: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 33, Attorney General Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

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

H. Bains: I thank the minister and the staff that are present today to help us through the questions. I will be asking questions around the Olympics and Olympics-related items that I think we are all anxiously awaiting.

There are a number of issues that were raised. Because of time constraints, rather than going through a whole variety of issues, we will move quickly into some of the important areas where I believe some questions need to be answered and that are actually key to us having these games delivered efficiently and with accountability and transparency. Because of the lack of time available during these estimates, I will be concentrating on some of the key issues that I believe are very important for the public and for this House to get some answers to.

Quite a bit has been made…. Whether we read the Auditor General's report, the business plan that has been presented, the many media reports or many others, there are folks anxiously waiting to see some answers about the Olympics on the issues of accountability and transparency. They believe that there isn't enough of the accountability and transparency that is needed around these Olympics.

I'll start my questions around that. First of all, the Auditor General clearly indicated in his report that more transparency is needed, saying on page 34 that in his view there isn't enough transparency and that we need more transparency. My question is, first of all, why isn't there…?

One of the areas that I think is identified in there for him to come to that conclusion is that of having a definition around the Olympic-related cost. Had this government done that, I think we probably wouldn't be arguing back and forth and the public wouldn't be arguing with the minister on whether certain costs are Olympic-related or not.

I think other Olympics prior to these Olympics that we will be hosting — whether it was in Torino or in New South Wales, in Sydney — had their definition. So why has the minister or this government decided not to have defined what the Olympic-related costs would be?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll start, hon. Chair, by introducing the staff that have joined me today to support me in these discussions. Annette Antoniak is the president and CEO of the Olympic Games secretariat. Jeff Garrad is the chief financial officer for the Olympic Games secretariat. Doug Callbeck is the ADM for the management services division of the Ministry of Economic Development. We are also joined by Doug Foster, who is with the Ministry of Finance.

Actually, I've tried to be quite clear over this last year that we do have a definition for what the cost is to the provincial government for the staging of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2010. I think that what it really boils down to is that the member and others may disagree with the definition that I have put forward.

I guess everybody has the right to their own definition. I think anybody that wants to can go out and compile a list of things that they think are Olympic-related. I know that the media have done that. I've actually been a little bit amused by some of the things that some of the media reports have included. I know that the member has tried to lump things into things that he feels are Olympic-related. But I welcome that. Anybody can have whatever definition they want.

I think the bottom line is that whatever it is that you want to lump into that Olympic basket, according to your definition or anybody else's definition, the costs are actually spelled out. We're pleased to provide costs of activities that the provincial government is engaged in. If somebody, in their own personal definition, wants to say that that's an Olympic cost, then they can add that in too.

We've made it quite clear that we made commitments prior to being awarded the games. At the time of the bid, we made commitments in the bid documents to the IOC of the things that we would fund by the provincial government. We costed those to $600 million, which included at that time a very healthy contingency of $137 million.

According to all bona fide estimates that I have seen…. Certainly, our estimates are that we will be able to deliver on all of those costs of staging the Olympic Games that we've committed to, and we will do that within our $600 million envelope.

H. Bains: I think it's unfortunate that the minister says that there is a definition, a clear definition. Perhaps in the minister's mind there is a clear definition, but in the minds of the public, in the minds of the taxpayers and, above all…. Not only the mind of the factual information that the Auditor General…. He actually is an independent body of this House — doesn't take sides, isn't supposed to be biased, isn't supposed to be politically motivated.

These are his words. I'll read to you and the minister through the Chair: "The province, however, has not yet developed a comprehensive definition of the Olympic cost." Clearly, either there is no definition, or this definition was not made available to the Auditor General when he was looking into the finances of the Olympics.

My question to the minister is: then is the Auditor General wrong? Or was that definition not made available to the Auditor General?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member also wants to refer to page 54 in the Auditor General's report, he will see the written response from the province with regard to the provincial definition of games costs. I won't read it all, but what it says in there basically is what I said in my previous answer.

I would also point out to the member, if I can quickly find the right page here, that the Auditor General looked at the $600 million envelope and the charges that were against that $600 million envelope. As soon as I find the right page, he will note that there is a…. Here it is. It's on — no. My apologies.

I might not be able to find it quick enough here. What it does is note that we had projected our cost at $600 million for the direct costs of staging the games and living up to our obligations to the IOC. Actually I just found it here — page 41. The first column says that the bid estimate, 2002, in millions of dollars is 600. The second column says: "Estimates provided by the province to the Auditor General in 2006," and shows $600 million. The third column says: "Estimate by the Office of the Auditor General, $600 million." That's in the Auditor General's report from last year.

So I think the bottom line is that we've been totally transparent in terms of all of the costs that the provincial government is incurring within that $600 million envelope. It has been fully disclosed. It's been available through public accounts. There is absolute total transparency. If you want to take the member's definition of what might be Olympic-related costs, or perhaps one of the television outlet's definition, they, too, can make up their own compiled list of what they feel should be in that definition, because all the numbers are available.

Some people will argue and have argued that the Sea to Sky Highway should be included in our costs of staging the Olympic Games. I fundamentally disagree with that, because that's a project that would have gone ahead anyways. But the cost of the Sea to Sky Highway is totally transparent.

If the member wants to include that in his tally, he is welcome to do that, as he is with any expenditure of the provincial government regardless as to what ministry or what field it is. If he wants to come up with a tally of his definition of Olympic-related costs, the numbers are there and he can do that tally.

H. Bains: I think if we stay with what the Auditor General has said in one paragraph, and then certainly we can move to the other areas as well.

After, the Auditor General said: "The province, however, has not yet developed a comprehensive definition of the Olympic cost." Clearly, he didn't say that he disagreed with the definition. He didn't say that he couldn't find it. He said no definition existed. That's what I interpret this statement to be.

Then he went on to say this… The minister continues to say the $600 million envelope. He talked about that as well. He said: "The funding envelope does not include many expenditures that will or may be incurred in connection with the games." That's what the Auditor General is saying. This is an independent party, as I said earlier. This person has no axe to grind with anybody. He has no political motivation to come up with these definitions or these statements.

It is very clearly for the benefit of the taxpayers. He came up with the report, which I think is very comprehensive, in which he did a very good job in defining what the Olympic costs should be. By the minister continuing to stick to the envelope of $600 million, I think that's where the problem will continue to go on and will continue to cloud the public confidence.

The Auditor General and everyone else — every taxpayer out there that actually sees it, feels it, to see what the real cost of the Olympics is — know well that $600 million is not the cost and that it is more like over $2 billion that is decided in here in the Auditor General's report.

The total cost to the provincial taxpayers is $1.9 billion. That's what the Auditor General has said. When you consider all of the costs that have been off-loaded to the municipalities and when you talk about off-loading the cost over to the government-supported institutions such as UBC — he added that up. All of that is in here. It's not $600 million. Clearly he's making a point that this envelope does not cover those costs.

Then he went on to say this. The minister that looked at New South Wales said this: "The definition is consistent with that used by the government of New South Wales in the Sydney 2000 games…." That's what the Auditor General is recommending.

I think the questions continue to be…. Number one, rather than getting into this argument of what is a Olympic-related cost and what isn't a Olympic-related cost, I think the public needs to know how much it's going to cost them, the total, whether they live in Richmond, Vancouver or Vanderhoof. They need to know what their cost is. How many of their tax dollars are being spent to stage these games?

The minister continues to say $600 million. But the Auditor General says that isn't true. I think that's what the public needs to know. Had the minister come up with the definition as New South Wales has done in Sydney, as Torino has done, I think we probably wouldn't be arguing about these costs, and the Auditor General wouldn't be critical of the government, about why they are not including the total cost of the games.

That's what my question comes to again. What is the definition of the Olympics, if there is one existing? Why was it not one presented to the Auditor General? If there is one that exists now, can the minister show us where it is anywhere written, in any of the documents, that that's the Olympic-related costs?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are a lot of inconsistencies in the Auditor General's report, and I will point one out

just as an example to the member. The member used the specific example of the Richmond speed skating oval as something that was going to cost, as he said, the taxpayers of Richmond a whole bunch of extra money. That's actually not the case.

If you go into page 9 of the Auditor General's report, where it lists the capital budgets, it includes not only the provincial government's commitments to that but also the other third parties, as they say.

If you come down to the speed skating oval — as soon as I find it here — it talks about that having a provincial and federal commitment of $60 million. So there is $30 million from the province and $30 million from the federal government. But it then talks about third-party costs of $117 million, for a total of $178 million for the Richmond speed skating oval. You will notice that there is a little footnote 1 beside there.

Let's read footnote 1. It says: "The total projected cost is estimated by the city of Richmond to be $178 million. The amount of $117 million in the table represents Richmond's spending on the facility to enable it to have lasting legacy benefits to the community over and above the cost of having just a speed skating surface ready for the games."

The Auditor General included all $178 million in his grandiose number of $2-point-whatever billion that was. Yet he clearly states in his own footnote that it shouldn't be regarded as a cost of the Olympic Games.

There are a lot of examples like that. I could go through every one of them if you like. But I made it quite clear at the time the Auditor General's report came down that I would have to agree to disagree with the Auditor General in terms of things that he included in these Olympic-related costs.

As an aside, just to complete the story of the Richmond speed skating oval, the mayor and council of Richmond at the time said that the extra costs over and above the cost of building a speed skating oval would not be borne by the property owners in Richmond. The city of Richmond has delivered on that commitment. They said that it would come from extra casino revenues, and they said that it would come from the incremental value in the properties surrounding that new development that they are developing.

They actually, I think, even surprised themselves with what those surrounding properties were able to gain in terms of partly sale and partly long-term lease to a developer that brought into the city of Richmond $143 million.

So the city of Richmond may have put up an extra $117 million to build a facility over and above what was required for a speed skating oval, as acknowledged by the Auditor General. They have more than recouped that by the added value in property that is going to result from that legacy of that fabulous new facility.

H. Bains: If the minister wants to engage in how these facilities are going to be funded and what methods are going to be used, whether it's the Richmond method or some other method, I think we can engage in that. But that's not the question. The question is, first of all, that government has to admit that that is an Olympic-related cost.

Once you do that, I think the public will still support you, Minister. The public will still support you because the public wants to see these games be successful. So do I, and so does the minister. But the issue is transparency and accountability, and that's where the disagreement is.

The minister is telling us that the Auditor General is wrong and the taxpayers are wrong. The only person that believes in those numbers is this minister and the people in his government.

The second argument I would like to bring to the minister's attention is this. If we are talking about how we are leaving legacies behind, then none of that should be considered as Olympic cost because everything will be left behind — with a very few being dismantled and moved way.

You talk about the Nordic centre. You talk about the oval. You talk about anything else. Whatever is being built to stage the games, legacies will be left behind. Those buildings will be left behind. Those sports venues will be left behind. If that's the argument, none of that — not even the $600 million — should be considered Olympic-related costs, because roads will be left behind. Callaghan Valley Road will be there. The buildings will be there. So what is the Olympic cost if that's the argument?

I think the public knows better, taxpayers know better, and the minister knows that they are actually footing the bill for all of those buildings and that this is an incremental cost to the taxpayers because we are hosting the games. That's what the issue is here. The Auditor General recognized that. The Auditor General listed that in the report.

I think part of the reason we are having this argument here, will continue to have this argument and the public will continue to have these questions is because the government failed to come up with a clear definition, as New South Wales and Sydney did and as the Torino Olympic Games did. This government didn't have it. The minister doesn't have it. So that's where the argument is. I think we will continue to have these arguments.

My question was: where is the definition? I haven't got that answer. I don't see it anywhere. The Auditor General didn't see it anywhere.

So I move on to the next question. It's still around transparency and accountability. If the minister and VANOC wanted to keep these games as transparent as they say they are, then why doesn't the minister, on behalf of the taxpayers, make an attempt to have VANOC be brought under the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have this sense of déjà vu here, because I remember the member asking me the exact same question last year during estimates. The answer is going to be exactly the same as it was last year, and that is that VANOC is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation. They are not part of the provincial government. They are not a provincial entity, and

therefore they are not subject to the provincial government's freedom-of-information laws.

VANOC has developed their own policies around transparency. They have actually put far more information out publicly than any other Olympic organizing committee ever has. As I understand it today, there are a bunch of new transparency measures that were approved at the board meeting this morning that they will be rolling out to make it even more transparent than they have been up till now.

If you look at every single cent that is spent by the provincial government in the staging of the Olympic Games and living up to our commitments, every single cent of that is subject to FOI. All of the actions that I take as a provincial government minister with regard to the Olympic and Paralympic Games are subject to the freedom-of-information law.

The activities of the provincial government's Olympic secretariat are subject to freedom of information. All of the expenditures go to public accounts and are there for scrutiny by the member and anybody else that would like to go through those particular reports.

But if I can just go back to the Auditor General's report for one moment before I close off. The Auditor General did not identify one single expenditure that was not already public information — not one single expenditure. He identified a bunch of things that absolutely have nothing to do with the Olympics.

One of the things, for example, was the Olympic station of the Canada line. The only thing Olympic-related of that particular rapid transit station is the fact that the city of Vancouver chose to name it the Olympic station. It will not be used during the Olympic Games. It will not be used to transport our athletes. We're not going to be sending our athletes to the venues on the new RAV line, no matter how…. We know it's going to be a great service, but we also know that our athletes are going to be transported to their venues in nice, brand-new, fuel-efficient, environment-conscious General Motors products as a result of the General Motors sponsorship with VANOC and the Olympics.

I think that when it comes to transparency, as I say, everything we do is transparent. VANOC has established their own policies because they are independent of the provincial government. They have set out a whole bunch of new initiatives which take that even farther.

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister. I think they're independent of the government of British Columbia because this government chose to set them up that way. The federal government chose to set them up that way. They weren't just dropped down. It was the work of this government and the federal government and a number of other people to put together an entity so that we can host the games. At that table it was decided that they probably will be kept outside of the freedom-of-information legislation.

My question to the minister is this: does the minister feel that it should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act?

Hon. C. Hansen: I could throw that question right back at the member. Is he talking about the federal freedom-of-information act or the provincial Freedom of Information Act? Given that this is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation, what would the logic be for us to force them to be subject to the provincial government's Freedom of Information Act?

H. Bains: My question is, then, Minister: are they under a federal freedom-of-information act?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is no. They are an independent, not-for-profit corporation, federally chartered, and they are not part of the provincial government, nor are they part of the federal government.

H. Bains: I think that what I said earlier is exactly what happened. This government and the federal government sat at a table, decided they should not be subject to freedom of information under the federal law or the provincial law. Isn't that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct. It was not the provincial government and the federal government that got together and decided how VANOC should be structured. VANOC is actually structured according to the directions that came from the Canadian Olympic Committee, the Canadian Paralympic Committee and the IOC. It is actually the IOC that initially insisted that VANOC not be subjected to the provincial or the federal freedom-of-information laws.

Aside from that, it simply doesn't make any sense for them to be subject to a provincial freedom-of-information law, given that they are not part of the provincial government or any of its entities.

H. Bains: Well, that's very interesting. So IOC, an outside body, and COC decided that these games should be kept secret from the taxpayers, who will be funding their venue construction to a large extent. And if that venue construction budget — $600 million on the provincial side and the federal government side — had gone over….

The federal government came up with an additional $55 million. Luckily, the provincial government had enough contingency funding to dip into. So there is a real chance that more money would be going in at that time, and in fact it did. Somebody decided that the public will never get to know that part of the funding.

Hon. C. Hansen: When you talk about the venue construction, 50 percent of that is provided by the province. The total is $580 million, which I believe now includes a $55-million contingency still left within that $580 million budget. Fifty percent of that $580 million comes from the province out of our $600 million envelope, and every penny of that is subject to the provincial government freedom-of-information law.

The member is welcome to file any FOI request that he wishes to file. In fact, I would encourage him, if he

has those kinds of inquiries, to first of all phone me. Come talk to me, and I'll try to get the information for him to save him the bureaucracy of going through the FOI process. But all of that information is available; all of that is totally transparent.

H. Bains: My questions continue along this line. Now we will move on to the board and the structure of the VANOC, because I think many people feel, and the Auditor General felt, that there is a veil of secrecy surrounding the decision-making process at VANOC vis-à-vis the board meetings, how the decisions are made.

The public will never find out, unless the minister is prepared to divulge that information here today, what was in the business plan. They called it version one of the business plan, and the minister called a work in progress, I think — words to that effect. The public will never find out what that was because of the secrecy surrounding those board meetings, because it's not FOIable. So my question is: why would the minister not take steps to make those board meetings public?

Hon. C. Hansen: VANOC is a complex organization. We're talking about a $1.6 billion operating budget that they have in place, and they have a lot of decisions to make. They have a lot of complex, commercially sensitive information that comes across that board table, I assume. I have never been invited to one. I'm not sure I would ever get invited to a board meeting.

But when you look at things like the very complex sponsorship agreements that they have, I can tell you those are very commercially sensitive. Just as the caucus meetings of the opposition are held in private so that the opposition can develop its particular positions and then take those publicly as a unified group, the same is true of the VANOC board.

I congratulate VANOC on the fact that they have been open. I know John Furlong has been very accessible to the media and has provided information whenever he can. Just to give you some of the measures that were approved by the board today: first of all, there's a posting of the board of directors meeting agenda on the website in advance of each board meeting. Secondly, it's hosting a media briefing following each board meeting, with the chair, the CEO and other directors.

VANOC will also issue and post to their website a news release of decisions taken at the board meeting. There's going to be hosting of regular press briefings; that will be held monthly throughout 2007.

They will continue to deliver an annual fall update to the board of trade, which will be broadcast across the province and transcripts posted; place a supplement in major newspapers to inform the public of the progress of the games, as outlined in the VANOC business plan; conduct quarterly website on-line forums to ensure that Canadians communicate directly with VANOC.

I think they are making the measures to make sure that the public's questions are being answered and that public information is being provided. But I think they also have the right to get on with the very complex job of getting ready to host the games in 2010.

H. Bains: I will have comments about today's announcement later on. In order to really get to know what's going on behind those closed doors, the board meetings…. This is a publicly funded organization, and taxpayers who fund it actually have the right to see how their tax dollars are spent and how decisions are made on their tax dollars.

If the board meetings are not open — I saw clearly the answer the minister has given — why won't the minister ask them to release the minutes of the board meetings for the last three years?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, those are decisions that VANOC has to make in terms of what they feel is appropriate to help inform the public.

I do want to correct something the member said. The member said that VANOC is being funded by taxpayers. Let's be really clear what is being funded by taxpayers out of the VANOC operating and capital budget.

The capital budget for VANOC is $580 million, and that is being funded 50 percent by the federal government and 50 percent by the province. The rest of the $1.6 billion operating budget is not being funded by the taxpayers. In fact, there is one component of it. The province, out of our $600 million, is putting in $20 million towards the operating budget of the Paralympic Games. That is the only provincial government expenditure that's going into that $1.6 billion operating budget.

The rest comes from revenues that they have to generate. It's coming from the sponsorship revenues which, as the member knows, are way above what they had initially projected. They had projected — what is it? — $435 million. But now they are projecting, because of huge success, $760 million.

They're getting revenue from international broadcasters, coming through the IOC — again, the highest ever paid for a Winter Olympic Games. It will also come from ticket sales. So the operating budget, except for that $20 million that I talked about, does not come from taxpayers.

H. Bains: Let me ask a few questions around this business plan that was presented a week ago and version one of the business plan. There are a number of questions surrounding the delay of the first business plan — or version one of the business plan; the minister will call it something else — and how we arrived at this business plan.

Can the minister tell this House: will you make an attempt to have that business plan, version one that was supposed to be delivered in April 2005…? Will you make that public?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to back up a little bit. There is a requirement in the multiparty agreement that VANOC prepare a business plan and that they provide it to the provincial government and the federal gov-

ernment by a certain date. I think the wording in the multiparty agreement is that it's to be "submitted for approval." VANOC lived up to all their obligations. They developed a business plan. They passed it through their board of directors. They submitted it to the province in accordance with the multiparty agreement. We reviewed it; we did not approve it.

As I have said publicly before, but I'll say again in the House, one of the reasons why we could not approve it was that between the time that we had initially established the capital budget of $470 million, which it was initially, and the time that they came out with version one of their business plan, their cost estimates for capital had gone up. For us to approve version one of the business plan would have been to give approval to this new budget.

We did not have approval from Treasury Board for anything other than the 50-percent share of the $470 million that was there. For us to get access to the additional moneys that they requested required an explicit decision by Treasury Board to access the contingency fund that was there at the time of $130-some-odd million. VANOC lived up to their obligations; they submitted it. We did not approve it, because it did not reflect the measures that the province had approved.

VANOC then approached the whole issue of the increase in capital. We processed that through Treasury Board. We got Treasury Board approval for a $55 million charge against contingency to increase our 50-percent share of the new capital budget of $580 million.

The point is that the new business plan that has now been developed reflects the reality of VANOC where they are today going forward. Version one of the business plan is irrelevant. It has been totally superseded by version two of the business plan, which we have reviewed and done our due diligence on, and which has been approved by the province. I think what is important for the public is to be able to look at a solid business plan.

I hope the member feels the way that everyone else who has read that business plan feels: that it is a solid document and a business plan that's going to guide VANOC and inform the public as we go forward.

First of all, version one of the business plan is not ours. It's the property of VANOC. If they were to decide to release it, that would be their decision. I'm not sure that that would serve any useful purpose, given that version two of the business plan is now out and that it totally supersedes anything and everything that was in version one.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell us: was that the only reason for you not to approve that business plan — that you just mentioned?

Hon. C. Hansen: In reading through version one of the business plan, we got to the point where it showed that they were not reflecting what we had approved for our capital contribution. That was reason enough for us not to approve it.

H. Bains: When was that plan actually presented to the minister for the first time?

Hon. C. Hansen: Maybe I could just ask for some clarification. Which of the plans is he referring to — version one of the plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: If the member goes to look at the multiparty agreement, he will find that there's a requirement in there that said that that version of the business plan was to be provided, I believe, in April of 2005. They came to us and asked for an extension. We granted that extension, so they delivered version one of the business plan in either late June or July of 2005.

Hon. C. Hansen: The request from VANOC for the additional $55 million was received in December of 2005.

H. Bains: Therefore, the business plan was to be presented to the minister in April 2005. The request, as I hear the answer, for the additional funds came in December 2005. Is that correct?

H. Bains: When they actually were required to present the business plan, which was April 2005, they asked for and received an extension, and the business plan was presented to the minister in June, the minister said.

That request for the additional $55 million wasn't there until December. So how is it that the minister could say that they knew at that time that they were looking for additional funding?

Hon. C. Hansen: Version one of the business plan reflected numbers for the provincial government's share of capital construction that were greater than the $235 million that we had agreed to and that I had authority from Treasury Board to agree to. It was a number larger than $235 million. I don't remember what it was off the top of my head.

It was after that when we said to VANOC: "No, we're not approving this, because it reflects numbers that we have not agreed to." We said to VANOC at that stage that when it comes to their capital costs, they'd better do some really good work on costing out all of their structures.

We made it quite clear to them that what we were not interested in was for them to come back to Treasury Board every couple of months, saying: "This is more than we expected, and this is more than we expected." We wanted them to do their proper quantity survey work as to what each of these venues was going

We weren't going to say to them that they had to stay precisely to the dime on each of their cost estimates. But the global number that they were requesting of the $55 million extra from the province — we made it quite clear that that was it. They were not to be coming back to Treasury Board for more money over and above that. They were going to have to adjust their budgets for these various venues from within that $580 million budget.

During that period of time, VANOC did a lot of good, detailed work. They did some good costing. They were pretty confident when they came back to us in December with that final request of the extra $55 million. To their credit and to the good work of their vice-president of construction, they are now operating well within that budget.

If that was the instruction to VANOC…. But the minister will know that the contingency fund from that point has gone down further from $66 million to $55 million. So they haven't lived up to that expectation of the minister that the minister expressed at that particular time. That $55 million is it, as the minister said. They have dipped further, to the tune of $11 million, into the contingency fund — isn't it so?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is getting two things confused here. We added $55 million to the capital budget as the provincial government share, so the total increase in the capital budget was $110 million — half province, half federal. It went from $470 million to $580 million.

One of the things that we were very specific on is that they needed to have an adequate contingency to cover the remaining outstanding risks that they were facing on their venue construction. They needed to quantify the risks, and they needed to have a contingency fund that was big enough to deal with those risks. But risks decline. As they get more contracts in place, and more certainty around their costs on all of the venue construction, then the risk declines. Therefore, the need for contingency declines over time as you move forward.

In the $580 million capital budget, they initially had a $66.8 million contingency fund. That was as of September 2006. I'm reading this from the performance and accountability agreement that I signed on the 13th of September, 2006, which sets out all of the obligations that VANOC has around their approach and their handling of their capital budget.

In the appendix, which is on page 11 of that agreement — it's up on the website for anybody to see — it actually explicitly says at what rate VANOC can draw down that contingency fund within that $580 million. So in September '06 the contingency fund was $66.8 million. In October of 2006 we had agreed right from the start that they could actually have drawn that down to $55 million at that point. By January of '07 they could have drawn it down to $45 million. By April of '07, which is where we are now, they could have drawn that contingency down to a remaining $40 million.

They are well ahead of that now. They have drawn into that contingency to the tune of about $11 million or $12 million, so they are still well on target to making sure that all of the venue construction is delivered within the $580 million fund.

H. Bains: Can the minister tell the House when the minister actually approved the additional $55 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have the exact date of the Treasury Board decision. Our recollection is that it was about January or February of 2006. The decision was made that we would agree to their request for the additional $55 million, or agree to access our contingency fund or to draw down our contingency fund to that tune. There were several conditions in there. I guess the key condition was that it was subject to the federal government also agreeing to their $55 million.

The actual announcement of our additional $55 million happened, I think, some months later. I recall the event. It was when the Prime Minister was out in Vancouver. He and our Premier jointly announced the agreement to increase the venue budget by the $110 million. Just off the top of my head, I think that must have been about June or July of 2006.

H. Bains: When the minister decided that the business plan could not be approved, did the minister advise VANOC in writing?

Hon. C. Hansen: I do not recall having replied to them in writing. But we certainly informed them verbally that we would not be approving it.

H. Bains: Were any instructions sent to VANOC — reasons for not approving, and what they needed to do in order to have that thing approved? Did any of those instructions go to VANOC?

Hon. C. Hansen: We certainly would have provided VANOC with feedback, but that would have been done in the course of meetings that the CEO of the Olympic secretariat would have had with VANOC. If the member is asking did we provide a formal written response to VANOC about the business plan, the answer is no.

H. Bains: So here is a business plan, and it's a comprehensive business plan. We are talking about taking responsibility of close to $2 billion when it comes to just the operating budget, and you add the capital budget — just going by those numbers. The minister simply verbally said, "I'm not approving it," and they simply accepted it?

Hon. C. Hansen: The way the multiparty agreement was set up is that there was no requirement for us

to approve it or not approve it. There was a requirement that VANOC submit it to us. We advised VANOC of our reasons, and they set to work on trying to proceed to address the issues we raised. Now, that's not just as a result of the fact that they had not reflected the capital budget we had approved previously.

We do this on a regular basis. There is an ongoing dialogue between VANOC and the provincial government, whether that's through the work that the CEO of the Olympic secretariat does in her meetings with VANOC officials or whether it's the meetings I have, which are on a regular basis, with the provincial representatives who sit on the VANOC board. We make sure they are aware of our priorities and our views, and they carry those messages.

H. Bains: One of the reasons that VANOC will give us on face-to-face meeting is that no instructions came from the minister when they decided not to approve it. Why would they make that statement?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned in the previous question, there were no formal written instructions that went to VANOC, but there were certainly discussions.

H. Bains: So as far as the minister is concerned, as far as the secretariat office is concerned, they knew exactly why the business plan was not being approved. They knew exactly what they needed to do to have that approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes, that is correct. As I've mentioned before, we made it very clear to VANOC that their capital budget did not reflect what had been approved by the provincial government.

H. Bains: I guess the question arises if the capital budget was the issue, because they were asking additional funds. We are talking about $580 million of the overall business plan. But the other part is the operation side, which is, according to the new business plan, $1.6 billion.

Why would they not make at least that part of the business plan available? They were doing the update on the capital side anyway. No one can understand the reason. Just because they were asking for additional funds…. That part can't be dealt with when you're still deciding through the Treasury Board whether that money should be going to VANOC or not.

The other part of the business plan — which is a larger part, the operation side — why was that part not approved? Why wasn't that part made public?

Hon. C. Hansen: I can't speak for VANOC. That's a question the member would have to put to them. I am aware that John Furlong and others at VANOC have indicated they felt very strongly that to have a truly robust business plan, they needed to have the learnings from Torino — to actually watch Torino unfold and to be able to have a chance to talk to those officials so that the business plan could be solid.

The other thing that was a big unknown at the time was on the revenue side. In fact, one of the things that I think really held up the release of the business plan or the finalization of the business plan this year was the fact that they needed to get certainty around their revenue dollars from the IOC. As the member knows, that happened only in the last few months. So VANOC was able to develop their version 2 of the business plan with a lot more certainty because of the fact that they had those questions answered, which they were not able to answer in mid-2005.

H. Bains: The minister said the approval of $55 million was decided in January of 2006. Did the minister undertake any due diligence or require any due diligence by VANOC before the minister would approve it?

Hon. C. Hansen: Yes. As I mentioned to the member, we had received the request from VANOC in December, we believe it was — maybe give or take a month. From the time that version 1 of the business plan came down, we knew that VANOC was going to be requesting additional funds. So really throughout that whole period leading up even to their formal submission, we knew they were coming back to make a formal request for additional funds and access to our contingency.

During that period of time considerable due diligence was done — looking at venue costing, working with the VANOC officials in terms of what they were asking for. I remember we had several meetings that I participated in with VANOC about their challenges on the venue construction side and what the escalating cost implications were. Even by the time VANOC had submitted their formal request in December of 2005, we had already done a considerable amount of work reviewing where the cost pressures were.

We further engaged Partnerships B.C., as the member may be aware. We got ongoing advice from Partnerships B.C., actually, from the time that we first got them involved. They were looking at how, as we go forward with this budget of $580 million, we make sure that that is properly managed, that we get regular feedback on how the construction progress is being made to ensure that everything possible is being done to keep all of their venue construction costs within the $580 million.

As the member knows, the Partnerships B.C. report was made public. I think there were a couple of versions and drafts, and we the got the benefit of their advice through those months. They finalized their draft — I believe it was in October of 2006 — and we made that public. It's on our website.

H. Bains: I guess the difference is that the federal government, when they requested additional funds, went and got an independent due diligence done. That was conducted. The report came in by the Pacific Liaicon group in May of 2006. The Partnerships B.C. report didn't come until June of that year, as I understand it, but this minister had already approved the funds in

January. That just says a lot about the difference between the federal and this government's approach. They wanted to conduct due diligence by a third party, which happened to be independent, and this government had no formal due diligence requested or done before the funds were approved.

Hon. C. Hansen: That's actually not true. As I mentioned to the member, we did considerable due diligence on the venue cost challenges throughout 2005. Actually, I'll give the member the chronology of this. We approved the increased costs because we knew that those costs were going to be necessary. But what we said was that we wanted to engage Partnerships B.C. to make sure that VANOC was managing the capital budget in an appropriate way, that all of the risks were being identified and mitigated, that there was going to be no room for scope creep and extra things added in, and that we were actually going to deliver on what our obligations were and to make sure that it was going to happen within the budget.

We went to Partnerships B.C. early in 2006. Basically, what we said to Partnerships B.C. is: we're actually going to be prepared to say yes to this additional $55 million, contingent on the federal government. We're going to do it, but we want to make sure that we have the proper oversight as we go forward, in terms of how that unveiled.

We went to the federal government, not the other way around. We went to the federal government and said that we were engaging Partnerships B.C. Would they like to be a part of the Partnerships B.C. report? They initially said to us that yes, they thought that was a great idea and that we would have one process under Partnerships B.C. which would be shared by both the federal and the provincial governments. Subsequent to that, the federal government decided to have their own separate review. They engaged Pacific Liaicon, subsequent to our Partnerships B.C. review being already well underway.

H. Bains: Are any of those recommendations by Partnerships B.C., before this government decided to agree on the additional $55 million…? Will the minister make those available, and when do they actually come to the minister?

Hon. C. Hansen: Partnerships B.C. was not engaged prior to early 2006. The due diligence we did on the various venue construction challenges was done with in-house staff throughout the provincial government.

One of the conditions that came out of the Treasury Board decision was that…. I'd mentioned earlier that one condition was that the federal government had to agree to their share. But also one of the conditions was that this review be done in terms of how best to manage the oversight of this budget going forward. That's where Partnerships B.C. came in. Then the other condition that came out of the Treasury Board decision was that there be a performance and accountability agreement put in place. That is the agreement that was signed in September of that year.

H. Bains: I thought the minister just said earlier that when that business plan was presented to the minister, they knew that they were requesting more money. In December of 2005 the official request came from VANOC. Between the time that the business plan was presented and December, the minister, I thought, said that they were engaged with Partnerships B.C., trying to advise the minister about whether they were actually doing what they should be doing — managing their budget.

Then the minister also said that the decision to approve $55 million was in January, or 2006. So my question is…. Between the time that the business plan came and you found an area, which was the capital side of the area, that wasn't according to what the original estimates were, you decided not to approve it.

In January, 2006, you approved $55 million. Well, what due diligence did the minister have done, whether it was Partnerships B.C.…? I thought the minister said earlier on that that's what the case was. Now the minister says it was internal.

Who actually conducted that review to advise the minister that we had done due diligence so that they could take it to the Treasury Board — that we know they are on sound footing? Based on what? That decision was made to approve $55 million.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think if the member were to go back and review Hansard, he would see that I did not say at any point that Partnerships B.C. was engaged prior to early 2006. What I did say was that we knew there were going to be cost pressures and challenges around venue costing and that the due diligence we did around those cost pressures was an internal process within the provincial government and did not involve Partnerships B.C. at that period of time.

We went to Treasury Board, and Treasury Board acknowledged and accepted that there were going to be cost pressures on the overall budget in excess of the $470 million that had previously been approved. With that, Treasury Board approved the additional $55 million, which was the provincial government's share, with conditions.

Part of the conditions was that there be an independent review done of the cost of each of the venues to make sure that VANOC would actually be able to deliver all of the venue construction agenda within the $580 million and that all of the measures were being put in place to make sure that costs and risks could be mitigated to ensure that they would not have any reason to ever come back and ask for anything over and above the $580 million.

H. Bains: I guess that's what I'm getting down to. Finally, we're getting the answer that the $55 million additional funds were approved without having Partnerships B.C. engaged or having any other independ-

ent body engaged. Funds were approved. Subsequently, Partnerships B.C. decided to do — or whatever process it took — the review, and the report came in June.

So that's what my question was. You approved the funds without doing due diligence, by Partnerships B.C. or by anybody else, except that you had your internal review done and agreed on $55 million. That to me, and to many of the folks out there, wouldn't be the right way to handle this type of amount that was being requested.

The $55 million is a lot of money. Those funds were approved by the Treasury Board without having any due-diligence report in their hand.

H. Bains: There was none. There was none. Partnerships B.C. didn't start the review until early 2006, but the funds were already approved in January. That's what the minister said. Their report didn't even come until June of 2006.

The federal government actually engaged a third party, an outside party, to do due diligence. That report came in May. Based on that report, my understanding is that they agreed with the $55 million. So maybe the minister can explain those discrepancies.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will explain again, because I don't think the member was listening. We did a thorough due diligence around the cost pressures that were faced for venue construction throughout the second half of 2005, even leading up to VANOC's request for the additional budget.

Hon. C. Hansen: That was done internally, and I'll tell the member that we have some very competent staff in the provincial public service. They did a first-class job of that review and that due diligence. I dare him to suggest otherwise.

So Treasury Board recognized that the cost pressures were real. They acknowledged that VANOC was going to need the increased budget in order to deliver on the venue commitments, and they approved the $55 million with conditions.

I have said that one of the conditions was that the federal government had to agree to their share. Another condition was that there had to be a review around each of the venues to ensure that, going forward, we would be able to live within that $580 million budget and deliver all of the venues without increased risks or additional cost pressures coming back to the province. That is the process that Partnerships B.C. engaged in, and as the member knows, because he has read the report, I assume, they did a thorough and excellent job at that.

For the member to suggest that that $55 million was approved without appropriate due diligence is absolutely false.

H. Bains: Clearly, it shows that after the $55 million was approved, yes, there was an internal review, but Treasury Board put conditions still. Obviously, they weren't satisfied with what was being done. If they were satisfied by the internal review, then what was the need for engaging Partnerships B.C. to come up with their own report? That could have been done prior to approval of the $55 million. All of that should have been…. But that wasn't done.

Anyway, I'm going to move over to a different area. I would like to ask the minister about the ICBC sponsorship that is shown in the business plan. Can the minister tell us what the total value of this sponsorship is?

H. Bains: In the business plan it talked about $18.5 million for the use of the facility and $110 million rent, plus the interest.

H. Bains: I'm sorry. It's $15 million. I've got it. Can we get the breakdown of this sponsorship?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is $9 million that will come from the net profit for the sales of licence plates in the province, which is a voluntary offer that allows for individual British Columbians to say: "Yep, I want to support the Olympics. I'm going to buy an Olympic plate, and I want my dollars to flow through ICBC to go towards the VANOC revenues."

The other $6 million is the estimated value of the insurance that would be provided to the VANOC fleet of vehicles, and that is being funded out of the marketing side of the optional insurance coverage that ICBC provides.

I think it's important to note that ICBC, when it comes to their optional coverage, is in a competitive industry. They compete with private sector operators. They have their marketing budget like any of the private sector insurance companies has. They have looked at this as a straight commercial operation and one that gives them marketing value for the dollars they are committing.

H. Bains: I think one of the items, the $6 million, is clear. That is the total value of providing insurance to the vehicle. Then $9 million comes from the net profit on sales of these plates. Can the minister tell us: what is the net profit per plate?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that number, as to what it would break down to per plate. All of the costs to ICBC for the actual production and distribution of the plate are deducted, and it is only what is left after this that becomes the net profit, which then flows to VANOC. I apologize; I do not have the per-plate estimate as to what the costs would be, both in terms of the

costs of production and distribution and of the cost of the net profit per plate. I don't have that with me.

H. Bains: When they arrived at $9 million, they must have known how many plates they would have to actually sell to commit $9 million. Have they given you any number on how many plates they'll have to sell?

Hon. C. Hansen: ICBC, as the member knows, reports through the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. As I understand it, these questions were put to him when they were debating ICBC in this very chamber, and all of those detailed answers are available in Hansard. I don't have them with me right now.

H. Bains: ICBC is one. Is the minister, then, encouraging other Crown corporations to come and be their sponsor?

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is no. It's in fact quite the opposite. Early on in this process I made it very clear. I sent a letter to every minister that had the responsibility for a Crown corporation or a Crown agency that they explicitly were not to embark on any discussions with VANOC about sponsorships until such time as they made a case that these would be purely commercial operations and that we were not going to subsidize VANOC through any of the Crown corporations on anything that could not be justified on a commercial basis, and that policy stands today.

H. Bains: Let me ask a few more questions. I'm going back to the Auditor General's report. Can the minister explain the indemnification agreement that the province has signed with the IOC? How does that work?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is an area where I think there has been a lot of misunderstanding. I've heard people say that the provincial government has guaranteed the games and is liable for any deficit, should there be any deficit — which I know John Furlong has determined that there won't be. There is going to be nothing but black ink. Those comments when people talk about a guarantee from the province do not accurately reflect what the reality is.

At the time of the bid what the province did was to give a covenant to the IOC. It is a covenant that says that any financial obligations by VANOC to the IOC would be backstopped, essentially, by the province. So that is the extent of the so-called guarantee. It is actually very limited in scope.

H. Bains: Therefore, if there is any deficit left behind by VANOC, by that definition, is the province responsible for that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just before the break for that division vote, the member asked a question. I think I wrote it down correctly. "If there is a deficit by VANOC, is the province responsible?" — or words to that effect. The answer is no. The limit of our responsibility would be for any indebtedness that existed between VANOC and the IOC. So if VANOC owed the IOC funds at that stage, then our covenant would click in.

I'll give the member a particular example, because I find this sort of helps explain to people where the province's "guarantee" does not happen. A number of months back or a year back — I forget exactly the month — VANOC went to the Royal Bank of Canada, the RBC, which is one of the national Olympic sponsors, to get a line of credit. RBC actually granted and set up a line of credit for VANOC.

In doing so, the bank had to evaluate what the risks were and what risks the bank was prepared to take on as they set up that line of credit. If there were any dollars owing at the end of the day on that line of credit, it would be the Royal Bank that would be responsible for that. They would be a creditor. The provincial government in no way is providing any kind of a guarantee to the Royal Bank for any debts that may exist between VANOC and the Royal Bank once the Olympic and Paralympic Games are all over.

I think it's important that we address these issues, but I do also want to emphasize and support the VANOC management, because they are working on an agenda that will ensure that there is not any kind of a deficit at the end of the process. I think they have good management structures in place to ensure that those risks are mitigated before they become cost pressures.

H. Bains: What would be the circumstances where VANOC will owe money to the IOC?

Hon. C. Hansen: The only area that we can identify in terms of what the circumstances are whereby VANOC has an obligation to flow dollars to the IOC…. The only one that we are aware of is around the share of national sponsorship dollars that flows to the IOC. When you wind up with a corporation that comes in with a $50 million sponsorship, the IOC is entitled to a percentage of that. If VANOC at the end of the day neglected to flow to IOC the amount that the IOC was entitled to, then that's an example of where our covenant might click in.

VANOC is being very careful to make sure that the dollars to cover that are set aside and that there is no risk to the province that for some reason VANOC may not live up to their obligation to transfer those dollars.

H. Bains: Under that scenario, if that's what it is, then that's what it is. Let me ask you this question. If a contractor or a supplier to VANOC ends up not getting

paid because somehow under the circumstances VANOC has no more money, who is responsible for that person or that contractor?

Hon. C. Hansen: In that circumstance it would be VANOC as an independent not-for-profit corporation that would be responsible for any of those outstanding liabilities. But again, I just want to reiterate that I have full confidence in the VANOC management to ensure that all of their costs are covered and that there will be absolutely no deficit at the end of the day. I think there is every reason to have comfort that VANOC is on that track.

H. Bains: I guess all those contractors, the suppliers who are dealing with VANOC with the perception that they will be covered because ultimately the government is responsible…. And not only that, the Auditor General said in his report that "given the province has the ultimate responsibility for the financial outcome of the games, we feel there should be a regular and complete reporting of the total games costs to the taxpayers."

So I think it's not only a perception in people's minds out there. The Auditor General went out there, looked at those agreements and the data that was available to them and all of a sudden decided that the provincial government is ultimately responsible.

How was that perception created, and how is the minister going to correct that perception? Is the minister prepared to send a memo to all suppliers, all contractors, everyone who is dealing with VANOC that the provincial government is not responsible for any shortfalls as far as VANOC's revenue is concerned?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm certainly not aware of any supplier that would be under the impression that somehow their particular invoices to VANOC would be guaranteed by the province. They would have no reason to believe that. They enter into commercial arrangements with VANOC just like they would with any of their other customers.

The Auditor General in his remarks talks about the guarantee. But as I explained to the member, the guarantee is very limited in scope. If the member wants to refer to the Auditor General's report, if he turns to page 56 — which is the response from the province — we make it very clear. The reference that the member quoted out of the Auditor General's report is, in fact, not clear around the extent of the province's responsibility.

We felt it was very important that in this report when it was first published last September, the extent of the provincial government's responsibility be very clearly set out. That is set out on pages 56 and 57 of the Auditor General's report.

H. Bains: Has the government signed any other indemnification agreement with any other entity — a city or anybody?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are what is referred to as participation agreements that have been signed with the city of Whistler and the city of Vancouver. In there, it says that the province would cover off certain costs over and above what those jurisdictions might otherwise have to incur.

What is important is that in the participation agreements, there is a specific requirement that the province has to agree to that obligation prior. So the province is not obligated for any costs incurred by Vancouver or Whistler unless we agree specifically in writing that we would accept responsibility for those costs. To date we have not accepted any such obligations.

H. Bains: Doesn't the host city contract require Vancouver "to indemnify IOC from any damages suffered by IOC…including all costs, loss of revenue and any damages that the IOC may have to pay to" a third party resulting from acts or omissions of VANOC or of the city? So by signing this agreement or this contract, isn't the province responsible for any losses flowing from the city?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are not obligated to be responsible for any of the city of Vancouver's obligations. The only way that those obligations could be transferred from the city of Vancouver to the province would be if we explicitly agreed to that, and we have not done so.

H. Bains: The covenant of the province says: "With respect to Theme 5, Question 5.1 of the Vancouver Candidature File: 4. The Province will: a. guarantee the potential financial shortfall of OCOG" — which is VANOC now — "subject to guarantee agreement(s) to be executed between the Province and the OCOG…."

In fact, it has been made clear from the Auditor General that the province is the residual guarantor of VANOC. So will the minister not agree that the responsibility of financial shortfall comes, actually, to the province?

Hon. C. Hansen: What this comes back to is the covenant that we have with the IOC. As I mentioned earlier, that is very limited in scope, and it is very specific to the obligations that VANOC has to the IOC, and that is the extent of the provincial government's covenant.

H. Bains: I would like to move on to another area, which is…. Again, the Auditor General's report talked about…. On pages 6 and 7 it said again: "The province has guaranteed to the IOC to cover any financial shortfall of VANOC, and since it has the resources and expertise to provide for this risk, we would have expected the province to implement a hedging strategy soon after the games were awarded for this manageable risk. As a result of not hedging U.S.-dollar revenue for broadcasting and international sponsorships at the time the games were awarded, approximately $150 million less in revenue will be realized."

That represents close to 10 percent of the overall budget of VANOC. Why was there no effective hedging strategy in place at the time the games were awarded?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member referenced pages 6 and 7. The response from the province is set out on page 59 of the Auditor General's report. There it explains that VANOC sought and followed expert advice at the time.

One of the other challenges is that at the time VANOC had no idea what its revenues would be. So it's pretty hard to go to the markets and hedge a revenue that you don't know what it is. I think the more detailed explanation of that is set out in pages 59 and 60 of the Auditor General's report.

H. Bains: I think the Auditor General did a thorough review of what could or could not have been done or achieved at that time. For the minister to say that he didn't know whether there was anything to hedge…. Is that what the minister is suggesting?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's important to emphasize that VANOC is an independent body. VANOC seeks their own independent financial advice. They did in this case, and they followed the financial advice that they received with regard to hedging.

The other thing, which I mentioned in my previous response, is that VANOC did not have any certainty around its revenues. They did not know what they had to hedge. They didn't know what dollar denominations they were going to be receiving their revenues in.

To go out and hedge, you've got to hedge against the U.S. currency or perhaps against the euro or against whatever the relevant currency would be. They did not know what that currency would be. I think that for anybody today to look back in perfect hindsight and say, "Oh, well, if they had hedged on a speculative basis, they could have saved a whole bunch of money."

You could just as easily have looked back over any particular period in time when currency rates went in the other direction and people were saying: "Well, there would be tens of millions of dollars that could have been saved if you hadn't hedged." It's easy to look back in perfect hindsight on these things.

I think VANOC did the responsible thing. They sought expert advice, and they followed the expert advice. Now that they have more certainty around their revenues — in fact, as the certainty materialized — again, following expert advice, they have engaged in the hedging strategy at the time that was appropriate.

H. Bains: There is nothing hindsight here. The Auditor General's 2002 review said that we were told in our first review that the bid corporation was planning to use hedging contracts to minimize the risk that these revenues might decrease as a result of change in foreign exchange.

In 2002 they were told that they would do it, but they didn't do it. For us to say now that it's hindsight…. It's not hindsight. That's how businesses protect themselves from the fluctuations of the currency when they're dealing with foreign currencies and the revenue in foreign currencies. That's a normal practice. That's what the other Olympic Games did. Australia did that.

The Auditor General must have a total revenue that was potential. Based on that, he calculated what could have been realized had we hedged that amount, and he came up with a number — $150 million. You wouldn't expect the Auditor General to pick those numbers out of the air and say: "Well, $150 million."

They have to have numbers. Based on what? The currency fluctuated, and he arrived at the number. How that fluctuation affected that revenue that was to come to VANOC…. The explanation of VANOC is not in line with what the minister is explaining. Their explanation was: "We weren't even there at that time."

So it's up to the government, and they blame the government here. Look here, they're asking the government to implement the hedging. That's basically what it says: "Province to implement hedging." VANOC is actually telling me that it was up to the province, not up to them.

Hon. C. Hansen: When the bid committee said back in 2002 that they would engage in a hedging strategy, that is exactly what has happened. They wouldn't say that they had to go out and put a hedging strategy in place for some projected dollars in the future. So VANOC put a hedging strategy in place at the time that was appropriate.

Now, I can tell you that what the Auditor General's office did is look back on the planning assumptions that were provided by the IOC. There weren't revenues. There weren't dollars that they said: "These are dollars that are going to flow to VANOC from the IOC." They were purely planning assumptions.

If the member is suggesting that the province should take all the risk based on a planning assumption, and we incur all of the cost of a hedging strategy based on a planning assumption, then I think that this member would have every right to stand up in this chamber and be quite indignant if the province had done that. We did not do that, nor should we have done that.

I think the member has to acknowledge that VANOC sought expert advice, and they followed that expert advice, and they have a hedging strategy in place that was put in place at the appropriate time, first of all, when they knew what revenues there would be and, secondly, what currency those revenues would be forthcoming in.

H. Bains: My understanding is that, a hedging strategy was put in place sometime last year. Can the minister tell us around when a hedging strategy was put in place?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that probably the best way to respond to the member is for me to read from page 59 of the Auditor General's report, which is how the province responded to the Auditor General's comments. It says:

That's in the Auditor General's report. It's been up on the website of the Auditor General since September of last year.

H. Bains: Let me go to the business plan now. When you compare that with the Auditor General's report, the Auditor General actually reported in his report that the total revenue was $1.8 million. The business plan that just came out shows that it's $1.6 million — $129,269,000. That's a difference of about $200 million. Can the minister explain why that difference? What's the reason for that shortfall of revenue forecast?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are two factors. I know that VANOC went through a very extensive process of looking at every single line item in their budget as the business plan was being developed. They made sure they eliminated any unnecessary expenditures from that budget. I think they actually did a pretty good job of sharpening their pencils and making sure that they could get their costs down to what would still deliver first-class games but to do so in the most cost-effective way. I think they were able, line by line, to sharpen their pencils and cut out costs.

The other thing that is significant is the way that broadcast revenues and expenditures are reflected. The broadcast revenues are now shown net of the costs of providing for the broadcast services. So it is a difference in presentation between the two reports. Apparently, the way that VANOC has presented this in their business plan is the way that it is required to be presented by the IOC.

H. Bains: So I guess I was talking about the revenue, and I was going to ask you about the cost side as well. But the revenue side has a difference of $200 million. Is the minister saying it's all because of that one line item that talks about the cost of providing the Olympic Broadcast Service?

Hon. C. Hansen: I definitely need my glasses for this page, because I think it's about a 3.5 font that's here. What the business plan shows under the revenue side is the IOC contribution of $579.7 million — again, that's on the revenue side. Then it shows less the cost of providing OBS service, which is the Olympic Broadcast Service. That shows a deduction from the revenue of $178 million, and that brings down the net IOC contribution — again, this is on the revenues sheet — to $401.7 million.

H. Bains: I guess my question is…. When you look at the net revenue that is listed here in the business plan compared to the net revenue that is contained in the Auditor General's report, there's a difference of $200 million. My question is: is it only because of that one line item, that $178 million, or is there some other revenue forecast that didn't materialize?

Hon. C. Hansen: If you're talking about the $200 million difference that the member is referring to, $178 million of that is accounted for by the change in presentation. Instead of the Olympic Broadcast Service costs being reflected on the expenditure column, it's moved over to the revenue column to show that it is deducted from the IOC revenues. Revenues from the IOC are only reflected net of those broadcast revenues, so there is a deduction of $178 million.

I don't know what the exact difference is. I know we're using pretty round numbers of $1.8 billion versus $1.6 billion. I don't know what that exact number would be if we looked at it in greater detail, but $178 million of it is accounted for in that way.

H. Bains: Actually, it's a $203 million difference if you look at those two numbers. Some $178 million, or

thereabouts…. Yeah, it is $178 million exactly. In order to make that kind of difference in the net revenue, it has to show on both the revenue and the expenditure side. Then we have to look at the expenses side. That part is also lower than the Auditor General's report.

If the explanation is that $178 million was included in the revenue side and then it was deducted from the expenses side in the Auditor General's report, that makes sense. Then it still leaves you with about a $25 million difference. If that's the explanation, I take that. But if there are any other areas of revenue forecast that didn't materialize, then I would ask the minister to let the House know what they might be.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the bottom line is that what VANOC is doing is constantly refining their financial projections. As they get more certainty around their revenues, it allows them to get more precision in their financial numbers. With the business plan, the months immediately prior to the release of the business plan was when some of those revenues got finalized with regard to the transfers from the IOC.

VANOC will continue to make sure that they push towards more certainty on the revenue side, and that will be reflected on the expenditure side. One of the commitments VANOC has made is that they will not spend money they don't have. So if for any reason revenues were not to materialize, they would have to find appropriate adjustments on the expenditure side to compensate for that.

By and large, I think every review that we've seen of the business plan is that they've taken an appropriately conservative approach to the development of the business plan. There is a high level of confidence that their revenues will prove up, or the remaining elements of uncertainty on the revenue side will get proven up, and that their expenditures side will be adequately covered by those revenues.

H. Bains: The other line item is "Other revenue," which is $110,502,000. Can the minister explain what that revenue forecast is?

Hon. C. Hansen: I gather this is the accumulation of a bunch of miscellaneous areas that they consolidated all into the one line item of "Other revenues." It includes things like asset disposal post-games. It includes things such as the charges to the various national Olympic committees that will come in from other countries. When they're in Canada or in British Columbia, they will be charged certain fees for different services that they will be looking to VANOC to provide. So this is really an accumulation of a whole bunch of these smaller line items into the one category of "other."

H. Bains: That is a large amount of revenue tucked together in one area under "other." Isn't the minister worried that — these are some of the items that the minister has described — the revenue may not materialize to the tune of $110 million?

Hon. C. Hansen: The revenues that they are projecting are based on the experience in other games, so there is a fair amount of certainty that they have based on that previous experience. We're paying very close attention to the oversight on how the financial plan unfolds. This particular line item is certainly no exception, and the CEO of the Olympic secretariat serves as the co-chair of the VANOC finance committee.

As such, we have our eyes and ears as close to the financial picture of VANOC as anyone could ever hope for, and it will be part of what we watch going forward. The bottom line is that if there's any indication that revenues are not going to materialize, then VANOC will be expected to adjust their revenue side appropriately.

H. Bains: I think it's very interesting that the minister and VANOC would use other Olympics' numbers when it suits them. When it doesn't suit them, they basically ignore them and say: "That doesn't apply to us." In this case, they chose that that's where the other Olympics were able to achieve these financial revenues, but when it comes to security and many other areas, they're ignored offhandedly by VANOC and by this minister. We'll talk about that a little later.

I want to move on to your transportation strategy. The line item here talks about a total of $124,109,000 in this particular area. Can I ask the minister if there is a transportation strategy in place for the games?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member made reference to this being our transportation plan. It is VANOC's transportation plan. We are one of the partners that are working with VANOC, working to make the games a success. VANOC has engaged a vice-president for transportation, and they are working diligently to put all of the transportation planning in place. I know that they have made considerable progress on that already, and they're well on track to making sure that all of the transportation needs are going to be addressed over the coming two and a half years.

The member, I think, in opening his previous comments, talked about how we choose to ignore costs in some cases and accept costs from other Olympics in other cases. We learn from the experience of other Olympic Games with regard to all of their costs and all of their experiences. If the member wants to get into a discussion of security later, I'd be pleased to do that, but there's absolutely nothing to indicate that the approach to security for these games is in any way inappropriate or underfunded compared to any of the other Olympic Games that we have experienced in recent history.

H. Bains: Yes, I will talk about security, but let me stay on the question I was trying to put on transportation strategy. When do you expect a comprehensive strategy on transportation to be released?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have any expectation that VANOC is going to roll out a document called "A Transportation Strategy." They have transportation

needs that are very complex, and they have a team at VANOC led by a vice-president-level position that is looking at all of those. They will develop their strategies, their approaches and their contracts as necessary to ensure that all those transportation needs are met.

H. Bains: So the public will never know from that answer if there's a transportation strategy and what that looks like — how the spectators, the public, the tourists and the athletes will be moved back and forth. If the minister says that the strategy may not be made available to the public…. I guess that's what I heard the minister say.

Can the minister say if any contracts or any agreements have been finalized or are underway with the different service providers in this particular area, whether they're buses or something else? Or have they finalized any of that yet?

Hon. C. Hansen: We're talking about an operating budget for VANOC, which is $1.6 billion. The provincial government's involvement in that operating budget is $20 million for the Paralympic Games. The entire rest of that operating budget is funded by VANOC through private sector contributions and through sources other than the provincial government.

I do not work with VANOC on a day-to-day basis about how they're meeting their transportation requirements. The member may want to put that question to VANOC. I know he's had briefings from VANOC. I know VANOC has offered to brief him as often as he wishes to be briefed. So that would be a question to put to them.

But I can assure the member that VANOC is not going to…. Given the amount of security that is going to be involved around the movement of athletes, the movement of dignitaries, the movement of the Olympic family, I would be very surprised if VANOC is going to be making their transportation plans public.

H. Bains: I guess from the answer that the minister is telling the House that as far as this minister's responsibility towards the Olympics is concerned, it's only around $600 million, and if anything else is happening at VANOC offices — how they run their business outside of the $600 million — that's not the responsibility of this minister?

Hon. C. Hansen: To repeat the member's question: is it the responsibility of this minister? The answer is no. Are we interested, and are we involved, and are we involved in a partnership with VANOC? You're right: we are. We are working very closely with VANOC. We are supportive.

I know the member often stands up and says how he's supportive of the Olympics. And then all of his actions demonstrate that he's not. He's not supportive of VANOC. He's not supportive of the management team at VANOC. We are very supportive of the management team at VANOC and what they are doing, because I think they are doing a first-class job.

But am I going to involve myself in the day-to-day activities on the operating side of the Olympics and Paralympic Games? The answer is no. I will oversee and take responsibility for the provincial government's involvement in the Olympics.

I think, as we have discussed before, I am proud of that involvement, and I'd be pleased to be accountable for all of the details about any of the provincial government's responsibilities with regard to the Olympic and Paralympic Games.

H. Bains: The minister is correct that I have made statements that I support the Olympics. I supported them when I got elected. I supported them before I got elected, and I still support them. But if holding this minister's feet to the fire and if holding VANOC's feet to the fire…. If somehow you translate that into that I'm not in support of the Olympics…. The minister is wrong. I do support, and I will continue to hold this minister's feet to the fire. I will continue to hold, on behalf of the taxpayers, VANOC's feet to the fire.

My question is this. If the minister is saying that his responsibility as a minister on behalf of the B.C. taxpayers ends at $600 million — it starts and ends within that $600 million envelope — then the minister should say so. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to back up, I think the member…. It was in the context of whether I am responsible for VANOC's transportation plan. VANOC is responsible for VANOC's transportation plan. We have made commitments and obligations to the successful delivery of the Olympic and Paralympic Games, and I will take responsibility for the provincial government's involvement. That covers a whole bunch of areas.

I am sure that when it comes to the transportation planning that the Ministry of Transportation will be as supportive and assist VANOC in any way as they develop their particular obligations. If I can play a role in helping to facilitate that interaction between the Ministry of Transportation and VANOC, I'll be pleased to do that.

H. Bains: My question was if the minister will hold VANOC responsible for all they have undertaken on behalf of this government and on behalf of the taxpayers — such as transportation strategy, security, risk management, human resources and many others which are actually listed in the business plan here.

I am asking questions to this minister. Does this minister feel that he, on behalf of the taxpayers, needs to understand whether they have a comprehensive transportation strategy? If they do, will the minister — through, perhaps, the office of the secretariat — assure B.C. taxpayers that: "Yes, they have a transportation strategy. Yes, I'm satisfied with that strategy." Is the minister prepared to make that statement?

Hon. C. Hansen: Clearly, we will work with VANOC and be supportive in any way we can when it comes to all of their needs. But if the member is asking

me if I am going to ensure that there is a transportation strategy that's made public, the answer is no.

I'm not sure whether VANOC is going to come out with one document or whether there is going to be a series of initiatives managed by their vice-president of transportation. But all of those things are not actually managed in their conversations with me; they're managed through the board of directors.

Yes, three of the board members of VANOC are provincial government appointees. I meet with them on a regular basis to make sure that the interests of the province are being reflected. We have a partnership with VANOC in terms of delivering successful games, and it's in that spirit that we are approaching all of these issues.

So yes, VANOC is developing all of their transportation plans. They will, I'm sure, put out public information about how the public may be impacted by the various transportation initiatives that they will be unfolding as we get closer to the Olympics.

That is their decision to make. I'm not going to go in and micromanage the affairs of a federally incorporated, not-for-profit corporation, of which the province is one of the partners. I expect that the board of directors will do their job. I expect that the management team will do their job.

H. Bains: I think now we are finally coming to a realization that the minister does have some responsibility. There is a reason why we have appointed board members to represent the B.C. government. There is a reason there is a secretariat office set up to look after the interests of B.C. taxpayers.

As such, there is a responsibility on the minister and this government to make sure that the interests of taxpayers are looked after, whether it's a transportation strategy, whether it's delivery of the games altogether, whether it's the construction of the venues or whether it's security or a number of other issues that involve delivering of the games.

That's where the responsibility sits. It sits with this minister to make sure the overall delivery of the games is conducted in a manner that will be in the best interests of the B.C. taxpayers. That's why these questions are appropriate.

For the minister to say that that's only VANOC and to throw his hands in the air and say: "I have nothing to do with that. I'm not going to go and micromanage…." I didn't ask the minister to go micromanage. I asked the minister if he will make sure, on behalf of B.C. taxpayers, that all those strategies and everything surrounding the delivery of those games is conducted in a safe, efficient manner.

That's your responsibility as the Minister Responsible for the Olympics. That's why I'm asking you those questions in this House — to make sure that the taxpayers understand and that they have comfort in this minister that those needs are actually met, by making sure that the transportation strategy is there so that they as the public during that two- or three-week period aren't stuck somewhere out there because somebody mismanaged.

That's the responsibility of this minister well ahead of time. We still have two years to make sure that the taxpayers are actually satisfied with everything that is involved, whether it's the transportation or security or medical or whatever else is involved.

That's why the questions are coming, and that's why I think it's the responsibility of the minister to make sure that he says in this House for the benefit of the taxpayers that yes, he will ensure that there is a workable transportation strategy in place.

Hon. C. Hansen: The bottom line is that we are engaged with VANOC on a day-to-day basis. We sit at the table with them as they develop their plans in multitudes of areas.

I think the bottom line is that a part of our obligation is not to micromanage how VANOC organizes the games. Our obligation is to make sure that there is a competent team that is in place that is actually managing the affairs of VANOC. I can say unequivocally that there is a very competent team that enjoys our 100-percent confidence.

Secondly, we have our representatives that are sitting on the board, and we have our representatives who sit on the finance committee to make sure that the interests of the B.C. taxpayers are protected. That is exactly what is happening.

H. Bains: Let me quickly move over to some of the other areas again. I want to talk about the venue construction. Are all the contracts finalized?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the interest of time…. This may take us a moment to dig out that exact number for the member.

The short answer is that not all of the venue contracts are in place. Some of them actually will flow from…. Well, I guess in terms of a time line, in some of the venues there is a point in the time line at which the contracts would be put in place for elements of the construction, and we're not yet at that point in time.

I think this was in the business plan, because I know I've read so much of the stuff in the last little while. But there is a percentage number that VANOC has indicated recently of the percentage of their contract budget — the percentage of the $580 million — that is under contract at this point. We will endeavour to find that, but in the meantime, that's the high-level answer at least.

H. Bains: I would appreciate getting that information. Perhaps you can provide that to us later. Let me ask you this question: What type of contracts are they? Are they cost-plus or fixed-price?

Hon. C. Hansen: For the vast majority of the contracts, there are fixed obligations to VANOC so that they can budget those numbers with a high level of certainty. That's the vast majority of the $580 million

budget. There are venues that VANOC is managing itself. So within that venue construction, they will engage in contracts which are fixed-price, but that would be for a certain element of the construction. VANOC, as the overall contractor for the province, has to take responsibility for allocating those contracts as we go forward. It's some of those contracts that still have to be let, because in the time line for the construction of those venues, they have not yet got to the point where some of those contracts would be let.

There would still be some risk to VANOC. I think the estimate is that the level of risk is very low, and as we discussed earlier in these proceedings, within the construction budget of $580 million there is still a $55 million contingency. That $55 million contingency is against the untendered portions that VANOC still has the responsibility for.

It's not a $55 million contingency on the total construction of $355 million that's estimated. It's actually an amount much less than that which is the amount that is still not subject to specific fixed-price contracts.

H. Bains: The financial update that came out, I believe, in March reflects certain venues' costs going higher. I guess in total it was to the tune of about $11 million or $12 million, and that was between the previous interim report, the previous quote, which was in December. So between December and March that cost went up by $11 million.

Are those venues being managed by VANOC directly? That's one question. Perhaps the minister could answer the same question. What percentage of the total $580 million is VANOC actually directly managing?

Hon. C. Hansen: The increase in cost that the member referenced is actually what the drawdown of the venue construction contingency reflects. So as we discussed earlier, the contingency that was put in place as of September of '06 was $66.8 million — or whatever that was — and we had a schedule at which VANOC could draw against that contingency. They have currently drawn down the $11 million to $12 million that the member referenced, which actually brings them to about $55 million, which is still higher than had been anticipated for the contingency at this point in time.

In terms of the amount of venue construction that's not yet subject to contract, it would amount to about $120 million. So roughly, if you look at the remaining $55 million contingency, I think that by any construction manager's estimate, having a $55 million contingency against a $120 million capital budget is actually a very, very healthy contingency.

H. Bains: Thank you for that information. But actually my question was the venue construction costs that ran up from the previous quote to the tune of a little over $11 million. Are those venues or those contracts or the projects directly managed by VANOC?

Hon. C. Hansen: When we talk about increase in cost — I know the member knows this, but I just want to make sure it's reflected in Hansard — what we're talking about is the pressure against the contingency. We're not talking about a cost pressure over and above the $580 million. This is all within the $580 million, and it's a charge against the remaining contingency that's there. I know the member is aware of that.

The short answer to his question is that the increase in the construction cost of $11 million to $12 million is in fact both projects managed by VANOC itself, as well as projects that are being undertaken by outside parties.

H. Bains: If they are managed by outside parties, that portion of those projects, what would be the reason for a cost increase if they were fixed-price contracts?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I understand it, some of those costs pertain to the projects managed by VANOC, which would include, for example, Hillcrest and the sliding centre, including the Nordic centre. When it comes to the projects that are being managed by or being undertaken by third parties, there are some additional costs that reflect the project management costs that would be incurred by VANOC.

The areas where there are fixed agreements, in terms of what costs VANOC would be subject to, those are fixed, and these are areas that would be reflected as increased costs to VANOC because of project management costs.

H. Bains: Thank you, Minister. Because of the time, I'm going to move over to some of the other areas.

I'd like to draw your attention to three agreements that were put together. One was B.C. Place. Another one is the Pacific Coliseum. The third one is GM Place.

With GM Place, as I understand, there's a total of $18½ million to use the facility and $110 million plus inflation — we don't know what the final numbers are going to be — based on the information that VANOC has provided. If the minister could give us the numbers, what is the anticipated total cost to use GM Place for part of hosting the games?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think one thing that is important to differentiate at this stage in the discussion is that the cost for the rental of GM Place is not a cost to the province. We don't pick up any of that cost at all. That is 100-percent funded out of VANOC's operation budget. It is not part of the capital budget at all. There is no provincial government money that goes into the rental agreement that they have struck with GM Place.

As I understand it, it is based on $18½ million, plus $110,000 a day. I think the member said $110 million a day, which would be unrealistic for sure. It's $110,000 a day. There are some variables in there that are yet to be determined in terms of the number of days that it takes to set up.

I think that as VANOC has pointed out, GM Place is going to result in unprecedented ticket revenues to VANOC. They estimate in the neighbourhood of $70 million, so it is actually a huge net contributor to VANOC's operating budget.

H. Bains: Maybe we are using the right numbers. The minister used $70 billion revenue. Perhaps $110 million per day is the rate.

But my question is this. B.C. Place, a publicly owned facility, is for all intents and purposes given free, except for the revenue from concessions. On the other hand, GM Place is given $18½ million, plus $110,000 per day plus inflation.

My question to the minister is that when you compare…. Again there's a third one, which is a publicly owned facility — the Pacific Coliseum. When you look at the Pacific Coliseum, there is about $23 million being spent because it needs upgrading in order to host an Olympic level of sports. So it can be justified that there is the money needed to upgrade that facility. What is the $18½ million being spent on, on GM Place?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's not possible to compare these deals, if you want to call them deals. They're the arrangements that VANOC has entered into for the use of GM Place or B.C. Place or the coliseum. But in terms of B.C. Place and the coliseum, we wind up with a significant retrofit that is being done to those buildings, so it is an ongoing benefit to the public, going forward.

Those costs, of course, are reflected in part of our $600 million envelope, but in addition, the province gets the benefit of the concession revenues from both of those facilities. We know that those would be significant.

We also have to look at the opportunity costs of those facilities. We know that the concession revenue that we will derive is actually going to be pretty considerable and a big, positive contribution to the province that we may not otherwise have seen.

H. Bains: The minister can spin as much as he would like to do. There is no comparison between the B.C. Place deal and the GM Place deal — no comparison whatsoever — when it comes to the money being paid to use those facilities.

My question was…. There is a justification for the Pacific Coliseum to spend $23 million because seats need to be replaced and other upgrading needs to be done. What is the reason for giving $18½ million to GM Place when the regular rent, as it is listed here, the daily rent, is also payable in addition to the inflation? I should say the inflation is included. What is the purpose of the $18½ million to be given to GM Place?

Hon. C. Hansen: I want to reiterate what I said earlier. The arrangement with GM Place was negotiated by VANOC. We were not party to that negotiation. We were not at the table for that negotiation, and I don't know the dynamic that went into it or how they arrived at those particular numbers.

As I mentioned earlier, there is not one dime of the dollars that flow from VANOC to Orca Bay that is coming from the province of British Columbia. It is coming out of their operating budget, and the only involvement that the province has with the operating budget of VANOC is $20 million that goes to the Paralympic Games.

H. Bains: The secretariat sits on the board. Three members of this government sit on the VANOC board. Weren't they justified — this $18.5 million expenditure by VANOC?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just for clarification, there is nobody from the Olympic secretariat that sits on the VANOC board. There are three provincial government representatives as part of a 20-member board — three provincial representatives.

I think VANOC has publicly explained the arrangement that they have with Orca Bay. I've certainly read all of the news coverage, and I'm sure the member has, on the explanations that VANOC has provided with regard to the justification for that particular arrangement.

H. Bains: So there is no justification coming from the minister for that $18½ million. Let me move on, since we're not going to get any answers, because we're short of time.

The International Broadcast Centre will be actually located in the new convention centre. Can I ask the minister if he could tell this House how much VANOC will be paying to this new convention centre for use of that facility to host the International Broadcast Centre?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's my understanding that VANOC will be paying about $13 million for the use of the trade and convention centre for the International Broadcast Centre. I think the other benefit that comes to the province out of that is really that the eyes of the world are going to be on this fabulous new convention centre at a time when we will be setting out quite aggressively to market the convention centre to the world.

So we get the benefit of $13 million in direct revenues plus some fabulous marketing opportunities.

Hon. C. Hansen: That would be in the line item for the cost of the Olympic Broadcast Service, as they are referred to.

H. Bains: I'm trying to locate that item. I tried, and I couldn't figure out where that $13 million would fit. So perhaps the minister could help me locate that line item.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, just two references for the member: in the Auditor General's report on page 47 there is reference to the $13 million commitment that VANOC has agreed to pay for the rent for that facility.

He will find the cost of providing the Olympic Broadcast Service is on page 74 of the business plan.

H. Bains: Also in the business plan, the IOC net contribution is listed as $401,700,000. It also shows a line item as "Other IOC revenue" in the amount of $35 million. Can you explain what this other $35 million is?

Hon. C. Hansen: It may take us a bit to find the detail on that. I don't have it readily at my fingertips. If we can find it before we adjourn, I will give it to the member. Otherwise, I will provide it to him at a later date.

H. Bains: Also, it reflects, as the minister had mentioned earlier, the percentage of certain revenue, largely from the domestic sponsorship and VIK revenue and other cash revenue that VANOC would be generating. A percentage of that goes to COC, I believe, and to IOC. Can the minister explain if this revenue actually is net of those percentages that are to be paid?

Hon. C. Hansen: Again on page 74 of the business plan there is a line item that refers to…. It shows the revenues, and then it shows total revenue. Then right under it is "Less: marketing rights royalties," which is $197 million. The payments that would go to the COC and the IOC as their particular share of domestic sponsorship revenues would be included in that line item.

H. Bains: Can the minister perhaps tell this House: what is the total value of the VIK so far?

Hon. C. Hansen: With the volumes of information…. It's a reference that I know that I have read. I believe it's in the business plan, because I think that's the only place I would have seen it. But what I recall is that the value-in-kind is about 35 percent or 40 percent of the total sponsorship dollars that come in. As I say, I'm just going from memory on that. I can't find the exact reference at this time.

H. Bains: That was part of the reason why I asked that question, because I cannot see that line item as revenue anywhere in this business plan. If you could show me where that is so that we know what the VIK revenue forecast is and so that we know how that does fit in.

Hon. C. Hansen: On the revenue side, it would actually be reflected in the $760 million that VANOC is projecting as sponsorship revenue. Then the actual cost of that value-in-kind…. Just to give you an example, if RONA, which is one of the corporate sponsors, provides product that is being used by VANOC, then that is reflected in the revenue side as a sponsorship revenue. It is also reflected in the expenditure side to the same value.

Another example that comes to mind is the contribution of communications equipment from Bell. We had a briefing from Bell of just the phenomenal work that they're going to do, and the thousands of cell phones that they are going to be providing for the athletes, officials, volunteers and those that are coordinating the actual games. They will be providing those cell phones, so the value of that is reflected on the revenue side and the equivalent cost of that is reflected on the expenditure side.

H. Bains: So VIK contributions are part of the $670 million. That's a domestic sponsorship. Fair enough.

The minister said that the International Broadcast Centre's cost of $13 million being paid to the new convention centre shows on page 74 of the business plan. We can't locate it. Can the minister just walk us through. Where is it?

Hon. C. Hansen: So this goes back to the earlier discussion that we had around…. We had the discussion about the difference in the $200 million between the Auditor General's report and VANOC. What it is, is it's the fact that the cost of the Olympic Broadcast Service — the IOC contribution — is reflected net of the cost of providing the official broadcast services.

So if you go up to the very top of page 74, it says "IOC contribution of $580 million," and then it says "less the cost of providing the Olympic broadcast service," and that's $178 million. So the $13 million for the cost of renting the convention centre is included in that $178 million.

H. Bains: We'd like to move to the inner-city inclusive commitment statement that was signed. On page 3 under "Housing," it clearly shows the commitment made to the people of Vancouver. This is what comes directly out of that statement: "(a) protect rental housing stock; (b) provide as many alternative forms of temporary accommodation for winter games visitors and workers; (c) ensure people are not made homeless as a result of the winter games; (d) ensure residents are not involuntarily displaced, evicted or face unreasonable increases in rent due to winter games; (e) provide an affordable housing legacy and start planning now."

My question to the minister is: what plans are in place to achieve this commitment?

Hon. C. Hansen: When it comes to the ICI commitments that were made, I think it's important to remember that there were four parties to that commitment. Each of those parties has to play a role in making sure that those commitments are lived up to.

If you look at the various initiatives, whether it's the percentage of social housing that is included in the Olympic village, and whether you look at the provincial homelessness initiative that was launched by the minister responsible for B.C. Housing in the province…. Those are all initiatives that will take us towards our share of delivering on the responsibilities and obligations that were made as part of the ICI agreement.

H. Bains: Let's deal with each of the commitments that are there. It says "protect rental housing stock."

Hon. C. Hansen: The lead responsibility for the province's response when it comes to the housing strategy is the minister responsible for B.C. Housing, and those estimates have not yet happened. I think the member would have an opportunity to ask those detailed questions directly of that minister, because it is that ministry that has taken responsibility for ensuring that we live up to our obligations as a province.

H. Bains: So the answer is that this is not the responsibility — all these commitments in here — of this ministry?

Hon. C. Hansen: This ministry has responsibility for coordinating the provincial government response to our various obligations, but we look to other ministries that have the staff and the expertise to deliver on those. In this case, it is B.C. Housing that has taken on responsibility for delivering the provincial government's housing and homelessness strategies.

H. Bains: Has the minister sent any directive, any request — any initiative taken by the minister — to relay his concern to all of those other ministries he mentioned here that are responsible for taking care of this commitment? Has the minister done any of that? If so, where is a written request or any written documentation to show that the minister has actually taken the initiative to make sure that those who are responsible for fulfilling this commitment actually are on this and that they will do it in a timely fashion?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't issue directives to my colleagues. I've had many conversations with my colleague, the minister responsible on this specific subject, and I have full confidence that that ministry under his leadership will deliver on our obligations.

H. Bains: So let me ask this direct question. Whose responsibility is it, then, to fulfil these commitments that were made by getting all the parties together? Who is responsible to make sure that these commitments are carried out?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is a shared obligation that has been taken on by the parties to the ICI agreement. The lead from the provincial government's perspective is B.C. Housing under the leadership of the minister responsible for B.C. Housing.

H. Bains: Again the time constraints. I have a few more questions on some of the other areas. There is a question about Legacies Now. I believe we last learned that their total budget was about $130 million. Can the minister tell us how much of those funds actually have been allocated and how much of those funds, of the total budget, are used on administration?

Hon. C. Hansen: Legacies Now is independent of government. They don't report to the province, but their relationship with the province is through the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, who liaises with them on an ongoing basis. I know that that subject was canvassed thoroughly in the estimates of the Minister of Tourism, Sports and the Arts, and I would refer the member to that Hansard.

H. Bains: A few questions on security, as we said that we would talk about security. Does the minister still believe that $175 million is sufficient?

Hon. C. Hansen: As recently as just a few weeks ago, I had advice from the Deputy Solicitor General that, to date, there is no indication that $175 million will not be adequate.

H. Bains: So what does the minister say to those folks such as the president of IOC, who said in 2003 that $175 million is not sufficient? Senator Kenny also said he's concerned, as late as about three weeks ago. He was publicly stating that he's concerned with the $175 million budget that is put together.

Then two high-level officials from Salt Lake City were here when everybody was invited to town to learn from their experiences. They also said $175 million was not sufficient.

As late as just a few months ago a high-ranking general made this statement: "The Olympics could offer opportunities for terrorists — international and domestic — and extremists to further their agenda at the high-profile event, either against Canada or another participating nation."

Knowing all these concerns from all these high-level officials, those folks who happen to know and actually worked in this area of delivering security arrangements in different Olympics, what does the minister say to them — that they are all wrong?

Hon. C. Hansen: I welcome the member's question because I think it gives an opportunity to clarify the misinformation that is being circulated with regard to security costs. It is important to understand what it is that the $175 million is supposed to cover.

I think that's probably best explained by telling the member what it does not include. It does not include any cost of managing any kind of a terrorist threat. That is a 100-percent cost to the federal government. It is not a cost that comes out of this budget of $175 million, which is 50-50 shared by the province and the federal government.

It does not cover the cost of border security, which again is 100 percent the cost of the federal government, and they have to look after those obligations. And it does not cover the cost of the protection of internationally important people. I think the designation is basically the VIPs and the heads of state that are travelling to British Columbia. That is separate from the $175 million budget.

If you think of this as a spectrum in the context of sort of local policing costs versus those high-level military or quasi-military/terrorism costs at the other end of the spectrum…. So on one end we've got those high-level threats that may or may not materialize. That's the federal government.

At the other end of that spectrum the local policing costs are the normal responsibility of local police forces. That doesn't matter whether it's a Stanley Cup playoff game or whether it's Expo 86 or any other big major event that's taking place in any of our communities. It is the local policing budget that is expected to cover off what would be the normal policing cost for that municipality.

In the middle is the cost that the security budget has to be responsible for out of the $175 million. That involves the security of the venues themselves and the security of the Olympic athletes and Olympic officials. So we have a team that's working on that now, managed by the RCMP. They are looking at exactly what their obligations are going to be. But as I indicated, to date no one has indicated to me that the $175 million will not be adequate.

So $175 million is just in and around the venues and the Vancouver-Whistler corridor. Anything outside of that is the responsibility of the federal government, as the minister stated. If it's an air threat, water threat, terrorist threat, border security, immigration — all of that will be outside of the $175 million. Is that correct?

H. Bains: Who actually is dealing with that particular area of security in the budget?

Hon. C. Hansen: The plans for the security requirements as provided for by that $175 million are being led by the RCMP. Our Deputy Solicitor General is working closely with them and is part of that team.

H. Bains: I understand that part, that the RCMP is dealing with $175 million and providing that part of the security. But I'm talking about all other security arrangements that might be needed, whether it's a terrorist — internal or external — border security, immigration, air, water — whatever threat comes. Who is actually dealing with that security arrangement?

Hon. C. Hansen: The federal government is the short answer. They would look at those kinds of threats on an ongoing basis, I'm sure. I'm certainly not privy to the activities of the RCMP in that regard or CSIS or the Canadian military, but I'm sure they are constantly monitoring that ongoing threat.

The fact that we are hosting the Olympics in 2010 would be just one of those events that they would have to do threat assessments on. But I know they do that on an ongoing basis for all kinds of activities and events that take place. The Olympics are just one of those.

I think the other thing that is important is people jump to the conclusion that somehow the Olympic Games are a heightened threat for international incidents or international terrorism. I challenge that, because the Olympics actually have a pretty proud reputation of driving a peace agenda. There have been peace treaties that have been signed internationally to stand down any kind of aggressive activities around the world at the time the Olympic Games are underway.

That is something that is signed on to and acknow-ledged by countries of very different backgrounds. I think often when we think of terrorism threats, we think of threats against one or two countries in the world. But this is an event that takes place that actually welcomes all of the world to come together in peace and celebration.

So I don't believe there is any reason to assume that somehow the Olympics are a higher security threat than other international events that take place.

H. Bains: My question is: none of the $175 million will go towards that part of the security? If there is a…. The minister is nodding. That means the answer is yes.

Let me ask you another question on the secretariat office, since they've been sitting here all this time. It won't be fair not to ask any questions about their office. Can the minister give us a breakdown on the secretariat office budget, starting with 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2011?

Hon. C. Hansen: The budget for '07-08 is $7.877 million. The budget for '08-09 is $8.895 million. The budget for 2009-2010 is $9.077 million.

J. Kwan: I'm going to ask some questions relating to the Olympics, but more particularly as it impacts my riding of Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

First, let me ask a question around the development of a native youth centre in the downtown east side. I know the government is looking at developing some sort of aboriginal centre related to the Olympics as part of a legacy project. After the Olympics they would actually move that legacy project outside of the downtown east side to another venue.

Right now there is a proposal at work in the community around the native youth centre to which I think the government can actually partner those two things together to really build that legacy as a long-term return for the downtown east side.

Has the minister contemplated that? Has he seen that proposal, and would he be willing to consider that as a collective venture, if you will, in terms of an aboriginal legacy in the community?

Hon. C. Hansen: There is a proposal that's coming together for an aboriginal pavilion. This would be sponsored by the four host first nations, and it would become a showcase for our first nations peoples at the time of the games. It's to be located somewhere in Van-

couver. It's not necessarily in the downtown east side. The exact location has not yet been finalized. They are working with the city to try to determine where that might be.

In terms of the post-Olympic use of that structure, I don't believe they have made any decisions yet on how that structure might be used after the games are over. The member's suggestion, I think, would certainly be welcome. I know the representatives of the four host first nations would be very open to suggestions around how that could be used post-Olympics.

J. Kwan: I'm just wondering whether or not there's an opportunity here for economies of scale, if you will. A pavilion is going to be built at the same time. There is an initiative in my community where the idea is to build an aboriginal youth centre, and I think those two things can go hand in hand.

A site has not been determined. They already have a site in terms of this proposal in the community. So maybe there are some opportunities here to do something that is actually a lasting legacy in the community. I think one of the social impacts and mitigating issues for the community would include such legacy projects for the downtown east side.

Maybe what I can do, and I'm mindful of the time here, is advance a copy of that proposal to the minister. And if I could ask the minister to endeavour to perhaps assign it to staff to follow it up with the folks who are involved with the aboriginal pavilion initiative, to see how those things could be married together in terms of a lasting legacy.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please tell us what the training plan is for the downtown east side residents in terms of training opportunities and job opportunities? Would there be investments that would go into construction training for the downtown east side residents so that they can benefit from the games economically? Also, would there be support for security training for the downtown east side community? Again, so they could benefit from the potential economic spinoff from the games.

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the construction side, I know that VANOC in their construction has tried to reach out to communities that perhaps have not had opportunities to be actively involved in the workforce. I know the member is very familiar with BladeRunners, which is a very successful program that I think started when she was a member of government and continues to be very successful program. I believe that BladeRunners has been involved in some of the construction projects, whether they've been directly administered by VANOC or by third parties.

With regard to security, there is going to be a pro-cess that VANOC will be involved in, to identify individuals and ensure that they get the proper training necessary. I know that VANOC has a commitment to engaging first nations with those opportunities. They've got a great track record of that to date through the Four Host First Nations Secretariat. I'm sure that when it comes to the security side of it, the same track record they have to date would extend in that regard as well. I know from some of the individuals who are heading up the Four Host First Nations Secretariat that they will be there making sure those opportunities are there for aboriginal youth.

J. Kwan: I am noting the time. We won't have time to get into all the details around this and the proposal and the plans that VANOC and perhaps the minister and ministry have in place with regards to these issues.

I wonder whether or not the minister could provide me with those plans at a later date so that I can go through them — on the training issue, on whether it's construction or security and so on — so that I can take that back to my community to inform them how they could ensure that their input is there and is considered in terms of their participation.

Hon. C. Hansen: Rather than my getting that information and passing it on thirdhand, I think I can offer one better. I'll put the member in touch with the appropriate person at VANOC, who could provide her with that information.

J. Kwan: Excellent. I would appreciate that. I can ask, I guess, to my heart's content the questions that I have and see how we can bring the two sides together.

I'm going to move on to the arts and culture component related to the Olympics impacting, again, my community. Arts Now is now in place, as I understand. I'm wondering: in that initiative are they consulting with B.C. Arts Council in the grant-making process? This is a component, I believe, under Legacies Now.

Hon. C. Hansen: That is correct. It is an initiative of Legacies Now, and as I mentioned earlier, the relationship of Legacies Now with the provincial government is through the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. To be honest, I don't know who they are consulting with, but I'm sure that information could be obtained through the office of the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts.

J. Kwan: I do have a list of questions related to that, and maybe I can just put them on record. I will certainly endeavour to try and connect with the minister to see if I can find the answers. Failing that, I know that the minister earlier agreed that he would pass on my questions to his counterpart. I wonder if he would do that just to make sure that I do get the answers.

I'm just going to read off the questions and put them on the record. The other question I have is: is the arts sector beyond the B.C. Arts Council being consulted with respect to the Arts Now initiative? Can the minister ensure that the small arts and cultural institutions can have access to the funding as well?

Is the minister aware that the commercial leases right now in the community are hurting the non-profit art and cultural organizations quite significantly? In fact, the cost of the leases have shot up significantly, and some of these non-profits are really struggling. I'm not sure if they can survive it. So that's another issue. I'm wondering what plan the minister has to address this, to assist the non-profits to get through this.

Will there be funding pockets created for established organizations to purchase space as an investment, as a legacy in the arts and culture community into the long term? Ultimately, what arts and culture infrastructure legacy would there be in the community post the Olympics?

I'm wondering also about infrastructure funding for artist-run centres so that they can invest in a long-term presence in the downtown east side neighbourhood as part of a broad art and culture legacy.

These are some of the questions that I have related to the arts component. I would appreciate if the minister can pass those on to his counterpart and endeavour to get the answers related to them.

I'm going to move on to another area, which is the housing area related to this. I note that when I spoke with the minister on the helijet and asked him to see whether or not these are the kinds of questions — around the housing in the community — that should be brought to the minister in this set of estimates or if they should be brought to the Minister of Housing, he said they have joint responsibility.

I'm not quite sure where to go. I'm going to give it a try, and I'm sure the minister will tell me, if he's the wrong guy, that I should go to some other guy.

First of all, in terms of the impacts of the inner-city commitment statement that has been made by all levels of government related to the housing situation in the community, one of the issues ties into the SRO hotels, the single-room-occupancy hotels. I'm wondering: does the minister support a rent freeze in the SRO hotels in this period leading up to the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is a question that should be directed to the minister responsible for B.C. Housing. His estimates are still to come, so that opportunity should present itself.

J. Kwan: Does the minister support the 3,200 units of new social housing, as VANOC's own inner-city inclusive-housing round table has recommended?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think as we discussed earlier, the province was one of the parties to the ICI commitments, and we are anxious to live up to our obligations to ensure that those obligations are delivered on. But when it comes down to the specifics as to how the province would respond to that, that again is a question for the minister responsible for B.C. Housing.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think as I mentioned earlier, when it comes to activities directly related to the Olympic and Paralympic Games, this ministry has a responsibility for overall coordination and oversight. But we recognize that there are other line ministries that have better expertise in certain aspects of that, and we will work with those other ministries and defer to those other ministries to allow them to provide the leadership role when that's appropriate.

J. Kwan: Would Legacies Now be allocating any of its funds towards the development of a social housing legacy?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not familiar with how Legacies Now allocates their dollars. I'm not even sure that the minister to whom they relate — the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts — would have that information. That may be a question properly directed to Legacies Now. I know that they have a very receptive open-door policy to all MLAs, and I'm sure they would try to provide that information.

J. Kwan: Who in government…? Or is anybody in government developing a social impacts assessment of the Olympics in the downtown east side community?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the parties to the ICI agreement are looking at impacts, and I know that there has been TV coverage of events that have taken place that people have tried to — if I can use the term — "blame" on the Olympics, which I would take issue with. But I think that it is the member, signator parties to the ICI agreement that would have responsibility for monitoring and evaluating those impacts. The province is one of those parties.

J. Kwan: That brings us to the critical question with respect to the ICI recommendations. They have done the assessment, then, and have come up with recommendations, but they don't have the wherewithal to realize those recommendations. That depends on the government's action.

It would be critical for the government to actually support the recommendations from the ICI so that you can mitigate the social implications of the Olympics in the downtown east side community and in the neighbouring communities as well. So I would urge the minister to engage in that dialogue with his colleagues and to ensure that those recommendations are in fact implemented, because I think it would be crucial to the success of the Olympic Games.

It's something that we all want to celebrate in British Columbia. I think if the social impacts are not addressed adequately, the black eye would be a lasting one, and it would also be most unfortunate. I would urge the minister to engage in that dialogue, I'm sure, with his cabinet colleagues and the Premier as well.

I have just been told that I have to note the time. In this regard, I'll ask one last question of the minister. On

the issue around accountability, the minister earlier, in question period on some other day, had said that the accountability measures of VANOC and Legacies Now — with respect to the Financial Disclosure Act, the FOI Act, and so on — was subject to the federal government's decision on whether or not those accountability measures would apply to VANOC and Legacies Now. The minister's shaking his head, so I'm going to let him respond first.

Hon. C. Hansen: What I have said is that VANOC is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation, so I would have difficulty making an argument that VANOC — it's totally independent of the province; it's not an entity of the provincial government in any way, shape or form — should be subject to the provincial government's FOI. The question would be the same as: "On what basis should it be made federal to the federal freedom of information act?" Basically, VANOC, as an independent organization, has to develop their policies for disclosure in accordance with their governance obligations.

J. Kwan: Then, on that basis, would the minister at least commit to talking to his federal counterpart to ensure that VANOC and Legacies Now have an open and transparent process in place in which at minimum the standards that apply would be equal to the various acts that we have in British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think we canvassed this quite thoroughly. I noted earlier that VANOC today has come out with additional transparency measures that have been approved by their board of directors at today's VANOC board meeting. The decisions as to what kind of policies to engage in are in fact decisions that VANOC themselves have to make.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the committee rise and report resolution of the estimates of the Ministry of Economic Development, 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 — 41

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Thorpe	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Hansen	Abbott	Penner
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Hawkins	Bennett
Lekstrom	Polak	Hawes
Yap	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad

	NAYS — 30

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Horgan	Lali	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Robertson
Karagianis	Evans	Krog
Austin	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Macdonald	Conroy