Hansard — Wednesday, May 30, 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		8353

Tributes		8354
	Rick Hansen
	Hon. S. Bond
	C. James

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		8355
	Portraits for Our Place
	C. James
	Charles John McPherson
	R. Hawes
	Miners Memorial Day
	C. Trevena
	Cadillac Van Isle 360 race
	R. Cantelon
	Importance of small communities
	B. Simpson
	World Partnership Walk
	J. Nuraney

Oral Questions		8357
	Solicitor General response to B.C. Lottery Corporation issues
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	B. Ralston
	J. Kwan
	S. Simpson
	D. Chudnovsky
	R. Fleming
	South Fraser perimeter road land acquisition
	G. Gentner
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Transition plan for Port Alberni
	S. Fraser
	Hon. R. Coleman

Petitions		8361
	M. Karagianis
	C. Trevena

Tabling Documents		8361
	Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2006

Petitions		8361
	C. Evans

Committee of the Whole House		8361
	Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)
	J. Horgan
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	G. Robertson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8368
	Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 30)

Standing Order 81 Motion		8368
	Adoption of government business schedule
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of the Whole House		8369
	Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 34)
	A. Dix
	Hon. R. Coleman
	D. Thorne

Report and Third Reading of Bills		8375
	Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 34)

Second Reading of Bills		8375
	Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 31)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	C. Puchmayr
	K. Whittred
	L. Krog
	B. Lekstrom
	M. Farnworth
	D. Routley

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		8390
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development
	Hon. T. Christensen
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	M. Karagianis

Hon. C. Hansen: Today in the members' gallery we have a delegation of special visitors from the People's Republic of China. The delegation is led by Mr. Zhang Fusheng, who is secretary of the party committee and executive vice-president of China Ocean Shipping Co. Members of the delegation are senior officers of China's state-owned enterprises, who are here for a special studies program at UBC's Sauder school of business. I ask the House to give them a very warm welcome.

C. Puchmayr: I have two constituents in the gallery today. They are Nancy Puri and her husband Baj Puri. They are good volunteers in New Westminster with the 137th May Day celebration and also with the Hyack Festival. Please make them extremely welcome.

D. Hayer: Today we have visiting the Parliament Buildings 50 students from grades 10 to 12 from the Guildford Learning Centre in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers Miss Gail McKinnon, Mr. Mark Maretic, Miss Lindsay May, Miss Denise Roberts, Mr. Steve Robertson and Miss Amy Moody as well as many volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today there are about a hundred out-patient veterinary doctors outside expressing their views about the discrimination they are facing. They're fighting for justice. Five doctors are inside the gallery today joining us: Dr. Bhullar, Dr. Bajwa, Dr. Benipal, Dr. Brar and Dr. Jagpal. Please join me in welcoming them.

R. Lee: In the gallery today we have seven acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine professionals. They are Dr. Harvey Hu, president of B.C. Qualified Acupuncturists and Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Association — QATCMA; Dr. Arden Henley, chair, College of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncturists of British Columbia — CTCMA; Dr. Mary Watterson, registrar, CTCMA; Dr. Michael Chung, vice-chair, CTCMA; Dr. John Lee, vice-president, QATCMA; Dr. Chris Vallee, MSP committee chair, QATCMA; and Mr. Philippe Souvestre, registered acupuncturist, QATCMA member and CTCMA board member.

Our guests are here in the House today to show us the effectiveness of acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, as well as how we can provide more health care options to British Columbians. Would the House please help me make them welcome.

J. Kwan: I'd like to join with the member for Burnaby-Willingdon to welcome the delegation from the traditional Chinese medicine community, along with the college. They're here to meet with government members and also with opposition members. They would like to lobby the government to actually include traditional Chinese medicine under MSP, particularly for low-income people. I wish the House to make them welcome. I wish the minister will provide them a helpful response.

J. Nuraney: In the House today we have two very special guests. The first one is Phyllis Fox, who is the grand treasurer of the Order of the Amaranth and who was also the grand royal matron in the past. More importantly, she is the mother of our famous Canadian, Michael J. Fox.

Last Friday I had the pleasure of meeting Michael, who comes here every year for his fundraising tournament for the Michael J. Fox Theatre. Michael told me at that time that he had been able to successfully raise $114 million so far to find a cure for Parkinson's.

With Phyllis also is a friend, Kathy Stutt, who is the current grand royal matron of the Order of the Amaranth. I would ask the House to please make them both feel very welcome.

R. Cantelon: I have two introductions, if I may, today. First, joining us today are Caleb Garriet and Hannah Garriet, ages 12 and eight, who are here as home school students, accompanied by their mother and teacher, to learn more about how the parliament behaves. I'm sure the question period will be very informative to them.

Also with us today are other constituents of mine, Cathy and Jim Stewart, who are known to many of us here. Would the House make all these guests feel very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the timely submission from the member for New Westminster, Baj and Nancy Puri have already been introduced to the House. I wonder if that applause would be amplified that much more if the House were aware that they are also the proud parents of Belle Puri, a member of the esteemed — I think we can still say that, esteemed — legislative press gallery. They're not here just watching these proceedings. They are proudly watching their daughter undertake her duties as a member of the press gallery. I know that all members will want to make them welcome again.

Hon. G. Hogg: We have two residents of Surrey–White Rock. Mr. Doug and Mrs. Ada Newell are here in Victoria today visiting their granddaughter, an executive assistant with the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts — Pamela Hollingsworth.

They're also celebrating Doug's 86th birthday. They're joined by their son Shaun. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Next week is B.C. Seniors Week, a special time for us to acknowledge and celebrate the older persons in all of our lives. Since we won't be in session next week, I have the pleasure of introducing some very special guests who have joined us in the gallery.

First of all, there are approximately 40 members who make up branch 25 of the B.C. Old Age Pensioners group. They work on behalf of Sidney's senior community. I know they already took a jump-start in terms of celebrating Seniors Week during the week of May 20-26.

Joining us today are four of those members of the Sidney branch 25: immediate past president Ms. Tina Newton, past president Mr. Don Climie, executive member Ms. Lenore Climie and Ms. Rose Rudolph, who is a member there.

In addition, they are joined by the Greater Victoria Old Age Pensioners chapter 191. Those representatives here today are president Clara Halber; first vice-president Sheila Rose Richardson; Alison Acra, their secretary. Peter Justo and Max Halber are directors.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the galleries we are joined by two individuals who are members of my constituency, Chris Midmore and Nancy Kalid. In addition to being constituents in the great constituency of Surrey-Cloverdale, they are also active board members of the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation. In fact, Chris is the chair of that foundation. They are doing an exceptional job right now in helping to spearhead a campaign to raise dollars to provide equipment for the expanded emergency room that the Minister of Health is undertaking, and also the new $200 million Surrey Memorial Hospital that is being built.

I would ask the House to please make them welcome and recognize the efforts they're making on behalf of all the residents of Surrey.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery we have some very special visitors from Thailand. Mr. Kosit Chatpaiboon, the newly appointed consul general in Vancouver, is making his first official visit to Victoria. He is accompanied by his wife Ms. Vlairatana Chatpaiboon and consular officer Ms. Apinya Na Nakorn.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, we have a very, very special guest today, and at this point in time I would ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring Rick Hansen to the Bar. [Applause.]

Hon. S. Bond: Last week, on May 22, we celebrated an important date in the history of the province and of our country. Twenty years earlier on that date Rick Hansen rolled into Vancouver, his arms raised in triumph at the conclusion of his Man in Motion tour. And who can forget that tour and those poignant pictures from around the world? I know that for me, that vision of Rick on the Great Wall of China is etched in stone in my mind, as I'm sure it is for many members of this House. The tour lasted over two years, covered 34 countries on four continents and raised $26 million for spinal cord research.

Since that time the Rick Hansen Foundation has gone on to raise over $178 million for spinal-cord-injury-related programs and initiatives, sponsoring research towards a cure and over 500 projects to improve the quality of life for people with spinal cord injuries, providing them with real hope and enabling them to achieve their dreams.

We continue to be inspired by Rick's work helping governments, businesses and organizations make our buildings more accessible to people with disabilities, encouraging our communities to be more caring and more inclusive, and working even harder on behalf of spinal cord research and improving the quality of life for people with disabilities across British Columbia. We're pleased to be a small part of that process by working in partnership with Rick in the Rick Hansen school program to make British Columbia schools more accessible and more inclusive.

Speaking personally, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you there's no better place to be than in a classroom with Rick Hansen as he shares the story of his journey and his vision and as he inspires students of whatever age they might be by telling them anything is possible. He's told me that on a number of occasions — and it helps me to get through some very long days, I can assure you, Rick.

We've also provided funding to support construction of the Blusson Pavilion, a world-class research centre at Vancouver General Hospital, as well as the B.C. Leadership Chair for Spinal Cord Research at the Rick Hansen Institute of B.C.

Mr. Speaker, today we are absolutely thrilled to have Rick Hansen here with us in the House.

Rick, you are a true Canadian hero and an inspiration to all British Columbians. On behalf of the Premier and my colleagues, I want to say thank you for making a difference. We want to very warmly welcome you to the House today. [Applause.]

C. James: It's with enormous pleasure and gratitude that I join with the Deputy Premier in welcoming Rick Hansen to the Legislature. It's really hard to believe that 20 years have passed since his triumphant return to Vancouver, completing one of the most incredible and arduous journeys ever undertaken in history — a journey that touched the world and certainly made all of us as Canadians proud, a journey that also reminded us about the best in the human spirit.

Most importantly, many people could have taken that journey as a journey in itself, but Rick didn't do that. Rick took that journey and made a legacy — the journey that's made a real and meaningful difference, forever changing our society's approach to fellow citizens living with spinal cord injuries. In the 20 years

that have passed, Rick Hansen has continued to build on that legacy, inspiring people the world over to look for a cure.

I know that Rick is a regular visitor to this building and to legislatures across Canada, tirelessly advocating for spinal cord research and awareness for people with disabilities. Yesterday we heard the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca remind us that June 10 is the fifth anniversary of the Rick Hansen Wheels in Motion event. I know I join my colleagues and all members of this House in inviting British Columbians, wherever they live, to take part, to help raise money, to raise awareness for spinal cord research and to make sure that we all continue to play our part in Rick's legacy to people with disabilities in British Columbia, in Canada and around the world.

Mr. Speaker: I'd like to invite the Deputy Premier and the Leader of the Opposition to personally thank Rick.

C. James: Mr. Speaker, communities throughout British Columbia are affected by growing homelessness and poverty. Here in Victoria we've certainly seen a dramatic increase in the number of citizens living on the street. Solving this crisis requires support from all levels of government and a community effort which includes businesses, not-for-profit organizations and the personal commitment of all of us.

Today I'd like to recognize the contribution of a few individuals in my community. Our Place is a new facility, soon to open on Pandora Avenue, to better serve the homeless community. Three of my constituents — Nick and Maggi Woodiwiss, and artist Elfrida Shragen — have started an innovative project, Portraits for Our Place, to raise funds for its completion.

With the blessing of Our Place, Miss Shragen has painted the portraits of some 30 homeless individuals in Victoria, each of whom was paid a modest fee for sitting. Earlier this month these portraits were exhibited at city hall, with the sale benefiting Our Place.

Mr. and Mrs. Woodiwiss have also sponsored a website to provide a profile of the Portraits for Our Place and to highlight the contribution of other citizens who are helping the homeless community. Portraits for Our Place is a wonderful example of grassroots community activism and of the power we all have to make a difference.

I would ask this House to join me in recognizing the contribution of these three British Columbians and in thanking them for the inspirational example they're setting for all of us.

R. Hawes: On Friday, May 18, Mission lost a giant. Charles John McPherson passed away quietly at the age of 83. Charlie taught school and coached basketball in Mission for 36 years before retiring in 1984. He coached the Mission AA boys basketball team to a provincial championship in 1954.

Charlie McPherson also served as an alderman for 18 years on Mission city council and ten years on the Mission Memorial Hospital board. He spent ten years in Kinsmen and was co-founder of the Mission Duplicate Bridge Club and a charter member of the Mission Golf Club, bridge and golf being two activities that he really loved. He served as co-chair of the Mission heart and stroke fund for 12 years and president of the Lifetime Learning Society for 13 years.

Charlie was always there for anyone who needed him and could always be counted on to donate his time and considerable energy to any worthwhile community project. In 1992 he received the lifetime Community Service Award from the district of Mission and in 1995 was made a freeman of the district of Mission.

At a celebration of Charlie's life last Saturday, one of the 1954 basketball players summed up Charlie's teaching career by saying: "I'm 72 years old, and if it weren't for Charlie McPherson, I'd still be in grade 12."

Charlie McPherson's impact on life in Mission over the years was profound. We all share the grief of Charlie's passing with his wife Audrey and his children Cheryl, K.C. and Doug. But we also celebrate his gift to all of us, for he surely left Mission a better community because of his tireless dedication.

Charlie, you're truly the essence of the Rotary motto: "Service above self." We'll miss you.

C. Trevena: Saturday, June 23 marks the 22nd Miners Memorial Day in Cumberland. Cumberland was at the heart of the mining industry, and every year people get together to commemorate those who died working in the pits. Cumberland has the unhappy reputation of having been the most dangerous mine in Canada. There were 295 miners killed there over the years.

Like in other parts of the world, the appalling conditions spurred on union organization. Like in other parts of the world, the mine owners fought the workers who were coming together collectively — the workers who were striving for their rights and for the right to work without the risk of death.

Perhaps the most renowned of those labour activists was Ginger Goodwin. He started to work in the pits of the Yorkshire coalfield before immigrating to the mines in Cape Breton. After taking part in the strike there and being blacklisted, he ended up in Cumberland and again was involved in a strike and blacklisted. In 1917 he led a strike for an eight-hour work day for the smelter workers in Trail.

Despite having black lung, he was considered fit for service in the First World War and conscripted. He managed to evade the authorities until July 1918, when he was tracked down and shot. His funeral marked the first general strike in B.C. Every year he's commemorated with the laying of wreaths at his gravesite.

Ginger Goodwin and the Miners Memorial are linked. The memory of workers killed underground, and the memory and legacy of a person who stood up for them, a person who fought for the rights of working people — the right to work for an eight-hour day, to get paid a living wage and to come home alive.

We should remember Ginger Goodwin because too many of our workers are not getting a living wage. Too many of our workers hold down two or three jobs and long for the eight-hour day. Too many of our workers do not come home alive. A century on, the fight continues, and the memorials remain steadfast.

R. Cantelon: Upcoming Saturday, June 16 at 10:30 a.m., an exciting, spectacular and beautiful event is going to occur in Nanaimo Harbour. It's the start of the Van Isle Cadillac 360 race. It begins in Nanaimo harbour, and it's a 580-kilometre race circumnavigating Vancouver Island, visiting many communities on the way — again, with many community celebrations — and ending up back in Nanaimo.

This is a unique and different event. Many of you have perhaps watched the start of the America's Cup yachts and seen the boats tack and jostle to try and hit the start line at exactly the right moment. What makes this unique is the variety of boats — from 25-footers to 102-footers. The Oriole, built in 1921, is one of the boats. It's a beautiful, majestic square-rigged vessel.

I think the star this year, though, will be the Atalanta. It's a 76-foot sloop that raced in the Hobart-to-Sydney race. Sailing fans know that's a gruelling and tough race. This boat, then known as the Ondine III, won that race. It would be longer than this House, and the mast would go higher than this chamber. It's a phenomenally beautiful boat.

So here you have it — all this variety of vessels jostling for position. To see that big vessel steaming through the water under full sail like a freight train and do a 360 is dramatic. All these boats are going back and forth in the harbour, tacking for position, doing 180 turns, and they do it under full sail, under full power, without any collisions or mishaps. The members opposite might take note that they're able to do this. Then the gun starts, and off they go.

It's a phenomenally exciting event. I welcome you all to see it — any of you who love to sail or have never been to sea. It's a spectacular event to watch, so please come to Nanaimo and take it in.

B. Simpson: On May 16 and 17, I had the distinct pleasure of travelling to four smaller communities in my riding with Lieutenant-Governor Iona Campagnolo. We travelled to 150 Mile House, where we visited a school. We travelled to Horsefly, where we were treated to a maypole dance at the school, a community luncheon and a trip in an authentic wagon.

Then the next day we went to Likely, British Columbia, where the Lieutenant-Governor opened a museum, attended a school and spoke with the children, went to a community luncheon as well, and finished the day in Big Lake.

On all of those occasions the Lieutenant-Governor brought all of the pomp and circumstance or the tradition of the Lieutenant-Governor's office. We were piped in, there was a proper procession, and there were the handshakes as the Lieutenant-Governor was introduced to every member of the community who showed up at those events.

The message the Lieutenant-Governor brought was that small communities count, that small schools count and that every British Columbian has the right to the same levels of service and attention that British Columbians enjoy in the lower mainland. It's a very valuable message, a very timely message. As the members of this House know, many of those communities are going through significant transition.

Her presence was very well received. I want to express today my heartfelt thanks to the Lieutenant-Governor for doing what she did, for the pride and the joy she brought to those communities, and my congratulations to the children and the community members who gave her a very heartfelt Cariboo welcome.

J. Nuraney: The World Partnership Walk, an initiative of the Aga Khan Foundation Canada, is the largest annual event in Canada dedicated to increasing the awareness and raising funds to fight global poverty.

The Aga Khan Foundation Canada is a registered Canadian charitable organization which delivers its programs without regard to faith, origin, ethnicity and gender.

This walk was held last Sunday at Stanley Park in Vancouver, and some 8,000 people attended. The work of the organizers and the volunteers reflected the commitment and the dedication to this cause. Our Premier, in the company of the mayor of Vancouver and celebrities like Gordie Howe, attended the event and helped to raise $1.5 million to support programs to address root causes of poverty.

It should also be mentioned that this walk is now taking place in nine major cities across Canada, including Victoria. I'm told that Victoria had the largest participant crowd ever in its history.

The total moneys raised across Canada is around $6 million. Every penny goes towards meeting the dire needs in the impoverished countries.

In the words of His Highness the Aga Khan: "There are those who enter the world in such poverty that they are deprived of both the means and the motivation to improve their lot. Unless they can be touched with the spark which ignites the spirit of individual enterprise and determination, they will sink into apathy, degradation and despair. It is for us, who are more fortunate, to provide that spark."

As a member of the Shia Ismaili Muslim community, it gives me great pleasure to share this work of humanity with this House. The walk takes place every year, and the next will be on May 25, 2008.

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to introduce 50 grade 6 students from both Canalta and Tremblay elementary schools in Dawson Creek. I will note they're from different classrooms; not all 50 are in the same classroom.

Joining them are their teachers Jim Mah, Shane Corston and Kelly McIntyre. As well, the parents accompanying the children today are Connie Dilworth and Kathy Thorbergson, Will the House please make them all feel very welcome.

C. James: In December 2006 the Solicitor General told British Columbians that there was nothing to worry about. He said the B.C. Lottery Corporation was doing its job to protect consumers. Well, yesterday's damning report proves that the Solicitor General misled the public or was himself misled. Either way, someone has to be held accountable for the failures and attempted cover-up. The minister must take action. He must hold someone accountable.

My question to the minister: if he refuses to do that, if he refuses to stand up for British Columbians, will the minister resign?

Hon. J. Les: Perhaps it would be helpful for the Leader of the Opposition if I went through the chronology again of what transpired since October of last year.

Members of the House will recall that in October last year, concerns were raised with respect to the operations of the lottery system in the province of Ontario. I immediately asked our gaming policy and enforcement branch to undertake an investigation of the B.C. Lottery Corporation to ensure that similar problems did not exist here in British Columbia.

That report was completed on the 14th of December. I was advised that although there were some issues, in terms of its technical integrity the system in British Columbia was working fine. I so advised the public. I should say, as well, that the Ombudsman's investigation was commenced within a week after the investigation of the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

Clearly, that Ombudsman's report, which was tabled yesterday, was entirely unacceptable in terms of the conclusions that were reached with respect to the operation of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

C. James: The minister can't duck this one. He can't try and hide from this one. He made a statement to the public in British Columbia in December. He said: "The issues have been fully investigated and resolved." That was pretty clear from the minister, but the Ombudsman report said that there was no way to substantiate the minister's claims.

Again, my question to the Solicitor General…. He's been caught up in his own incompetence or been caught misleading British Columbians. The minister wants us to accept that everyone involved gets off scot-free. Well, that's not good enough.

Hon. J. Les: What I was attempting to convey to the member opposite is that what I reported in December was based on information that was provided to me at that time. I share the member opposite's outrage in terms of the recommendations that have flowed from the Ombudsman's report.

Hon. J. Les: We all ought to be equally outraged that the lottery system in British Columbia was not working as it should. We are absolutely committed to making sure, first of all, that all of the recommendations of the Ombudsman's report are fully implemented.

We will go further. We are going to bring in an outside auditor to ensure that there is a complete review not only of the lottery system within the B.C. Lottery Corporation but also the gaming policy and enforcement branch to ensure that we can make further improvements that will guarantee the proper functioning of this body in the future.

C. James: I heard the minister say that he was outraged. Outrage isn't good enough. Action and accountability are what's needed from this minister.

Let's remember that it was the Solicitor General himself who ordered the investigation — the investigation that according to the Ombudsman report turned out to be a whitewash. He is responsible for that failure. He didn't do his job, and he didn't follow through. He left consumers vulnerable to fraud. The incompetence and the cover-up are on his desk in that report.

If the Solicitor General disagrees, then why won't he fire the people who were responsible for this?

Hon. J. Les: I have already said that there will be a complete review by an independent auditor. When the results of that review come in, the chips will fall where they may, and everyone will be held properly accountable. That is a commitment that we intend to uphold.

B. Ralston: The Lottery Corporation service plan states: "The BCLC complies with all policy directives issued by the minister." The minister ordered that the original investigation, which reported on December 14…. That was an investigation conducted by the gaming policy and enforcement branch. He signed off on it.

The Ombudsman's report, which examined that report, found that the so-called investigation didn't look at the complete complaint files — only summaries. There were no written records of the interviews conducted.

So will the Solicitor General admit — and he's had a day to reflect on this — that the investigation he ordered was a complete whitewash and that he participated in a cover-up?

Hon. J. Les: It's interesting that the member opposite is looking for different varieties of conspiracy theories here. Look, I understand that the member opposite is not satisfied. I have news for the member opposite. I'm not satisfied either.

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the review that was done in October, November and December of last year was inadequate. It was incomplete. It was unsatisfactory.

The Ombudsman's report is very thorough and complete. We're going to follow through and make sure that it's completely implemented in terms of its recommendations. Again I repeat that we're going to go further. We're going to make sure that we're going to have an independent audit of both the gaming policy and enforcement branch as well as the lotteries operation within the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

B. Ralston: The minister proposes to investigate the investigation of an investigation. Apparently, the minister won't listen to my advice. Perhaps he'll listen to the advice of the Premier when he was Leader of the Opposition: "We're in a parliamentary democracy. This minister is responsible, and this minister should have the jam to do what's right and resign." Will you take that advice?

Hon. J. Les: I have made a commitment — and I do so again — that this is going to be thoroughly investigated and that the consequences will flow from that investigation. I am committed to real action and real consequences, but it's quite apparent that the member opposite is only interested in scoring cheap political points.

J. Kwan: What we're interested in is an accountable government and an accountable minister. The Solicitor General's attempts to hide information didn't end in December.

Yesterday the minister told this House that Monday was the first time that he saw the recommendations from the Ombudsman. Yet in the Ombudsman's own report there's a letter from his deputy that indicates the minister was fully aware of the recommendations on May 1. The minister even wrote and replied to the Ombudsman.

To the Solicitor General: which is it? Is he incompetent, or did he mislead this House?

Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I want you to be careful on how you phrase your questions, please.

Hon. J. Les: I said very clearly yesterday that I was given an embargoed copy of the final recommendations the day before yesterday. I say again that these are important recommendations. This is an important contribution by the Ombudsman, who operates in the province of British Columbia to do exactly this kind of thing — to review these kinds of operations and to make recommendations to government so that we can be sure that taxpayers and in this case people who buy lottery tickets are fully protected.

J. Kwan: The Solicitor General said yesterday…. He told this House that he had not seen the report or these recommendations until Monday. But a letter from his own deputy contradicts that. The minister received the recommendations from the Ombudsman's office on May 1. He even met with the deputy about those recommendations. I refer the minister to page 125 of the report.

Again to the minister: why did he try to cover up what he knew and when he knew it?

Hon. J. Les: I think I've repeated now for the third time that I received the final report and recommendations of the Ombudsman the day before yesterday. What I'm interested in is complete accountability, transparency and openness. If it helps the member opposite, there is no attempt to cover up anything. As I've already said, we're going to go further, in fact, than the recommendations that have been supplied by the Ombudsman.

S. Simpson: Yesterday the minister told this House: "This is the report I received yesterday, and that's when I was made aware of these recommendations." We know the minister was provided a letter by the Ombudsman on the first of May with recommendations. We know the minister responded to that letter on the seventh of May, based on comments by the Deputy Solicitor General. The discrepancy between the minister's statements in this House yesterday and the facts is irreconcilable and inexcusable.

Because this contradiction is very troubling and it's very obvious, will the minister explain the contradiction between having written and responded to the Ombudsman on May 7 and telling this House yesterday that he only just saw the recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure how I can be more clear. It's clear that my answer is not acceptable to the member opposite. This report, which I have here in my hands, was an embargoed copy that I received the day before yesterday. That is when the finalized recommendations and in fact the entire report were complete — the day before yesterday.

Again, this is an important contribution to ensuring the long-term integrity of the lottery system in British Columbia. It is a valuable contribution. These are recommendations that we want to see fully implemented. It is important that they be implemented, and it's important that we also review the operations not only of the Lottery Corporation but also of the gaming policy and enforcement branch to ensure that these circumstances do not obtain again in the province of British Columbia.

S. Simpson: For a minister to make a statement in this House that is so clearly inconsistent with the facts is wrong. The minister has offered no explanation of how he writes a letter dealing with these recommendations on May 7, and then comes in this House and says he didn't see the recommendations until the 28th of May.

How can we have confidence in a minister who has conducted himself in this manner? Will the minister accept ministerial accountability and responsibility? Will the minister conduct himself properly, and will he do the honourable thing and resign now?

Hon. J. Les: Again, I repeat. There are 27 recommendations in this report. I saw them for the first time the day before yesterday.

Now, it is clear — or at least I hope it is clear to members opposite — that in doing her work, the Ombudsman would have been in touch not only with the B.C. Lottery Corporation but also with senior staff in my ministry. That is completely normal.

We are open; we are accountable. We work with people, including the Ombudsman. We want to make sure that we always cooperate fully with these kinds of processes.

Is the member opposite really suggesting that I should have somehow blackballed the Ombudsman and not cooperated with her in doing this work? That would have been inappropriate, Mr. Speaker. It is entirely appropriate that a ministry cooperates when this kind of work is being done.

D. Chudnovsky: The minister said yesterday in the House, and he has repeated a number of times today, that he saw the report of the Ombudsman — an embargoed copy — for the first time the day before yesterday.

The question is something else. The question is: what part of the recommendations and what part of the content of that report did the minister know about before the day before yesterday?

Hon. J. Les: Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite are putting the question in a variety of different ways. Frankly, what this discussion ought to be about is the Ombudsman's report, the recommendations that she has made and how we are going to move forward in terms of making sure we have a lottery system in British Columbia that everyone can depend on.

That is what we should be discussing, and that is what I intend to do — going forward to make sure that we implement all of the recommendations and any further recommendations that could come from the independent audit.

D. Chudnovsky: I'm afraid it's not up to the minister to lecture us on what we should be discussing or what we ought to be discussing. It's up to the minister to take responsibility and answer a question for a change.

The minister won't tell us, it appears, what he knew about the Ombudsman's report prior to the time that he saw the embargoed copy. Let's ask him a different question. Let's ask another question.

Was the minister informed at any point by the CEO of the Lottery Corporation about problems in the Lottery Corporation? When did he first hear from the Lottery Corporation itself about the problems?

Hon. J. Les: Clearly, the member opposite listens very selectively. I said clearly at the outset this afternoon that I was made aware in December of certain deficiencies and that those deficiencies were going to be addressed and fully implemented in terms of the recommendations being made at that time by the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

The member opposite apparently takes exception to, as he says, being lectured by me. What I take some exception to is a group of people trying to lecture this side about these kinds of issues, given that they have yet to follow through on their commitment to repay the charities in Nanaimo that they ripped off a number of years ago.

R. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, this report is about the incompetent handling of over $1 billion in revenues. The Solicitor General wishes to deflect attention for accountability to another day, another report, so the Solicitor General proposes an audit to determine responsibility.

Now, I wonder if the Solicitor General can agree today that the scope of the audit will include a review of the Solicitor General's own actions — in particular, what he knew and when.

Hon. J. Les: I clearly said yesterday that the terms of reference to do with the internal audit will be completed within ten days. They will be publicly available. We will also have selected the independent auditor by that time. I do not intend for that internal audit to be restrictive. That internal auditor can invest myself or anybody else that he or she determines is appropriate.

G. Gentner: Mr. Speaker, 40 percent of the cost of the $1.1 billion South Fraser perimeter road is allocated towards land acquisition, making it the largest purchase of land for any highway project in the history of B.C. For speculators, there's a lot of money to be made here.

Can the Minister of Transportation explain how it is that a numbered company paid $1.7 million for contaminated industrial land at 7590 80th Avenue in Delta on February 25, 2004, and flipped it less than a year later — only weeks before the announcement of the South Fraser perimeter road route selection — for $3.6 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: I know it doesn't take long for those members opposite to climb up the grassy knoll and discover conspiracies everywhere they look. I think, again, that if the member would do his homework, the member would know that in 2004 that was a property that was actually put into foreclosure. That was the value assigned to that property at foreclosure. That is a different value than market value. The member should know that.

In fact, there is a 1998 appraisal report on that same property valuing it at $3 million. We paid $3.6 million through the Gateway project. That was based on an independently provided market assessment.

G. Gentner: Well, we know the government paid $600,000 more than the market value. There's no question there.

Okay. Let's see. The residents with million-dollar vistas overlooking the Fraser are still awaiting settlement. Their lives are on hold, and yet speculators come in and buy and flip. Hmm, isn't that interesting?

There's concern in my community that there is another Gaglardi road deal in the making, where family and friends made oodles of money because of inside knowledge — buying land, knowing where a road was to be built. Can the minister assure this House that something similar is not happening with B.C.'s largest highway land acquisition?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member should be careful how he makes those kinds of allegations or casts aspersions, because the fact of the matter is that this is a road whose general route has been talked about and known for almost 20 years. It's been part of a discussion with the local municipalities for a good six years under this government. There's been no secrecy about where this route is going to be.

I can tell the member opposite — and the member should know — that I have full confidence in the professional public servants that are overseeing the property acquisition. Before acquiring any properties, they receive independently provided market assessments, market appraisals on those properties, and they negotiate fair market purchase prices.

When the member wants to talk about flips and kind of make all of those kinds of insinuations…. You'd better do your homework and make sure that's actually the case. In this case, I believe that our employees acted totally appropriately.

S. Fraser: Catalyst announced today that 315 jobs are going to be chopped, 185 of those in Port Alberni. To the Minister of Forests and Range: what's he going to do? What's his plan?

Hon. R. Coleman: Next week we will actually…. I just met with the mayor of Port Alberni yesterday, and we discussed what was in the rumour mill at that time with regards to Catalyst. His numbers were substantially higher, by the way, than what was actually announced by Catalyst today.

Nobody likes to see a line in a paper mill go down. It's a concern to all of us. We do know that the competition report told us that we were going to have some challenges within forestry in the near future. I don't think I can go out there tomorrow and buy the mill like you did for Skeena Cellulose and blow $500 million. I don't think that would be the appropriate thing to do.

We're going to work with industry, as we have with the CEO committee that we're working with now

in the pulp and paper sector, to find long-term solutions in the pulp and paper sector.

S. Fraser: That's comforting, hon. Speaker. Maybe I'd have more luck if I was the Minister of Agriculture and Lands.

I'm going to try this again. The minister made a commitment over a year ago now to visit Port Alberni, the people in Port Alberni, and he hasn't lived up to that commitment. The minister commissioned an industrial review for Port Alberni only because Port Alberni came here, because he didn't live up to that promise. He's been sitting on that report, almost releasing it time and time again, and it's still not released. You've had it for over a month now — then this announcement.

To the minister: what transition plans do you have in place for Port Alberni? What resources will you bring to bear to deal with your lacking in forest policy and leadership?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows full well I've been to Port Alberni. He keeps prattling on about that. I don't know why he thinks he has some land to stand on to insult the minister across the House by accusing him of something that he's already done. But that's okay. I get that.

I also get the fact that unlike the member opposite, when I met with the mayor of Port Alberni yesterday, we talked about long-term solutions for the Alberni Valley. We talked about the report that is going to come out next week. We talked about the solutions we can find in economic development — things together with that valley and with his community.

One thing I'll say about the mayor of Port Alberni. I think he's a pretty remarkable mayor. He knows he's in a region that used to have 8,000 jobs in forestry. He knows there have been huge changes in the forest sector that have affected his community. He wants to find solutions.

I think, quite frankly, that community is lucky to have a mayor who is actually trying to build a vision for that community and will work with us to try and build that solution together. My commitment to the mayor yesterday was precisely that, and that's exactly what I'll follow through on.

M. Karagianis: I have here a petition with 158 signatures asking this House to take immediate action to ensure that Mary Manning Centre and sexual abuse intervention programs in B.C. receive sufficient funding.

C. Trevena: I'd like to present a petition of about 500 signatures calling for restoration of funding for child care.

I'd like to present a second petition from 405 residents along the road from Highway 19 to Fair Harbour calling for the continued grading of this road.

Hon. J. Les: I have the honour to present the 2006 annual report for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

C. Evans: I have a petition here from almost the entire community of Edgewood, British Columbia — 200 people — opposing the logging of beetle-killed lodgepole pine in areas designated block 1 and block 2 of the Edgewood face area.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call in this chamber committee stage debate of Bill 30, Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007; and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 30; S. Hawkins in the chair.

J. Horgan: Within section 1, under the subsection 68.01 it says, "'energy product' means," and it inventories a number of products. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to me why propane is named in sub-subsection (d) and then discounted as not being a fuel oil in an explanatory note just below that. Why was it necessary to name the product and then disclaim it later on?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Before we start, maybe I'd introduce Dan Green. He's director with the alternative energy policy branch in the Ministry of Energy and Mines. And we have Jordan Goss with us from tax policy branch, Ministry of Finance.

We wanted to capture grid propane. That means that there are some communities, Whistler for one, that have propane in a grid system, much the same as natural gas. But then we wanted to exclude the propane that someone would go pick up for their barbecue or something like that at Canadian Tire, because there are different tax scenarios in those two, and it becomes very difficult. It's a small amount compared to the heating portion.

With respect to section 1(e), it says "other tangible personal property prescribed by regulation as an energy product…." Could the minister advise on what is contemplated in that section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, what this does is give authority by regulation to add further products at some time in the future, if it's so chosen to do or if we've missed something that we should have caught this time.

J. Horgan: When I asked the minister what was contemplated, I assumed that the inclusion in the act of language as ambiguous as that was for a purpose beyond those issues that we have not yet imagined. So are there issues that we might have imagined that are not articulated here but may well be in the short term that the minister could name today?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to be difficult here, but I'll go back to my answer that I gave already. It allows and gives the authority to actually change by regulation some other fuel source that may come on the scene at some further time. I'm not aware of anything that I can name right here, but it's an enabling part of it so that you can add it later without having to come back to the House and go through the legislative process.

J. Horgan: Then let's use an example. If in my community a subdivision decided that they wanted to burn wood waste and heat and electrify the neighbourhood, would they be exempted, or would that be one of the areas that the minister contemplates?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In that scenario, they would be taxed on their electricity bill.

J. Horgan: Well, it would be an energy product. They would be generating energy. They would be potentially creating steam, heating their home, and that's something that's not prescribed in this section but something that an individual or a group of individuals could undertake. If they did so, would they be open to taxation under this section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It would be the alternative energy branch of the Ministry of Energy,

Mines and Petroleum Resources in discussions with whoever that hypothetical person or persons would be. It wouldn't just be arbitrarily done. There would need to be some discussion about it to find out exactly what all is entailed so they actually do the right thing.

J. Horgan: The reason I'm belabouring this point is that citizens, when they look at this act and see subsections (a), (b), (c) and (d), they have an understanding of what that is. Any person can imagine in their mind electricity, natural gas, fuel, oil and propane. But when they look at it and they see under subsection (e), "other tangible personal property prescribed by regulation as an energy product…." That certainly gives me pause, and it's my role and function as critic to raise the issue here.

We can move on to another section if I'm understanding the minister correctly that beyond those four primary energy products, the minister and in fact the director of an alternative energy branch are given authority by this section to name other tangible personal property as an energy product. If that's what the minister is saying — that it's at the discretion of the director as to what those items might be in the future — then we should have that on the record.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's not at the total discretion of the director. It's at the discretion of the minister at the end of the day and the government, whoever the government happens to be at that particular time.

If there's any comfort I can give the member, it is energy product. It's not any other tangible product other than energy product. It's not the intent of the Ministry of Energy and Mines to go searching for every little thing that we can find. But we just wanted to make sure that we had in the act the ability to actually react to something if in fact that kind of an issue came forward. So that's all that portion is meant to do.

J. Horgan: Further down in section 1(3), of course, it says: "…the purchase price of the energy product at the applicable rate prescribed by regulation." I'm going to be asking a series of questions over the next few minutes about the regulation process.

I'm wondering if the minister could start now at this section and give me an indication as to why we didn't identify the rates and regulations within the act rather than leaving it for some time in the future where we don't have the accountability of this Legislature.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Again, it's not uncommon to do this. This is pretty standard procedure to actually have that rate set in regulation, so that that rate can be changed by regulation rather than having to wait for a session of the House or something like that to sit.

I think we've been pretty clear in public about what the rate will be — 0.04 percent.

J. Horgan: Then if we're clear that the rate is 0.04 percent, why not put it in the act? I know this is standard in other pieces of legislation. The Minister of Finance would certainly be able to lecture me on that, and I'd enjoy the discussion. But what we have here is an innovative clean energy fund. We're creating a special account that we've already said on this side of the House that we support.

Why would we not then take the 0.04 percent that the minister has spoken of publicly, put it in the act so that we have transparency, we have openness, and we have accountability to this Legislature? Why not do that now rather than wait for regulations that the public will not have access to unless they are on line or are able to access the statutes of this place?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is fully transparent. I don't see anything here that's not transparent. I had stated when we did second reading that we'd actually get the regulations together as soon as we possibly could. We put out a press release saying that. It's well known to people. There will be a letter going out in utility bills in the near future explaining it. There's a website to explain it. I don't think anything could be more transparent.

We have a difference of opinion. I say that the way we want to put it is in the regulation, and the member wishes it to be in the legislation. It's clear that, I guess, we disagree on that.

I appreciate that the member supports this, because I think this is a good bill at the end of the day. Governments, today and in the future, I think will say this was the right thing to do in British Columbia.

J. Nuraney: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce 35 students from grade 5 visiting here from South Park Elementary School in my riding of Burnaby-Willingdon. Joining them is their teacher Joann Hunchak. With her are some volunteers and parents who have made it possible for the students to come visit us today to learn about the government procedures and the way we operate. May the House please join me in giving them a good welcome.

J. Horgan: The students couldn't have better tutors than me and the Minister of Energy as we go through this important piece of legislation. So I certainly welcome the kids to the chamber today.

The minister and I were just agreeing to disagree, which we do periodically. But when we were at second reading…. I have read the press releases, and I've seen the 0.04 percent. I realize that that's an infinitesimal increase. The minister referenced an average electricity bill increase of $3 a year; natural gas, $5 a year; fuel oil, $8 a year. We didn't get into propane because it's a grid product, and it's not used in a lot of jurisdictions in the province.

Does the minister stand by those figures that it would be a $3-a-year increase on the average electricity bill based on the 0.04-percent rate increase?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, on the average electricity bill in the province. Now, some will be higher than that. Some may be a little bit lower. I don't know.

For instance, at the apartment I rent I get an electricity bill that I think runs about $6 or $7 a month. It's a pretty small amount, but there are others that obviously will have higher electricity bills. The home I live in, in Fort St. John, obviously has a higher electricity bill because more people live there.

J. Horgan: For clarity then, could the minister…. Does he have access to a figure that would be the average electricity bill in British Columbia? I know Hydro publishes that information, and we could find it elsewhere, but if you have it at the ready that would help in the interests of those reading this debate. They would be able to plot themselves on the graph: how much am I going to pay?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think we probably have that information, but for members that are watching or people that would want to know what the increase would be…. If it is for electricity, they take their bill — not the final total because it's not a tax on top of the tax…. The bill is pretty straightforward. Multiply it by 0.04, and that's what it will be.

J. Horgan: Well, I'll just advise those at home that if they go to the B.C. Hydro website, they'd probably be able to access that information.

Within the past number of years BCUC has approved rate increases for B.C. Hydro in the neighbourhood of 8 percent, I guess, since 2004. This increase will be on top of those increases. Could the minister advise us at what time he believes the regulations will be published so that the public will have a clear understanding of where the increases will rest?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The levy regulation that the member's asking about will be ready sometime about mid-June so that this can take effect July 1.

I don't know the exact rate increase for B.C. Hydro, but it certainly wasn't 8 percent. It was much less than that. I think probably more in the neighbourhood of about 3.5 percent or something in that neighbourhood. I should know that number. I don't have it with me, but it certainly wasn't eight.

J. Horgan: What I have in front of me is an increase in 2004 of 4.85 percent and an additional rate increase of 3.6 percent in 2007. I'm adding them up to get to that number. On subsection (4)(a), "immediately report the matter in writing to the commissioner," could the minister advise who the commissioner is in (4)(a).

Hon. R. Neufeld: The answer to the question is the assistant deputy minister of revenue programs, Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

Just further back, just so we get it right on the record — when you added those two numbers together, I believe the rate increase that Hydro applied for was the higher number that you gave. What the B.C. Utilities Commission gave was the lesser number.

J. Horgan: Still within section 1 — it's a long section — subsection (5) says the following: "…products received on or after the date on which the section comes into force, including deliveries received under a contract entered into before that date." Isn't that retroactive taxation? If I've entered into a contract to purchase a commodity or a good, I'm assuming I'm going to pay that price, not an additional cost upon delivery.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm told that the tax applies when the purchase is made, not when the delivery is made. I'm sorry. It's when the purchase is made, not when the contract is made. It's standard, I guess, in taxation.

J. Horgan: I'm going to say: "It's standard in taxation?" I'm looking at the taxation expert, hoping that I'll get a head nod. Okay, I won't belabour that point, then, and I'll take the minister on his word. I will just say that that would look pretty good for section 1.

J. Horgan: Under section 3, "Regulations in relation to Innovative Clean Energy Fund levies," in subsection (a) we're again back to this "tangible personal property," to which most of the folks, even the grade 5s, are probably saying: "What the heck is tangible personal property?" Again, could the minister assist me and those in the gallery with the definition of what he's getting at in that section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm informed that tangible personal property — and I'm sure the member is aware of what tangible personal property is — is something you can touch, feel, smell or whatever. The tax applies to that, and that's, again, another standard description in legislation for taxing things — tangible product.

J. Horgan: Well, let's just look at subsections (a) and (b) together. In subsection (a) we are "prescribing tangible personal property as an energy product," and in (b) we're "excluding tangible personal property from the definition of 'energy product….'" I know I'm lost. Maybe we can try that one more time.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Certainly, I can understand why the member is asking the question. We had the discussion about tangible personal property as an energy product, and we also had that discussion earlier in section 1, energy product. We want to have the ability to do that at a later time. That's why we're actually defining them.

The second one, (b), says "excluding tangible personal property from the definition of energy product…." So it becomes very difficult when you start getting down to thinking exactly what you're going to tax and what you're not going to tax.

If you're going to tax everything that is an energy product, you would end up in a store taxing the little propane bottles that fit on camp stoves and the little kerosene cans. The list goes on and on and on.

The difficulty that puts retailers in, in trying to identify all that…. We're trying to simplify some of the tax issues in the province, so we want to get away from those kinds of things. They're an energy product, but we want to be able to actually just do the ones that we said in section 1.

J. Horgan: The minister came right to where I wanted to go. Since we did a reasonably good job of getting through section 1 with the prescriptive energy products, I thought that we need not go to it again. I'm assuming, then, because we're dealing with an amendment to another act, that's why we're repeating ourselves in more ambiguous terms than we did the first time around.

Hon. R. Neufeld: To actually prescribe things, I'm told what you need is the regulation power to be able to do that. That's what section 135.1 does.

J. Horgan: Then we get down to subsection (2). I know there are many following at home, but for those who aren't, I will read it out for the kids from Burnaby.

Subsection (2) says: "Regulations under subsection (1) may be different for one or more of the following…." Then we have an inventory again of four items, which we would have been better served by repeating those four — electricity, natural gas, fuel oil and propane. Instead we say: "(a) different energy products; (b) different classes of persons; (c) different classes of use of energy products; (d) different classes of distribution or delivery of energy products…."

I'm wondering if the minister could explain the importance of this section to achieving the objectives of the act.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is always interesting to deal with legislation. It's written in legalese, and what is supposed to simplify it is the regulations afterwards so the people can understand it. I don't know. Maybe the member across the way is a lawyer. I'm not sure about that.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I'm certainly not blaming the member for Nanaimo. But he is one of those lawyers, and I know that.

What it allows is the ability to deal with the complexity of the energy market, and this section will do it. So if I go to: "(b) different classes of persons…." The member knows first nations are taxed differently on reserve than off reserve or others off reserve. So that's one explanation for that one.

Different classes of use of energy products — that's (c). Farmers would be one of those that are in there because they're taxed in different ways than others.

Different classes of distribution or delivery of energy products. We talked about that earlier. That's the grid system — the propane, for instance; the communities that are on grid propane. So you can actually capture those but not everything else.

J. Horgan: In section 4, under "Innovative Clean Energy Fund special account…." I think we'll spend a bit of time on this, if the minister will indulge me. Subsection (2)(b) says: "any other amounts received by the government for payment into the special account."

As I understand special accounts — and we have our finance person at your right — the fund is filled by moneys outlined in this act. What other payments would be contemplated in this section?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That allows that act to receive money. Let's say the federal government wanted to actually contribute some money, which would be great, into that kind of an act, that kind of a fund…. I don't think the member would oppose that, and neither would we. Or an individual or a company may want to do that. Who knows? So that enables that to happen.

J. Horgan: I'm just delighted to have the opportunity to say that the minister may be dreaming in Technicolor if he thinks the federal government is going to come. I'm glad I got the opportunity to get that on the record.

Further down, then, we have subsection (3), the Financial Administration Act, which is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. It says: "…the minister charged with the administration of this section may pay money out of the special account…." I'm assuming that we're referring to the Minister of Finance here?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

J. Horgan: So in subsection (3)(a) where it says: "…for projects, programs or initiatives that minister considers will…." The "that" there is the Minister of Energy?

J. Horgan: Roman numeral (i) on the following page — page 4 in the act that I've taken out of my binder — says: "…address specific British Columbia energy issues, or related environmental issues that have been identified by the government…." I'm just wanting to know if the minister could advise us how the government will identify these projects.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If you go down to (ii) there it says: "…do one or more of the following…" and it lists it out. But government will be able to deal with issues that deal with climate change and those kind of things that we could do that would benefit British Columbians in a whole in regards to those kind of things, or innovation — those kind of things that will help British Columbians consume less energy products.

J. Horgan: Then, the levy will be 0.04 percent on top of energy costs, as we learned in the front of the bill. Now we're at the distribution of that fund, and I think that's a fairly comprehensive list. I'm pretty comfortable with that. I don't know if we got a nod from my colleague here.

Again, I want to know how the government is identifying the distribution of that fund. Certainly, it's at the discretion of the minister, but is there an application process? Is there going to be an advisory panel? If there is an advisory panel, who would be on it and how will they be selected?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's anticipated that we'll have an advisory panel set up so that the decision is not just made by the minister. We're going to actually look for some skill sets on that committee. Maybe I'll just read them to the member so he can hear what they are: (1) an entrepreneurial or business development background — we would hope to have; (2) capital investment experience; (3) understanding of key energy and environmental issues; (4) expertise in alternative energy, energy efficiency and conservation; and (5) we would look for people with understanding of successful program development and delivery.

Those are just a number of things, because we're going to try to get a good cross-section of people to give that advice to government, and government will make the final decision.

J. Horgan: I apologize. I didn't hear the number of individuals. I did hear the criteria that the minister laid out, and that would be helpful.

I noted that the minister referenced a piece of paper over there. I'm wondering if it would be possible to table those criteria, or he could direct me to whether it's on the website. If it's contemplated that it will be put on the website, that's sufficient for me. But if there are criteria, as I heard them, I think the public would want to be aware of them in an open and transparent way.

Again, I didn't hear the number of persons. Could the minister also advise when they would be appointed and when they would start spending the money?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We haven't determined the number of persons yet, and I don't know whether we'll have a set number — eight, ten, 12 or whatever. We'll obviously want to get some of the experience that I listed already in people who would sit on that committee. We would, certainly, when we go out to search.

We haven't gone out to search for people yet because the bill hasn't been passed. Once we get the authority to start doing that, then we'll start the process. We can't start collecting till July. That's the very earliest. That gives us some time to actually start putting this in place.

We have board resourcing in British Columbia to help us to find those kind of people — a good cross-section of people around the province that could serve on that kind of a committee and provide the information and the advice that government would and should need before it makes decisions about disbursal of the funds.

The member knows this. July 1 you get the full $25 million. When we would start spending would be when it made good sense to start spending it — when there are things in place that meet all the goals and objectives that we think should be there to start spending that money. That's not at any specific time. That might be a number of months after July 1. It might be three, four, five months — I'm not sure — depending on what comes forward.

Secondly, what's going to come forward are a whole bunch of ideas, I'm sure, from a whole bunch of different people, so we have to evaluate all those in a serious way. That committee will have to do that. It will take a while to put all that in place.

J. Horgan: The Liberal agencies, boards and commissions body will approach individuals and ask them to serve, and they'll do so. You said eight, ten or 12. It will be more than one, I assume.

The other question I would want to ask is, as there is a cap…. Again, I'm going back to second reading debate from the minister. There's no reference to it that I can see here, that there was a cap on the heavy industrial users of a maximum of $500,000 a year as part of the levy.

There will be more than one person on the advisory committee. Multiple persons will advise or work with the secretariat, presumably within the alternative energy branch, that will then report to the minister. That's how I see it happening. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I apologize. When the member was asking the last part of his question, I didn't understand what he was saying because I was speaking to the person beside me. I apologize for that.

I know a notice went out in regards to…. No one would pay more than $500,000 per calendar year. We have been reviewing that, obviously, with the heavy industry users that would be part of that. There are not many of them in the province, but I think the member would understand from question period today some of the difficulty that the forest industry, which is a high consumer of electricity, is having.

We're reviewing that target of what we should charge that would still be meaningful, but still not tax them too much because of the difficulty that they're having right now. So maybe I could leave that with the member. That's under review. It certainly wouldn't be any more than that. I would guarantee it's going to be less. That number where it's going to hit still hasn't been decided on, but we are working on that.

Maybe the member could ask me the rest of the question, and I'll listen to it this time.

J. Horgan: I should be seeking apologies. You ask six questions; it's little wonder that you're only hearing a couple of them or trying to respond to them. I shouldn't ask you six questions at once; I should ask you one at a time.

Your response concerns me that heavy industrial users may well get an exemption or a break when the regulations come forward. Again, I know we won't be seeing those until after this House rises, but if I heard the minister correctly…. Let's just stick on this for a moment. Heavy industrial users will be paying less than 0.04 percent of the levy — potentially?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't think I used the word "exemption." What I said was that we know that there are large energy consumers, both of natural gas and electricity, in the province, and then there's the average homeowner. What we did is look at the $500,000 cap that we had put in place. Any large consumer would have to pay up to that amount. Anything over and above that would be refunded.

In light of what's taking place in the industry today, we're saying that may be less. That will mean that it will take more than a year to collect $25 million, because that's the target — $25 million. It won't take that much longer. It would take a little bit longer but reduce the financial burden that we would put on some of the companies that are in some pretty heavy difficulty now — that specifically being the forest industry. So that's what we're looking at trying to do, but the rate will be the same.

G. Robertson: I would just like to welcome students, teachers and parents from Talmud Torah School in my riding, in Fairview.

Many of the students also live in the Minister of Finance's riding. Would the House please give them a big, robust welcome.

Just in case they're wondering, I am actually below you, and you can't see me, kids.

G. Robertson: A question to the minister. Clean energy technologies are identified several times in the bill, and obviously clean energy is referred to in the title of the bill, and yet there's no definition for clean energy or clean energy technologies. Can the minister explain why there is no definition?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's difficult to contemplate everything and put it in a piece of legislation, but here are some examples. I'll read out some examples that we are contemplating.

Renewable resources. Examples would be biomass; ocean; hydro; solar; wind; geothermal; improvements in the development and use of non-renewable resources; conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas; energy carriers and storage — an example of that would be hydrogen or fuel cells; gasification; carbon capture and sequestration; emissions management; energy systems integration; power measurement and management; energy-efficiency and conservation; transportation — an example of that would be engine, vehicle and alternative fuel technologies that could be used in vehicles; fuels — biodiesel and ethanol; waste energy capture and utilization.

G. Robertson: That's a mighty long shopping list in terms of trying to define clean energy technologies. Of particular concern was hearing that non-renewables are envisioned as fitting within the clean energy realm. The minister mentioned improvements in the use of non-renewables and listed a number of non-renewables that may apply.

Can the minister clarify that again and maybe lay out approximately what's envisioned? Is it a significant component of the clean energy fund investments that may go into improved use of non-renewables?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's a portion of it. When the member says it's a mighty long shopping list, he's right, and those are just a few examples. There could be a lot more examples. Once we start finding out from individuals and different companies or from those who are putting their minds to looking at how we can conserve energy in any known fashion, I think that as long as it's reasonable and it makes good sense for British Columbia, we have an obligation to look at that.

We don't want to exclude anything. We want to be more inclusive than exclusive. That's all we're trying to do so that we can do the best thing that we possibly can for the province.

G. Robertson: My concern here, though, is this bill and this fund, the innovative clean energy fund. The use of the term "clean energy" typically does not include the use of non-renewable resources, in particular the combustion of fossil fuels, which are by definition not clean energy. So I'm surprised to hear that there wasn't a more specific definition for clean energy and, just for the sake of a test balloon, that it was specific to zero-emission energy — zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Is there anything envisioned in terms of a direct relationship to the greenhouse gas emissions of the energy and the energy technologies being affected here? Is there any commitment that it is zero-emission or greenhouse-gas-emission-free technology?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the member's questions. What we're trying to do…. We are dependent on fossil fuels. He and I have had this discussion every year since the member has been here. We will be for a long time in the future. There's no silver bullet that Monday morning changes us over from what we're using today.

What we need to do is actually think smarter about how we use fossil fuels today. This fund could help us in figuring out how we do sequestration and how we clean up the flaring that's being done right now in the production of oil and gas and sequester that or produce it instead of just burning it off as greenhouse gas.

That all goes at the end of the day to looking at reducing greenhouse gases in British Columbia and hitting a target of 33 percent.

G. Robertson: I understand again that the students, teachers and parents from Talmud Torah School are here in the House. We'd like to give them all a big welcome. I'm right down below you; you can't see me on the opposition benches. Welcome all of you from Talmud Torah to the House.

G. Robertson: I'll just return to one last question here on clean energy and the definition or lack thereof of a definition. It's of great concern to me and to many entrepreneurs in the clean energy sector — a number of whom are actually in the province this week with the delegation accompanying Governor Schwarzenegger.

Clean energy and innovation in clean energy is quite specific to renewable energy technologies in many places, in terms of the definition. I think the real concern here is that with such a broad scope and with the ability to splash these funds around into basically anything that has anything to do with energy in B.C…. If it can be construed as being slightly cleaner than the current method of combustion, use, transportation, etc.,

it is somehow going to qualify for the clean energy fund and potential funding and support.

Many people, I think, assumed, when they heard the energy plan, read the energy plan and saw the government's intention to put forward a clean energy fund, that these funds were to be invested in new clean energy technologies that were all about sustainability, about zero emissions and about renewable energy.

I'll just, again, maybe ask for a final point of clarification on this. I'm very concerned that basically very little funding is actually going to go into the next generation of clean energy that is truly renewable and sustainable and that it will continue to support maybe slightly more efficient use of what we've got, which is not good enough.

Will the minister give his sense of what kind of split we're talking about here? What will be available, in terms of a percentage out of the proceeds of the clean energy fund, for zero emission, clean energy, renewable energies that are the future inevitably of energy generation and use in this province.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe we'll get back into a bit of debate from estimates. There has been more clean energy generation completed in British Columbia in the last six years than there was in the ten years previous. I think the member would agree with me that we should look at those natural gas–fired plants that are generating electricity, that were built during the 1990s, and try to figure out how we actually sequester the greenhouse gas.

The member may not be interested in the answer, but I'm certainly here to give him an answer. We don't have an amount. We don't predetermine that…

The Chair: Order, Members. Background noise is getting a little bit loud. I'm trying to listen to the Minister.

Hon. R. Neufeld: …in this act. What we are trying to do is be inclusive and not exclusive. The member may want to do that.

I guess, finally, I would remind the member that on division on second reading, when he had a full read of the bill, he stood and voted for it. I can only assume that he's in total favour of it and hope that we can get on with getting this bill in place and doing the great things that British Columbia can do.

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

Bill 30, Finance Statutes (Innovative Clean Energy Fund) Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 81.1, to advise the House that in the absence of an agreement between the Opposition House Leader and myself — the two parties, opposition and government — an agreement as it relates to the completion of business between now and the scheduled end of the session, I move:

Hon. M. de Jong: I call committee stage debate on Bill 34, the Homeowner Protection Amendment Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 34; K. Whittred in the chair.

A. Dix: As we start with this debate, perhaps the minister can explain these important amendments to the definitions, to help introduce this section of the debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: Before I start, I will introduce the staff with me today. Wendy Acheson is the manager of licensing and the deputy registrar for the Homeowner Protection Office. Ken Cameron to my left is the chief executive officer of the Homeowner Protection Office. Mary Freeman is the associate deputy minister of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry Responsible for Housing, office of housing and construction standards.

To answer the question, the significant definition changes include a "new home" to capture those that are being constructed or substantially reconstructed. The amendment addresses the problem of residential builders using the current definition as a loophole to avoid licensing and home warranty insurance requirements because the current definition does not include buildings that are under construction.

Builders have successfully argued in court that unless they have completed building a new home, the offence provisions of the act do not apply. This interpretation is at odds with the intent of the legislation to have builders licensed while they build new homes and that they must obtain home warranty insurance prior to being issued a building permit.

The amendment also ensures that homes that are being substantially reconstructed are captured by home warranty insurance. In situations such as fire rebuilds, very little remains of the previous home and the subsequent purchaser might expect that they are purchasing a new home with an applicable coverage.

Amending the definition of "owner builder" to mean an individual with a valid authorization issued by the registrar…. The substantive provisions regarding the authorization are in section 20 of this act.

The proposed amendments enable effective and efficient compliance and enforcement mechanisms combined with an appeal process. Consequently, new definitions are introduced, such as "appeal board," "authorization," "compliance officer," "compliance order," "monetary penalty" and "public registry."

D. Thorne: I wanted to ask some questions about the definitions. I wanted to ask about the repealing of the definition of "owner builder" and the substitution and the rationale behind that particular change.

Hon. R. Coleman: That's what I just read out to the member in my answer to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I read that into the record. I could read it again, but basically, it is…. "New home" is to capture those that are being constructed or being substantially reconstructed. The reason is, basically, to bring this into line. I could go through the entire definition again, but I'm sure the member can also pick it up out of Hansard.

We're saying that we need to properly define what a new home is so that we can be able to apply the law for those people that want to avoid the law with the warranty as being new home builders. Basically, the amendment addresses the problem of residential builders using the current definition as a loophole to avoid licensing and home warranty insurance

requirements because the current definition does not include buildings that are under construction.

D. Thorne: Okay. I just need a minute here to read this. I need a little time here because I wasn't expecting to have this come forward this afternoon. I was in the middle of something reasonably important in serving my constituents and rushed in here and was told that I would be up in the House.

In section 14 where the issue is the security…. One of the issues in this was the security of directors. I understand that with this amendment we won't be asking for any level of security from a director. I'm wondering in the face of problems that we all know about in the housing industry and with warranties, etc…. I know that the HPO has gotten a lot of these issues under control, but we are changing the way we licence directors or the way we allow companies to register. I'm wondering what the rationale is around not having any level of security be required.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for clarification, this isn't the section that deals with the member's question. That's actually section 20 of the act. Basically, when we get there, we could discuss….

This actually allows the registrar to issue a licence to a person who has the experience, training or competence equivalent to the prescribed qualifications under the old definition within the old section. It authorizes the registrar to amend licences on application and payment of a fee.

Then it also removes the requirement that a corporation be licensed only if one of its directors is licensed, and to require…. This now changes. This is the big change. It requires the corporation that applies for a licence to file with the registrar a statement disclosing the identity of the individuals who control the corporation.

D. Thorne: Can I have a list, so it can be read into the record, of the prescribed qualifications for licensing and the prescribed conditions, please?

Hon. R. Coleman: I know the member was caught off guard getting in here, but that's just the way legislation goes for a minister sometimes.

What I'll do is I'll read you in the purposes and the significance of the amendments to section 9. The question the member has is actually prescribed in some speaking points and stuff that I can give her in section 20, which basically outlines that. If the member wants me to do that now, I am happy to do that as well, if she wants to know what those qualifications are. So maybe you could give me that too, and I will do that.

Basically, the purpose of this section is that it clarifies the powers of the registrar to determine qualifications for licensed residential builders. It removes the requirement that the directors of a corporation be individually licensed and adds the requirement that a corporation disclose the identity of the individuals controlling the corporation. It permits the Homeowner Protection Office to create an application process and charge a fee for amendments to licences partway through the licence period.

The significance is that the amendments to section 14(2)(a) and the new section (14)(2.1) clarify the power of the registrar in determining whether an applicant is qualified. The registrar will also have the authority to devise and administer examinations.

This is something that has been asked for, for a long time with regard to the Homeowner Protection Act, and of course, this act hasn't really been touched for many years. The significance is also that the regulatory provisions are expected to address specific experience, training and equivalencies to determine competency.

When I get to section 20, I will — actually, in a second — outline what will happen with the outline of the qualifications with regards to the regulatory provisions. That regulation will obviously be written after the act is brought into force.

This is significant because it makes it clear that the registrar has the authority to evaluate any qualifications of applicants prescribed by the regulations by utilizing a variety of methods. Such authority is necessary to make the implementation of a set of prescribed qualifications and conditions practicable.

The practice of the warranty industry is to provide coverage for companies rather than for individuals. Licensing of individual directors is therefore impractical when one of the requirements of licensing is warranty coverage. However, it is very important to be able to hold individuals accountable for their actions on behalf of the company, and these amendments achieve that.

For business reasons, licensed residential builders frequently change their name, company structure or directors, as the member has spoken about before, all of which require the Homeowner Protection Office to revaluate the licence prior to approving the change. Creating a formal application process for such changes recognizes the value of the change of the licensee. Changes to the licence implemented on renewal would not attract a fee.

For the member, basically, the criteria and regulation for an owner-builder authorization will include the following but won't be precluded by adding other things by regulation in the future as we identify how we're going to qualify builders.

The first would be the type of dwelling unit eligible for an authorization — for example, a single-family detached home.

The applicant or cohabitant has not within a specified period of time built a new home under an authorization. Periods specified in regulation are expected to be about 18 months after occupancy on the first home, three years on the second home and five years for the third.

The applicant intends to manage all or substantially all of the construction of the new home.

The applicant is the owner of or has a prescribed interest in the land, such as a long-term lease. The applicant intends to maintain his or her interest in the land for a period of at least one year.

D. Thorne: I'm wondering if the minister could give me some examples of individuals who might not meet the prescribed licensing requirements but who might be granted a licence anyway. Would this ever happen? Would there be any examples of that?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I read out was the owner-builder. On the other side, there's a licensed residential builder. Now, there is not a regulation today that identifies criteria for a licensed residential builder. It's one of the weaknesses in the act that we're trying to fix here today.

What we're going to do is have the ability for the registrar to outline what those qualifications and criteria are for the licensed residential builder in regulation, which will be developed after the act is passed. So I can't give the member an example today because there is nothing to refer back to yet.

I'm assuming, then, that some of that will be taken care of in the regulations that will be done by cabinet. I've already expressed some of my concerns about the magnitude of those regulations, which will be done behind closed doors. I think some of them should be debated in the House, and I am alarmed and disappointed that they won't be, but I have to, of course, accept that.

I have a couple more questions on this section. I'm wondering in 14(a), under this section, how would an individual be disqualified if he or she applied as an individual, and under what conditions would that happen?

Hon. R. Coleman: Somebody coming in with no experience or training, without the ability to build the house and without a warranty provider wouldn't be allowed to get a licence. Unless they meet some qualifications, can prove they can actually build a home properly — which would be the level of qualifications developed by regulation…. Even if they had all of that but they couldn't get a warranty, they're not going to get a licence. If they don't get a warranty provider, there's no way they're getting a licence to build a house in British Columbia unless they're an owner-builder. That's a different discussion.

The regulations will be developed in an open process with industry because that's what we've done as we've come through the whole Raising the Bar and all the other things we're doing with regards to building. Although the member may want to debate the regulation in the Legislature, the fact of the matter is it will be done in an open and transparent way and come to cabinet for final approval.

The reason we are here and we do things by regulation, quite frankly, is the reason we're here. The time it takes to develop legislation — if we find a flaw with trying to develop a qualification — and to get back to the House can take two years. The member is obviously familiar with the issues in and around the leaky condos a number of years ago. You need to at least be able to react on the ground at some level with regards to regulations sometimes when you need to be able to adapt.

D. Thorne: I've already expressed my opinion to the minister that he won't find me arguing against most of this stuff because I don't think it even goes far enough. I would like to see more stringent controls and bigger changes to some of these sections to protect the consumer.

I have to say that I find it quite ironic that we're talking about this issue — about regulations and about somebody knowing something — when just yesterday I introduced a private member's bill around regulation of property inspectors when so many of them know nothing and have certificates. I'm hoping that this government will see its way clear to support the bill calling for that kind of regulation as well, because it's all really part and parcel of this same thing.

I have one more question, and it's around 14(3). I'm just wondering why the original section was repealed in the first place. It's not specifically talked about in Raising the Bar, I don't think. I'm just wondering: have there been substantial requests to change this to what the new subsection (3) is going to be? Any comments on that to be made?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason we are repealing is because we're replacing it with a new section. The new section basically tightens it up. It actually makes it more accountable because for business reasons licensed residential builders frequently change their name, company structure, directors — all of which require the Homeowner Protection Office to re-evaluate the licence prior to approving the change.

Creating a formal process of application for such a change recognizes the value of the change to the licensee. Changes to a licence implementation and renewal would not attract a fee, but it does keep track of who's who with what company.

D. Thorne: I guess my last question on that, then, to the minister would be…. Knowing my concerns that this doesn't go far enough, this still allows numbered and shell companies to exist in British Columbia. I just ask the minister why we didn't take this particular change, this amendment, further and eliminate that possibility, knowing the problems that sometimes come up down the road.

Hon. R. Coleman: We'll just agree to disagree on this, but basically, just so the member understands, no matter what transfer takes place, the warranty stays in

place for the consumer. The consumer is protected by the warranty because the licensed residential builder is licensed at the front end, no matter what company it is. If they change companies, it still doesn't make any difference because the warranty is still there for the consumer.

D. Thorne: I just want to say…. I mean, I hope the minister's optimism holds. I'm still, as Housing critic, getting calls from people who are having problems collecting through their warranty companies. There are outstanding cases.

I know that the staff at the HPO is doing their very best to move this along and get this sorted out. But there are warranty companies that stall as long as they can. There are many, many rumours out in the community, where if a claim doesn't pay or doesn't pay quickly, a builder — and heaven only knows if that's a legitimate builder or a shell company or a legitimate builder under a shell company or a numbered name or whatever — stays on sort of a good list. They're still thought of as a good developer rather than somebody that you have to watch out for.

There are lots of little ins and outs around this area. It certainly is one of the troubling areas, because this bill is basically housekeeping, but that is one area that is of concern. That's my final comment on section 9.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member, warranty companies are regulated by the Financial Institutions Commission, who can respond to bad behaviour of both warranty companies and other ones.

If the member, quite frankly, has specific examples, we'd love to hear about them at the Homeowner Protection Office. She can forward them into there, and we'll look into them.

I should, though, also caution the member that this is an insurance relationship. It's like somebody that comes to your office and says: "ICBC is not giving me the right thing on my claim." Then you start looking into it, and you find out that they maybe didn't do the right things with regards to what the cause of the accident was or what level of insurance they had and that sort of thing.

There are obviously adjustors' practices involved in these sorts of things, because it is insurance. But the Financial Institutions Commission does regulate that, and the Homeowner Protection Office is happy to look at any complaints.

N. Simons: I just want to bring the attention of the House to a class of grade 6 from Roberts Creek Elementary School and their teacher Ms. Rines. They're from my riding, and I'm just happy they're here enjoying the scintillating debate on Bill 34. Will the House please make them welcome.

D. Thorne: This is another section, and this covers section 20, which the minister…. I had asked some questions that apparently fit under this section. I get the new sections and the old sections mixed up, I guess. I've probably asked most of the questions here before. I had a list of questions on this, and they had to do with the criteria for owner-builders and what the changes were.

I'm just stalling for time here now, because I'm just trying to make sure, Madam Chair, that I haven't left anything out. It's my only opportunity, and the whole owner-builder and residential builder dichotomy is of great interest to me.

D. Thorne: Under section 15, about the notice provisions. I'm wondering how the notice provisions are different from the existing act.

Hon. R. Coleman: What this section does is disclosure and security, and that's why I mentioned that the member might want to talk about this section. She asked about security earlier.

The purpose of this section is to establish that an owner-builder and any subsequent purchaser of an owner-builder home must provide a notice to a prospective purchaser of the owner-built home disclosing whether the home is covered by a policy of home warranty insurance. If required by regulation, the seller must provide another form of security to the buyer.

The significance here is, first of all, that the disclosure notice informs all prospective purchasers for the first ten years after the home is occupied that the new home is owner-built and whether it is covered by home warranty. That's for homes that will be built after the act. It's not retroactive.

The amendment, though, clarifies that the obligation to provide the disclosure notice to the prospective purchaser attaches to both the original owner-builder and subsequent purchasers, which is one of the changes. In the past somebody would say: "I'm an owner-builder. I'm going to sell it to my brother Fred. My brother Fred subsequently, two months later, is going to sell it to you." He doesn't have to disclose that it wasn't built at this stage. He doesn't actually have to disclose that.

What we're saying is that we want that disclosed now so that people are protected in the future when they make their decision. Once they make their decision to buy, they've made their decision to buy. I think

caveat emptor probably comes into it at that point, but they should have the opportunity to know at purchase.

The amendment requires that the disclosure notice be provided whether or not the new home has home warranty insurance so that even in cases where home warranty insurance has been purchased by an owner-builder voluntarily, the new purchaser is aware that the home was built by an owner-builder rather than by a licensed residential builder. It just gives a little bit more protection for folks.

The amendment uses the term "prospective purchaser" in order to clarify that the disclosure notice must be provided prior to the offer for sale so that the purchaser can take the information into consideration prior to making an offer of purchase. As we put the regulation and changes in, I think what will happen is that the real estate association will adapt their property condition disclosure statements to not just say: "Was this home built by an owner-builder?"

Frankly, if you take my home, which I'm thinking of selling and which was built back in the 1970s, I have no idea. The ten-year period is gone on that, but still, it's ten years before the home was built. You didn't know. You can't….

All it does is ask that one question. The other questions, though, that would now come into it would be the clarification for the future seller so that that information would be made available.

Basically, the regulations currently do not include any requirements for an owner-builder to provide security, so subsequently there could be a requirement for another form of security instead of home warranty, which has been retained from the existing act.

All we're doing is keeping what was already in the act with regards to what might be a form of security that was already in the provisions before. The home warranty insurance is basically the nub of this thing, even on an owner-builder.

D. Thorne: I thank the minister for that. That was my next question. I only had two questions on this one.

I'm just wondering if there would be any conditions other than not having formal warranty insurance that would require an owner-builder to put up some other form of security. Would there be anything else, like a bad record or some former prior disqualification or any of those kinds of things?

D. Thorne: I had a lot of questions on this section, but I did get most of them answered prior to today. There are a few, though, that I just wanted to have read into the record. So I'll be asking them.

What does this phrase actually mean: "…except to the extent prescribed by regulation"?

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent is to make the 2-5-10 warranty — which is two years, five years and ten years for the warranty categories — clarified in the expectation between the vendor and the subsequent purchasers — knowing what the warranty is. Regulation will, though, have some exemptions in there.

I'll give you a couple of exemptions just quickly. For instance, if somebody buys a home that's under warranty and then turns it into a grow op and a subsequent purchaser buys that home, within the act — within the regulation — we will identify that as something that would be an exception.

Certainly, you can't go back on a builder if somebody has put a bunch of different wiring into the place and basically turned it into a grow op and it has mould and stuff growing, and what have you.

It's the same thing, for instance, for earthquakes. There are certain things you can't warranty against. You can warranty the home, but there are still exemptions that have to be identified by definition in regulation.

D. Thorne: I'm wondering how the introduction of time limits actually affects this section and to what extent. Is it a big effect, a large effect?

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent is to make the statutory warranty mirror what's out there today — two, five and ten years. That's the accepted standard that has come through all the different studies and things over the last number of years since the Homeowner Protection Act came into place. If I understand the member's question, that's what she is asking about.

What this does is puts statutory protection in the act and identifies what that warranty should be in basic. The insurance providers are now bound to do that. If somebody wants to actually put a better warranty out there, they could do that too. But this is the basic warranty that we're saying is statutory on any new home in British Columbia.

D. Thorne: These time limits will be in law now — as you say, statutory. So the minister doesn't envision any changes to those time limits coming from potential changes in the Limitation Act changes. A lot of changes there, but….

D. Thorne: One final question in this section. I have mentioned this before to the minister and his staff, and I'm going to raise it here because I'm not sure under which section it fits better.

I am concerned about the jurisdictions in British Columbia that don't have a building permit process at all. This section, it seems to me, relies heavily on building permits when they talk about dating things from when a home gets its occupancy permit or knowing when a home was first occupied and all that kind of language.

We all know many areas where there is no building permit process. It's pretty tough to capture the kind of

information or knowledge that you need to implement securities for potential buyers in the future, etc., when you really don't have a lot of this information.

I'm pretty sure it's not covered anywhere else in this act. I'm wondering if there are any plans or if anything is being done to cover this area in the near future — as soon as possible, hopefully.

Hon. R. Coleman: I know I did ask about this after your second reading debates and stuff. Basically, this is the situation. The act applies throughout the province, first of all. Secondly, the Homeowner Protection Office enforces it directly in areas without local government building regulations. They're actually the enforcer if no local government issues the building permit.

In addition to that, under the commencement and for the statutory date of warranty, etc., if there is no occupancy permit, determination of the start date for the period where there is no occupancy permit is generally based on electrical hookup, telephone or cable billing dates.

We now have occupancy. We have a licensed residential builder who has to get the warranty to get the licence to build the house. We know that exists. HPO is basically responsible for unorganized areas.

When the hookup takes place — when there is no occupancy permit, that's the determination. But it's going to be up to the HPO. Frankly, if I were the insurance provider, I would want to make sure the occupancy was good before I actually insured the particular building at its completion. That's how that works in the unorganized areas.

D. Thorne: I think the minister is being extremely optimistic, having lived in some of these areas where people don't even hook up to things. It's sometimes even harder to tell.

I guess my last question in this area is: how does the HPO do that? Do they work with some local people who…? I mean, there are no city councils, necessarily, in these areas. Do they work with people there? Do they hire staff who go out? Do they hire more inspectors sort of like the inspectors we have that go around and inspect houses and give all the information to the regional districts, etc.? I'm just wondering how you manage to do that in such a big province.

Hon. R. Coleman: Sometimes the answer is more simple than we think. Because we're doing what we're doing, an owner-builder now has to go through the HPO. The owner-builder, as an undertaking of their owner-builder licensing — of being allowed to be an owner-builder — will get a criteria. But one of the criteria will also be that they have to advise us when the occupancy is and when the startup is. That will be part of their licensing as far as being allowed to build the place in the first place.

That's the owner-builder in unorganized areas. There is still going to be, I'm sure, somebody who builds a cabin on some place like that. If I'm the buyer of something like that, I'm going to want to know if it was an owner-builder, whether it was licensed, whether it was insured. There is going to be some requirement under, obviously, caveat emptor but, at the same time, under disclosure with regards to the real estate side, I'm sure.

On the other side of the coin, of course, the licensed builder has to meet the criteria, the warranty and everything else and would also have to be caught in that notice back to the HPO.

D. Thorne: I just have one question. I'm wondering under what conditions a certificate would be issued by the registrar. Who would it apply to?

Hon. R. Coleman: What this section does is…. First of all, it's modeled after section 77 of the Safety Standards Act, wherein a prosecution under this act may not be commenced more than one year after the facts on which the proceedings are based first come to the knowledge of the registrar or the compliance officer. That's a pretty important nuance.

If somebody buys a home and a year and a half in they find out that there weren't certain things in the compliance with regards to…. They haven't had their warranty delivered to them or whatever the case may be. Under normal limitations you would say that a year is up and you can't go. This allows for the registrar to certify when they receive the notice of the complaint, and then the one year for pursuing that complaint starts then, versus starting back….

Basically, if it's three years in, it still gives us the ability, if the complaint comes in, to go forward, because we can certify when the actual complaint became known.

D. Thorne: This applies to all builders — residential builders and owner-builders?

D. Thorne: I'm just wondering, on section 26…. It may be there, but I haven't been able to see it. Does this change to the act apply to owner-builders who are already involved in construction, or is it just in the future?

Hon. R. Coleman: We don't make legislation retroactive, so it only applies going forward.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 34, Homeowner Protection Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. W. Oppal: In the Legislature today is a grade 7 class from South Park Elementary School in Tsawwassen. They are accompanied by two superb teachers, Mr. Brown and Ms. Ritchie, and a number of parents. But what's particularly noteworthy about this class is that my daughter Jasmine is a member of the class. Now, I've been told by her not to say anything that would embarrass her, except I would ask the House make the class feel welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call second reading debate on Bill 31, Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act, 2007.

Effective January 1, 2008, the Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act will protect those over the age of 65 against age discrimination, thereby abolishing mandatory retirement in British Columbia.

In its December 2006 report, Aging Well in British Columbia, the 18-member Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues, led by Dr. Patricia Baird, made recommendations following its examination on two issues: (1) how to support seniors' ability to continue as contributing members of society, and (2) how to support seniors' independence and health.

The council reviewed the demographic and socioeconomic changes that are taking place in this province, reviewed research, received written input from individuals and groups, held meetings and listened to presentations of various groups throughout the province.

Bill 31 responds to one of the key recommendations made in that report, which is to make changes to the Human Rights Code to (1) protect those over 65 from age discrimination, thereby eliminating mandatory retirement; (2) remove any exemptions that would allow bargained and imposed mandatory retirement; and (3) protect against age discrimination under section 8 of the code, which deals with the provision of accommodation, services and facilities commonly available to the public.

The council further suggested that persons' rights must be respected, that people should be able to retire when they choose to do so and that the government should discuss with stakeholders how best to implement the key recommendations.

Hon. Speaker, this is what we have done. We have heard from the public. We have heard from private employers, public employers, from unionized and non-unionized employees and their representatives. We received many written submissions and letters from individuals from all over the province. I would like to thank everyone who took the time to provide their views about this issue. As well, we have benefited from the experience of other provinces, including Ontario, where legislation to eliminate mandatory retirement was recently brought into force.

The result is that Bill 31 implements the Premier's council's recommendations in the following way. First, Bill 31 amends the definition of age in the Human Rights Code from "19 years or more and less than 65" to "19 years or more," thereby eliminating discrimination in employment, in employment advertisements and in memberships in unions and associations. This will also ensure that adults 65 or over are protected against age discrimination in tenancy.

Second, Bill 31 adds age as a protected ground in the provision of short-term accommodation, services and facilities commonly available to the public.

Finally, the bill provides for a transition period until January 1, 2008, at which time all amendments will take effect in all sectors and in all workplaces. This will allow time for any changes necessary to ensure smooth implementation.

What this legislation means for British Columbians is that they will no longer be forced to retire. They will no longer be told when to retire. They will decide. Mandatory provisions such as those imposed under the collective agreements or pension plans will not be enforceable or be permitted as of January 1, 2008.

Those who choose to work beyond 65 will now have protection against age discrimination in the workplace. At the same time, there are circumstances where age distinction in employment is necessary and will continue to be permitted.

First, the current exemption for bona fide occupational requirements will remain. Those are employ-

ment standards that make distinctions on certain grounds, including age, and are only allowable because of the nature of the employment. All Canadian jurisdictions have bona fide occupational requirements, and the onus is on the employer to justify them.

Second, existing pension rights are protected. Bona fide retirement superannuation or pension plans will continue to be able to make distinction on the basis of age. Retaining this ability is necessary for plans to be able to continue to operate and to operate effectively. This includes the ability to make distinctions such as specifying early retirement age or normal retirement age, which benefits employees.

Also, Bill 31 will continue to permit age-based distinctions under bona fide group or employees' insurance plans, whether or not these plans are self-funded by employers or provided by third parties. In line with Ontario and other provinces, age-based distinctions can be made only under insurance-based benefit plans. Employers continue to have discretion regarding the provision of benefits to their employees.

Third, age-based distinctions are specifically made or allowed under provincial statutes such as benefits provided under the Workers Compensation Act and will be permitted. These exceptions are consistent with the recommendations made by the Premier's council, with what we heard during consultation and with the approach in other jurisdictions.

Finally, Bill 31 prohibits unjustifiable age discrimination in the provision of public accommodations, services or facilities. The intent is to prohibit negative discrimination on the basis of age without bona fide and reasonable justification. These amendments will protect adults of all ages against age discrimination.

In British Columbia nearly one in seven British Columbians is over the age of 65, and in 25 years that is expected to increase to one in four. Bill 31 is an important step towards promoting the full participation of older people in society. It reflects the realities of the demographics of this province and supports the future of British Columbia as the best place on earth.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you for the Attorney General's introduction. Certainly, this is a bill that this side was told would not come forward until possibly the fall. We see the manoeuvre that the government is engaged in — trying to get the Legislature to close tomorrow, before we can have adequate debate.

C. Puchmayr: I will speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I was promised at least a brief discussion with the Attorney General prior to this bill coming forward, which is just another broken promise.

What I want to do is talk a little bit about this bill, and I want to say, first of all, that this side does not support discrimination by age. This side does believe — and it happens today — that people do leave their places of employment and often go back to work and often work beyond age 65. They do so for many reasons, but most of those are reasons of poverty.

Under this government, we have seen an increase in the gap between the rich and the poor. It used to be in Newfoundland. It is now in British Columbia. We have the largest gap between high-income earners and low-income earners in British Columbia, and this is all within the last five years.

That says something. It says something about the quality of life not only of our young people, not only of students that are trying to get an education, but also of the seniors that find themselves after retirement in situations where it becomes very difficult to function. They become situations where they have to make decisions between: "What am I going to eat this month?" and "What prescriptions do I buy?"

We have seniors that enter care facilities and run out of money when they enter private care facilities. They run out of money where they can no longer stay in those facilities. There is not a quality of life for our seniors in British Columbia, as there was in the past.

It's rapidly changing. It's becoming a society where some people are becoming extremely wealthy. Some people, for whatever reasons — sometimes luck, inheritance, some good investments or maybe a good union job that hasn't been closed down or had its commodities exported south of the border…. Sometimes it's luck of the draw. It's not how brilliant you are. It's not how well you invest. Sometimes it's just luck of the draw.

People have hardships. I spoke to a constituent in my riding. They had significant money saved up in RRSPs. The fellow retired early. Suddenly the wife became ill. The prescription that she was required to take for her chemo was not one that was listed. They had to take their life savings and invest their life savings in medication so that his wife could live.

All of a sudden, when you're anticipating an extra $25,000 or $50,000 in a bank collecting some interest, maybe to buy some incidentals as you get older in life…. Suddenly that's gone, and you have to adjust to make different arrangements for your life.

Some of those arrangements are drastic arrangements. Some people are selling their homes because they can no longer afford to live there. In some cases they can't afford to pay the taxes.

Seniors have difficult times in our society — many seniors. I would venture to say that more seniors than not are at risk of some economic hardships in our society, in this day and age of prosperity in this province, the prosperity of this country, where every province is firing on all eight cylinders. Yet some people are being left behind.

For the answer to be that we need more seniors in the workforce and that this is probably a solution, I don't think that's going to achieve that by this bill. I do believe there are other parts of the bill that need to be looked at.

It's unfortunate in the manner this has come forward that we will be limited as to how far we can go

with this bill. We need to ensure that we do due diligence to this. There are a lot of seniors who had some interest and wanted to watch this debate. They were anticipating, from the comments that the hon. Attorney General made to me and the comments that the House Leaders made with respect to this bill, that there would still be some time to have some input and for the community to speak on what they wanted to have addressed in this bill. Possibly some creative amendments could come out of this bill.

Of course, that is all for naught. Suddenly we are here. This bill is going through. It's going through rather quickly. Bill 37, the wage increase of the MLAs from across that they desire so much, can be dealt with before the end of this session. I find that shameful. This is really not open and transparent government or politics. This is politics. I'll tell you, this is politics. But it's not very open, it's not very transparent, and it's not very honourable.

The Attorney General rightly makes some recommendations with respect to the Human Rights Code and also how they came to the conclusions, how this bill was formed, the input that went into this bill.

One of the documents he referenced was the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. There was a lot of work that went into this document, a lot of input. There was a lot of community input. There was a lot of outreach. There were seniors with vested interests, employers with vested interests and labour organizations with vested interests that commented on the work of this committee.

Of course, this came before the bill. I thought: that's great. We're going to get some really interesting legislation here that's going to deal with the discrimination, with the human rights aspect of the bill. It's also going to put in some tools so that we can see that if in fact we are allowing seniors to work beyond 65, who are in collective agreements that are contractually not able to work beyond 65, there are some good tools in this work that was done by the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. They talked about transforming work. They talked about the issues that may be addressed in the workforce with respect to seniors.

Well, that opens a lot of concerns. A senior at age 65 maybe has had some medical issues. Now an employee no longer has to retire at 65 and take that pension. What happens when the senior becomes ill and has more than the average days of absenteeism? What happens now?

The way the Labour Code is written now, there are provisions for termination for culpable and non-culpable dismissal, which is whether they're at fault or not — whether it's their health. The interpretation of the Labour Code is that yes, the senior is a very nice person, and when he or she is at work they do their job and do it well. But you know, we just can't have them around anymore because they're ill too often. So let's terminate them.

The case law — and the Attorney General would know this…. It's a little bit of labour law, but still the jurisprudence is that that is a firing offence. An honest, hard-working senior that may have some medical issues can actually be terminated because he is ill, because he is taking more than the average number of days off.

That's not addressed in this bill. That really concerns me. Does the employer get a senior to work beyond age 65, no longer collects the employer's pension and now is able…? The employer starts accruing possible surpluses in the pension, and then as the Pension Benefits Standards Act spells out, those surpluses could actually turn into a pension contribution holiday.

So the employer is getting a pension contribution holiday, yet can still terminate a worker for absolutely non-culpable reasons. That troubles me when you have legislation that snaps at a conclusion and says: "No, we're not going to discriminate after 65. You can keep working, but we have other tools for getting rid of you."

What has this bill done? What will this bill create for that senior man or senior woman that is trying to work beyond age 65 and now falls victim to the jurisprudence of labour law or of employment standards law? It does nothing for them.

They're now aged 61, and they're terminated. So what does this bill…? It doesn't address the other discriminations that are bona fide discriminations under the current other laws. There needs to be an address to that, and it's not there.

The other thing I find interesting in this bill…. It makes some reference to allowing the Workers Compensation Act — and I hope to explore this further with the Attorney General when we get to the committee stage…. In the way I read it, it allows the Workers Compensation Act to continue to discriminate against workers when they reach age 65.

You can now work beyond 65, but if you go on compensation…. Sorry, you don't get benefits after age 65. You get such a limited amount of benefit at age 65.

This bill is unfair. It sort of cherry-picks. It allows workers to work longer, which is good for the economy in some cases, but it doesn't add the protections that are required to ensure that there is a fairness — a fairness that runs parallel to the higher risk of an injury or the higher risk of culpability or the fact that an employee working beyond 65 could be injured on the job. It doesn't deal adequately with that. It doesn't deal with it in the same instance as it would deal with it with a worker that is younger than 65.

The bill is premature. The concept is good. The concept of not discriminating is good, but we need to go into the details of where the genesis of this bill was. The genesis is from the Premier's Council on Aging. That's where the exploration started. That was the groundwork. That was the legwork. That was the work that was done to get to this bill. So let's go through some of the recommendations that were made.

Reshaping our neighbourhoods. Well, I mean that's a civic matter, and a lot of municipalities are reshaping their neighbourhoods. A lot of municipalities have programs in place for curbs. They have programs in

I know in my community we have one of the largest seniors centres anywhere in the lower mainland. Seniors come from all over — from Richmond, from Burnaby, of course from New Westminster, from Tri-Cities. They have programs. That's a great statement, but many progressive municipalities are dealing with those quality-of-life issues for seniors after seniors retire.

There's more work that can go into that. There's more assistance that can be given. I know some municipalities are limited as to how many of the cut-and-covers of the curbs that they can do. Municipalities only put into their coffers eight cents of every dollar that's collected in taxes; the rest comes over here and off to Ottawa.

There are some things municipalities are doing, but this government could be proactive in that sense, just as the council has stated, and put moneys into those — put extra moneys into ensuring that seniors can get around safely.

Reshaping our neighbourhoods also has downfalls in the sense that there isn't any longer a vision with respect to growth strategies. Growth strategies are changing. At one time we had the growth strategies plan 2021, which won a United Nations award. It won a United Nations award for growth in a metropolis area, in an area that has limited ability to grow. It won an award for that, and now we're seeing sprawl. We're seeing people capitalizing on having large, long strips of sprawl and big box.

What does that do for seniors who are aging? How do they shop? In my community we had a hardware store. Wal-Mart moved in down the road, and one of the big drugstores moved. Canadian Tire moved. The next thing you know, seniors that need to purchase things are forced to go into cars. They're forced to try to get on buses. It is almost impossible in some communities to get a bus to go shopping for necessities. We're actually destroying our walkable, liveable communities and allowing sprawl, and then we're talking about transforming and reshaping neighbourhoods.

Well, it's great talk, but development is what makes the money when you head out into the Fraser Valley and into the green zones. Raw land is where you make the money. People are more interested in making profits as opposed to building complete communities, and we were headed towards complete communities.

In Great Britain they still have complete communities — a very small piece of land. You can travel on a train for a considerable length of time and see the open green space, and people are living in the cities. People are living in condensed areas where they can walk, they can shop, they can play and they can entertain — all in their communities. It's great to talk about reshaping neighbourhoods, but the policies from the other side here are sprawl policies. They're totally inconsistent with reshaping neighbourhoods — totally inconsistent.

The seniors in my community are starting to say: "I need a car to go buy a screwdriver."

C. Puchmayr: This is great for the member from the car sale eras of the Social Credit. I think he said, "Buy them one" or "Buy one" or something. Some people can't afford it, and anyway, the idea is to try to get the cars off the road. The idea is to try to get the walkable communities, the livable communities where you have cleaner air and less greenhouse gas.

C. Puchmayr: Staying healthy is extremely interesting. The member wants to know how this relates. The member obviously read this document. This is the genesis. I guess he just got here, so I'll excuse him for that. The minister is aware that all of these components are part….

L. Mayencourt: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The member knows full well that he's not to refer to what other members are doing in the House during his talk. Also, I think it is reasonable that the member should speak to the bill that we're talking about.

C. Puchmayr: We talk about staying healthy. Staying healthy is becoming difficult. Staying healthy for seniors is becoming extremely difficult. I talked earlier about the decisions that some seniors are making. They're going to their doctors and saying: "Doctor, I need these three prescriptions filled. Which one can I get away with not filling? Which is the least important?"

They're also sacrificing food for medication. They're actually sacrificing food. They're going in and purchasing food that isn't as nutritious but is cheaper, and I think that has an incredible impact on the health of our citizens. The unfair Pharmacare has a significant impact on the health of our citizens.

The cost of the property taxes that they're paying…. If they had a car, look at the fuel costs. Can you imagine someone that's 70 years old having to put fuel in the car at those rates? It's almost going to force them to go to work.

It's great to talk the talk about staying healthy, but it costs money to stay healthy. If a senior has to work beyond 65 just to stay healthy, that's not really fair. If they're only working because they need to work, I don't think that's fair. I think a senior should be able to retire with dignity and with a decent retirement income, so that they can spend time with their grandchildren. They can spend time with their loved ones, and they're not getting up and going to work at age 65 because the economy is forcing them to do that.

They should have that choice. This side believes they should have that choice, and they have that choice today. Some seniors are leaving their jobs. At 65 they're

told they have to retire because collectively it says that they shall retire at age 65. Then they're in McDonald's, or they're working at Mac's or working at Wal-Mart.

They've retired from a job at 65, and now they're forced to go to work again. Seniors have the ability already to work beyond 65. The needs are to ensure that seniors can retire with dignity so that they have the ability to live a respectful life in their golden years, the last years of their life — so that they can live with some dignity and have the services they need to stay healthy and be able to be mobile and to move around.

The other issue it talks about is ensuring sufficient incomes. It makes reference to encouraging retirement savings. Retirement savings aren't a sufficient income. Seniors need an income, and it needs to be an income that is indexed and that raises them to a level where they have a comfortable quality of life.

Old age security and CPP did that. Those are the levels that you need to reach. You need to have sufficient income.

I spoke about the senior that had to take their life savings pretty well out of the bank, because his wife needed a chemotherapy drug that wasn't part of the unfair Pharmacare. It was a new drug, and it wasn't covered. You'll do anything to save a loved one.

Suddenly, this senior, who supposedly had sufficient income on their own retirement plan, is now dipping into that so that a loved one will stay alive. Then they look five years down the road and they're selling their home or trying to get mortgages or getting so far in debt that they're losing everything they worked so hard for.

Those components have to be part of this. It's not just saying: "If you work and a contract says, 'You shall retire at 65,' we're taking that away." There have to be other components. It has to be a retirement package that is put together, that's done creatively, that accepts the outreach that's done, and this is the outreach that the government engaged in. This was the conclusion.

The conclusion wasn't just: "Yeah, you can work beyond 65." The conclusion was: put these components in place so that there's some dignity, so that when they make that decision, if they decide not to, they can actually live with some dignity and some respect and some income.

It talks about supporting independence. Supporting independence — again, that sounds just great. Who in this room doesn't support independence on first blush? Who doesn't support having somebody come into your home to make sure that you can live there longer and look after you and bathe you if you're disabled? I think we all in our hearts believe that, but the policies from that side have ensured that that is not happening.

We hear constantly in my constituency and in many constituency offices on this side, and I'm sure on that side as well, about people who can't get the quality support so that they can stay in their homes with dignity in their retirement. They're being forced out of their homes. If they have some assets in their homes, then they're liquidating those assets and moving, a lot of them, into private care facilities. Their assets are going to be spent in a private care facility because this government has not provided the care facilities and the public care beds that they promised. Everything's going to private care beds, and seniors can't afford it. It's really shameful.

When I talk to care workers that are going into homes…. If they get a two-hour assignment in that home and it's going to be two hours and 15 minutes, they have to get on the phone and phone in. They have to make a case for that.

In some of the places they're going into, they're finding deplorable conditions. The seniors are bedridden. There's a real lack of physiotherapy now. It's difficult to get the therapists into the home, so the seniors are just lying in bed, trying to struggle to survive in that environment. That's not retiring with dignity, and that's directly from what was created by deregulation and the change in regulation.

We also have in British Columbia — this is a shocking statistic, and I'm sure the other side is aware of it — the fastest-growing homelessness for seniors. Seniors are becoming homeless. Seniors are couch surfing. Couch surfing is when you try to stay at a place as long as you can, then maybe you'll stay with your kids for a while, and maybe you'll stay with some friends. Eventually, there's nowhere to go, and seniors are in the streets. They have shopping carts full of clothes and their belongings.

I praise the Premier's Council on Aging because they addressed that, but you know what? It's our job in here to follow through on this, not just to say: "Mr. Employer, you can have that senior, if you want, beyond 65 — if you want — and if he or if she doesn't come in every day, here's the Labour Code — non-culpable dismissal," or "You're a nice lady, Mrs. Smith, but you know, you just can't come in enough. You're not here enough. We can't have you coming in here. We're going to have to let you go. I'm sorry."

We're not putting the pieces together here. You've cherry-picked this thing, which makes it a great document for an employer. It talks about great things for seniors, but it doesn't put them in place. It even exempts WorkSafe B.C. They can still discriminate on seniors after 65. That's absolutely mind-boggling.

You can work after 65, but just try to collect some money if you ever get hurt. You'll get your basic, and then you'll get your retraining, and then after about 16 weeks, well, you can go work somewhere else, if they'll hire you. Who's going to hire a disabled worker at 61 or 62 years old — who? Nobody. It's issues like this that are going to create an even greater gap between the wealthy and the poor. It's going to create an even greater gap in the rising number of homeless seniors.

Providing medical services. I read this, and I thought, oh, this must…. It says "province of British Columbia" on the top here. It says "the Premier's Council on Aging," but God, you'd think the NDP wrote this stuff, because you had people there that cared. They wanted to do something. They cared about seniors. Seniors were involved in this thing.

Seniors feel this. Seniors feel this every day. They're worried. Seniors are worried about the future. They're

worried about the escalation in taxes. They're worried about the escalation in costs. Seniors are extremely concerned, and many seniors contributed to this document. This is what they said: health care. Health care.

Seniors' health care now in my community…. The way seniors get health care now is by waiting in a closet. I've seen seniors in closets in hospitals. Is this what they meant by this?

D. Cubberley: I've seen them waiting for the closet. They're waiting for the closet.

C. Puchmayr: Then, of course, the member for Vancouver-Burrard makes a derogatory statement.

One of the key recommendations is talking about seniors' health. It's all part of the component. It's all part of this. It's all part of seniors living with dignity.

It's not just a matter of saying you can work beyond 65. It's all the other pieces. It's the complete communities. It's home care workers. It's physiotherapists coming into your home so you don't seize up and freeze in your bed with your hands clenched because no one's dealing with your aging seniors.

It's also the stress on families. I've talked to families who…. There's a system before they put someone into a care home. It used to be the first available bed, and I think this side did some incredible work in the House last session on highlighting the horrible situations of seniors. In my community, one was going to be moved to Boston Bar because that was the first available bed. Well, that senior is now in New Westminster in a care facility, one that was a joint care facility. That senior would have been….

C. Puchmayr: You know what? I can guarantee you that that senior probably would not be alive today, because his children weren't 40 or 50. His children were in their 60s. They would not have been able to drive up to Boston Bar in the winter to visit dad. I don't think anybody would have been able to drive up to Boston Bar in the winter to visit dad, and he would have probably succumbed to a broken heart.

Here they talk about having a system in place, and we don't have the system in place. There is no such system in place that really allows for dignified support for seniors in their homes. So they go through the process with the health care providers, and they do an evaluation and an analysis. In that analysis they say: "Well, we can get your dad to Boston Bar, or you can come in and look after him." In the one case they said he kept putting newspaper in the microwave, and he was putting newspapers in the oven as well. They were afraid that he thought they were the fireplace. So they said: "Well, take the microwave out and disconnect the stove, and he can live here. Just come over and cook the meals." Is that dignity?

Then they ask questions like: "What's your social insurance number?" He knows it. Well, that's pretty good. "What's your driver's licence number?" He knows it. "What day of the week is it?" "I don't know." "How many pills did you take today?" "I don't know." But that's enough — knowing your birth certificate or your social security number or your driver's licence. He can stay in his home. The kids can look after him. Where's the dignity there?

The other issue on staying healthy is the choices. The choices of staying healthy are important, and a lot of communities do it. A lot of communities are there, but this government's not there. This bill isn't there. It doesn't provide that whatsoever.

They talk about recommending that the B.C. government move to more objective, transparent, evidence-based decision-making regarding what health care treatments, services and devices…. That's exactly what I just spoke of. It's got to be transparent. People should know what the means test…. They shouldn't change from person to person. They shouldn't change because you have somebody that is going to be able to look after, or that you can coerce into looking after, a person. Sometimes the seniors are looking after their parents who are seniors, and that's difficult. Lifting an aging father or mother in and out of a bathtub when you're beyond 65 yourself is difficult.

At one time you could get the care worker in there, and the care worker would come and provide that service. The Health Minister would know this — should know this. There's a savings to having quality care in the home. The saving is that that senior isn't going to deteriorate as quickly and end up in an emergency ward. So why wouldn't someone look at that as a win-win-win? Why not?

Instead, the senior is seizing up in their bed. Their muscles, their legs are cramped. The kids can't come in and give adequate treatment. The in-home care has been cut to such a degree that by the time the therapist comes in there, it's going to take forever to restore those abilities, and the senior ends up in an emergency room, in a closet maybe. Or as in Royal Columbian Hospital, where the doctors have been very creative…. They've added new beds. They're not really beds, though. They're curtains they put on the ceiling, and they roll beds in there. They don't even count on the ministry's statistics of beds, but they've had to do it. It was either that or put a triage tent in the parking lot, which they were talking about — you know, MASH 4077 in the parking lot of a hospital.

By implementing some of the recommendations, we could actually alleviate some of the congestion in our health care facilities. You would think that would be a no-brainer. You would think that somebody would just up and do that. But you know what? It wouldn't promote the private health care system that

this government is trying to promote. As I spoke of the elderly couple that spent their life savings on treatment, sadly, that is where we're headed today, and that's shameful.

This bill is a step in the right direction, but not without all the other recommendations that are alluded to in this document. We need to ensure that we have a good system for seniors to retire with dignity, to live in complete communities, to live in their homes in a healthy manner as long as possible and, if they can't afford a private care home, to have a quality care facility that isn't going to extort from them every last cent they have.

One of the issues, also, with the care homes…. Some of them used to have a registered nurse around the clock, and they've restructured…. What bill was that? When they restructured, they were actually able to get rid of the entire staff of a care facility and rehire them, which is just shocking. It's just alarming that that would happen. It causes a lot of trauma to the seniors that are in the care facilities. It causes a lot of confusion, especially for those with dementia. They don't understand what's happening.

Some now have just the one registered nurse in a managerial position, and that registered nurse would be on possibly a nine-to-five or an eight-to-four shift. So at two in the morning, when the senior rolls out of bed and accidentally pulls a catheter out, they have no capacity for installing that. So what do they do? This is according to doctors at Royal Columbian Hospital. They call an ambulance, and they send the patient to the hospital. Can you imagine the cost of that?

Again, going back to the summary that is the genesis of this bill, that talks about the quality of aging.

C. Puchmayr: I know that the members on the other side are anxious to get their whopping 29-percent pay increase and are trying to rush through something that is this important. We're talking about our parents.

C. Puchmayr: We're talking about our grandparents. We're talking about seniors. We're talking about someone that should be respected. And here it is. They want to hurry up, pack up their briefcases and go home with their whopping pay increases. They're trying to limit credible debate in this House about real issues that affect and concern seniors. They just want to rush home and play golf, I guess.

But I will continue, because this is important. To bring in legislation that you're saying is non-discriminatory is good. It's good. To bring in legislation….

To bring in legislation to prevent discrimination is a good thing, but you don't do it without applying all the other discriminatory factors. You don't do it. You can't do it. It doesn't work that way. All it will do is provide the ability for someone to work beyond 65 in a contractual agreement. It will void that contract where they will not have to go at 65.

What will happen then is that you don't have the complete communities. You don't have the transportation systems. You don't have the health care systems. You don't have the in-home care systems. So all this great work is being respected by people all over the province, and it's not here again. It's like a lot of the legislation that comes forward. It makes some really nice airy-fairy comments, but the proof is in what little it actually does.

All it does is allow someone to work beyond 65 when they're in a collective agreement, in the contractual area. We support people not being discriminated against, working beyond 65, but we also support people living with dignity, and this does not provide dignity.

The policies that this government is engaged in, in this province — the cuts to health care services, the cuts to in-home care — have done nothing to allow seniors to retire with dignity or to live with dignity. So we're going to put them in the workforce. That's the answer. That's not much of an answer, is it? Putting them back in the workforce sure doesn't address the issue.

The last component in this is the transportation component. We need transportation. We need transportation in the areas — absolutely. We need transportation so that seniors can get around. Seniors need to buy groceries, too, and they're not going to have the chauffeur that the member over here may have with this whopping pay increase — and the other member of tourism and small business.

They're going to allow seniors to work beyond 65, but they're not going to put any of the other components in place. I know that makes some of the members on the other side squirm a little bit, because it shows the hypocrisy here. It shows that you develop some legislation through consultation, and then you ignore every part of the consultation except one. That's not good governance, in my opinion. That's not good governance at all.

On the bill itself. It's unfortunate that the Attorney General did not allow….

There's not much here in this bill. If you look at the document that was produced to get us to the bill, it was pretty in-depth. The bill talks about repealing the

retirement age so that you can no longer force someone to retire at 65, except firefighters; airline pilots, I believe; and other prohibitions that are included.

The one thing that really concerns me, besides the workers compensation part of it, is the fact that so much hard work went into this. So much good work went into it, and this is all the bill is. It's missing all of the components. It's just another example of how this government operates.

I know the members on the other side want to get home. They want this session to end and to take their whopping…. The Premier I think would get — what is it? — a 50-percent wage increase? A 52-percent wage increase? I guess the Premier's in a hurry.

This bill will go into some discussion. It will go into committee stage, and I look forward to the Attorney General sitting and responding to the committee components of it. It's unfortunate, again, that the manner in which this was brought forward here, after assuring us that this would be an item that was coming up in the fall….

My apologies to the people at home that may be missing out on this lively debate that we're going to have on this bill in the House, because they, too, were led to believe by this government that they were going to have an ability to do some more consultation on it. People are looking at the bill as we speak that are going to be making comments on it. But suddenly, because this government wants to move out of session and, basically, impose closure on us…. It's sad; it's absolutely sad.

I will finish my comments by saying that I look forward to some more lively debate, and hopefully, the members on the other side will make some comments as well. I look forward to the committee stage of this bill with the hon. Attorney General. Those are my comments.

K. Whittred: I am almost speechless, Mr. Speaker, in terms of trying to think of how to respond to the remarks of the member opposite, because he simply doesn't get it. The fact that the opposition has decided that the Labour critic will be the official spokesperson for a bill that is a human rights bill is absolutely beyond me.

The member opposite spoke a lot about dignity and respect, and that is exactly what this bill gives seniors. It removes the ability to discriminate against people when they turn 65.

K. Whittred: There is a huge misunderstanding on the part, obviously, of the member….

K. Whittred: I was saying that there seems to be a misunderstanding on the part of the member opposite who spoke about exactly what this bill is intended to do.

In the 21st century the idea that we would discriminate against people simply because they have a birthday is a complete anachronism, and that is exactly what this bill corrects.

Perhaps it is useful to look a little bit at the history of this. People often ask: where did the age 65 come from? Well, it's actually attributed to Bismarck. That, in this instance, is also not quite correct. Bismarck was the first of the sort of modern governments to bring in any kind of old age security, and he actually determined the age 70. Of course, in Bismarck's day, most people were dead by the age of 70, so it really wasn't much of a program. That continued, nonetheless, and in fact the first social security programs in Canada that were introduced used the word "seventy."

My own research, as much as I can figure out, determines that 65 was probably a political decision, come to along the way when governments thought that that would be more appealing to the public.

There's also a misconception, you know, around what the law around mandatory retirement was. There is this belief that there was a law that said: "You must retire at 65." That, in fact, was not the case. The case was that the Human Rights Code defined age as someone who was between 19 and 64. Therefore, you could be discriminated against beyond the age of 65. This bill that we're debating right now simply eliminates that. It changes that definition. It's a very simple process.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, please pay the speaker the respect of at least having the floor and being able to speak. Thank you.

K. Whittred: The member opposite went on at great length giving a great tale of woe of all the terrible things that were going to happen to people. Do you know that I have been working on this issue for at least five years. I have built up an enormous database of people who have corresponded with me. I have been on open-line radio. I have had e-mail communication, and do you know I have one person — one person — who disagrees with this. I have one person who does not want this.

If members opposite do not plan to support this bill, they are really swimming upstream in terms of the public opinion on this particular matter. They are also swimming upstream when it comes to doing what other jurisdictions have done. Do you know that the end of mandatory retirement is supported by CARP, the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, which is the largest retired persons' organization in Canada? In fact, I have a very large poster in my office that says: "There is no 'best before' date."

There's nothing magical about the age of 65. You don't turn into a pumpkin the day you have your 65th birthday, so why should there be a law that says you must stop working? That is supported by CARP. Most other provinces — seven, I believe, at last count — have done away with mandatory retirement or, in fact, never had it in the first place.

The member opposite went into this great litany of all these awful things that might happen with pension plans, workers compensation, etc. What does he think other places do? Other provinces? The United States, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, all of these countries — none of them have mandatory retirement.

The former president of the Bank of Canada said that it was an anachronism and let's get rid of it. It has no place in the 21st century.

The end of mandatory retirement is supported by the C.D. Howe Institute. It's supported by the OECD. In fact, it's very difficult — other than the member opposite apparently — to find anybody who thinks that it's a good idea to discriminate against people over 65.

The final thing that I want to say about this, because I'm not going to go on at great length — I think I've said just about everything that needs to be said — is that this bill accomplishes exactly what it's supposed to accomplish. It removes the discriminatory aspect for people over 65.

What would we do in our society…? I mean, imagine our 20th century without Winston Churchill. Imagine our own local community without Jack Poole. I have a lady in my riding who's in her 80s, and she's recently taken up track and field. She actually goes out, and she's won awards. We have our own H.A.D. Oliver to use as a model.

All of these things tell us that people are healthy, they are active, and they can continue to work if they want to. There is nothing in this legislation that says that you must work. There is nothing that prevents you from having a dignified retirement. There is nothing that even addresses any of that litany of horrors that was mentioned by the member opposite.

I close by congratulating the Attorney General. I congratulate Dr. Baird and her group that went around the province for making the recommendation. I congratulate the Attorney General for bringing forward this very simple and straightforward bill that, in fact, takes a great leap forward for the 20th century.

It is a huge change in attitude, and it is a huge change that shows respect and regard for all of those people in our society who are today over 65.

L. Krog: It's been a most interesting afternoon listening to the debate around this issue. I think that perhaps the government benches have missed the point of the opposition's response to this. We support the elimination of mandatory retirement as it's so called. There's no question about that. But the report on which this legislation is arguably based talked also about the necessary supports to take into account the fact that this change comes overnight, arguably speaking — within a matter of a few months, by January of 2008.

I support this legislation because of the circumstances in which we find ourselves today. The reality is that many women in our society are heading into retirement, if you will, forced upon them at age 65, whether by union contract or general legislation or work practice or code, without adequate pensions to support them in that retirement.

They may have been single. They may have been divorced. They may be widowed. There may be a whole series of circumstances which means that when they get to 65, instead of heading into the happy concept of retirement, they're in fact heading into a much-reduced lifestyle. They will be like the characters in a Victorian novel living in reduced circumstances. Surely that is not something that we would want to support.

I have heard many of my constituents, particularly women in their 60s, who have come to me and said: "Look, we want mandatory retirement, so-called mandatory retirement, eliminated. We need to keep working. Our lifestyle at age 65 is not going to be the golden years for us." It is essentially stepping back into poverty, which many of them worked themselves out of by having found employment or taken on education at a stage of life when most of us are already happily settled into a career. Those are the people who came to me and said: "Get rid of it. Support the government if it brings this in. This is important for us. We need that opportunity."

That's what the report on which this bill is based talks about as well. But it also talks about the flip side of it, and that is the necessity of allowing those people who feel forced or compelled to continue to work past 65 the opportunity to retire, because we as a society have determined through government programs or other benefits that they should be able to move into retirement that is at least, if not comfortable, adequate.

That's not an unreasonable proposition. I wouldn't think any of the members on the government side of the House would oppose that concept. Surely those who have worked and lived in our society and made their contributions, some smaller, some greater…. Why shouldn't they be able to go into retirement and enjoy the benefits of a working life, having raised a family and contributed to our society in the many ways in which they do, some called upon in the armed services, some doing volunteer work in communities?

Think of the cliché of the 1950s homemaker: supporting a husband, staying home, doing all the cooking and cleaning, fulfilling that role that we all remember from childhood TV — Father Knows Best — never getting an education, moving around from community to community, supporting their husband in

his work, supporting him through university in some cases. Then, through either divorce or untimely death, we say to them as a society: "Well, you know, we haven't quite set up the social programs to reward you for the fact that you supported a male and a taxpayer all those years. We haven't quite set up the programs that enable you to move into the retirement that perhaps you and your husband contemplated together."

That's the problem. That's the problem with what we're doing here today. We are doing in a sense what society determined 20 years ago was good social policy, particularly in the United States, where it started with great force with the elimination of the traditional asylums.

We decided that it was better to integrate people into society, so we've shut down the asylums. But the flip side is that we didn't provide community supports. We didn't provide the kind of residences that were needed, and today we see the streets of every major city in North America filled with people suffering from some degree of mental illness — forgotten, abused and abandoned by the very society that determined it would be in their best interest to remove them from asylums and put them out and give them some sense of so-called freedom.

That's what I'm talking about today around this bill. We're essentially doing the same thing. We are implementing one part of the equation. We are saying: "You're free to keep working." Well, that's jolly nice. So we get to work ourselves into the grave.

But what are we doing to support those people who are genuinely tired, who want to retire, who are in the workforce, who are earning enough to live decently? Now, because we have failed as a society to provide for them, through no fault of their own….

L. Krog: We've said to them: "You've got to quit work. You've got to quit at age 65." Not reasonable. That's where the fairness comes into this whole equation. All we're saying on this side of the House to the government is that, at a time of great prosperity that we hear about constantly from the government benches…. You would think that they were responsible for the very sunshine in this province some days.

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, please give the floor to the member who's speaking. Thank you.

L. Krog: I come back to my point. If I saw a willingness on this government's part to step up to the plate, to deal with those people who deserve to retire, people who may have worked their whole lives in low-paying jobs which are just as necessary to the functioning of our country, our province and our communities as the people who make a great deal of money, and if I saw the government ready to step up to the plate to assist those at the same time they bring in this legislation that allows people who wish to keep working because they want to contribute, then I would speak with great enthusiasm. I would support the government entirely on this, but that's not what I hear today.

What I hear today is that we have one part of the problem solved. We're allowing people who wish to continue to contribute to society to be able to do so — people who wish to continue to make their talents available, whether it be teaching at a university or working in a coffee shop. We're allowing them to do it. But for those many in our society who face age 65 knowing that they can't live comfortably, we're doing nothing. That's what we're talking about.

The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale talked about Churchill. She's quite right. He didn't become Prime Minister the first time until he was 65. John Diefenbaker wasn't Prime Minister, I think, until he was 62. No one would want to deny society the opportunity to have those people continue to contribute if they wish to do so.

But let us resolve in this place, in this time of great prosperity, to acknowledge that not everybody wants to keep working in paid positions. There are communities in this province where you have a wonderful network of volunteers in the community with tremendous experience — the Probus Club, organizations like that. Those organizations function because they have people who have decent retirement incomes who can then turn around and offer their talents and their abilities gratis to the communities in which they live. That's a good thing for society, just as it's a good thing to have people employed.

We'll support the bill. It's a good first step. But this government needs to step back, to examine what society looks like and to acknowledge the fact that people are going to want to retire, people need to retire. We have the prosperity, if you will. This government has the revenue, if it doesn't stop giving it away all the time, to achieve that. I say let them achieve it. This is a nice first step, but it's only the first step, and it's not far enough. Let's continue to move forward and support, reward and acknowledge the contribution of seniors in our province.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to support Bill 31. I think it is an incredible bill, one that I have had many people in my riding come and ask to have put before this Legislative Assembly.

I want to thank the Attorney General for bringing the bill forward, and I do want to extend my heartfelt thanks to my colleague from North Vancouver–

Lonsdale, who worked diligently on this, not just with us in this House, but with people from across British Columbia. Many from my riding, I know, were in contact with her and with me. A huge thank you to that member on behalf of myself and the people I represent.

We've heard a lot. I certainly want to commend the member for Nanaimo. He made it very clear that he supports the bill. I'm going to make it extremely clear again. I support this bill 100 percent. But this bill isn't about implementing all of the recommendations from the Premier's Council on Aging report. Not all of those recommendations were Human Rights Code issues.

We heard from the member for New Westminster about reshaping neighbourhoods, getting cars off the road, cleaner air — on and on it went — which had nothing to do with this bill, absolutely nothing. I thought it was an abdication of the member's responsibility by misleading the public.

This bill is quite simple. It's a Human Rights Code amendment act on mandatory retirement elimination. My colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale said it, and I want to say it again: age 65 is not an expiry date. We're living longer.

The member for New Westminster actually made a comment, and I had to write it down so I could remember: "Staying healthy is becoming more difficult." The last time I checked, we're living longer. We're living healthier lives — not just in this province, but in this country. Maybe he was misquoting or read a bad book somewhere.

He talked about many things. The one thing that he quoted about…. The "Mr. Employer," I think, was another one of his comments. I had to write that down. "You can have that senior work now." I think I'll be very close if we have to recheck. This has nothing to do with the employer. This has everything to do with individual and personal choice. It is their choice. In many cases, prior to this bill coming before this Legislature, that choice wasn't there for them, so how can that be a bad thing? It isn't. It's an excellent thing.

The issue, when I hear so much misleading information…. It was all over the place. When I came to this Legislature in February of this year, I knew when we were adjourning the House — May 31. What I've seen here, from one member, I think, is politics at its worst — to play games, talking about the pay package. It doesn't make sense to me when we're debating Bill 31, which is a Human Rights Code amendment act, one that's an incredibly good act.

B. Lekstrom: I do want to thank the member for Nanaimo. I still don't know where the member for New Westminster stands on this, but I know that we're going to find out, because there will be a vote.

The other thing I heard was how this was sprung upon people. Well, I checked. I think it was April 25 when first reading was put forward on this.

The issue that we're talking about, if we're focused on it, is a good-news story for all British Columbians. I don't need a government, in the sense of what we're eliminating, telling me that I can or can't work beyond 65.

People are healthier. They're living longer. They're more active. If they make a decision that they want to continue in the workforce, that's not just good for themselves. It's good for the employer, if they so wish, and it's good for society. It's good for their health. Far too often I've watched people that I know, upon retirement, not carry on with a great life — not because of lack of money, but because they worked 40 or 50 years of their life, and one day they wake up and all of a sudden they don't work. I think that's atrocious. I think that allowing people the choice is a marvellous thing.

The one thing that we want to be very clear on…. I didn't want people that were listening to this debate here today think that the report that was referred to by the member for New Westminster…. Maybe I took it wrong, but I certainly took it that he was implying that this is all we're ever going to see from it — Bill 31. How wrong could he be?

I also want to address…. He mentioned some things about property taxes. I would encourage him to speak to his local government. That's your property tax issue.

We also talk about time frames in this Legislature. I've heard quite a bit about it today — about the importance of allowing time for good debate. I'm a big supporter of good debate if we're debating the bill that's before the House, not filibustering for time.

In all honesty, sitting here watching from this closeness that I had…. Anybody watching on TV, I'm certain, couldn't have taken what the member said and understood that it had anything to do with Bill 31.

That's why people are disillusioned with politics. That's what I think is going on.

B. Lekstrom: And then they want to talk about…. You want to rush out of here….

B. Lekstrom: So the facts are right. It's always interesting to hear the opposition, because I know they

obviously must be in turmoil over a tough decision that's coming for them. But the issue is that we all come to this House, and we make a decision based on what our constituents think is best. I have not had one constituent….

Deputy Speaker: Members. Members, make sure that you're in your own seats as well, if there are going to be comments made.

B. Lekstrom: I'm going to carry on, and I want to again emphasize that the people I represent in Peace River South…. I can assure you that I have not had one person come and oppose this bill, which was put forward on April 25 — not yesterday and not today, speedily. April 25 was first reading.

Like my colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale, I've also had people for the last number of years — I've had the honour to be here since 2001 — express a desire to have mandatory retirement eliminated. I'm proud to stand here today in support of this bill, and we will do it.

There's nothing expeditious about trying to get out of here. May 31 was the date we knew — how many months ago? Months and months ago.

B. Lekstrom: Again, what we've had are some people wanting to play a game with a bill that I think is a wonderful societal shift. And we're going to see a shift in society. I think that we're going to see people very excited about this change — the ones that want to.

The issue is…. And I go back to this so that the whole world will understand, and I think they do. This is about personal choice. It is a good thing when we allow people the right and the choice to make their decisions based on what their needs and wants are.

This isn't saying that people have to work past 65. This isn't saying that you have to because you don't have a good pension. There are lots of people, I'll tell you, from my constituency…. If you want to look at the agriculture sector, they work till they are put in the ground. They do it because they love it. That's what this allows people to do in whatever job they like, if they can do it.

It doesn't have to do with an employer wanting to take advantage of somebody and not having been protected under the Workers Compensation Act. That's not what this bill is about. This bill is about choice.

This bill is not about wanting to…. As I heard from the member for New Westminster a number of times: "They want to get out of here. They want to push this through. They want to do it quickly so there's no debate on it." That's ludicrous.

The bill for the people…. And I encourage everyone to look up Bill 31. There's not a great deal to debate in it. It's pretty straightforward. But what we aren't here to debate….

B. Lekstrom: What I'm hearing is every other bill except Bill 31, or every other idea…. I've sat and watched this Legislature for a number of years, like I'm sure many of my colleagues on both sides of this House did before we were here.

I am sure that, just like me, you shook your heads and couldn't understand why on earth they would be talking about that when the issue on the floor was something totally different. Well, we've seen a good example of that today. There are a good number of things that we could debate.

Deputy Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, please come to order.

B. Lekstrom: The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast talks about dirty tricks. I can kind of laugh at that. I'm amused by your comments, and that's a good thing.

Members, when the member has the floor, it's usually some measure of respect for that member to have the floor and say his piece.

B. Lekstrom: To carry on about Bill 31…. Again, to make it abundantly clear, it's right here: Human Rights Code (Mandatory Retirement Elimination) Amendment Act. It is a good bill. It's well-written, it's well-meaning, and it does the right thing for British Columbians of all ages because we all, I'm sure, hope to reach that wonderful age of 65.

Some in this chamber have and others haven't, but when we do and when we host that wonderful birthday of age 65, hopefully no more will people have to sit down and wonder: "What am I going to do tomorrow because I can't work anymore?" That's the saddest thing that I can think of, and I am proud to be able to support this bill here today.

In closing, not only will I thank the Attorney General again for bringing this bill forward, but my heartfelt thanks go out to my colleague from North Vancouver–Lonsdale for the work and dedication she's put into this bill. I wholeheartedly support it.

M. Farnworth: I rise to speak in support of this bill, Bill 31, an important piece of legislation and one that deserves respect and the opportunity to debate it fully.

Unfortunately, we are not getting and this legislation is not getting the respect that it needs to be debated fully and completely and totally, which is what the public and this House expects. That is a shame.

The member for Peace River South said that this bill was tabled on April 25, and what's the problem? It was tabled for first reading. Well, guess what? Today is May 30, and tomorrow is May 31. This House will adjourn, and that will be it.

We have had since April 25 to debate this bill. We have had since April 25 to talk about the importance of this bill and to answer questions that people have on this bill, whether they be young people wondering how this will affect them, whether they be seniors who wonder how this affects them or whether they be families who wonder about how this affects them.

We have had since April 25, and we are ramming this bill through in less than 24 hours without the opportunity to have the questions that need to be asked and answered dealt with. That is shameful.

This is an outrage. There are serious questions that need to be dealt with, questions on how it impacts on people's pensions. It may be benign, as the members say, but people deserve to have answers. They deserve to have the opportunity for their members to stand up in this House and ask the questions that need to be asked and the questions that will answer their concerns, and to be able to deal with the issues that they think are important and not just respond to the timetable of an arrogant, abusive, power-biased government.

I have watched as we have dealt with legislation in this House this session. This has been deemed an important part of the legislative calendar and something that you would think the government would want to put forward as a showpiece of legislation, something that's important, which would be worthy of the debate and scrutiny that it should expect to receive and that the public expects it to receive.

There are few issues more important to individuals than what they do, how they retire and under the conditions that they retire. There's nothing more important to young people entering the workforce today than to know what conditions they will be entering the workforce under, how things such as mandatory retirement or the elimination of mandatory retirement will impact them and their career choices and their training opportunities.

They deserve answers, and they will not be able to get them because of this arrogant government's abusive approach to the system and to the rules. That is just wrong.

You know, we operate by the rules of MacMinn's third edition supplemented by Erskine May, and we've had some debates over the last few days, but what is happening today reminds me…. Sometimes, I wonder if a set of rules written by Robert Mugabe is what we're operating on — Mugabe's second edition — not Erskine May and not MacMinn's third edition.

We should be recognizing that this is an important piece of legislation that should have the time required to debate it fully at second reading, to get the full range of opinions that need to be done. We should have the time available to go through it clause by clause in committee stage, to have the questions that need to be asked and the questions that need to be answered. We are not given that time.

Instead, our government has decided to use a guillotine motion. They have decided they want to ram something in. What is wrong, I say to members of this House, with recognizing that we have a legislative calendar in place that makes for a spring and a fall session and that we start the debate on this particular piece of legislation and have a good and constructive discussion that allows us to focus on the issues that people want raised, to address issues of pension and to see the impact of tenure and on things such as training and to address all those things that we support in this bill? We believe it's the right way to go.

People also have questions, which they don't just expect us to blindly ignore and blindly brush aside because the government has an arrogant agenda of wanting to ram something through. We could have taken a rational, reasoned approach. We could have said: "Let's start debate on this bill and if we get through second reading, we get through second reading. We take the time and what's required for third reading. If it goes into the fall, it goes into the fall."

We know that what happens when this bill is passed is not immediate. There are lots of things that need to take place. There are lots of policies that need to be changed. There are lots of things that need to be done.

You know, the member before said: "Oh, we're one of the last jurisdictions to deal with." Absolutely, we are, but — guess what? — in all those other jurisdictions that have dealt with, they had fulsome debate and fulsome discussion. They did not have a government ram something through because it suited their convenience. They did not have governments ram something through to prove how arrogant and powerful their majority can be.

No, they had a reasoned debate that allowed an opposition to do its work, whether they supported the bill or not. They allowed time for an opposition to do its job, to ask the questions in committee stage, which is what the role of an opposition is. Instead, we are seeing arrogance unparalleled in this province since the early years of 2000 and 2001.

M. Farnworth: I hear heckling from the benches opposite. I always know that there are…. You know

that you yourself take issue with people heckling, and I understand that. But what it says to me, when they're heckling, is it means that I'm making a point, that I am right, and it's annoying them.

I welcome it because what it says is that I am right. They know that it is wrong to bring in time allocation on this bill. They know it is wrong to not have the right amount of time to debate this bill. They know it is wrong that we don't have the time to do clause by clause in committee stage.

They understand that. They know it's wrong. In their hearts they know it's wrong. They know that it's an abuse of power, and they know that that is not the way this chamber is supposed to operate. And it is shameful. I can't help….

Mr. Speaker: Member. I'll just remind the member that the bill is Mandatory Retirement Elimination. Stick to the bill, please.

M. Farnworth: Absolutely. It is Mandatory Retirement Elimination, and as I have said, we support this bill. But what we also support is the opportunity, in debating this bill, to ask the questions and to raise the issues around this bill that thousands of British Columbians have.

In other provinces, when this legislation has been introduced, their representatives, whether on the government side or the opposition side, have had the necessary time required to raise those issues, to ask the questions and to get the answers that the public rightly deserves — so that we don't have to deal with people who are concerned. We don't have to deal with rumour, innuendo and misconceptions, and we deal with the facts and the truth.

We get that by asking those questions in this House in committee stage and by raising those issues in second reading debate. The amount of time that we have allocated to this bill does not allow that, and that is absolutely shameful. I know that there are others who want to take their place in this debate in the short allocated time that we have, an amount of time that's been made available to us by an arrogant government who want nothing more than to ram something through and to stifle debate. That is outrageous and shameful, and I will condemn that at every possible chance I get.

There are people in this country who fought to ensure that the jackboots of tyranny never make it into chambers such as this, that legislators have the opportunity to ask questions that need to be asked and that they have the time available to them to put it to the government, to say: "We demand an answer to these questions."

We demand these issues be addressed, and we will continue to do that no matter how much the government wants to shorten the time. No matter how much they want to put us under pressure, this side of the House will do its job. We will raise the issues. We will ask the questions. We will do it on this bill and other bills after it. We will do it now, we will do it in the fall, and we will do it the year after that, because we believe in the importance of doing our role of asking those questions….

M. Farnworth: As my colleague says, "Until they are defeated in the next election," in 2009. I can see by the clock on the wall that there are other colleagues of mine who wish to take their place in this debate, despite the shortage of time. I think it's only fair that other members of this House have the opportunity to speak and that the government has the opportunity to listen to those voices — and maybe to come to their senses, though I doubt it.

D. Routley: I suppose we should become accustomed to this as the theme of this government. The theme of this government is that it avoids scrutiny and runs from accountability.

The time limits imposed on this debate dishonour this issue and dishonour the seniors that will be affected. This is a government that is afraid to stand up to them. This is immaturity.

We were told that if you criticize legislation, you must be against it. We will support the idea that we should end mandatory retirement. But our role is to ensure that legislation brought forward is not flawed, as this bill obviously is. This bill is flawed because it attempts to ignore the implications of this important question.

How can the people of B.C. respect the Legislature that denies the opportunity to fully discuss such an important issue? People fought for decades, people have fought for generations to uplift the standards in this province for seniors, workers, women and children. This government has systematically set about to reduce all of those. How can we trust that the intent of this bill is to address an injustice around mandatory retirement when we know from experience that the likelihood — no, the certainty — is that this government will use this as a tool to dilute the conditions and circumstances of British Columbians?

This is the most shameful example of that because it will take from seniors. Seniors of the province who would like to continue working must be a little uneasy as they listen to this debate because, of course, they remember the policies that have forced them out of their homes, have made them the largest-growing group of homeless in this province — policies that have included unfair Pharmacare; Bill 27 and the Residential Tenancy Act, which have made it easier to evict seniors; cuts to home care; broken promises on long-term beds. And now they are to support this bill?

Yes, I know many seniors, and in fact, I've represented workers who did not want to retire, particularly bus drivers. I supported that they shouldn't have to

retire, but I knew that tampering with the conditions of people, particularly those who are vulnerable, without being extremely cautious, without allowing the fullest of debate, is foolhardy and dangerous. What will happen is that we will only add to the misery of people if we are not careful.

When a government is warned about the potential of acts they are taking, they can't hide behind any excuses of unintended consequences. The consequences of this bill could be huge.

We know that the underwriters of insurance companies are looking everywhere they can to avoid and evade responsibilities. They have a profit motive. They would certainly like to reduce that responsibility, and they will look at this as a huge opportunity to do exactly that.

This is not going to offer people the choice to retire or not retire. It will offer them no choice. It will, if we are not careful, offer them only one choice, and that is to keep working when they shouldn't.

We've seen policies from this government force seniors to choose between medicine and food. We have seen seniors, as I said, become the largest-growing group of the homeless.

Now we see WorkSafe being exempted from the provisions of this. When I look at it from the point of view of a senior who must be a little bit concerned about their value to an employer, they must feel a little bit uneasy. I don't blame them.

The only interests of the government so far have been to reward friends and insiders. They owe consideration to the corporations that have supported them, not to the seniors that they have abandoned and that they have abused with policy.

This government has set about to systematically remove supports for those senior British Columbians, and it's unfortunate. It's sad, and I'm sure that a tear comes to many seniors' eyes when they hear another sloganistic attempt by this government to address a need — just like the Residential Tenancy Act, where we were supposedly going to offer consumer protection to seniors.

In fact, we made it much easier for them to be evicted from their homes. We made it much easier for manufactured home parks to be redeveloped into expensive housing developments. That's what seniors have seen materialize out of B.C. Liberal government policies — more devastation, more vulnerability and fewer protections.

This guillotine motion that has been brought to limit debate is a disrespect to those who have served and those who have built the province that built this House. This will amount to scrutiny denied by a government afraid of scrutiny, questions and accountability.

We want a fall session to discuss the business of British Columbia, to bring the issues of this province forward. This is an obvious attempt to avoid that. This government — with all of its troubles, with all of the scandal — would like to go home with its pay raise and hide.

It's not good enough. People sent us here with an expectation that we would work for them — day by day, week by week, month by month, year by year. This government does nothing but run from that.

We demand answers. We demand the opportunity to fully discuss and debate this bill. British Columbia demands answers from a government that refuses to offer any. We saw the Premier's estimates, where it took four minutes for the Premier to answer a question about whether he supported accountability, accountable government. And we are told to use our time wisely by members on the other side in the face of that.

This bill was read once on April 25, and now it will be rammed through today. Second reading of the bill, where we will have opportunity to bring the full range of consideration — the full range. But no, this government won't afford that opportunity.

It cannot afford it because its legislative agenda is corrupted. It has found no answer to the problems of British Columbia — be it forestry, homelessness, poverty, on and on and on. Its policies have only added to the trouble that British Columbians face, and now a guillotine motion to cut off debate on a very serious issue.

How can British Columbians respect a parliament that would allow the issue of mandatory retirement to be railroaded through this way? It is despicable. It is atrocious. It is unworthy of this institution and the people who have sent us here. They have greater expectations of us.

We're told that this is going to support independence. I wonder. The deep and far-reaching implications will do exactly the opposite. It may actually support their independence in looking out for themselves because they will be on their own without the many provisions that the Premier's task force on aging also recommended.

Besides mandatory retirement being abolished, all of the supports that would have accommodated those who will be negatively impacted by this…. And there will be many, particularly if we don't exercise the greatest caution in handling this very important issue.

What makes our seniors vulnerable is also what makes them beautiful and wonderful, just like the wings of a butterfly. Handled improperly, it will lead to a disaster. Handled improperly, it will be destructive. That's what we run the risk of doing.

These are people who have served us and built their communities. On their shoulders we stand. It is entirely inappropriate for this bill to be guillotined this way. It is sad, and it is a disrespect, a dishonouring of their service.

At the very least, they should expect us to stand here and thoroughly canvass this issue and the multitude of implications to them. Their pension plans, insurance policies and a myriad of other institutional plans and requirements are implicated by this, and none of that will be discussed here in this House.

What must they think of a government that would head for the hills? Well, I think that they know very well….

D. Routley: Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I reserve the right to rise again. I move to adjourn the debate.

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

Hon. T. Christensen: As I've just indicated, the ministry's operations budget is just over $1.2 billion for the 2007-2008 year. We're here to seek approval of that by the House.

I would first like to introduce staff that are with me now. There will be additional staff that come in and out, depending on the issues that we're dealing with. With me now is my Deputy Minister, Lesley du Toit; Assistant Deputy Minister Donna Knox; Assistant Deputy Minister Alan Markwart; Assistant Deputy Minister Sarf Ahmed; and of course, my colleague the Minister of State for Childcare, who obviously will be dealing with those issues.

Before we do get into the specifics of the ministry operations budget, I do want to talk a bit about the provincial budget in general and the commitments made with respect to children and families across British Columbia. Budget 2007 did include significant investments for children and families in our province. The budget invested a total of $468 million in new funding over four years on provincial programs and services to enhance the quality of life for children, adults and families.

Of this, $239 million is for the Ministry of Children and Family Development together with Community Living British Columbia. This funding is specifically targeted to programs and services to children and youth at risk or with special needs, adults with developmental disabilities, and individuals and families in need as well as to our community and social service providers.

The government is committed to building the best system of support for British Columbians and to giving children the best possible start in life. Obviously, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has a significant role to play in meeting that commitment, but there are a range of cross-government efforts that are making a positive difference to children and families across British Columbia.

Because of the government's focus over the last number of years on providing opportunities for employment and self-reliance, there are more than 116,000 British Columbians who no longer rely on income assistance since 2001. That's a drop of 46 percent. That includes more than 51,000 children and families who now have more opportunities to achieve their potential.

Since 2001 our government has significantly reduced income taxes for British Columbia families. With a 10-percent cut to the provincial income tax this year, every person earning less than $108,000 is now paying the lowest income tax in Canada. There are 250,000 British Columbians who now pay no income tax whatsoever, provincially. As a result of those tax cuts, a family of four earning $50,000 now pays nearly $1,300 less than they did in the year 2000.

Budget 2007 raises the rental assistance program's income threshold to $28,000 a year, making over 20,000 lower-income working families renting in the housing market potentially eligible for direct assistance.

The province, through MCFD, delivers child care subsidies to make it more manageable for families earning less than $38,000 a year to access quality child care in their communities. Until we raised that threshold for child care subsidy in 2005-2006, only families earning less than $21,000 a year were eligible for that subsidy, so that is making a significant difference.

The province has doubled the school startup supplement for children to assist over 18,000 families and 29,000 children to afford the supplies they need for school. Low- to moderate-income families also receive help with the costs associated with basic dental care and prescription glasses for their children through the Healthy Kids program.

The ministry has improved assistance to parents of special needs children with the extraordinary costs of serving their diverse needs, including parents who have adopted children from the care of the ministry.

As I indicated earlier, improving the quality of life for lower-income families by tackling a number of social issues — which the families that the Ministry of Children and Family Development often work with do — is a cross-government partnership.

That's why we partner with the Ministry of Health on improving mental services. It's why we partner with

the Solicitor General's office on addictions issues. It's why we partner with the Ministry of Education on early learning opportunities and many of the efforts to assist special needs children in our province. It's why we partner with the Ministry of Forests and Range and Housing on opportunities to pair child care opportunities with new and existing social housing projects.

Whenever we talk about budgets, we unavoidably deal with numbers, budget allocations, percentage increases, demographics and caseload projections. But as I've stated before, spending alone is often not a very good measure of progress.

Let me state right off the top today that what is driving the budget for the Ministry of Children and Family Development is a fundamental shift that we are making to provide children, youth and families across British Columbia with an integrated continuum of services that reflects their individual needs. We are making those shifts in the context of increasing budgets.

The ministry operations budget for this year is slightly more than $1.219 billion. That's an increase of $106.7 million in the provincial commitment.

My colleague Minister Reid will speak to the child care portion of the budget at greater length. But I will say that the federal cancellation of the 2005 early learning and child care agreement has impacted MCFD's budget — no question.

We had $147 million of federal funding for early learning and child care in this last year, 2006-2007, which had been anticipated to increase to $151 million in this current year. But once we exclude that federal funding for comparison purposes for both those years, we see that the ministry operations budget actually goes up just under $107 million, or almost 10 percent over last year.

Over this three-year budget plan, MCFD's operations budget is expected to rise 15 percent. It's those funding increases that allow the ministry to enhance supports for vulnerable children and families, those with special needs and those at risk. At the same time, the increases will carry the ministry through an ongoing critically important process of examining our best practices, integrating our services more fully, further regionalizing decision-making and shifting toward aboriginal governance.

Now, I do want to tell you about a few of the things the ministry is going to achieve with this additional funding. We're going to continue to build on ongoing investment in services to children and youth by providing $93 million over the next three years to improve services to children at risk and children with special needs. A significant portion of this funding will be used for special needs children to support intervention therapies and supports, and additional medical equipment and benefits.

This increase is on top of investments made in Budget 2006 as well as in the fall of 2005 update, which provided increased access to services by children and youth at risk or with special needs and their families, including funding for the child and youth mental health plan.

We are finding that autism, specifically, is a growth area for the ministry. Government currently serves approximately 4,000 children and youth on the autism spectrum. In the year ahead we expect further increases in the number of children and youth accessing autism support, so the provincial budget for autism intervention and support is increasing by $10 million, to $44 million in 2007-08.

Ongoing funding has been committed to reduce waiting times for key intervention and support services, and we are making progress on this front, I'm pleased to report. Our service providers have told us that while wait-lists continue to exist in some programs, more children and youth with special needs and their families are receiving services, and wait times are shorter.

If anything, the message I have heard from some of our service providers is that they need flexibility in terms of how they apply those funding increases so that they can address the needs they see coming through their doors specifically. We're certainly committed to working with our service providers on that front.

We're also increasing funding for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is thought to occur in roughly nine in 1,000 births. Again, thankfully, we're seeing progress there in terms of prevention efforts led by Minister Reid over the last number of years.

The 2007-08 budget for fetal alcohol spectrum disorder support is $5.4 million. That's a $1.8 million increase from last year. That increased funding will allow us to continue to work across government to enhance and adapt services to meet the needs of individual parents, foster parents, FASD organizations, service providers and children and youth. Our goal is to ensure that services improve children's long-term outcomes, increase knowledge and that families have an ongoing network of support.

Budget 2007 brought very good news for foster parents; $31 million has been allocated over the next three years to increase monthly rates and other supports for foster parents. Certainly, we were delighted to be able to increase monthly payments to the families to ensure that the day-to-day needs of foster children and youth are met, including those who provide specialized care for foster children with specialized needs.

The majority of foster families will receive a rate increase of at least $200 per month incrementally over the next three years. The new money for foster care is in addition to the improvements made last year, when we enhanced training for foster parents, increased the mileage rate from 20 to 30 cents per kilometre and invested in recruiting of new foster parents.

I can tell you that recruitment of foster parents does continue to be a challenge. It varies, certainly, from one area of the province to another. But we have a very strong partnership and working relationship with the B.C. Federation of Foster Parent Associations and the aboriginal foster parent associations as well as others to try and assist in improving recruitment efforts and in retaining the foster parents that are providing such a critical service to children in our province.

In the area of child and youth mental health, we have a real success story to tell. Certainly, there are too many young people who are having problems functioning at home, at school, with friends or in their communities because of a mental illness. We recognized that early in government's mandate. It became clear that new approaches and additional resources were urgently needed to better meet the mental needs of children and youth in our province.

Back in 2003 cabinet endorsed a five-year plan to improve outcomes for children and youth coping with the challenges of mental illness. That's the child and youth mental health plan for B.C.

What we have seen since 2003 is that the child and youth mental health resources in our province have doubled. We're helping more children and youth than ever before. This past year close to 20,000 B.C. children and youth were able to get help through government-funded mental health programs and services. That's an additional 9,000 young people who are getting that help since the plan was introduced — so almost a doubling.

We've seen more than 200 child and youth mental health workers who have been hired since the plan's inception. Just a couple of weeks ago we announced a further national and international recruiting campaign to hire another 75 mental health professionals to work in communities across our province. We do want to expand on these successes with the implementation of this, the fifth and final year of the plan, in cooperation with the Ministries of Health and Education.

Some key focuses in the coming year will be on our most vulnerable populations, children and youth who have combined mental health problems with developmental disabilities as well as aboriginal communities, where, unfortunately, what we often find is that there is a significant need to build capacity, and the resilience of the community is too often tested.

We're also expanding the popular Friends program, which teaches grades 4 and 5 students about preventing or reducing anxiety in their daily lives. That is a critically acclaimed program. I believe British Columbia is the first jurisdiction to implement that. Again, we're seeing significant success there. By the fiscal year-end some 60,000 students will have participated in that program.

Of course, we'll do all of this with additional funding. Just under $17 million is being added to the child and youth mental health budget in this, the final year. That comes on the heels of about a $13 million increase in 2005-06 and a little over $14 million increase in '06-07. That brings the total spending on the child and youth mental health plan, on an annual basis, to more than $85 million.

The community child and youth mental health budget is part of the larger child and family development budget. Within the child and family development budget is funding for child protection; for residential guardianship, foster care, permanency, and adoption planning for children and youth permanently in care; for youth services; for community youth justice services; for services to strengthen families; as well as for regional administration.

The total budget for child and family development services is $704 million in '07-08. That will rise to almost $730 million by 2009-10, which is a 14-percent increase. This is the highest this budget has been in the history of the province. The child and family development budget was $664 million when we became government in 2001. Today there are 1,400 fewer children in care, yet we're investing an additional $40 million in the child and family development budget.

As you know, obviously the number of children in care fluctuates. We expect to have approximately 9,200 children in our care in '07-08. That's relatively unchanged from where it is today. As I already stated, that number alone does not set the budget. What drives child and family development funding levels is the ministry's desire to protect and support children in their own homes with their immediate or extended families whenever possible.

We provide services to youth as part of our continuum of services ranging from preventative outreach services to mental health and residential services. We will continue to build these services as we proceed with our transformation.

Mr. Chair, in the year ahead we will be looking to Youth in Care to take a leadership role in helping the ministry to identify new and effective ways to support youth in care and to prepare them for adulthood. Input from the recently established youth advisory committee, whose members include current and past youth in care, we expect will be most valuable as we continue to improve transition planning for youth heading into adulthood and post-majority supports.

We're also working to develop provincial early intervention pilot programs to increase the support and safety of vulnerable children and youth. We're beginning discussions with the youth in care to work out the details of a pilot program to ensure that every vulnerable young person in the province has at least one supportive, caring and healthy adult in their life to whom they are attached and who will be a constant in their life through the teenage years and into their adulthood.

The ministry is in the midst of a recruitment effort to increase the number of front-line staff. This is an ongoing effort to provide more flexibility in the regions and to address workload issues. As a result, the ministry's FTE allocation is increased from 4,067 in 2006-07 to 4,286 this year. It will further increase to 4,316 next year.

We've targeted the addition of 100 new front-line workers in the current fiscal year but actually have been more successful in that, in recruiting workers, with the addition of almost 200 new front-line staff. It is projected that dozens more front-line staff will be added in the next fiscal year.

Recruiting and training aboriginal social workers for our ministry does remain a priority and a challenge. To that end, we are looking to offer aboriginal applicants who met the criteria during the first phase of our front-line recruitment process, but who were not

considered to be child protection–ready, with expanded training options to prepare them for future hiring.

We've introduced a new program in partnership with UNBC that currently has ten aboriginal child protection workers from communities in the north being trained in the north with the expectation, certainly, that they will remain in the north — as recruitment of people to the north remains a challenge, and recruitment of aboriginal workers in particular has been a historic challenge. Much of that work is consistent with the recommendations made to government by the hon. Ted Hughes last spring.

As all members know, a little over a year ago in April of 2006, the hon. Ted Hughes released his report on B.C.'s child welfare system, and in doing so, he made 62 recommendations. As recommended by the Hughes report across the ministry transition, a steering group led by the Deputy Attorney General was established last spring to lead and oversee the implementation of the recommendations.

We have now posted to our website a report reflecting the work done of this transition steering committee as well as providing an update to the public in terms of where things are at with the current status of each of the 62 recommendations.

I think it's fair to say that over the past year the transition team has done a great deal of work in conjunction with the ministries involved in the process. Staff, stakeholders, first nations, youth and community partners have worked side by side not only to address the recommendations in the Hughes report but also, and most importantly, to put all of the work around the report in context, to make our province's child welfare services stronger, more accessible and more reflective of the needs of those that we serve.

A great deal of progress has been made. All 62 of the recommendations are completed or underway, including the 45 recommendations that were directed specifically to MCFD.

However, as Mr. Hughes did note in his report, some recommendations will take considerable time to complete, and others will be of an ongoing nature. Some of the recommendations are such that I don't think we'll ever be in a position that you would say that they were complete. They are of a nature where it's ongoing work that is in the nature of continuous improvement. Certainly, we're pleased with the progress that has been made on that front.

It must be understood that the funding levels that we see in Budget 2007 build on the previous year's budget increases. We've laid a strong foundation for a ministrywide transformation to a strength-based approach for improving services for children and families and ensuring that more of our young people have the opportunities that they need to succeed.

We believe that the best decisions for children and families are made by them or by those closest to them. Hence, our focus is to shift decision-making processes closer to communities and to our regional local offices as much as possible and feasible. That's not going to happen overnight, but our plan is to work on this over the coming months and years.

Over time, we expect that regional offices will take the lead on all service delivery and have greater say in budgets, planning, program design and decision-making within the ministry. What we expect is that by transforming the ministry, we will have greater regional decision-making and service delivery.

We will see that aboriginal children and family services are designed by and for aboriginal people. As the next step in that particular process, I am pleased that we've been successful in working with our aboriginal partners to move towards interim aboriginal authorities in at least two regions of the province, with more to come.

We will have an integrated continuum of services to better serve the unique needs of individuals, and we'll have greater resources and focus placed on the front end of the system where services are making a difference to people and communities right around the province.

The budget for the coming year does give us the ability to improve services where needed, to maintain the quality of existing services while we continue working on transforming our system for the better.

I can tell you, Mr. Chair and Members, that in my nine months of experience now as the Minister of Children and Family Development I've been incredibly impressed with the dedication of the people working within the ministry, some of whom are here today, most of whom are out in communities right around the province.

I've been incredibly impressed with the dedication and commitment of people working for service providers around the province who, day in and day out, are making a very significant difference to some of the most vulnerable children and families and people in our communities.

It's been a pleasure to have some opportunity to visit with different service providers and staff in offices around the province and to hear what they believe needs to be done to improve the work that they're doing with children and families. I look forward to that continuing dialogue as we all strive to move in a direction where we continue to improve upon our ability to meet the needs of children and their families right across the province.

That will conclude my opening remarks. It's my understanding that the opposition would like to deal firstly with child care questions.

I see a nod, so I'll pass the floor over to my colleague, Minister Reid. I know she'll be more than happy to address your child care questions.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for his introduction and the minister of state for not doing an introduction. It gives us more time, because I know our time is limited. Like her, I've got to say it's very exciting to be able to talk about child care in the province of B.C.

We don't have that much time, so I'm not going to do a great speech about my concerns about child care. I

think that will come out in my questioning. But just to give the minister an indication of my direction, I want to look at the global funds available and then a bit of a breakdown with the changes that have come over this last year with the announcements the minister has made.

I wanted, first off, some clarification. In previous years the ministry's service plan has been broken down into three categories — child care and supported child development, early childhood development, and supports to children with special needs — or, rather, four categories — autism as well.

This year it is all blocked together, and I wanted to have a breakdown from the minister on how much each section is going to be getting.

Hon. L. Reid: My colleague will craft those numbers for you. While he is doing that, I will give you a sense of where we're headed around the delivery of child care services and the notion that this is only going to be about integrated cross-government service delivery. That is the challenge that I have undertaken over the past six years, and that is the challenge that continues.

Certainly, you will know that that is the work we have done around hubs in British Columbia. It is about a concept that's well understood if you happen to be a senior in the province. You get to age in place as a senior.

I want that same expectation of service delivery if you're a baby in British Columbia. When you're 12 months of age, your family should not be looking for a new child care program when you're 30 months or three years or four years of age or perhaps an out-of-school care or kindercare piece. We want very much to do the work that ramps us forward as we go.

How we integrate early childhood development and whether it's infant development, how we coordinate that with supported child development…. What all the research will tell you, Member, is that this is about attachment. It's about relational theory in the early days and how we create those levels of attachment for very small children and, frankly, what the health of the pregnancy has been. It's how you go from pre-conception all the way through that process.

It's how we attempted as a government to put those pieces in place, if you will, to build on what is the child's first and best teacher, the parent, and how we intend to provide ongoing supports as we go forward to support parents to parent their children as effectively as they possibly can. That's the number one goal. That speaks to my colleague's comments earlier when he talked about foster children, when he talked about resourcing children more effectively when they're smaller.

How we begin that process will allow all British Columbians to see the benefit as we go forward. I think the member, in her question, is referencing the differences around the service plan and, certainly, the 252 that was referenced in the service plan in terms of child care spending.

That was done prior to the notification on March 19 from the federal government that, indeed, that budget would lift by $33 million. So there has been some shifting in there because, frankly, they came to us late, well past our budget cycle, with that information this year.

You'll know that in the past — indeed, I believe it was even last year — the federal and provincial budgets came down on the same day. That was not the case this year. It was probably well into six weeks after.

How we have framed that as we go is very interesting. Actually, $252.9 million for child care, $25.5 million for early childhood development and $151.6 million for children and youth with special needs totals $429.9 million overall. The actual child care expenditure that we have before us today is $287.8 million, $210 million of which is the provincial share. Of the 2003 early learning and child care agreement, $45.7 million is what is coming to British Columbia. I think that covers the framework that you have addressed.

C. Trevena: To the minister: how much of the special-needs money is going to be on FASD and how much on autism?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, I'm happy to give you the detail in terms of where we are around autism programming while the detail is coming for FASD.

It's $44.4 million for the programs that will support children with autism and their families in British Columbia as we go forward. The member will know that it's $20,000 for every youngster in British Columbia under six years of age.

The member will know that the incidence of autism is on the rise across the globe, not unique to British Columbia. I'll give the member an interesting example. When I taught children with autism 20 years ago, it was one in 10,000 in terms of incidence rate. Today it's one in 165, an enormous shift in terms of how we go, not necessarily just as a province but as a country and across the globe. There are issues confounding populations — no question. How we continue to put in place supports that will dramatically impact positively on parents is absolutely important.

The member may know that with the Ministry of Health, in terms of my opening remarks around the integration that's required, we have probably the finest early diagnosis process in place and are now diagnosing youngsters with autism at 18, 20, 24 months of age — unheard of across the globe when we began that process. A world-class delivery system. Absolutely, numbers of children will continue to move their way through that process in very timely ways.

Certainly what the research says today, in that autism is a spectrum disorder, is that it will be about finding the exact approach for a particular child, understanding fully that the necessity to change that approach may well change as the child ages. There will be different demands in terms of the functioning of a child with autism around social development, cognitive development, language development. There are different stages of that development, very much driven by the individual needs of the child.

To stay abreast of the best research, you will know by press release that the province has absolutely been supportive of a national longitudinal study so that we can finally have Canadian data normed on a Canadian population. That work is underway through the University of British Columbia, and all of the affiliated pieces, if you will, are taking us forward in terms of that expenditure.

I'd make the same claim around fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. Indeed, under some very good leadership with the Canada Northwest Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder Partnership, we have taken $5.4 million this year and leveraged it into some very important work on behalf of children and families.

This is not about any one jurisdiction in Canada's northwest going it alone. This is about us taking advantage of the skill, the expertise and the knowledge base that's there and not beginning each discussion from ground zero, but absolutely complementing, layering on, how we go forward with children's autism. That work is underway as well.

C. Trevena: It's a very full response for a question on just how much is being spent. On FASD, I don't need the full explanation of quite what's happening. I just wanted to get a figure, which I don't know whether your colleague has been able to provide yet.

One last question. In the global budget that we're talking about here for child care…. I know that the minister's responsibility also includes WorkLife B.C., the new program which I'd like to talk about in a little while. I just wanted to know: how much of this is WorkLife B.C., or is it coming under a separate budget line? If so, where?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted the member opposite has asked the question. WorkLife B.C. is another opportunity for this province to engage those who would choose to offer child care from near-site, worksite and on-site settings and to engage those who are creating flexible work environments. It's a $250,000 expenditure, and it is something that we believe will give us an enormous return in terms of those individuals today who are contemplating and, frankly, delivering child care who have not contemplated that in the past.

In my opening remarks, I talked about integration across government. You will know full well the number of issues around businesses in various parts of this province who have difficulty recruiting and retaining staff. Many businesses who can demonstrate that they are committed to the notion of work-life balance will, we believe, create more opportunities for employment and, frankly, drive a greater sense of loyalty to the company or the firm.

In terms of the $250,000, it's something we tend to take forward to acknowledge the businesses in British Columbia who are doing the best. This is not a negative discussion. This is not about the ten worst companies. This is about the ten best companies in British Columbia, the ten or 15 that we will select as we go forward who actually can share best practice in terms of making the workplace more accepting — a workplace of choice, if you will.

We went forward and acknowledged Envision Financial as the workplace of choice in British Columbia, an enormous recommendation for individuals who would choose to work in the finance industry. We intend to continue to work with those individuals so they, indeed, build child care spaces as we go.

C. Trevena: The minister has just raised a very interesting question. She said that these businesses will create child care spaces. Is the minister expecting that they're going to be having on-site crèches, or how are they going to do this? Would it be funded partly through capital funding from the ministry?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted you're asking these questions. The opportunities before us are certainly to create examples of where it works best. We have not yet been asked to contribute financially to the creation of child care space. We certainly have provided information and dialogue around how the licensing piece works in the Ministry of Health and how the early childhood education piece works in terms of who they will hire to man these centres.

Certainly, there are opportunities for us to continue to act as a catalyst as we go forward, and we have done that. We have absolutely been interested in doing that from the perspective of, again, one of my earlier comments about attachment. If you, as a parent, have the ability to take your baby to work in the morning and have them cared for down the hallway, on the same floor or in an adjacent building, where you can actually see that child during the course of the day, it's hugely important for a child's development.

To honour that in terms of child development is absolutely why I'm interested in that approach. There are good examples in British Columbia today where there is on-site and near-site child care that has not been funded by anyone other than the business, where they are doing, I think, some remarkable things.

C. Trevena: I think, though, there is a very basic issue, as the minister quite rightly said, of companies being able to recruit. Being able to recruit is a very big challenge. One of the issues about recruitment that I'm hearing very clearly and very loudly is the access to child care within the community.

I know that the minister has been facing a number of, as she describes, challenges and repositionings of spending. So I'd like to ask her a little bit more about that spending. Last year's budget left at least $40 million still available for spending, $20 million of which was given in one-time payments at the end of March. At the time the minister indicated that that was because the Auditor General had directed her ministry

to make sure that money was spent, but that was still leaving $20 million of $40 million.

I'd like to know from the minister initially about this $20 million. Why was this spent in this way when the Auditor General has come back and said it didn't actually have to be spent before the end of the financial year?

Hon. L. Reid: I would point out that the member probably is in possession of this same piece of correspondence written by the comptroller general, which clearly says that under our current legislative framework, the Ministry of Children and Family Development does not have the ability to carry forward funding into future years.

That was certainly the advice we accepted at the time, and that is the reason that $20 million went into the field when it did. I know that the member continued to raise in question period the notion that that dollar had to be spent. The dollar had to move from our organization into the field.

We did not prescribe, as the member opposite continued to say, that it must be spent within hours, days — frankly, irresponsible commentary on behalf of the member opposite. That dollar was put at the disposal of those agencies in terms of them making the choices as to how they would pursue professional development, pursue equipment renewal and replacement. There are a number of different avenues that are outlined in the correspondence that went to them.

In that I'm now addressing the $20 million, let me address the second $20 million. The indications we have is that that dollar will go to the field, and we will determine, in that there has been no reduction to date in terms of how CCOF moves forward…. There will be no changes until July 1. So in fact, that dollar went to them when there was no other change on their landscape.

If the member's next question will be: "Is the urgency there to put it out tomorrow…?" There is opportunity for us to continue to consult with the field in terms of how best and when best, but I can assure the member opposite that that dollar will go into the hands of child care providers.

C. Trevena: The minister has raised a few points there that I would like to take up with her.

I'm not going to go back to question periods past because we don't really have the time to do so. However, what I was trying to get during question period was not so much when the child care providers had to spend the money but why the government was spending $20 million in this way in one-time spending.

I'd like to clarify from the minister, then: if one set of $20 million had to be spent by the end of the financial year because the comptroller of B.C. said that it had to be spent by the end of the financial year, why does the second $20 million carry forward into this financial year?

Hon. L. Reid: I am happy to put the content on the record again because I think it's abundantly clear. Under our current legislative framework, the Ministry of Children and Family Development does not have the ability to carry forward funding into future years. Providing one-time grants to independent child care providers and organizations delivering programs allowed the Ministry of Children and Family Development to provide transitional funding to the organizations most affected by the federal government's cancellation of the early learning and child care agreement and invest in programs that support the objectives of early learning and child care.

Absolutely, that dollar is available, and that second $20 million is available in the community to those individuals as we go forward.

C. Trevena: With all due respect, the minister still hasn't explained why one set of $20 million gets spent before the end of the financial year. The child care providers get this one-time money that, quite frankly, in talking to the child care providers was money that they needed, but this second $20 million is left until…. There's a letter that goes out on May 15 saying that it should be available to providers in the coming weeks, which I assume will take us well into June, which is three months into the financial year.

Hon. L. Reid: The first $20 million in '06-07 was distributed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The second $20 million will not be. It is currently with a non-profit organization and will flow from that entity as opposed to flowing from the ministry.

C. Trevena: How was this non-profit chosen, and how is the disbursal going to occur from the non-profit?

Hon. L. Reid: The ability of the agency to put that dollar out is in their hands. They will go forward. We selected the agency based on a longstanding history with government. They have had the ability to deliver programs over a 30-year history. The member may well have been in the House when we acknowledged the 30th anniversary of the B.C. Council for the Family.

Their ability to do this task on behalf of child care providers was not seen to cause consternation in the minds of any. It was a place where they could certainly perform that task, and they will do so at their discretion as they go forward.

C. Trevena: The previous $20 million was divided up between all licensed child care providers or licence-not-required child care providers. How will the second $20 million be divided up? Will it be an application process, or will it be divided equally?

Hon. L. Reid: We are indeed looking for the simplest, most straightforward, most equitable process.

Ultimately that will be decided by the Council for the Family, but it is certainly their desire to do what needs to be done as quickly as possible.

C. Trevena: Surely the most simple and equitable process would be exactly the same as happened previously, though it's not the best solution. It's just to give every provider an equal share of the money.

Hon. L. Reid: We agree. We certainly understand that we are not in a position any longer to dictate that process, but we absolutely agree. They agree as well that it will be equitable and direct, and we will ultimately see what the future holds.

C. Trevena: I'm still uncertain about why, for this second $20 million, it has been farmed out to another organization and isn't being handled by the ministry.

I wanted to ask a little bit more on the first $20 million, which had very clear sets of criteria to it. Why weren't child care providers allowed to invest in wages or capital costs with this first set of $20 million?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, I'm happy to remind the member that the comptroller general was abundantly clear. The question continues to come: why is it we put the dollars with a non-profit organization in the community? Under our current legislative framework, the Ministry of Children and Family Development does not have the ability to carry forward funding into future years. That was the determination reached by the office of the comptroller general.

In terms of the second part of your question — did we suggest they should use that dollar for capital? No. We were still of the mind — and frankly, it's proven to be effective and true — that indeed we would receive capital dollars from the federal government. I know there are many who didn't believe that dollar would actually flow back to the provinces.

I can assure the member opposite that that was a fierce discussion over many, many months with the federal-provincial-territorial ministers as we went forward in terms of them not choosing the jurisdictions to flow that dollar for capital. The member needs to be aware that that dialogue, as fierce as it was, derived the result we were looking for — that the jurisdictions would be back at the table in terms of how some of that capital dollar was dispensed.

Had the agreement carried forward into its third year of life, British Columbia would have received $152 million this year. We are in fact receiving Z\b of that, as the member is more than aware. We're receiving $32 million.

We were not prepared to give up on any opportunity for capital dollar. So did we encourage the recipients of this $20 million to invest in capital? No. We simply wanted to keep that door open so that, indeed, once we believed that the federal dollar would transpire, once it did, we would have the opportunity to do that.

In terms of equipment, in terms of relocation, the minor capital program covers that off, as the member is probably aware. In terms of licensing, if you carry two separate licences on the same site, it's upwards of $10,000 annually to support equipment replacement, repair. That certainly seems to be a program that's well subscribed, and that dollar is flowing into the field on a regular basis, if not weekly, as we go forward.

C. Trevena: It's clear that the other $20 million was already allocated before the end of the financial year by going to the non-profit. I wondered why the minister didn't tell anybody that this was the case. I know that child care providers and those involved in the child care field have been wondering where this other promised $20 million is. So I wondered why the minister actually didn't explain to people that this was the case.

Hon. L. Reid: The member may well be aware that we were working that through every single day as we went forward on that discussion. Would it have been my preference to have the ability to put that dollar into the field directly from the Ministry of Children and Family Development into this fiscal? Absolutely. That was our goal.

We did not receive that assurance from the comptroller general that we would be able to do that. So indeed, there has been a very straightforward discussion with the sector, as early as January, that that dollar would be going into the field.

The vehicle absolutely wasn't determined until very near the end of March — no question. But there was the commitment at the start and the commitment at the end of that process that that $40 million would go into the field.

You would be hard pressed to find a service provider today who was unclear that that $40 million was allocated for the child care sector and would flow. They may not have been aware of the vehicle, because frankly, there was some work that we needed to do with the comptroller general around that, but that commitment that we began with is the commitment we concluded with. And we continue to take that message forward.

C. Trevena: I wondered, then, why in the letter that's gone out to child care providers on May 15 it isn't clear that this extra money is coming through a third party. It's not coming through the ministry.

The indication in this letter is that details regarding the distribution of the remaining $20 million in ELCC funding are being finalized, and that information should be available to providers in the coming weeks. It's on ministry notepaper. I wondered why it isn't clear to child care providers that this isn't coming from the ministry; it's coming through a third party.

Hon. L. Reid: I think that what you just read out is abundantly clear — that $20 million is going to child

C. Trevena: I'm not disputing with the minister that it's clear that there is $20 million coming to child care providers for whatever purpose that they can use it. I just was unclear why it doesn't say that this money is not coming from the ministry but is coming through a third party.

I wondered why the minister felt that it was necessary to not just explain that straight up and say: "This is who you are going to be hearing from. This organization will be in touch with your organization about $20 million of federal money that is still out there to be transferred."

C. Trevena: That's very good to know. I still have no indication why it hasn't happened sooner, since it was obviously arranged before the end of the financial year to accommodate the comptroller general.

I wanted to know a little bit more about other moneys that I understand may still be outstanding. I wanted to go through just a bit of a breakdown. In the '06-07 revised estimates $390 million went on child care, and $145 million went on special needs. There was about $50 million of federal transfers, another $10 million in administration, roughly, and $190 million for other funds. There were cuts.

I worked out, breaking down the figures from the previous years' revised estimates, that there's approximately $105 million outstanding from that. We know that $5 million went on StrongStarts, and $12 million went on early learning. We've got this $40 million that's gone in one-time payments. That adds up to $57 million.

I'm wondering, from the minister…. In the calculations that I have worked out, there's still roughly another $48 million that is unaccounted for.

The Chair: Division has been called in the big House, so we'll declare a recess here.

Hon. L. Reid: The member, prior to the short recess, certainly had a whole list of numbers. I'm sad to say that most were not accurate, so I will put the accurate ones on the record.

Child care operating funding in '06-07 is $65.7 million; child care resource and referral, $14 million; supported child development, $57.2 million; capital funding, $12.5 million; child care subsidy, $121 million; and one-time-only grants for $95.7 million.

Planned expenditures for '07-08 are $60.4 million; child care resource and referral, $9 million; supported child development, $55.6 million; capital funding, $2.1 million; child care subsidy, $125.8 million.

I put the original amount on the record at the start of the discussion — $287.8 million. If you were to add in $14.8 million administration, $300,000 and some other issues, it would equal $287.8 million.

The reference that the member made to some of the examples she gave: $40 million to child care providers in two $20 million allocations; to Education for StrongStart, $5 million; for the early learning initiatives, $12 million; contribution towards the creation of the learning framework, $500,000; professional development bursaries — I'm sure the member would have seen the press releases of the last number of days — $4.172 million; and research chairs, $2.5 million.

C. Trevena: If I might go back, the minister referred to $91.7 million one-time-only. Is that correct?

C. Trevena: If I might ask the minister: where did this money go? I have the $40 million one-time-only, $20 million and $20 million. Where is the other $50-plus million in one-time-only?

Hon. L. Reid: We canvassed the ones I just put on the record in terms of the $40 million — $5 million for StrongStart; $12 million for early learning; $500,000 for the learning framework; professional development bursaries, $4.172 million; research chairs, $2.5 million. There are other initiatives. Some are yet to be announced. Once those announcements have been made, indeed, that will be up on the website and absolutely available to you.

I can certainly indicate, in addition to this…. The member may be aware of the announcements around the hub discussion, and we can put those on the record for you if that provides you some guidance in terms of how that allocation was made.

Abbotsford Community Services, $92,000; Aldergrove Neighbourhood Services Society for $100,000; Burnaby Family Life Institute for $100,000; Central City Mission Society for $50,000; Comox Valley Child Development Association for $149,500; Dawson Creek Aboriginal Family Resources Society, $200,000; district of Ucluelet for $250,000; Enderby and District Community Resource Centre Society for $25,000; First Nations Friendship Centre for $100,000; Golden Community Resource Society for $33,834; Kla-how-eya Aboriginal Centre, $50,000; Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Community Services for $92,000; Mission Indian Friendship for $10,000; Mount Currie band for $198,604; Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association for $250,000; Deh Zona family services society for $200,000; Options: Services to Communities Society for $80,000; Penticton and District Community Resources Society for $79,000; Richmond Family Place for $50,000; Sea to Sky

Community Services for $50,000; Lower Mainland Purpose Society for Youth and Families for $190,000; and Yellowhead Community Services, $150,000.

The member may recollect from my opening comments that this is about securing with community the notion of aging in place for babies. We want very much to see services that support children and families and have a strong child care component situated at single addresses, if you will. We understand that this entire exercise is about the notion of complementary service, and frankly, we come at it from the respect of a kindness to families.

This should not be about families who have children of two or three or four different ages under five going to two or three or four different places on the way to work or school in the morning. This should be about an opportunity to consolidate service that speaks more favourably towards families. That is the intention.

I'm absolutely delighted that we have 22 that we've continued to enhance and foster as we go forward. Some of those dollars will go towards relocating programs within a more central structure, co-locating programs. It's not just about sharing an address. It's about sharing a family, sharing a child. That work has been accomplished in terms of this funding allocation, and now we certainly intend to continue that direction as we go forward.

Frankly, some of these dollars may not always flow from government. There may be others in the community who wish very much to honour the principle of supports to families, seeing families as the central focus of any kind of service delivery.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for that breakdown and for the explanation of the one-time funding which is going to things like bursaries and other worthwhile initiatives. But I have to ask the minister this. We're talking of over $90 million in one-time funding. I'd like to ask the minister a very straightforward question. Why is this $90 million, which is a lot of money in anybody's lexicon, not invested in a child care program? Why is this going into one-time funding?

Hon. L. Reid: I think the member opposite, frankly, can answer her own question. The early learning and child care agreement ceased to exist. It puts it into the bailiwick of one-time funding. There isn't funding beyond, and I am happy to put it on the record again. Under our current legislative framework the Ministry of Children and Family Development does not have the ability to carry forward funding into future years. They have reconciled this discussion as transitional funding. The agreement ceased to exist.

The comptroller general was very clear that that dollar cannot move beyond the life of that agreement, and said so very clearly to all kinds of individuals in the child care community. I know the member opposite is aware of that information and that discussion. You're welcome to disagree with the comptroller general. I don't do that. I don't make a habit of that, Member.

In terms of what transpires around that, either it is annualized in terms of the ongoing continuation of the early learning and child care agreement, or it is one-time funding. The agreement ceased to exist.

C. Trevena: We will disagree on this. There is no question that we will disagree on this. There is a way of investing money, even if it's money that will not be coming in future years, that doesn't hand out big chunks of money to organizations that they have to suddenly deal with. There are very bright minds in the ministry and outside the ministry who could look very creatively at how to make sure that this money was invested in the longtime development of a child care system for B.C. Sadly, that's not the case.

I just wanted to clarify, then, if this is all the ELCC money that we're talking about — the $90-odd million that's going out in one-time funding in grants here and there. It has to be spent by the end of the financial year, and $20 million of it has been handed over to a third party to dole out, and there are still announcements yet to come. Why have those announcements not been made — seeing as we are heading towards June, well past the end of the financial year?

Therefore, in the minister's own directive and the letter from the comptroller, which the minister, I'm sure, will read into the record again before the end of these estimates…. It is still in the hands of the ministry, which is not what it should be, according to the letter that the minister keeps reading, or it's in the hands of a third party. Where is this money right at the moment?

Hon. L. Reid: I will indulge the member opposite, since she has so kindly asked to put this on the record yet again. "The province received transitional funding of $86 million from the federal government on the cancellation of the early learning and child care initiative." That seems to be the stumbling block, hon. Chair, for the member opposite. It is one-time funding because it's transitional and attached to the early learning and child care agreement.

"The absence of any restrictions…. Under our current legislative framework the Ministry of Children and Family Development does not have the ability to carry forward funding into future years."

The member continues to make the point, and the member will know that the recipients have received the funds because that is the direction we received from the comptroller general. The recipients of this dollar were not treated any differently than the B.C. Council for Families, and it is our prerogative — it is the prerogative of government — in terms of when they make those announcements and when they take those projects forward. But the dollar has been handled as per the instruction of the comptroller general.

C. Trevena: So the several million dollars that has been handed out, was handed out before the end of the financial year, for unnamed projects to unnamed parties who have the right to give their names and

where they're spending it when they choose, and the ministry will not put on the record where that money has gone?

Hon. L. Reid: I think that in terms of all the sums we put on the table this afternoon, it comes in close to $60 million of announced funding. The difference of $85.6 and $60 million is roughly $25 million. Is it our prerogative to make those announcements as we go forward?

Again, to reassure the member, the dollar has been handled as per the instruction of the comptroller general, is currently in the hands of the recipients, and government will make the announcements as quickly as we can as we go forward in terms of how that dollar will benefit the children and families of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: So the money is actually in the hands of the recipients, but the minister will not say which recipients it's in the hands of when we are talking about $7 million of taxpayers' money?

Hon. L. Reid: Let me again take the opportunity to reassure the member opposite that we are acting on the instruction of the comptroller general, and we have assured anyone who has come forward that there will be a full and public accounting. The member opposite has not been in this place long but will know that government announcements go forward on a regular basis.

Indeed, as these are publicly announced, certainly that will be available to all and sundry on the website as we go forward. But is that something that we would like to celebrate? Absolutely.

We are not going to steal the thunder, if you will, from the agencies that currently have that dollar. We are working closely with them in terms of the planning of press conferences and the planning of announcements. That will be readily available to the member as the days go on.

C. Trevena: So the minister isn't prepared to say, until the minister can do it with a fanfare, how these moneys are being spent? Am I correct?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm more than happy to give the same answer. We are working closely with the agencies that have received the dollar. If the member's direction is to steal the fanfare of agencies who are absolutely enchanted with the programs they will be able to deliver and are today preparing those announcements…. Interesting perspective, but not one I share.

C. Trevena: I think we will move on. I don't think we're going to get any more details, unfortunately, about how money is being used and why it isn't actually going into much-needed child care spaces or child care wages.

I have just one question. I'm sure the minister talked to many, many child care workers, many child care providers and many people in the field, and this is something that may be a wonderful announcement in the near future. But I have been hearing rumours, and I just wanted to be able to have a yes or no to these rumours — whether the ministry is planning a wage lift for child care workers.

Hon. L. Reid: I can assure the member opposite that discussions are ongoing on a regular basis across British Columbia. I would be intrigued as to the origins of that rumour, and she may wish to enlighten us as we go forward.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister, and I take it from conversation with staff that it is a rumour and it is not going to be happening. So I would like the minister to just say whether it is going to happen or it's not going to happen, without speculation on the rumour.

I say this because one of the huge issues that I'm sure the minister is aware of is the declining numbers of people entering the child care field because they can't afford to work in the child care field, which has an impact on the wages. While I know the minister has announced recently on the Internet, on the website, a new bursary, I really don't feel that this is going to be enough for the child care workers.

So I would just like to know — yes or no; simple answer; tick the box — whether this is being considered or not.

Hon. L. Reid: I think the member by now knows that I am absolutely passionate about how we go forward in terms of delivering child care in British Columbia. She will know there is an array of dialogues happening across British Columbia. Is my door open always as we go forward? Yes. Do we have the ability to direct what happens with the federal government? No. We will be heading into a federal-provincial-territorial meeting at the behest of the federal government when they choose to call that.

We will certainly continue to advance the notion that how we retain staff in any jurisdiction in Canada is vitally important. This won't be new to the member. We've canvassed this, I'm sure, repeatedly in the Legislature over the last four months. I believe the average wage in British Columbia is sitting at about $14 today. The ability of government to directly influence that….

As the member knows, we don't directly employ child care providers in the province of British Columbia. Non-profits, the private sector, the community, etc., make those determinations. Certainly, we will continue to work with them in the best interests of the babies of this province as we go forward.

C. Trevena: To the minister, I will not proceed with this line of questioning because I really don't think we're going to get very far. We have a limited amount of time on this, as I think we're both aware.

I would like to bring up a couple of issues that we have canvassed in the House. I'm sure the minister is aware that the minister is not the only person who is passionate about child care. At the beginning of this

session, the very first day of this session, there were hundreds of people outside the Legislature protesting for increased funding for child care. I think that they are still somewhat dissatisfied with the answers that the minister has been giving over the past month. They really don't feel that there is money coming.

I wanted to ask the minister: getting $33 million from the federal government, how much of this is going to be going to assist in the CCOF levels and to ameliorate the cuts that the minister herself announced earlier this year?

Hon. L. Reid: I am happy to give the consolidated version of what issues we're prepared to take forward and strongly stand behind and have over many occasions in the Legislature.

The member may know that prior to the early learning and child care agreement coming into effect the dollar that went towards subsidy in the province of British Columbia was about $92 million, lifted to $126 million, in terms of actual expenditure. You will know that that lift has been covered and carried forward by the province in the absence of that agreement. You will know the same regarding supported child development for special needs youngsters.

You will recall from my earlier comments that the notion of building a continuum from infant development to supported child development is reflected in the research. The expenditure in priority ELCC was $37 million and will likely exceed $55 million this year. You will know that that lift has actually been covered and carried forward by the province. That is not federal dollars. They entered the playing field. They vacated the playing field.

We did not for a moment choose to make vulnerable families in British Columbia…. Having lifted the income threshold around subsidy from $21,000 to $38,000, we chose to honour that. We did the same in terms of special needs youngsters, even though that federal dollar had been withdrawn.

In terms of how we go forward, the member opposite will know that additional dollars from the provincial line are carrying forward and being maintained. Certainly, in terms of child care operating funding, the member opposite will know, because we have had this discussion, that it was never appropriate, in our view, that the federal government would build child care space and not have any interest in the operational costs of that space.

I know it was an issue shared by many of your members that there is cost associated with the creation of a child care space. We do believe we have that opportunity in this allocation of the federal government, in terms of the $33 million, that we can in fact set aside some of those dollars for the actual ability to operate that space.

It will be determined entirely by how many spaces are created. The member will know that this is a busy, challenging time in British Columbia in terms of the construction cycle and that it's difficult to get these projects up and running and get them built.

The member, I know, is aware that probably on a weekly or an every-ten-day basis, we either do a groundbreaking or have an opening on the 1,500 spaces that are currently coming on line. Are their construction costs different today than when they put those proposals in a year ago? No question. Any thinking person would absolutely understand that.

In terms of how much dollar we set side for sustainability of that space, it would be determined on how many spaces we can get into the field this year, next year and the year after.

That work is underway. Proposals are available. We have many that have come in. Many we're working through. Many we're working directly with communities and agencies in terms of refining those proposals, because my challenge and my great delight will be to get that dollar into the field so that those projects can be underway.

When I talked about subsidy and about special needs youngsters…. For those families in British Columbia today, subsidy, special needs and spaces — those are their three priorities. I add a fourth to that. I add professional development for those who work in the sector. That is about a $290 million package for British Columbia into the coming year — a significant investment, hon. Member.

C. Trevena: I'd just like to clarify a couple of the figures that the minister mentioned on subsidy. I know it's something that the minister quotes quite regularly on — the issue of the $126 million annually in this last year. I have to remind the minister that it was $125 million in '01-02 and that the target number of children who are going to be receiving subsidy, according to the MCFD's own service plan, has almost halved from 40,000 to 24,480.

The minister is talking with great eagerness about the issues of capital funding and creating spaces, and there have been many talks about this. How many new capital projects have been approved?

Hon. L. Reid: While they get the actual number of projects, I can tell you that the number of spaces approved is almost 1,500 — about 1,498 spaces coming on line since the last announcement. In the year previous, 1,800 spaces came on line.

The member opposite will know that some of those projects are small. Some of them are ten or 12 spaces; some of them are 60 or 74 spaces. They are varying sizes and, frankly, often driven by the size of the community.

There are situations today where they may have a three-to-five-year-old preschool program and they wish to add eight or ten or 12 toddler spaces or eight or ten or 12 infant spaces. She will know that that only confounds the construction cycle. When the projects are very small, it's oftentimes difficult to get construction individuals who are prepared to take on a project of that size.

Would they want to be building centres of much larger capacity? No question. But the variety of size is driven in some instances by licensing and in some instances by capacity. So you will know, just off the

cuff, that there is usually a whole plethora of 12-space centres, 20-space centres and 24-space centres.

On a good day you might actually be able to build two or three 20-space centres on the same location, driving down some of those construction costs. But again, that's driven by the size of the community.

C. Trevena: The minister keeps talking about how many new spaces there are and how many new places are opening up. I wonder if the minister has kept any tally of how many places have closed.

Hon. L. Reid: There has been a net increase in the number of spaces. If you require further detail, we can certainly get it to you at a later point.

C. Trevena: The minister gives very rounded answers, so there are always lots of issues to pick up in an answer. I wanted to get back to where it started from, which is the $33 million federal funding and the issue of CCOF. The minister did announce at the beginning of the year that as of July 1, there are going to be cuts in the child care operating fund program, and this is going to mean an increase in fees. I wondered if there will be any assistance to parents or providers to mitigate against these fee increases.

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite had an interest in the number of funded spaces. In '04-05 there were 75,328; in '05-06, 79,190; in '06-07, 82,386. Each year there have been a significant number of new capital spaces come on line. The member will know that the provincial allocation for CCOF is intact and going forward. What is vacating the landscape is the federal enhancement to that.

For most families that's $2 a day per space. That's $40 a month — the federal allocation of $100 a month. They certainly seem to believe that that will cover that. We will see if that works. I have a particular interest and a concern around the infant space, and we are continuing to look at that as we go forward and certainly to see if there are ways we can mitigate that allocation.

C. Trevena: Yes, $2 to $4 a day is going to have a large impact on many families who have already spent the $100. It is a taxable $100, as the minister is well aware. I'm pleased to hear that she's looking at helping on the infant side, but I just wondered: what about the rest?

Hon. L. Reid: It's an interesting discussion for me in terms of where the federal government sees that $100 a month. The members opposite will recall the family allowance program that was brought in by a Conservative government and, incidentally, coincidentally cancelled 13 years later by federal government.

In those days it was $60 a month, and it went to every child in Canada. Today, the member has noted, it is taxable. For the majority of our families it will still be $70 or $80 a month. No question, it's taxable. Frankly, 13 years has gone by, and it's a $20 lift.

I do believe that there is much discussion, much work that needs to happen in terms of the federal government understanding that that's more clearly a family allowance program. They have heard me very clearly on that question over the last number of months, and we will continue to take that direction as we go forward.

The member may state that that dollar has been spent. But for most families, they will have collected it for close to 12 months before there is any drawdown on that dollar. They began collecting on June 1 of last year, so they will have collected that $100 a month for 12 months before anyone from the federal government asks them to put any of that dollar towards the $2 a day per space.

So partially correct, Member, but in fact that dollar has not had a draw on it since its inception. We'll begin July 1.

C. Trevena: I would dispute with the minister that there has not been a draw on the $100. The $100 — $80 after tax — was provided to families, and I would find it very strange whether there is any one family in B.C. who has been saving this money just in case they have to pay extra child care fees. I think that the money is being spent. The $100 doesn't go very far in diapers or for any other area that people need or the extra cost that they have when they're raising children.

I don't want to debate that $100 with the minister because it is federal funding. I think, however, that to use it as a way of covering off increased child care space costs is extremely disingenuous. I think we're going to find that there is a big squeeze on families in July.

I just wanted to ask the minister, however…. It's something that I have discussed with her staff before, but they were unable to give me a very precise answer on this. Everything is done by the financial year, and yet suddenly we're talking July 1 for changes to CCOF. Why July 1?

Hon. L. Reid: The member is correct. The fiscal year end is March 31. I was not in favour of doing anything to disrupt a child's school year — those who are in school settings until the end of June — which is why we chose as a government July 1 and, in fact, have picked up that additional cost for April, May and June — again, a contribution that the province has made to, frankly, float a federal program that they have cancelled.

The member is absolutely correct. It is a federal program. It is not something that the province cancelled. I can assure the member opposite that the ministers at the federal-provincial-territorial meetings were absolutely fierce that there needs to be a long-term commitment to the babies of this province, to the children of Canada, as we go forward.

That ability to dialogue effectively with the federal government was not something ever evidenced by the member's government when they were in office, and it

certainly continues to pose challenges. But it is a federal program. The provincial dollar is intact and is going forward.

C. Trevena: Correct me if I'm wrong, Minister. We're talking about child care; we're not talking about school programs. I still wondered why it's July 1, why we're doing this at this stage and why the province felt they could cover off the cost for three months and then suddenly off-load it to the parents.

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite will know that the early learning child care agreement is birth to six, so it does indeed capture some school-age children. It does capture some children who have the kindercare piece or the out-of-school-care piece. Indeed, I was not prepared to fragment that. I was prepared to carry it forward as a government until July 1 so that it wasn't an opportunity to suggest preschool versus school age. That wouldn't have been sensible.

C. Trevena: To the minister again: there is obviously the possibility that families can apply through that very large and daunting book for a subsidy, assuming that they are hit by the increased costs. I do say it's a large and daunting book. I actually attended one of the briefing sessions run on how to fill out the subsidy form for child care providers, and it's somewhat difficult.

But I know that the ministry introduced a new computer system for subsidy for Vancouver Island and has now withdrawn that computer system, saying it didn't meet standards.

I wondered how much this has cost — the introduction of it, then the assessment of it and, finally, the withdrawal of it.

Hon. L. Reid: We are actually in a test phase as we go forward. We are continuing to work with that program to see if it will give us the result we're looking for. My challenge is to ensure that it does produce a quality product. Certainly, the provincial line as we go forward does have some, I think, immediate benefits to families.

I won't disagree with the member's comment in terms of the complexity of the form. I can assure the member that that form will be simple and straightforward as we work our way through this process because I believe it needs to be.

In terms of the provincial line, what families across British Columbia are saying is that in fact its ability to respond to their questions and concerns in 140 different languages is actually valuable to them. It's actually a valuable service.

How that data gets entered on a system…. The old system is in place, and we'll continue to make those allocations and determinations as we go forward. If we can improve upon this system by some of the newer technology that's in place, we will do that. But at no time will we be without a system that indeed provides that level of coverage to families as we go forward.

C. Trevena: I think maybe the minister didn't quite understand my question. I was asking about the cost of bringing in the new Vancouver Island computerized telephone system that came in, in February of this year and that is now being changed, according to a letter from the subsidy service centre that has gone out to parents and child care providers. It says: "Our standards for service delivery were not being met, and the ministry's ability to process applications and payments in a timely manner was being affected."

I'd like to know how much it has cost to introduce this system and how much the overhaul is going to cost — or the change back to the old system.

Hon. L. Reid: The member may not be aware that the existing system in the Ministry of Children and Family Development is decades old. Is this renewal, replacement, refinement of a process with newer technology evident across government? No question. Absolutely no question. Can I give you the exact costs? No. But I certainly will commit to provide that to you as soon as they are known to me.

We are in an early stage of taking a look at how we do it in this particular region of the province. We are not going to advance it to the other four regions of the province until we get the quality of the product that we're looking for.

Is this pretty common, pretty typical in terms of how technology comes on line? It would be lovely, Member, if it rolled out smoothly. I don't know what your experience is with technological undertakings when new systems come on line. There are often glitches as we go forward. We'll continue to work it through.

We'll continue to have the system operational. It has been in place for decades, as I've said, in this province. If this one can improve the product, we'll continue to move forward in terms of expanding into other regions. But we're very clear that we are not doing that until we get the service delivery outcomes that we're looking for.

C. Trevena: I'm surprised that the minister doesn't have or her staff cannot provide her with a figure for the cost of introducing this, because this was introduced in February of 2007. So I would have thought that this would be in the minister's own budget, the estimates of which we are discussing right now.

Hon. L. Reid: I think I was abundantly clear that this is a process that's underway. Technological advancement often works that way. The refinements are ongoing. We'll continue to work it through.

If the member is interested in the day-to-day costs, my staff will certainly provide them to you. We will have that probably in the next day or so, because we certainly will be making some determinations about whether or not we will move to another region. I'm happy to share that with you.

C. Trevena: I appreciate that, because it is quite a substantial changeover. Yes, there are technological

challenges when you move to new systems, but one would hope that the ministry has actually budgeted something for this.

I just wanted to know how much has been budgeted for the subsidy phone line, because this is a switch that people are dealing with every day.

Hon. L. Reid: The member may be aware that this is actually budgeted through a capital vote which is outside of this vote. She may also need to be reminded that in fact the development of this has been ongoing for a number of years. Frankly, it began in the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. As child care moved, this program came.

The ability for us to give you the spending that would have occurred in those two ministries prior to it coming to us…. We simply don't have that ability. But you will find it reflected in the public documents.

C. Trevena: The minister earlier did indicate that she would make sure that her staff provide me with that. I would appreciate that, because the issue of subsidy and access to subsidy is something that is of huge concern to people and — which brings me to my next section — because people have been able to access subsidy through the child care resource and referral centres.

While the minister announced in January that these were going to be cut dramatically and then suddenly found an extra $6 million to make sure the dramatic cuts weren't quite so dramatic, it still had a huge impact on the child care resource and referral centres. I wondered if the minister would explain to me how the notional budgets for the various child care resource and referral centres have been allotted.

Hon. L. Reid: The member may recall from previous discussion that one of the issues I wished to advance as we went forward was that we'd actually see dollars more accurately reflect the population of children in each of the regions of this province. There were historical inequities, absolutely, over time — not unique to this ministry.

You may well remember the discussions in the House over the years regarding education funding, in terms of why particular decisions were replicated as we went forward. The same thing happened, I believe, in a number of different allocations under Children and Family Development.

The member may know that even though 39 percent of the children reside in the Fraser region, today under child care resource and referral, we're getting closer and closer to that 39 percent. But it was not that way at the outset. Indeed, over the years the dollar had not reflected children within any particular region.

My goal through this process was certainly to go with the best-case scenario, which was to maintain the $9 million, which was the provincial allocation. Once we had reached that determination, we put those decisions into the hands of the regions based on population — the number of children who live in the Fraser region, the interior region, the north, Vancouver Island, Vancouver Coastal.

That dollar was then shared directly with the regional coordinators for child care resource and referral, and they worked it through with the individuals who offer the programs in a variety of regions.

I believe that prior to us coming to government there were 38 child care resource and referral programs in the province. Today there are 41. So we've weathered the onslaught from the federal government ELCC infusion and vacating the landscape in ways that I think actually matter to families.

My particular concern was to ensure that there were evening openings and Saturday openings in a variety of different centres. There is much made of the fabulous resources available at child care resource and referral. Many of them did not have hours where child care providers could actually access those materials. That is something that is going to be a positive step forward as we move.

Many family programs wished and frankly did offer programming Tuesdays between ten and 12. My challenge is to ensure there are resources available for families who cannot come during the day, have other obligations during the day, have work experiences during the day. So, indeed, we are looking at encouraging programs, as we go forward, to offer Saturday morning programs. And many do.

You will find many today offering programming for dads and tots and fabulous support to the moms in those scenarios and a fabulous opportunity to mentor some skill-building for the dads as we go forward. In fact, there have been some very nice decisions taken, some very nice products realized for many communities in British Columbia.

Frankly, the providers can now access the resources. I know the member opposite will be aware of this, because I've certainly received some lovely correspondence saying it's important that they had that opportunity and they didn't before. The member will know that many child care resource and referrals had 9-to-5 or 8-to-4 hours.

The member opposite will know that child care centres often have hours that extend beyond the opening hours, which precluded providers from accessing those materials. So there's been some healthy shifts, I think, in terms of how providers have been supported in the field, and families who now have the ability to attend some of those programs on Saturday mornings are thankful for that as well.

C. Trevena: Lots of interesting issues to pick up on, but to start off on the notional budgets, which is what I was asking about initially.

I'm just intrigued on the notional budgets where it works out that, if you break down the notional budget for a certain area to the number of children, in Vancouver, one child would get the equivalent of $9, whereas in Sechelt there would be $56. In, let's say, Langley there would be $14. In Hope, $89. I wondered why this huge difference in equivalent funding for each child in each community?

Hon. L. Reid: The member may well be aware that there are certain base costs to operating a program, and then you take into account whether or not there are geographic considerations as well. We are not today completely reflecting the population, and my challenge is to move us in that direction.

We could not do it in one year. Frankly, the change I think would have been significant as we went forward. On average, in terms of the child care resource and referral, roughly 30 percent of the budget is going to the Fraser, 20 percent to Vancouver Coastal, 20 percent to Vancouver Island, 15 percent to the interior and 15 percent to the north.

You'll know, for the interior and the north, that that doesn't reflect exactly or accurately, but there are opportunities for us to put in place the little bit of cushion for programs that would have greater challenges in terms of distance. You will know that that is a better reflection of the realities of where children reside in British Columbia today over where we were.

C. Trevena: I'm a little confused here. I thought what the minister was saying was that it was being done to better reflect the reality of where children are in the province. Then the minister says it's being done in a different way.

The two answers don't jibe very well with me. I think I'm a bright person. I think that I can understand where we're coming from on child care resource and referral. What I don't understand is why, as I say, a child in — let's just pick — Mission would get $17, and going back to Vancouver it's $9.

It makes no sense to….What's the difference there? Why would one community have so much less allocated to it than another?

Hon. L. Reid: I do believe that the information provided to the member is indeed complementary, and I'm happy to work our way through this discussion with the member this afternoon.

The point I made very clearly was that the base cost of operating a program, no matter where you are in the province, is about $90,000. If she checks the Blues, she'll know I said that earlier in the discussion.

In terms of the breakdown of the child population across the province, we're getting closer and closer approximations of getting there. We are not there yet. I certainly didn't suggest otherwise in my previous answer. I did indicate in my previous answer that there are geographical considerations as well that are folded into that discussion as we go — so three pieces of complementary information that indeed drove this discussion.

We set the budget for a region based on the population that we believed in the shift that we could make at this time in terms of closer and closer approximations of actual child population. These dollars don't reflect actual child population for the simple reason that if you took a population of children of 9 percent in the north, it would be very difficult to operate a program knowing now that the base cost of that program is about $90,000.

You start with the base, and then you leverage additional dollars onto that for the actual programming piece, understanding fully that the cost of heat, light and utilities have some standardization to them, but also have some individualization to them in terms of costs in the north are absolutely going to be higher than costs in the lower mainland. All of those things are figured in.

If the member's next question will be what transpired following that, the actual regional amounts went to the professional development folk for each of the five child care resource and referral regions in the province, and they work that through.

Did they perhaps have some other information that they wished to do some things? They may well have had ongoing discussion. Certainly, they brought that back and folded that through the ministry in terms of the actual figures they finally arrived at. But there is very clear direction in terms of what it costs to create a baseline program and how you add on additional dollars to reflect the programming beyond that.

C. Trevena: The minister mentioned in her earlier answer that there are now more child care resource and referral centres. She said there are 41 child care resource and referral centres. There obviously were 44, but three have closed since the cuts came in. There are 41 child care resource and referral centres. I would like to ask the minister if her figures include Elk Valley.

Hon. L. Reid: The decisions that were taken in terms of which ones we would maintain were done on the driving time required, if you will, and certainly the ones that had easier access than others. The ones we no longer have — Sechelt, Walnut Grove and Kitimat — we do believe we can service from other centres.

The question specifically in terms of the Elk Valley…. We indeed have put the dollars in place, but the member may know that the building they occupied experienced significant flooding. The service is still ongoing in that region, and we will continue to have discussions and deliberations with them in terms of whether or not we pursue a physical plant or continue to operate the service. Frankly, what families are interested in is the service, and that service is underway today.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could tell me how the service is underway when the staff member who was working there is no longer working there, because she lost her job when the cuts came down.

Hon. L. Reid: To refresh the member opposite on the discussion of a few moments ago, the dollars that were allocated for that region allow for that service to

be delivered. We have been assured that that service is currently being delivered.

C. Trevena: The minister has talked a lot about how this repurposing of child care resource and referral centres has meant that centres can stay open longer, that they can have alternate hours, that they can open on Saturdays and that they can provide services to families when families might need them.

I wondered if the minister has talked to anyone in a child care resource and referral centre recently about how their staffing is very stretched because they aren't getting the funding to pay for the staff and are finding it very difficult to make sure they can have the two staff on at any one time, particularly when they are now having to juggle extra hours.

Hon. L. Reid: If I might begin by answering a question previously posed, the detail has just come. Child care subsidy system, capital development cost, 2004 to 2007, $4.4 million for the entire system to replace the existing subsidy system, which has been operational since 1980, so not premature in terms of intending to improve the system as we go forward. That was operated by Employment and Income Assistance. The detail will be available through that ministry's spending all the way back to 2004.

In terms of the adjusted hours at child care resource and referral, we're not asking them to maintain the same hours. Frankly, it was not that helpful, oftentimes, to providers who wanted to access those resources, so absolutely adjusted hours as we go forward….

Do we believe we can acknowledge that the work is changing? Yes, that's the reality. There are 44,000 calls a month that go to the provincial line. Does that mean that there are families who are finding the reality of a service that's available for them from seven in the morning until seven o'clock at night — that 12-hour coverage so that they can call on their time — is helpful to them? Yes, we're finding that. That's absolutely demonstrated by 44,000 calls a month.

Is the same workload in place for child care resource and referral? I'm hoping that they'll spend more time directly modelling and mentoring parents as we go forward, understanding completely how I opened these estimates today in terms of the necessity to more effectively support parents.

They have had an interest in that area. Many have embraced that area, and many will take the notion forward that it is about the wraparound service for parents and providers, and that they have resources and expertise that they can share more readily with families.

C. Trevena: Child care resource and referral centres are staffed by very hard-working people. I find, and I'm sure the minister also finds, that the people who work in child care — whether in a resource referral centre or in a child care setting — are extremely dedicated, extremely hard-working. To be honest, they are doing very long hours and very difficult work for, particularly in a child care setting, a very low wage.

What I think the minister is not addressing through this is that the impact the cuts have had for most child care resource and referral centres has been on staff numbers. Child care resource and referral centres have lost staff or have had to cut staff hours and are still trying to fulfil very difficult outreach and opening hours.

I wondered how the minister can really see that this is still going to be the service that it should be and that it was going to be previously when these centres were encouraged to expand, when there was the federal money. How does the minister really think they are going to be able to deal with all the needs and requests they have and provide a good service when they've had their funds so dramatically cut?

Hon. L. Reid: The member is more than aware that the benefit of the federal funding was only with us in terms of child care resource and referral enhancement for about 18 months. So were they able to maintain the services? Yes, at $9 million, and that is the provincial allocation.

Have we asked them to do the exactly the same work they did before, at $9 million? No, because now there are other tools in the toolbox — i.e., 44,000 families that may have potentially made contact with child care resource and referral are receiving information from another source, and they're doing it in hours that, frankly, the child care resource and referral have not been asked to do.

We have adjusted hours and asked them to think about different ways to deliver service, knowing full well that their work has changed. There aren't many who won't tell you the work has changed. There's a different type of parent, a different type of inquiry that often comes before child care resource and referral in terms of the interest in the notion of becoming a better parent, in terms of mentoring, about seeing someone else interact with their child. All of those things are vitally important and valuable.

Do we believe that the child care resource and referral service can be maintained at $9 million in terms of the provincial allocation? Yes. We have made that commitment on a go-forward basis. It is the federal government that has withdrawn their $5 million. That is their decision.

C. Trevena: Before I move on to the next subject, noting the time and noting that we're going to be moving to my colleague shortly, I would like to ask: how many child care resource and referral centres has the minister visited?

Hon. L. Reid: I can assure the member opposite that I take every opportunity to visit child care resource and referral and child care centres and families and infant development programs and supported child development programs and fetal alcohol programs every chance I get. Certainly, I will continue to do that

work and have done that work pretty comprehensively over the past six years. There probably aren't many that I have not been in.

C. Trevena: Maybe to refine the question, how many child care resource and referral centres has the minister visited since January 2007?

Hon. L. Reid: We put them into the travel schedule whenever we're on the road, so probably a couple dozen in the last three or four months.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could provide me with a list of the child care resource and referral centres that the minister has visited over the last five months.

Hon. L. Reid: I know the member opposite is a frequent requester of my calendar, so it'll probably come to you.

We touched earlier upon the issue of capital funding. I'd like to go back to that very briefly. I understand that there are going to be no new applications for capital funding until we find out more from the federal government how its money is going to be allocated. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Reid: The member may appreciate learning that indeed, the last round of capital, which put into the field $14 million to generate almost 1,500 spaces, brought with it a number of applications that we are continuing to work through in terms of seeing if we can get that dollar into the field as quickly as we go. So there are applications today in government that we are continuing to work on.

C. Trevena: On the minister's website it says that the major capital funding program is not accepting applications pertaining to clarity regarding the new federal spaces initiative. So is the ministry taking applications, or isn't it?

Hon. L. Reid: When we put out the last round of capital application, the response to that brought countless applications. We're not accepting new applications today. We have many applications today that we are working through.

C. Trevena: I understand that there is a list of priority communities for capital funding. I wonder if the minister can provide me with that list of which are the priority communities for capital funding.

Hon. L. Reid: I will certainly endeavour to do that. I believe that has been publicly distributed, because it was, frankly, drawn from the work of Dr. Clyde Hertzman through the Human Early Learning Partnership in terms of the EDI work, where the most vulnerable communities are. The member will know, as these announcements come forward in terms of where child care centres are, that they actually reflect that work, and we will continue to take that direction as we go forward.

C. Trevena: Looking on a constituency basis, that's hopeful news for my constituency, because North Island ranks high on the needs list as laid out by Dr. Hertzman.

We touched earlier on the issue of WorkLife B.C., and I just wanted to spend a couple of moments going back to this. The minister says it is not a huge budget line, but I'm very intrigued by the concept of it.

I have to note again, from a constituency level, that one of my constituents, Murray Johnson from Quadra Island, was actually one of the award winners when the awards first came out. It's an interesting idea, and I wondered how many of the recipients of the first round of awards actually do have child care on site.

Hon. L. Reid: That was not a criteria for selection. It was an opportunity for us to begin that discussion once we had them in the same room for the first forum in terms of how many we could encourage to begin the discussion around child care.

I can tell you that there are probably five that are very committed to that exercise. One of the participants at the forum has opened a child care centre on site.

Is it speedy progress? Frankly, none of the construction projects are speedy in terms of finding folks to actually go forward and build them. That's just the benefit of a blazing economy at the moment.

In terms of the interest expressed, my entire commentary during that day that we spent at the first WorkLife B.C. Forum was to encourage individuals to consider child care as one way to increase the flexibility of their workplace. That message was well received.

We've got five that we're continuing to work with as we go forward, out of roughly ten. Well, it's five recipients of awards of excellence and some additional awards of merit. So there has been good uptake, and I will certainly report back to the member as these sites come on line.

C. Trevena: Does the minister know how many of the recipients are also active on child care centre boards and involved in other child care initiatives within their communities?

Hon. L. Reid: I don't have their bios imprinted in terms of all the other things they've done. Many of the participants continue to work directly in the child care field.

You will know that we have had individuals from VanCity and from Central Credit Union who participate in the advisory committee around that, who are assisting and are absolutely like-minded in that regard. The business-based child care that we have today in British Columbia…. That individual sits on the national advisory committee and has represented British Columbia.

There are opportunities for that effect to continue to grow in terms of creating…. This is not a discussion about those who already believe in the notion of child care. This is about how we get everyone to understand that this is a shared responsibility for Canada.

Have we taken individuals who have not necessarily been in the discussion before and brought them into the discussion? Absolutely. It will continue to be my goal to encourage as many people as possible to be fundamentally, phenomenally concerned with how the care and development of young children occurs, from the notion of a healthy pregnancy all the way to school graduation and a lifelong relationship and lifelong learning.

This is not any longer a discussion about how we compartmentalize early learning versus later learning versus lifelong learning. This is a package that we are attempting to address collectively as government. You will know that the Premier has been passionate about literacy pieces, about early childhood pieces, about ActNow, about the movement pieces, about all of those things coming together to produce the product.

We had those same discussions with attendees at the WorkLife Forum, and I believe we're having some very, very good uptake in terms of how we go forward and work with them so that they, indeed, see that there is a true advantage, a true benefit to hosting child care opportunities.

I can tell you that I recently toured Next Level Games in Vancouver, which is a company of probably 120 gentlemen — probably 110 of them are male. They had just as much concern about the care for their children. Their employer had thought that perhaps it wasn't such an issue because most of his employees were male. So changing the dynamic, changing the dialogue, changing the discussion is very healthy for us as a province, as we go forward.

C. Trevena: I have to admit that I'm amused when the minister talks about how enthusiastic the Premier is on literacy, because the Premier was also very enthusiastic for the Westcoast resource centre when it first opened, as was the Finance Minister. Neither seemed to step in enthusiastically when this minister of state withdrew funding for it.

I wondered, from the minister, again looking at WorkLife ideas: has the minister had her staff look at government departments, and how many of those would be, perhaps, eligible for a WorkLife B.C. Award?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm glad you mentioned that. The head of the public service, the deputy, has been a member of the advisory committee and will continue to work with us, as we go forward, in terms of honouring the excellence in the public service. Very recently I have toured the three child care centres that are attached to government and that offer supports to children from families that are currently employed by government.

My challenge as we work this through is to see if we can indeed continue to deliver that service in ever-expanding ways, because it speaks to me in that I am a proponent of near-site and on-site child care — to have your child adjacent to your workplace. It's something government has demonstrated clearly in the past that they have an interest in doing. Our challenge will be to see if we can continue that. The three existing centres have not had a long life and certainly have not been added to over previous tenures in this place, but there certainly is opportunity before us.

C. Trevena: I wonder, just on this, if we're talking about the same thing. When I say "government departments," I'm talking of ministry offices and government departments as the same, just across B.C. government. Okay.

I wanted to go back. I touched on Westcoast resource and referral centre. I think the minister is very well aware of the shock to the community when it lost its funding and the manner in which it lost its funding — that it was a telephone call on a Friday afternoon from ministry staff. I just wondered if the minister could explain the rationale for her ministry's approach to the announcing of the cuts to the Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre.

Hon. L. Reid: The discussion around Westcoast created the opportunity for us to reallocate that funding, and certainly I wanted very much to decentralize or regionalize professional development happening in the regions.

The notion that we would put on the same site a few million dollars, when indeed it made more sense to have those services regionalized across British Columbia, spoke to me. The notion that Westcoast doesn't exist is untrue. They continue to operate the Vancouver Child Care Resource and Referral. They are the host agency for Vancouver Child Care Resource and Referral.

Frankly, there was much greater interest in spreading that service more effectively across the geography of this province rather than in consolidating it in Vancouver.

C. Trevena: I think the minister is perhaps playing a bit fast and loose with the figures. It was $800,000 that went to Westcoast, not millions of dollars, as I understand it. If I'm wrong on this, I would like clarification.

Hon. L. Reid: The point I made was between the two. It was roughly $2 million — $800,000 and then an additional allocation very close to $1 million. I think the member understands the point. Did it make sense to put a $2 million allocation in Vancouver when the desire was for professional development to cross British Columbia? They shared office space.

They continue to cohabit, to exist together. They will continue to offer services in Vancouver, which is the intention. The professional development component will be spread across British Columbia, and there is huge interest in having that done in areas where families and providers don't always have to flow to Vancouver to receive professional development.

C. Trevena: I think that the issue of centralization towards regionalization depends on the service. Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre did have a very good reputation for providing assistance as a provincial service — not in the same way that the child care resource and referral centres and other centres have, but it was the provincial service.

To break it up and to say we're just going to spend the funding elsewhere in the regions in these allocations that go back to the budget we were discussing earlier, where there is professional development, I would argue, is not the best way forward when you have a core team of people who have been working on this for many years.

In this respect I wondered with whom the minister discussed this to find out that the child care community wanted this to be broken up into small pieces and sent out around the province.

Hon. L. Reid: I think the member made my point very cleanly when she said the child care resource and referral centre. Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre will continue to operate the Vancouver child care resource and referral. Those services will continue.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister if she has actually talked to anyone at Westcoast. A number of the staff have lost their jobs because the service was closed. Vancouver has helped ensure that there is some semblance of provision still there, but it is nothing like it was before. It is dealing with trying to squeeze some money that is being given to one service — that is, Vancouver — and trying to make sure that it can still work for a provincial service.

The minister says that I made it clear. The minister has made it very clear. We've just got rid of one whole service and said that it's not necessary. I would like to ask the minister with whom she discussed this to find out that child care workers didn't want to have Westcoast there as a provincial resource.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to repeat that the decision was taken to regionalize the service. Families in Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Prince George — providers in all those regions all across British Columbia had an opportunity to come to Vancouver for professional development. That wasn't meeting their needs.

The commitment to regionalize service has been in place over the life of this government. We are regionalizing service. We have five health authorities. We have five MCFD authorities. We are moving forward. We are not doing anything other than regionalizing service to bring it so that it responds to the needs of those who live in those communities and of those who provide service in those communities.

C. Trevena: Seeing as this is a government philosophy, as the minister says, to regionalize in this way and to have their five areas, I wondered, then, if the minister could answer my first question. Why did her staff advise Westcoast in a telephone call on Friday afternoon that they were losing their funding?

Hon. L. Reid: The member will know that none of these decisions are easy. Once the determination was made to regionalize the service, there was no point in not giving them that information. I'm not sure if the member is suggesting that somehow we delayed providing that information. We worked it through as much as we possibly could in terms of whether or not we were going to make that determination. Once the decision was made, it was only right that they learn of that decision as quickly as possible.

C. Trevena: I think the minister has said, though, that regionalization is part of government policy. Therefore, it was not an overnight decision that Westcoast was going to be cut and disbanded, sent across the province in this way and that training would go outside. It caused a huge amount of distress in both the child care community generally and Westcoast in particular — that they received a call on Friday afternoon from ministry staff saying: "That's it. You're gone at the end of the financial year."

Hon. L. Reid: To reiterate, it's a difficult decision — no question. But once a decision was taken, there was no value in delaying letting the contractor know we didn't choose to continue purchasing the service. Absolutely, they would be the first people we would let know at the earliest opportunity.

C. Trevena: I question the minister's description of a difficult decision. The minister has quite clearly said that her ministry and other ministries across this government are regionalizing and putting things into the five chunks, not taking it right to the local level. So the decision would be part of the government's thinking.

I think it is symptomatic. The approach the government took with Westcoast is symptomatic of the approach that the government and, unfortunately, this minister have taken with child care across this province.

We have had a very short time to explore the budget, but in this short time we have been able to talk about the cuts to child care resource and referral centres provincewide as well as to the provincial service of Westcoast. We ought to talk about the cuts to the operating fund, the many, many applications that are there for capital funding and the many, many spaces that are going to be there, assuming that there are actually going to be workers who can staff the places so that we can have the child care working there.

We've seen that much of the financial management has devolved to other organizations — in announcements, when the minister pleases — in one-off payments. I think it's very sad that there was such an opportunity here. There is such an opportunity — and I'm sure the minister would agree with me — to have a proper, effective, accessible child care system in our province.

The minister knows. The minister is in cabinet. The minister knows there is the money there. The minister is passionate about child care and about assisting, as the minister quite often states, our most vulnerable children. I think it is a huge sadness for people within the profession, for parents, for families that we are seeing an attrition rather than a growth in the provision of child care.

With that, I will hand over to my colleague for Esquimalt-Metchosin, who is going to be taking up on the estimates.

Hon. L. Reid: That comment absolutely requires a response. In terms of the optimism I feel for child care, we're in partnership with parents in the province, with providers, with community, with all levels of government as we go forward, because it's vitally important.

The member is quite correct. This is about vulnerable children, which is why you saw this province step up to the plate and maintain the enhancements to the subsidy program. That is for families in British Columbia who earn under $38,000. The member opposite can diminish that in no way whatsoever. That is a fabulous accomplishment as we go forward.

I will say the same for special needs youngsters. To move from $37 million to $55 million and have that enhancement carried forward is never anything that the member opposite should diminish. And to not be proud of the agencies in this province who are building space with government today…. An additional 1,500 spaces are coming on line.

The member opposite could actually be of assistance in this regard and build with the province as we go forward. The difference in last year's budget of about $203 million and well on the way to $290 million of spending around child care is a significant enhancement.

I know the member opposite will continue to make faces, but I can assure the member opposite that when her leader was the director of child care policy in British Columbia, I would put my record up against space creation for the time I've been here, which is two years in this file, over the ten years that that government was in operation.

Do not for one moment, hon. Member, suggest any kind of self-righteous attitude around the creation of child care space in the province. It is not worthy. It is simply not worthy. Frankly, it's shameful that that is the only level of commentary you can bring to this debate.

I am on the side of parents and providers as we go forward. We will continue to deliver programs that will come very close to $300 million in spending this year.

M. Karagianis: I do have some questions for the minister, so I think we will probably take a moment to move staff and change places with the appropriate ministers.

M. Karagianis: For the minister, yes. We are going to start with Community Living B.C., if we may, please.

Hon. T. Christensen: If you could just indulge me for a moment. We've had a shift in staff because we are, I understand, going to be working through questions around Community Living British Columbia.

I'm pleased to be joined by CEO for CLBC Rich Mowles, on my left; the chief financial officer, Richard Hunter, on my right; as well as another assistant deputy minister from MCFD, Mark Sieben, in behind us here, who will certainly provide able advice to me as these questions go forward.

Just by way of brief introduction — and I know the member opposite will appreciate that this will be brief — CLBC is a separate vote. Vote 21 is the budget for Community Living British Columbia. The total budget for the Crown agency is just under $683 million. Most of CLBC's funding comes from the provincial government through an operating contribution that this year will total $647 million.

About 92 percent of that, $633 million, goes directly to community living support and services for children and adults with developmental disabilities as well as for children and youth with special needs and their families. That this year is a 6-percent increase over provincial contributions last year, and in this three-year budget plan we'll see a 15-percent increase in the province's contributions to CLBC's operational funding.

I do want to just briefly touch on or highlight a couple of things in terms of CLBC, because it is a new agency. Certainly, it's government's belief that the province has gained a great deal by establishing this new Crown agency. We are now at the forefront in North America in delegating delivery of services to developmentally disabled citizens to an arm's-length authority with a board of directors that must reflect the community that it serves.

A majority of CLBC's board must be individuals who use or who have a significant connection to a person who uses the types of supports that CLBC delivers, and at least two of the board members must themselves be individuals with a developmental disability. So it is a very unique agency in that respect, and as I said, it really is at the forefront of working with the developmentally disabled community in North America.

CLBC is committed to promoting choice and innovation in how support and services are delivered. We now have over 19,000 people who are currently served by CLBC throughout the province. With the increase in budget as well as a number of the steps that CLBC is taking to be innovative in how they deliver services, we certainly expect over the next three years that 1,600 individuals will receive 2,400 new or enhanced supports.

Due to CLBC's efforts, I think it's important to note that for the first time ever we have a better handle on the demand for services for adults with developmental disabilities. That ensures transparency, equity, and sound financial planning and resource allocation as we go forward. It enables that to happen.

As well, CLBC is being successful in providing individuals and families with a range of options. People certainly have the opportunities to select from existing services as well as to work with CLBC facilitators on developing new supports.

I know that CLBC works closely with its funded service providers to engage them in problem-solving and promoting innovation and cost-effective service delivery. It is a firm belief of CLBC and government that families know best when it comes to their needs, their goals and planning for the future. That really is at the foundation of CLBC's mandate and success.

I can tell you that similar to with the ministry as a whole, my experience with CLBC is that it is fortunate to have very dedicated staff that have worked very hard over the first two years of the establishment of the agency to deal with the challenges of shifting services to a new agency. I think they have done a very good job of that over the last two years, working through some of the bumps that are inherent in any change process.

We're certainly looking forward to a continued strong working relationship with CLBC as they work to deliver additional services to the clients that they serve. With that, I'm happy to start taking questions on the Community Living B.C. budget.

M. Karagianis: The minister has talked in the introduction here about the fact that this is a new Crown agency. So one of the questions I have is: what did the transition from MCFD to CLBC cost?

Hon. T. Christensen: Certainly, this isn't the way I wanted to start out the answers, but we don't actually have that figure available. Apparently, the question was asked last year, and we provided a response. That was more aligned with the timing of that transition, given that the agency has now been in place for two years. But we'll find that number and provide it to the member.

M. Karagianis: In the process of that, I would hope it breaks down the moving costs, offices, the setting up of the offices — individual costs there. I know that there has been a process that included moving out of government space into market-based spaces, so I would hope that that information will also include what that cost the taxpayers of British Columbia in the process.

I appreciate that that information is not here. Perhaps the minister could let me know what kind of time line I might expect, to get that information.

Hon. T. Christensen: As I understand it, there are two questions there. One is really the cost to government in terms of the transition to CLBC as a new agency. Then the second is really the operational cost of CLBC as they get their offices up and running. We'll look to provide answers to both of those. I would expect we wouldn't have any difficulty doing that within a month.

M. Karagianis: I would expect that there probably was a good business case in favour of moving to the CLBC model. Is that available?

Hon. T. Christensen: The decision to move toward CLBC as an independent authority with a board, as I've described earlier, wasn't driven by a business case. It was driven by a discussion with those that were receiving community living services from the ministry, with the families of people who have developmental disabilities. It was really a practice-based drive towards a new way of delivering services.

Obviously, in doing that, there was assessment done of what it would cost to move in that direction. It would have been irresponsible not to do that. But it wasn't put forward as a business case in terms of that being the driving motivation to establish CLBC. The motivation to establish CLBC as an independent authority was very much driven by: how can we better put in place a structure that gives more decision-making to the people who are going to be served by the agency itself?

M. Karagianis: Is this the normal way a Crown agency is established in government? Is it such an experimental mode or on such a conceptual base, rather than having a written business case scenario?

Hon. T. Christensen: I may have left the wrong impression in terms of my previous answer around the terms of business case. As the member asked the initial question about a business case, I took that to mean: what's the financial case driving the decision toward establishing CLBC?

It wasn't a financial case that drove the decision. It was best practices around delivering services to people who have a developmental disability. That was the motivating factor in terms of: how you can better deliver service? How can you better be responsive to families of those individuals requiring services? How can you get to a model that better engages the community and service providers in determining how services are best provided?

On that front, in terms of whether we call it a business case or a feasibility study, what government looked at in 2001 was what practices are elsewhere. What are the principles we wish to follow in terms of how services are delivered to people with developmental disabilities? And how can we, in consultation with those individuals and their families, move in a direction that better empowers them to determine the way in which services are delivered?

That is how we came to the CLBC model. It was done over a number of years with significant consultation and with very significant support from the community living sector, and it was initially done by establishing an interim authority for a period of time that could better explore how a permanent authority would function. Only after a number of steps were taken to ensure that this was in fact going to be a better model in terms of delivering services was the permanent authority established in July of 2005.

M. Karagianis: With greatest respect, how could you determine if a new and better model had been created if you didn't have a business case scenario to compare it against? Again I ask: is this the way government creates new Crown agencies — without a full written business case against which you can measure whether or not you have created a better model?

I'm actually quite surprised that there would not be a full written business case against which you could compare something as important as a new Crown agency that's been created by government.

I understand that the minister mentioned an interim authority had been established. Again, is there a written business case on the interim authority? How was it created? What, if any, performance measures were put in place before the new Crown agency was created out of that interim process?

Hon. T. Christensen: I'm a bit concerned that the member may be suggesting that this is something that was a grand idea of government in the absence of being driven by the community living sector — that we would then develop a study and then implement it.

The reality of how Community Living British Columbia came into being was that government believed, in 2001 — based on comment from people in the community living sector, from individuals and families — that it was possible to have a better model for delivering services. Government established a community living transition committee in 2002, I believe, that was made up of representatives from the community living sector — family members, individuals with developmental disabilities, service providers from around the province — to examine what it was that people were looking for in terms of a better way of delivering services. What would be their expectations, their goals around that?

The transition committee did prepare a report. That full report, I believe, is available on CLBC's website. It was the work of that committee that ultimately led to the establishment of the interim authority, who then continued the work in terms of fleshing it out a little bit more around how they can move towards delivering services more effectively and whether it made sense to establish a permanent authority that was somewhat at arm's length from government. That work, as I said, proceeded and ultimately resulted in the establishment of the permanent authority as of July 1, 2005.

I am not personally intimately familiar with all of that work, because it predates my time as minister. But certainly I was in government and was an MLA at the time, and I recall that there was very significant engagement of the community living sector in terms of how to move that agenda forward. It was very much a responsive agenda by government to what we were hearing from the community living sector. It involved a number of presentations to both the Treasury Board and cabinet in terms of the fiscal implications and the policy implications of what was necessary.

Again, we're very pleased with the establishment of CLBC, the foundation that has been set to enable improvement of services going forward. That is certainly what the 2007-08 to 2009-10 service plan is geared towards. With these estimates, my expectation was that we would be discussing the budget of Community Living British Columbia on a go-forward basis. While I'm happy to try and respond to the member's questions in terms of three, four years ago, I'm at a bit of a loss in terms of determining how that's relevant to the '07-08 budget in moving forward.

M. Karagianis: In fact, I think that the basis on which the model was created…. As the minister has said, it is a new model. It's only two years in existence at this point. I think that certainly the basis on which it was built and created is very important to its current operating model and, as the minister says, the go-forward basis here on how the budget is being spent.

Certainly, although the minister says there've been great improvements in services, both the minister and I continue to receive many complaints from families about the services. So as I explore those with the minister, I think it's fair to ask on what basis this authority was created. It is a Crown agency.

This is a government that has been very public about its endeavours to establish a more businesslike environment within government, to in fact conduct government business in a more businesslike manner. We talk and hear often about best-case management models and things like that. So it would seem to me very natural that we could question the basis, the business case, on which CLBC was founded, then look at it from this perspective two years later and examine the current service plan on that basis — to say: "Did it meet the expectations of the business model created originally?"

If there was no business model, how can we say two years into it that the service plan is meeting those criteria as we look at the future of it? Perhaps, if it's not meeting the business case scenario that was laid out originally…. As I hear from the minister, much of this was sort of consultative in nature rather than a written business plan that was followed simultaneous to the consultation and the motivation by the community and the sector itself to look at delivering services better.

So I think it's very relevant for us to look at how the Crown agency was formed and from that, to judge, as we go forward, how successful the model is being rather than just stand on the consultative concept of whether or not we believe the services are being delivered better. That would be the purpose for me asking for this.

The interim authority. The minister has talked about a concept; some consultation took place. The sector itself seemed to be driving initiatives around providing the service in a better way.

Certainly there is a bit of a troubled past with the interim authority. The KPMG investigation into one of the founding members of the interim authority, Mr. Doug Walls, and the concept itself, showed a number of very disturbing findings in that KPMG report. Again, comparing this to the business case scenario, does it interfere in any way with the business case

scenario? Any concerns around how the interim authority operated? Obviously that was the basis, as the minister has clearly said, for moving into the permanent authority.

I would argue that in fact these are all very relevant things to question the minister on — as both the minister and I are fairly new to this portfolio; he as the minister, I as the critic — to lay some groundwork for both of us on making some judgments here on the success of Community Living B.C. from the perspective of government, from the perspective of the community itself and certainly from the perspective of the critic.

If the minister is unable to provide me with any kind of business case scenario that was used to establish this, I accept that. But I do know that there was an endeavour to establish a memorandum of understanding and a children's agreement between the MCFD and CLBC. Can the minister tell me what the status of that MOU is at this time?

Hon. T. Christensen: I will answer the question in terms of the children's agreement, but I do want to respond to some of the member's other comments.

Certainly, government agrees that it is critical that we be able to measure the success of CLBC. I think the member and I are on the same page on that. There were a number of reports prepared in the process of moving towards CLBC. The most critical reports that really set out the expectations in terms of how CLBC would better deliver services to people with developmental disabilities were the reports prepared, firstly, by the transition steering committee, which, as I've indicated, is on CLBC's website, and secondly, by the interim authority. Again, those reports are available on CLBC's website.

It has been two years now since CLBC was established. Both CLBC and government agree that it would be timely in the course of this next year to look back at the original documents and some of the vision at that time to determine whether or not CLBC, as a permanent authority with a track record now of almost two years, is meeting what those expectations were at the time.

Later this year CLBC will be engaging an external review to look back at the work that was done prior to the establishment of CLBC and to measure success against the expectations that were originally there. I think all of us, CLBC included, look forward to that work being done.

Certainly, what I've found in my discussions with CLBC's board is that they are continuously interested in how they can be more responsive to the community they serve and how they can continue to improve services. There will be that accountability loop in terms of looking back and saying: "Okay, what were the expectations, and are those being met?"

With respect to the children's agreement, CLBC and MCFD had entered into the children's agreement. What that agreement contemplated, essentially, was a splitting of the services that are available to children in the province. CLBC would deliver services to those children who had developmental disabilities and were likely to have an ongoing relationship with CLBC throughout their lives. MCFD — and this is a generalization — would continue to deliver services to other children with special needs.

What the experience has been since that agreement was initially entered into was that trying to split services in that manner is too disruptive. Even if you got through the disruption, both CLBC and MCFD agree, I think, at this point that it wouldn't be the appropriate way to move forward in terms of best serving children in the province.

What we are doing now is that we have sort of interim understandings in place between CLBC and MCFD in terms of who will deliver what services. We're consulting with one another and working together to determine, moving forward, how we best accomplish the general intent of the children's agreement but in a manner that best serves children in the province. The reason we haven't fully implemented the children's agreement was the definite recognition on behalf of CLBC and MCFD that it actually wouldn't be in the best interest of the children we're both trying to serve.

M. Karagianis: I will just ask a further question on the first half of the topic that we discussed there. I think it's excellent that the ministry is going to undertake a review. That is an excellent step to take.

It is, as the minister mentioned, an external review. Will this involve consultation with those obtaining services from CLBC? Will it be in full consultation with those families? Obviously, with the concept in the consultation process that gave birth to CLBC, it seems fitting that those families would be consulted as part of this external review, to say: "Here we are two, three years later. Is this model working? What is required to make it better?" The external review: how would you see that taking place, and how would families participate in that?

I guess the second part of my question, while we've got you there, is with regard to the MOU, then. The memorandum of understanding is not moving forward as expected. Can the minister clarify for me, then, how the services are expected to be delivered to these obviously somewhat dissimilar clients? How, then, do families understand exactly what the process is and where the divide is between MCFD and CLBC?

Hon. T. Christensen: In terms of the review to be commissioned by CLBC, the terms of reference for that aren't yet fully developed, but certainly it's intended that they will retain an external consultant to conduct that review. The expectation is that there will be a bidding process for that through B.C. Bid. All of that will be set out up front in terms of what's expected.

There's no question that part of that review will involve consultation with the people that CLBC is intended to serve. Quite frankly, from my perspective, and I'm sure from CLBC's perspective, not consulting with the people actually being served by the agency

M. Karagianis: We had a second question there, so I'll let the minister answer the second part of the question.

Hon. T. Christensen: That's the problem with these two questions at a time. I lose track of the second one.

In terms of the MOU, from a practical standpoint what has happened is that in the establishment of CLBC, the staff that have moved over to CLBC were the same staff that were generally dealing with the children who are now receiving services from CLBC. From the family's perspective, generally, there hasn't been any disruption. They have continued to work with the same social worker or other worker that they were engaged with, and that person who was employed by the ministry previously is now employed by CLBC.

Where there are challenges that are certainly brought to CLBC's attention and the ministry's attention, we're try to work closely with families to work through that and minimize or eliminate any disruption. Generally, what has happened is that the caseloads have effectively moved over intact.

M. Karagianis: I guess the purpose of the MOU in the first instance was to establish what the relationship would be between MCFD and CLBC. Are you saying now that all services pertaining to the developmentally challenged, special needs children are now being served under CLBC, and MCFD no longer has any of the care, oversight, program provision or service provision to any special needs individual?

Hon. T. Christensen: There are certain programs that MCFD still is more directly involved in. For example, autism funding is administered through the ministry. That's a unique program. For the most part it's very much individualized funding, where the family has access to the funding, and then they determine what services they wish to purchase with that funding. Similarly, supported child development is another program that's being funded primarily through the ministry.

Essentially, the division that was contemplated, as I said, by the children's agreement was that once it was determined that a child had a developmental disability that was going to be permanent so that they were going to have an ongoing relationship into adulthood with Community Living B.C., then Community Living B.C. would be the primary contact and service delivery agent or would determine where to get service with other contracted service providers.

For the most part, that is definitely what has happened. Once it's determined that somebody does have a developmental disability, then they're into that CLBC track. Their relationship is with CLBC, who in turn assists them in terms of working with other potential service providers.

The greater challenge, certainly, is with our youngest children. For very young children it's very difficult to determine initially whether it's a developmental disability that is going to be there on a permanent and long-term basis or whether it's a special need where some early intensive intervention may in fact overcome the disability, or make a significant difference in addressing it.

We have to deal with the cases or the situations that are more challenging to ensure that we are working closely with CLBC so that from an operational standpoint we're working closely together in making it easier for families. There is a joint management committee of CLBC and the ministry that meets on a regular basis to try and deal with any issues, while we try to work through how to put a more permanent structure in place to make it as seamless as possible and as easy as possible, from an individual family standpoint, to access the services they need — whether those services are provided by CLBC, by the ministry or by a contracted service provider.

M. Karagianis: Obviously, it is probably difficult for families, then, to discern at what point their situation moves from MCFD to CLBC.

In the case of autism, has the minister determined whether or not that is a condition that will fall under CLBC's authority at some point? I mean, autism often follows children through most of their life, in one form or another. I'm wondering where the determining factor is on when a child moves out of MCFD's service provision umbrella into CLBC's hands. Does this also apply to services like speech therapists and similar therapists that CLBC clients may also access? Where is the crossover back and forth, and how do families determine seamless service delivery, given some complexities here in defining whose program authority they fall under?

Hon. T. Christensen: I think what's important — because there is a substantial opportunity to sort of confuse all of this, and I'm certainly guilty of that myself from time to time — is to look at it from the individual family's perspective. At the end of the day I'm confident that what both the member and I are most concerned about is if you are parents of a child you believe may have a special need or may have a developmental disability and you don't know where to turn or how to access help, who do you go see?

The reality is that, from a family's perspective, very little has changed. There continues to be a number of, for lack of a better way, doorways into service. For example, the member will be familiar with child development centres in various communities.

A family may take their child to see their family physician, who may then sort of direct them towards the child development centre. That would enable them to get service at the child development centre, provided it was offering the necessary service.

Alternatively, a family may have a concern and in the past may have contacted the Ministry of Children and Family Development to say: "What help can I get in terms of addressing the concern I have about my child?"

Now they would make the same contact. What has changed is that the person they're talking to is now actually an employee of CLBC rather than an employee of the ministry. The place they'll actually go to get the service would now depend on CLBC determining what service is required. It may be that they get referred to a child development centre or another service provider that is contracted to provide the particular intervention or therapy which it has been identified that the child requires.

From that perspective, the direct services that were provided by the ministry historically are now provided by CLBC to children. The exception to that is…. Well, it's not an exception in terms of direct service delivery. Where the ministry has retained the program is around more of the direct-funding programs like the autism funding where, in the determination of whether somebody needs the funding, CLBC is involved as that front-line service agency. Then the ministry has to process the actual funding application.

M. Karagianis: The one concern that I would have immediately is: how is funding then allocated? The minister spoke about a specific bill in allocating funding to CLBC as an agency somewhat independent of government, yet MCFD also has a budget.

How, then, is the funding allocated? More importantly, where there is finite funding — certainly in the case of CLBC, funding is finite — what is the determining factor on service provision? How do families know where to turn if, in fact, there are funding shortfalls or if some funding, in the case of autism, is delivered in one place and CLBC delivers the service and funding in another place? How that funding is split is pretty important.

Hon. T. Christensen: Within the overall envelope of funding from government to CLBC, a certain portion of that envelope is dedicated to children's services. CLBC isn't allowed to reallocate any portion of the children's services budget to other parts of their service delivery — for example, to adult services. They have to focus that on children's services. The amount of that funding is generally based on the intent of the children's agreement in terms of the services that CLBC would be engaged in delivering.

Then there's still some funding, as I indicated earlier — autism, perhaps, being the most clear example — where MCFD has actually retained that funding within the ministry and is funding parents directly with that.

M. Karagianis: I'm sure that there are families watching right now, and I'm sure my phone will be ringing the minute we leave here. If we've in some way strayed from the views that families have, we'll hear about it.

This does actually bring to mind other questions, but noting the time, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again, with the minister's indulgence on that.

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 — 43

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Ilich	Chong	Christensen
Les	Richmond	Bell
Krueger	van Dongen	Roddick
Hayer	Lee	Jarvis
Nuraney	Whittred	Horning
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Neufeld	Coleman	Hogg
Sultan	Hawkins	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 30

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	James	Kwan
Ralston	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Lali
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Robertson	Karagianis	Evans
Krog	Austin	Chudnovsky
Chouhan	Sather	Macdonald
	Conroy