Hansard — Thursday, April 3, 2008 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		10883

Tributes		10883
	Edith McNish
	Hon. S. Hagen

Introductions by Members		10884

Tributes		10884
	Robert de Grace
	Hon. P. Bell

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		10884
	Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (Bill 18)
	Hon. B. Penner

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10884
	Cancer awareness
	J. McIntyre
	Community events in Campbell River
	C. Trevena
	Fur trapping in B.C.
	J. Rustad
	Boundary Woodworkers Guild
	K. Conroy
	Bridge builders in B.C.
	R. Sultan
	Autism
	D. Routley

Oral Questions		10887
	Funding for Royal Columbian Hospital
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	C. Puchmayr
	ICBC performance bonuses to Paul Taylor
	H. Lali
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Investigation into ICBC vehicle sales
	H. Bains
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Agricultural land reserve regulations
	L. Krog
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Wild salmon fishery
	S. Fraser
	Hon. P. Bell
	Non-essential pesticide use
	G. Robertson
	Hon. B. Penner
	Labelling for products containing toxic substances
	G. Robertson
	Hon. B. Penner
	Proposed power project for Cascade Falls
	K. Conroy
	Hon. B. Penner

Tabling Documents		10892
	Capital project plan, integrated case management project
	Hon. T. Christensen

Petitions		10892
	N. Simons

Second Reading of Bills		10892
	Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 15) (continued)
	B. Lekstrom
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Committee of the Whole House		10898
	Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)
	J. Brar
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	M. Sather
	G. Robertson

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10909
	Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 11)

Committee of the Whole House		10909
	Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 13)
	Hon. O. Ilich
	C. Puchmayr
	K. Conroy

Point of Privilege (Reservation of Right)		10916
	L. Krog

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10916
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology
	Hon. M. Coell
	R. Fleming
	H. Bains

Hon. G. Abbott: This morning the Premier and a large number of members on both sides of the House had the privilege of joining representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society for breakfast. It was, as is usual in breakfasts with the Canadian Cancer Society, a very informative and constructive event, and I'm sure all members of the House were very appreciative for that opportunity.

It is also, Mr. Speaker — and you know this probably better than everyone — Daffodil Month, and that's why this daffodil adorns my jacket here today. Of course, the daffodil has become a symbol for the Canadian Cancer Society and the wonderful and beneficial work that they do on behalf of all British Columbians and all Canadians.

It would be my pleasure to advise the House that in the gallery today are Barbara Kaminsky, the CEO; John Jacobson, the board chair; and Kathryn Seely, the public issues manager with the Canadian Cancer Society. I'd ask members across the House to join me in welcoming them and thanking them for the wonderful work they do day in and day out.

S. Simpson: I also attended the breakfast this morning and certainly join the minister in congratulating those guests.

We also have with us today Mae Burrows, who is the director of the Labour Environmental Alliance. Mae was at the breakfast this morning as well, and part of the reason for her being there is that she was one of the recipients of the Canadian Cancer Society partnership award. She received that award for work that she and her organization are doing on the CancerSmart Consumer Guide and on the issue of having pesticides banned throughout British Columbia, which was the focus of the discussion this morning.

I would ask the House to both congratulate Mae on her award and make her welcome.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like the House to welcome a great friend of mine and one of Canada's best-known actors, Mr. Jackson Davies. Jackson and I first met when we worked on a CBC show together perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. We don't like to quite remember.

Jackson is now serving on the B.C. Arts Council and helping us with those responsibilities. But I should also say that tonight he is in a play in Sidney, and it's called Hockey Mom, Hockey Dad. So if anyone has time, you can see Jackson tonight. Please welcome him.

N. Simons: I'd like to introduce in the House today my guests Dal and Kay Matterson from Powell River. Powell River has hosted the world-renowned Kathaumixw Choral festival since 1984. Dal Matterson chaired the very first festival, and both he and Kay continue to be very involved with the event. Kay also works with the Powell River Academy of Music. Dal is the president of the Myrtle Rock improvement society. Truly, they're both great assets to the citizens of Powell River and the region.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House two constituents, two friends of mine from Fort St. John, Bruce and Gail Reid. They're accompanied by Bruce's mother Jean Reid, who lives down here. They're having a visit. I'd like everyone in the House to make them welcome, please.

D. Routley: Could the House help me welcome Julie Nygaard and Heather Bosch. They are two parents of autistic children and members of a group that has formed in our constituency who are advocating for services and understanding around the issues of autism. Would the House help me welcome them.

H. Bloy: It gives me a pleasure to rise in the House today and welcome the future of British Columbia. We have grade 5 students here from Our Lady of Fatima School, and I had the privilege of talking with them earlier. They're in the gallery. I know that British Columbia is in good hands with the teaching that they get. They're accompanied by their teacher Paula Bourassa. Would the House please join me in welcoming them today.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's an honour for me today to pay tribute to a pioneer in the Comox Valley who passed away late last month. Edith McNish was born on June 4, 1907, and it was a privilege for my wife and I to attend her 100th birthday in June of last year.

I first met Edith in 1972 when I was elected to school board and she was on school board. Prior to that, she'd been a teacher. She was also the first student from the Comox Valley to complete her senior matriculation exam.

After she retired from school board, she became a volunteer, visiting people in the hospital until she was about 95 years old. I would have to think Edith McNish was probably the world's oldest candystriper, and people all over knew her for that.

She is also very interesting because almost up until her death, my wife would phone her to get information on the history of the Comox Valley. She would sort of cut my wife short and say: "I'm sorry. I've got to go, Judy, because I've got to go visit the old people."

So I want to pay tribute to Edith, and certainly our condolences to her family. She was a wonderful, wonderful citizen.

V. Roddick: In the precincts today were 22 grade 5 students and three long-suffering parents and their teacher Mr. Jason Webber from Southpointe Academy. It's always great to have young people because they ask real direct questions. It was a terrific time trying to answer them. Would the House please join me and make them very welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: Prince George lost a key individual a little over a week ago in Rob de Grace. Rob was a businessman, well respected in the community and an avid outdoorsman who really represented all the great values of northern British Columbia — entrepreneurialism, but also someone who really enjoyed life to its fullest.

Rob did not suffer long. He passed away quite quickly at quite a young age, unfortunately. He has left behind his wife Kathy, and I would ask that the House please pay their respects to the de Grace family.

Hon. B. Penner presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act.

Hon. B. Penner: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be introduced and read for a first time now.

Hon. B. Penner: I am pleased to introduce Bill 18, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. This bill is a significant component of this government's climate action strategy. We took our first step in climate action with the enactment of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act last November, setting out targets to reduce British Columbia's greenhouse gas emissions by at least 33 percent below the 2007 level by 2020 and by at least 80 percent by 2050.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act will help us achieve those targets by enabling a market-based system to limit greenhouse gas emissions in British Columbia. This act is one of several pieces of legislation concerning greenhouse gas reductions that are being introduced during this session.

The act will provide regulatory authority to support our climate action goals while establishing a legal basis for the province's participation in the regional system being developed by the western climate initiative, a partnership of U.S. states and Canadian provinces that is dedicated to tackling the challenge of climate change.

A cap-and-trade system puts an absolute limit or a hard cap on the emissions responsible for global warming. It is designed to spur innovative and low-cost solutions to reduce carbon pollution.

In B.C. the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act will provide authority to set a hard cap that will apply to designated large emitters. The cap will consist of a limited number of emission allowances that will be distributed by the government. The act will require that the regulated emitters obtain enough emission allowances and other compliance units, such as offset credits, to cover their emissions. These units must then be surrendered to the government as proof of compliance.

Over time, reductions in this cap will drive reductions in emissions. The act will also enable emitters to trade allowances, offsets and other compliance units to take advantage of market forces that promote innovation and investment and cleaner and more efficient technologies.

The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act will make British Columbia the first Canadian province to introduce legislation authorizing hard caps on greenhouse gases.

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

Bill 18, Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. McIntyre: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the Canadian Cancer Society and all the dedicated volunteers for their efforts to educate us and to find a cure for a disease that has touched the lives of almost everyone and, unfortunately, affected several colleagues in these very chambers.

In Toronto in the '50s, the Canadian Cancer Society volunteers organized a fundraising tea and decorated the tables with daffodils. The bright, cheerful flowers seemed to radiate hope and faith around the room that cancer one day could be beaten, and that symbol and optimism remain today.

I'd like to specially recognize Barbara Kaminsky, who for the past 13 years has been the chief executive officer of the B.C. and Yukon division of the Canadian Cancer Society. With a multitude of accreditations and more than 30 years of experience in health care, she has shown true leadership and the will to help in the fight against cancer.

Statistics show that one in three British Columbians will develop some form of cancer in their lifetime. In

our effort to enhance and protect the lives of our upcoming generations, our province continues to make significant investments in cancer research, treatment and prevention.

As mentioned in the throne speech, the province has committed to spend $2 million to expand research on preventing and treating childhood cancers. Last July, with approximately $12½ million in funding from the Ministry of Health, the B.C. Cancer Agency opened newly renovated areas of the Fraser Valley Centre in Surrey.

The B.C. Cancer Agency also plans to open a fifth regional cancer centre in Abbotsford later this year. New provincial regulations just came into effect, which restrict the promotion and sale of tobacco products, and also a ban on smoking in all indoor public spaces and workplaces.

These are just some of the measures that our government is taking to tackle this insidious disease, especially for our youngsters who will now be protected from being subjected to secondhand smoke in vehicles.

The Canadian Cancer Society delivered a daffodil to MLAs this morning. We'll proudly display these daffodils as a symbol of our support and gratitude to the Canadian Cancer Society for making the month of April Cancer Awareness Month. Together we will aspire to one day find a cure.

C. Trevena: It's going to be a busy weekend in Campbell River this weekend. It starts off with the annual Words on the Water, which is Campbell River's writers' festival, which opens on Friday night.

This event brings together authors and readers for two days of readings and discussions with a literary cabaret on Saturday night. Tickets usually sell out very quickly for the event, and the sessions overflow. Two years ago organizers were honoured to have the then Lieutenant-Governor open the event at the Maritime Heritage Centre. This year the Lieutenant-Governor has other commitments in Campbell River at the 50th anniversary of the Ripple Rock explosion and at the annual Walk Away From Racism. I'll talk about the former event on another occasion, as I do only have two minutes.

The Walk Away From Racism has been organized by the Campbell River Multicultural and Immigrant Services Association for the last 12 years. It's an event which brings together people of all ages and all backgrounds — new immigrants, first nations, people from the city and from the islands. Bringing people together is vital because only by coming together can we challenge and overcome ongoing issues such as racism. No matter how nice we think we are, what a progressive place we think B.C. is and how multicultural we are as reflected in the latest statistics, there is undeniably racism here.

That's why this walk every year, along Campbell River's city blocks among the Saturday shoppers, is so important. People walk side by side and say: "Racism is wrong." The organizers this year are extremely pleased that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor will be there, not just because of his office but his clear, unwavering commitment to reconciliation and the need for us to celebrate our differences.

The Walk Away From Racism ends with celebrations at the community centre. It ends with the opportunity for people to talk, share music, share food, have entertainment and hope that each year the walk will grow and the understanding of our differences and our values will grow along with it.

J. Rustad: More than two centuries ago our province went through an incredible transformation. People came to this land for the opportunities created by the demand for fur. These newcomers entered into partnerships with the first nations and developed trade. Their legacy helped to transform our province and laid the foundation for our society. Today more than 50 percent of the trappers are from our first nations, and all trappers continue in the traditions that are such a significant part of our heritage.

The B.C. Trappers Association was formed in 1945 and is the oldest trappers association in Canada. I had the honour of attending their AGM in Vanderhoof recently and found it a great opportunity to discuss their issues. The association is a positive, non-profit organization with four objectives: to promote sound, humane, furbearer fur management through research, education and cooperation with other related organizations; to represent trappers at the provincial, national and international levels; to promote the general welfare of the trappers of British Columbia; and to promote communications, information and dialogue among trappers.

Wildlife biologists have long recognized the necessity to steward the province's wildlife and the need to educate the general public in the role of trapping as a critical segment to wildlife management. Without trapping, furbearer populations expand, creating competition for limited resources which can compromise the health of the entire population. The weakened conditions of these animals could result in starvation and disease.

Regulating trapping involves the control of disease and animal population densities. In this regard, the trappers help keep furbearer populations at healthy levels and help avoid diseases. Trappers also work towards improving habitat and have been creative in suggesting ideas around utilizing woody debris for enhancing wildlife opportunities.

Please join me in congratulating the B.C. trappers for their efforts towards helping our environment and for continuing in the traditions that helped to open our province to the world.

K. Conroy: Lately we are continually hearing the horror stories associated with the devastation that the

pine beetle has caused in our forests. However, today I want to acknowledge the ingenuity of the Boundary Woodworkers Guild, who have taken the disaster and turned it into incredible beauty. Ten members of the guild have taken a lift of blue-stained pine donated by Pope and Talbot and used it to produce works that cover a range of items.

The exhibition at the Grand Forks Art Gallery is entitled Rhapsody in Blue Wood. The guild members have produced not only functional items like dressers, tables and bowls; they have created an amazing display of art.

One only needs to look at the works to acknowledge the passion in these woodworkers that has been transformed into exquisite functional art by talented hands. Dave has a vision that he hopes comes to fruition. His vision is to give the province's woodworkers — and that's everyone from the primaries to the high-end, value-added workers — a chance to show the whole world how we can change an unmitigated disaster into a golden opportunity.

He hopes that through Forest Renewal's Beyond Boards initiative, there could be a provincewide effort to display a magnificent exhibition in Vancouver during the Olympics. He applauds the construction work being done with the blue stuff, but there is much more to it than that. The guild's opening foray more than makes that point.

He also asks that I — and no pun intended — put a bug in the minister's ear to help make this happen.

R. Sultan: British Columbia professional engineers are famous as bridge builders from Borneo to Kicking Horse. Why? Look around. Rivers and canyons, islands and fjords in every direction. Bridge or boat — take your choice.

My constituent Peter Buckland, P.Eng., and the firm he founded, Buckland and Taylor, win lots of awards for their bridging accomplishments. Recently at a black-tie gala, Buckland and Taylor received the Lieutenant-Governor's award for excellence in engineering, as judged by the Consulting Engineers of B.C. A few weeks earlier Peter Buckland himself had been given the Order of Canada.

What are these engineers up to now? Two outstanding projects: the North Arm bridge across the Fraser River for the rapid-transit Canada line connecting downtown Vancouver to the airport and the Golden Ears bridge spanning the Fraser further upstream at Maple Ridge. Both are what engineers call extra-dosed bridges.

Now, extra-dosed doesn't refer to some high school disease. It's a particular design where the weight of deck and vehicles is carried through cables up to the towers and down through the towers to the foundation. Both girders and cables carry the load. Got that?

The result is a very efficient, low-profile bridge with superior aesthetics. Low-profile is important because both bridges are near airports. These will be the first and second extra-dosed bridges in all of North America.

Recently contractors Bilfinger Berger and McIlhaney showed me around Golden Ears — spectacular. I particularly appreciated the eagle statues which will crown the towers — a fitting challenge to the pair of lions guarding the entrance to my own constituency's Lions Gate Bridge.

By the way, Peter Buckland also supervised the recent renovation of that North Shore icon and, thanks to great engineering, says it should last another hundred years.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak about the challenges of autism. Autism is a disease or a syndrome that had an incidence just a few years ago of one in 10,000, which has increased now to one in 150 according to the largest study carried out in the United States.

We can clearly see a link to certain areas and environments. Premature babies are more susceptible. There are more boys affected.

Although the cause remains a mystery, there is no mystery that there are myriad services and agencies for parents and families to guide themselves through, and multi-ministerial roles that are confusing. Contracting of professional services is very challenging to families. The integration into schools without adequate support….

It is no mystery that they face a great struggle and a lack of support. They have great issues in classrooms, and classrooms have issues with them. But it doesn't need to be that way. We don't need to suffer financial devastation, and it is a good experience for people to be in a classroom with autistic children with proper supports.

What's required is training and funding. The throne speech pointed to a residential school setting, but according to many of the parents that I have spoken to, classroom integration is important because the role of modelling from other children who are not affected by autism is important to autistic children.

Adjustments need to be made by students, by workplaces and by society as a whole. We must accept autism. We have a skill shortage, but more than that, we have a youth shortage. We have to make the best of each other. Only by being the best can we be the best B.C. Only by supporting autistic children in B.C. can we reach our goals.

A. Dix: Last month Dr. Rob Granger, a surgeon at Royal Columbian Hospital, sent a letter to the head of the Fraser Health Authority and to the Minister of Health. It was another in a long list of warnings that this B.C. Liberal government is failing patients, doctors and nurses at Royal Columbian Hospital.

Dr. Granger called the overcrowding of the ER chronic and stated that we are truly in a crisis. He goes on: "Operating slates are cancelled on a daily basis, operating rooms are closed, and patients are sitting in hallways for nursing care."

To the Minister of Health: is he simply going to dismiss Dr. Granger as he's dismissed so many people in the past, or will he finally admit that his government's policies and cuts are putting patients at risk at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can tell the member definitively that no government in the history of British Columbia has ever made the investments both on the capital side and on the operational side that this B.C. Liberal government has made.

When we took office back in 2001, the annual budget for health in British Columbia was $8.3 billion. This year it's over $14 billion in investments. We've made investments in Abbotsford, which the opposition promised for a decade — never delivered — and we will see in August the opening of the Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. We are making over $200 million in investments in Surrey Memorial Hospital, including a tripling of the emergency department.

A. Dix: This minister, like the previous minister, shows that he doesn't care at all about the situation at Royal Columbian Hospital. It's a shocking situation. Here's what Dr. Granger said — not me; Dr. Granger. He says that this hospital has suffered from years of financial neglect with no significant input into infrastructure. Dr. Granger said, "We are having cancers and other urgent elective surgeries cancelled continually for lack of resources," and the minister says that's acceptable. The minister is bragging.

Is this just one other warning about Royal Columbian Hospital that this minister is going to ignore, or will he finally listen to doctors, to nurses, to health care workers and to patients in New Westminster and across the Fraser Health Authority and put the resources needed into the Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: Royal Columbian Hospital is a great facility for British Columbia. I am enormously proud of the work that doctors, surgeons, nurses and residential care aides do at Royal Columbian Hospital. They do a great job, and this government backstops that great work by all the health professionals at Royal Columbian Hospital with appropriate investments — like 45 more sub-acute care beds at Queen's Park Centre, ten additional overflow beds at Royal Columbian, ten rapid-discharge beds at Royal Columbian, a new trauma nurse practitioner, a full-time geriatric nurse — in a whole range of areas, including a new eye care program for improving the flow of patients through Royal Columbian Hospital.

Government and the Fraser Health Authority are making great investments and ensuring that Royal Columbian Hospital remains a fine and viable facility for all the residents of British Columbia.

A. Dix: The previous Minister of Health was warned in 2003, and he did nothing. They were warned in 2005. They did nothing. They were warned in 2006. They did nothing. They were warned in 2007. They did nothing. The situation has gotten worse and worse. Oh yeah, they were warned in 2004 too, and what did they do? They shut down St. Mary's Hospital.

My question to the Minister of Health is: when is he finally going to listen? When is he going to acknowledge that it was a terrible mistake to shut down St. Mary's Hospital? When is he going to acknowledge that his policies and his government's policies are failing patients at Royal Columbian Hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, it is remarkably tempting to defer to that member and that former government's acknowledged expertise in knowing what doing nothing is. They did it for ten years — ten years. They promised the new Abbotsford hospital for ten years. Didn't deliver. Promised improvements to Surrey Memorial Hospital. Didn't deliver. Promised hospitals in Kelowna. Didn't deliver. Promised facilities and programs all around British Columbia. Didn't deliver.

Clearly, they have expertise in not producing anything for the people of British Columbia, but if we look…. The member says that Royal Columbian Hospital doesn't get the dollars that they deserve. Not true. In fact, we have seen the budget for Royal Columbian Hospital grow from $146 million just a couple of years ago to now close to $250 million.

C. Puchmayr: The crisis at Royal Columbian Hospital was designed by this government. It was the B.C. Liberals that closed and demolished St. Mary's Hospital in 2004, taking 71 acute care beds out of the region — 71 beds that were very needed in that region. Doctors warned the B.C. Liberals repeatedly that the impacts would be severe on Royal Columbian Hospital.

ER Chief Dr. Haggard said: "ER delays are causing harm to patients." He went on to say: "The Royal Columbian ER is the worst in Canada."

This happened under this government. To the minister. For five long years doctors have been sounding the alarm. When is the minister going to wake up and take their concerns seriously?

Hon. G. Abbott: I visited Royal Columbian Hospital, including their emergency department. I know that often, particularly in peak times, there are challenges there. I know that Fraser Health and all of the staff at Royal Columbian Hospital work constantly to see continuous improvement in the way they manage that.

One thing that disturbs me, though — because I hear it from this member, I hear it from the opposition Health critic — is they link the closure of St. Mary's to emergency department pressures at Royal Columbian Hospital. In fact, St. Mary's never had an emergency department in living memory. Never in living memory did St. Mary's have an emergency department. So to make that false linkage….

I think they're trying to cover up for their embarrassment at doing nothing about Royal Columbian, Surrey Memorial, Abbotsford regional hospital. They did nothing for a decade, and they're trying to hide their embarrassment today.

C. Puchmayr: You know, we have over and over again said to the minister that Royal Columbian Hospital and St. Mary's Hospital did work in tandem. They had operating theatres that they could open during an overflow such as the overflows that are happening now, as opposed to cancelling the many surgeries.

The Minister of Health needs to go back and look at his own record. In January 2004 the Fraser region ER chiefs warned the Liberal MLAs that overcrowding was threatening patient safety. In May of '04 the B.C. Liberals ignored the warning and closed St. Mary's Hospital.

In April 2006 Royal Columbian ER doctors issued a public letter warning of a severe bed shortage and a crisis. February '07 — all 24 ER doctors sent this Health Minister a letter talking about the massive overcrowding. In February 2008 the fire marshal had to intervene in Royal Columbian Hospital because patients were clogging up the doorways and the hallways. That was two months ago. Enough is enough.

When is the Health Minister going to take these concerns seriously and act so that we can save the lives of patients that are at risk today?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member taking us for a walk down memory lane. One thing he didn't do, though, was take that walk down memory lane back to the 1990s, when we used to hear repeatedly…. We used to see, repeatedly, headlines in relation to the situation….

Hon. G. Abbott: If the members want to take a walk down memory lane, they should take a real walk down memory lane. Go back to the 1990s. See headline after headline about the emergency department at Royal Columbian Hospital.

What did they do about that? Nothing. What did they do about Surrey Memorial Hospital? Nothing. What did they do about Abbotsford? Nothing. They made no investments. They're big talkers. They do nothing.

We invest. We're the ones that are creating a new Abbotsford regional hospital and cancer centre. We're….

H. Lali: My question is to the Solicitor General. Was Mr. Paul Taylor paid a performance bonus last year? If yes, how much?

I want to preface my comments by restating that this situation is unacceptable. In considering this matter in the last 48 hours, I want to state for the record my expectations of ICBC, both in dealing with this issue and in the conduct of all of their operations. I expect integrity, I expect competency, and I expect service from the organization. That is what I am asking for from the board of directors and the whole of the organization.

I am continuing to do my due diligence on this situation. I have made a second phone call to the chairman of the board of directors and asked for a meeting with the board of directors in the near future.

Well, let me remind the minister opposite. Here's Mr. Paul Taylor's record: (1) a Liberal B.C. Rail corruption scandal, (2) a Liberal convention centre scandal, (3) a Liberal ICBC corruption scandal.

Paul Taylor must have known that there was some rot that was taking place at the ICBC facility. Paul Taylor ran the Automobile Dealers Association before he became the Premier's hand-picked Deputy Finance Minister and then moved to ICBC. As a former Automobile Dealers Association chief, Paul Taylor — more than anyone else — knows that not telling the truth about accident records is an offence.

Again, to the new Solicitor General — now that the old Solicitor General is gone, and also in the interests of public accountability: will he now appropriately hold Mr. Paul Taylor, the CEO of ICBC, responsible for the Liberals' ICBC fraud scandal?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In answering the question, I want to reaffirm with the House that the board of directors of ICBC reports to me as minister and that the CEO, the chief executive officer, of ICBC reports to the board of directors.

I will say further, in answer to the member's question, that matters of personnel are matters that have to be dealt with appropriately within the law and with due respect to all of the legislation and common law around that, including issues of personal privacy.

H. Bains: According to ICBC spokesperson Doug McClelland, there was an internal investigation last year following a complaint about disposal of cars from this repair centre.

Can the Solicitor General tell this House why nothing was done six months ago when the senior management at ICBC first learned of this complaint? Can he assure this House that the Pricewaterhouse investigation has powers to find out why ICBC failed to rectify that problem when it was brought to their attention more than six months ago?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for his question. As I said, I am continuing to do my due diligence on this issue. Further to that, that is why I've asked for a meeting with the board of directors and will be discussing with them a range of issues that I have reviewed. I will include all of the issues that I think are relevant in that meeting.

H. Bains: You know, the public is looking for more than just a friendly phone call to a chair of that organization. They are asking this minister…. They're looking up to this minister to do some proactive duties that he ought to do, so that he could ensure that the confidence and trust of the public, which has been broken through this scandal, is restored. It's your job. You haven't been doing it so far.

My question is this. How can he assure the public that Pricewaterhouse has the powers that they need to get to the bottom of this scandal if we don't know what they have been asked to investigate? Will the Solicitor General release the terms of reference so the public can be assured that they have the power needed and a scope wide enough that we can get to the bottom of this scandal?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure the member, the public and the members of this House that all of my actions will be predicated on doing what I believe I need to do to restore public confidence in ICBC.

Secondly, I want to confirm for the member that I have read the terms of reference, and those issues that are within the terms of reference will form part of my discussion with the board of directors.

Further to that, I want to confirm that my expectation of PricewaterhouseCoopers as an independent, reputable, external auditing firm includes that their investigation and report includes all of the matters that they consider relevant to this issue.

L. Krog: We are learning more each day about the business activities of the former Solicitor General and his friends. It is alleged they were skirting the ALR rules. It is the Minister of Agriculture who is responsible for the policies of the ALR. So to the minister, very simply: what is he actually doing to protect the ALR lands from being subdivided into two-acre estates?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, as critic, knows that this is a matter that is being investigated. He knows full well what the advice from the criminal justice branch has been about the appropriateness of commenting during that period.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister wasn't listening to the question — not an unusual occurrence in this House.

This is about people skirting the rules. You don't even have to get this land excluded from the ALR. The minister has the public trust for a cherished B.C. institution. So what steps is he taking to stop the avoidance of the ALR rules?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll again refer the member to the statement from the criminal justice branch dated March 28, 2008, and quote the final paragraph…

Hon. M. de Jong: …referring to the subject matter of the release: "As this matter is currently with the

special prosecutor, it would not be appropriate to comment any further at this time."

S. Fraser: According to the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, not only is this government not going to implement the Aquaculture Committee's recommendations, but suggested that B.C. would be better off ending the commercial wild fishery. Instead of protecting wild salmon from fish farms, the member said that people who want to save wild salmon should "stop hunting them commercially as food."

My question is a simple one to the Minister of Agriculture. Is it his government's policy or plan to bring an end to the commercial fishery in favour of fish farms?

Hon. P. Bell: The member opposite should full well know that fisheries licensing issues as they relate to wild salmon are the responsibility of the federal government.

S. Fraser: I'm going to try one, hon. Speaker. That's like a "before the courts" kind of answer.

We've got a bunch of contradictions here. The minister has a responsibility in this province also to protect wild salmon. There's a contradiction here that's following contradiction. The minister, just a few weeks ago, said no fallowing in the Broughton to protect the salmon. Instead, use neurotoxins, which I'm sure will please our guests here today. Now we have the vice-Chair of the Sustainable Aquaculture Committee stating that fish farms should be given priority over wild fisheries.

Again, to the minister: will he denounce those statements from the vice-Chair of the Sustainable Aquaculture Committee, or is his government indeed planning on a closure of the commercial fisheries in this province?

Hon. P. Bell: The member's first question was whether or not we were going to close the commercial fishery, which is clearly the responsibility of the federal government.

Let me talk about the aquaculture plan that we are in the process of developing with the First Nations Leadership Council. Everything is on the table of this aquaculture plan. We are working closely with the first nations community. There is a good relationship developing. We think there is a future for a comprehensive plan that is done in a collaborative way with first nations.

I might add that members on that side of the House are only interested in one thing. It's their way or the highway. This government is going to work with first nations to have a plan that makes sense for all British Columbians.

G. Robertson: I'll leave the fishy business aside and get straight to the issue of cancer. Today the Canadian Cancer Society released polling that shows that three-quarters of people in B.C. support this government passing legislation to restrict the use and sale of cosmetic pesticides. Some 6,000 Canadians will be acutely poisoned by pesticides this year, half of them under the age of six. The impacts of chronic exposure are even more tragic.

Over 130 municipalities across this country have responded and passed bylaws banning non-essential pesticide use. In B.C. we have no meaningful provincial legislation to protect children from toxins like deadly pesticides.

Will the Minister of Health stand up for the health of our children and support a ban on the cosmetic uses of pesticides provincewide?

Yesterday Ministry of Environment staff had a chance to meet with representatives of the Canadian Cancer Society, and I also had a chance to drop in on that meeting. We had a good discussion, and it wasn't our first one. Ministry staff have been working on this issue for quite some time.

The member needs to know that pesticides that are used in British Columbia can only be used if they've first been approved and registered by Health Canada, who have experts on staff that analyze these things. We have requested that Health Canada review….

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps I, more than most people, think that cancer is a serious issue, so I hope that members will refrain from heckling.

We have requested that Health Canada review whether the use of herbicide fertilizer lawn products should be discontinued. In addition, in 2005 we enacted the new Integrated Pest Management Act, along with regulations that encourage the use of alternatives

to pesticides. For the first time it also requires notification and consent from individuals before pesticides can be used around their property. In addition, it also requires notification to schools before those substances can be used.

We've done a lot of things that the NDP didn't think about doing during their ten years in government. My staff are continuing to work with Health Canada to look for even more protections for British Columbians.

G. Robertson: The Canadian Cancer Society's poll also showed that an astounding 97 percent of British Columbians would support legislation that requires labelling of all products that contain carcinogens. These right-to-know laws are now common in Europe and being worked on and developed in Ontario and Quebec.

The Premier said this morning at breakfast that fighting cancer is not a partisan issue. In that same spirit, I introduced comprehensive legislation last fall to regulate toxins and mandate clear labelling in British Columbia. Citizens want action.

Will the Minister of Health agree to support legislation that regulates toxins and right-to-know labelling this month?

Hon. B. Penner: As I said, the Ministry of Environment staff have been working with the Canadian Cancer Society and with their counterparts across Canada on a whole range of issues dealing with pesticides and also toxics. Here in British Columbia the ministry has already put in place a number of regulations to curtail the hazards that are faced by individuals when it comes to toxics, such as the hazardous waste regulation, the contaminated sites regulation, the organic material recycling regulation and various codes of practice that our government has implemented under the Environmental Management Act.

I accept that there's always more that we can consider doing, because we always are looking for the best available science. Ministry staff have been directed by me to gather up that science from across Canada — I understand that there have been some initiatives undertaken in Quebec recently — and those things are being considered.

K. Conroy: For over 15 years the community of Christina Lake has said no to the development of Cascade Falls. Thousands of citizens from the region have said no. The local municipalities have said no. The regional districts have said no. The chambers of commerce have said no. What did this Minister of Environment do? He ignored all those voices from that region.

To the minister. We'd like to know: what does it take nowadays to get a private power project cancelled? Does it have to be close to the Lower Mainland, not near rural British Columbia? Does it have to be near the mainstream media? Or perhaps it's a thousand people close to the minister's own constituency a year away from an election.

Hon. B. Penner: The member should know that that project went through a fulsome environmental assessment review. In fact, it went on for more than a decade. I think it was the longest….

It was a very extensive environmental review. In fact, at the end of the day, I received a letter from the Washington State Department of Ecology saying that they don't have concerns for the fisheries. In fact, they think that project could result in a benefit, and it met all of our standards.

Hon. B. Penner: It didn't just pass approval from Canadian and British Columbian regulatory authorities like the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and through the Canadian environmental assessment process and those federal agencies, but it also had support from our colleagues south of the border.

What's absolutely shocking is how, when British Columbia has become a net importer of electricity because of their inaction during the 1990s, they would rather us continue to import power from coal-fired plants in Washington…

Hon. B. Penner: …and in Alberta and in Montana, supporting American and Albertan IPPs instead of Canadian ones.

Hon. B. Penner: We'll see if they'll be as enthusiastic when they hear this. "On the issue of markets…."

Hon. B. Penner: I'll quote. "On the issue of the markets, we're moving to a more open market. The generation is now becoming a competitive generating market. In terms of the business plans, it's not the government that's building the plant; it's an independent power producer. In fact, on the RFP there were 47 different projects that came in to be able to construct an IPP, and it was on a competitive basis."

So that's what's taking place. That's the Opposition House Leader that said that in 1998. The NDP's Opposition House Leader said that.

C. Trevena: Mr. Speaker, watching question period has been a group of grade 6, 7 and 8s from Linnaea School on Cortes Island. The older students were warning the younger students that they might not believe the behaviour, and I think we've lived up to that. The students are on tour in this place. They come down annually.

Today the grade 6, 7 and 8s students are here with Donna Bracewell and Sabina Leader-Mense, and I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: I am very pleased to table a document intituled the capital project plan for the integrated case management project.

N. Simons: I am pleased to present a petition from over 675 residents of the Powell River area asking for a moratorium on ferry fare increases.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate on Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, and in Section A, continued estimates debate — for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

B. Lekstrom: Just before the break at lunch I began speaking in my support of Bill 15, and that is the Utilities Commission Amendment Act.

I had heard a great deal of response at second reading from the opposition, and as I indicated earlier, I was a little bit surprised at some of what I heard. I thought, as I indicated before lunch, that they were speaking about a different bill. I heard things ranging from hospitals and schools and roads, so I was a little surprised. As I said earlier, I went back and rechecked to make sure that Bill 15 really was the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, and it was.

This bill is about a lot of things, and it's about something that is good for British Columbia. I want to reiterate what I began. It's about the government's energy objectives. I heard a lot of people, and I'm having to believe that the opposition is opposing this bill, but we'll see during the vote. Our energy objectives…. This bill lays out what we want.

I'll just point out a couple of those: to encourage public utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions — a pretty good objective; to encourage public utilities to take demand-side measures — another very good move; to encourage public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable sources. Those are just a few of the actions of this bill. So to hear that people believe the end of the world is about to happen if this bill passes surprises me. It surprises me in a way…. Possibly they didn't read the bill. I'm not sure. Maybe they read a different bill and have misinterpreted it to be Bill 15.

I also heard many of them talk about the great legacy of W.A.C. Bennett, and I support that legacy. Much of it is in my area. The W.A.C. Bennett dam is, I believe, one of the great hydroelectric projects that this province has ever seen, and the Peace Canyon dam that followed.

But I have to believe, in hearing the support that I heard for W.A.C. Bennett from the opposition…. Yes, people have to believe me. That's what was said. They supported what W.A.C. Bennett did, the legacy he had with B.C. Hydro and his vision, and I support that. I have to believe that they support the development of

Site C, and I want to thank the opposition for that. That is certainly something that is under discussion at the present time. There is a great deal of interest, and it's going to carry on for some time.

The member for Yale-Lillooet surprised me. He's a person that I would call a friend. He obviously sees politics a little differently than me, but he jumped up and was railing on — I believe there was the word "cowardly"; possibly I misunderstood him — about what we were doing to sell out British Columbians with this bill.

This is a gentleman that wouldn't show up for a vote, and I was a little surprised. So friend or not, I think you've got to be careful who you speak to and how you speak when you don't have the conviction to stand up for what's right in this chamber.

There's also, under section 58 of the bill…. I know we'll get into it at committee stage. Section 58 actually deals with the rate rebalancing. Section 58 is actually going to save British Columbians from an 11 percent rate hike. That's what the opposition is opposing, and for the life of me, I'm not sure why. I look forward to hearing at committee stage under section 58 why they would oppose that. An 11 percent increase is what you're saying that you want British Columbians to have. So I do look forward to that and am going to, I guess with great interest, hear what they have to say.

Also, the talk about power. I think it's accepted that we need to produce more power. I also am somewhat surprised that there seems to be opposition to self-sufficiency. I think there is a need to be self-sufficient in British Columbia. I understand when you talk about buying and being able to buy power on the open market. We do it now, and we do it very effectively to the benefit of British Columbians.

But ask yourself this question, whether you're a British Columbian watching today, whether you're a member of the opposition or a member of our government. The question I ask myself is: what takes place when that power isn't available on the open market? Do we turn our lights out here in British Columbia because we didn't plan and look to the future in order to be self-sufficient? I would hope we never, ever put ourselves in that situation.

The ability to become self-sufficient in power production and meet our own needs is fundamental to the well-being of every British Columbian. I look forward to meeting that. It's actually a sad day for British Columbia to realize that we aren't self-sufficient in the production of our own power needs here.

Now I do know — and I know that it's obviously for political reasons, I have to believe — that people are jumping up and rallying against Bill 15. That's what we do here. I do want to point out that the last major development of a power production facility, by the New Democrats in the mid-1990s, was Pakistan. Pakistan. I have to ask myself why. I don't think it got off the ground, but I can tell you there were tens of millions of dollars — millions of taxpayers' dollars, and British Columbians that funded that. So I have to actually kind of wonder what's going away.

Giving away ownership of the rivers. I've heard that from virtually every speaker on the opposition side. Giving away ownership of our rivers. That's nonsense. It's misleading the public. It's actually not telling the truth. There's no selling of rivers here. I'm sure you're aware of water licences.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we are very careful in our language around truthfulness and issues like that, so be careful.

B. Lekstrom: Okay, but I do believe it isn't truthful to say we're selling the rivers, Madam Speaker, and that's factual.

B. Lekstrom: We're not selling rivers, Madam Speaker. There are water licences. That's what they're called.

I'll carry on. The issue of ownership of these rivers is always in the hands of the public — always. What we have is…. Again, I look forward to the debate at committee stage. I have to believe that the opposition opposes any water licence in this province. God help our agricultural community if that's the case that the opposition stands on. God help them.

The issue of Bill 15…. I'm not going to take a great deal of time, because I do look forward to committee stage on this. I do hope to hear some of the reasons that will back up second reading debate here.

This is a good bill. It isn't about IPPs. It's about the Utilities Commission Amendment Act. I do want to lay that out. It lays it out, and I encourage British Columbians — the people listening today and the ones that may see a rerun of this — that you don't have to take my word. You don't have to take the word of the opposition. I encourage you to pick up the bill. Read the bill and make up your mind for yourself. If you have questions, contact your MLA. Contact people in the know. But I encourage you. Read the bill. That's what it's all about.

So to sum up, and I'll close… There is no selling of any rivers in British Columbia as you heard. There are water licenses that will go on, and hopefully the opposition would support water licenses. Self-sufficiency is something I would hope we would all strive for, every one of us, because the day will be there when the open market doesn't have power for us to buy, and if that happens, I have to believe that everyone in this room wants to ensure that the people that call themselves British Columbians and live here have power to meet their needs.

The rate rebalancing under section 58, I hope that…. Again, I'll have to wait until I see the vote, but if the opposition votes against this, they're saying they want to increase the residential rates in this province by 11 percent. That's not working on behalf of British Columbians.

I'll close by saying that I wholeheartedly support Bill 15. I support the ability for our province to once again be self-sufficient in power. I support the impact

that this bill will have. I certainly support encouraging public utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encouraging public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable resources. I encourage what this bill does, and I encourage all members of this House to support this bill.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I will close debate on second reading of the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008. I was going to do a relatively short closing. When we first talked about this bill in the House, there were going to be four speakers, and we were going to actually look at it objectively.

After listening all yesterday afternoon and this morning to things that my colleague from Peace River South just talked about that…. Members of the opposition talk about: "This is selling B.C. Hydro. It's selling rivers. It's privatizing B.C. Hydro. It's privatizing BCTC." None of those names or any of that is in this bill.

I've been here long enough to know that we can get pretty wide-ranging, and I accept that. That's part of the debate in this House, but I think it's also…. I think, as members of the Legislature, we can do that wide-ranging debate, but I would hope that in most cases people would read the legislation, understand it to the degree that they can and speak to those points, and be wide-ranging about what they think about their policies.

You know, the NDP could maybe lay out for us what they think an energy policy should be. I've been here since 1991. I've never heard of an energy policy from the NDP, but yesterday afternoon and this morning I listened to a wide-ranging debate of almost everything that you can imagine, to even logs — dealing with, I don't know, timber. I don't see anything in the bill, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, that deals with logs. Nothing. I don't see anything in the legislation that deals with selling anything.

The Utilities Commission Act is there to actually regulate utilities. I know my critic, the member opposite, understands that. He's been around this House for a long time, working for the NDP prior to us becoming government. So I know he understands that.

To stand here in the House and talk about things that I heard from some of the members about what this bill is about — and trying to actually, I think, instil some fear in people about what the Utilities Commission Act is all about — is probably a bit unfair.

I agree with wide-ranging debate. The member for Yale-Lillooet…. It's always interesting when the member for Yale-Lillooet gets up and speaks, because he is a little bit shy on some of the knowledge, obviously, about this bill, but he never passes up the opportunity to actually attack me.

It's always interesting. I'm used to it. I've got pretty thick skin by now. I've been here for quite a while. I've been here since 1991. Those personal attacks on me aren't required in this room. I'm as proud today to be an MLA, a B.C. Liberal MLA, as I was proud to be a Socred MLA in the early 1990s.

When the member for Yale-Lillooet says that I don't stand up for people, I want to tell you: I do have the gonads to stand up and vote. I have stood up in this House. I have never backed down from an issue, ever. I have seen that member run, tail between his legs, back to Yale-Lillooet when we actually brought a pension bill in here that he didn't have the courage to stand up and vote about.

I stood here in the mid-1990s when that kind of thing was cancelled. I stood and voted. I stood and voted on things that were difficult for me to vote for or against. I can tell you that sometimes I voted with the NDP because they did have some good ideas once in a while, and I actually voted with them.

But to constantly listen to that barrage is just a little bit too much. I don't need that. The people don't need that. It's got nothing to do with the bill.

Talk about doing things? There was hardly a dollar spent on roads in northeastern British Columbia until this guy came to the room. We hardly had any money spent in northeastern British Columbia on roads. We had hardly anything spent on generation in the province. We had nothing spent on hospitals or seniors. That member should know.

Today we're going to build a brand new hospital in Fort St. John. We're building for seniors in Fort St. John, and we're doing that because the province is doing well. This government is looking after the store to make sure, with this B.C. Utilities Commission Act, that we move forward, that we have enough electricity in the province to meet our needs. I'm not shy to say that.

I have heard speaker after speaker stand and say that this is not in the public interest. Let me read a little bit of the bill. All this does is amend the act to put in sections of the energy plan so that the B.C. Utilities Commission actually knows what they have to look at.

So let me read it. It's "to encourage public utilities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions." Is that not in the public interest? I guess it's only this side of the House that thinks that's in the public interest. That side of the House…. I can only assume — when they're going to vote against it; they all spoke against it; no one spoke in favour of it — that they don't believe that it's in the public interest to actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It's "to encourage public utilities to make demand-side measures." That's to curb use. I heard everybody on that side of the House and the opposition speak against it. I think that's in the public interest. I think that we ought to be able to look at how we use our electricity and how carefully we should use our electricity and our natural gas, and our public utilities ought to be able to do that.

It also says: "…to encourage public utilities to produce, generate and acquire electricity from clean or renewable sources." That's not in the public interest? I guess in the NDP mantra, in the socialist world, it's not.

In my world it is. In the government's world, it is important that we do those things.

Next, it's "to encourage public utilities to develop adequate electricity transmission infrastructure and capacity in the time required to serve persons who receive or may receive service from a public utility." My goodness, how can that not be in the public interest?

I guess that only the opposition would think that's not in the public interest. I can't imagine that…. Shouldn't we plan? I know they ran pillar to post during the 1990s. I know they weren't sure where to build or not to build. I know they went to Pakistan thinking they were building, I guess, for people in British Columbia — because they built a plant in Pakistan. I don't know. But to me it's important. Planning is important. I think the public tells us that we better plan.

We look at our budgets three years out. The Minister of Finance has that all figured out for us — how we're going to actually meet and stay within our budget limits. I think that's important. I guess the NDP doesn't think it's important.

Hey, to encourage public utilities to use innovative energy technology that facilitates electricity self-sufficiency or the fulfilment of their long-term transmission requirements or that supports energy conservation or efficiency or the use of clean or renewable sources of energy….

I think there was one member who talked about conservation on that side of the House. No one over on that side of the House thinks we should have any conservation.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I heard the critic actually say that's not true. Well, let me take him back to the 1990s when they cancelled out the Power Smart program in B.C. Hydro.

I know. I have the numbers. The smart ones from the NDP actually cancelled the Power Smart program within B.C. Hydro because they don't care about conservation. None of them spoke about conservation.

I think it's important for British Columbians to conserve energy and to encourage public utilities to take prescribed actions in support of any other goals prescribed by regulation. That's what the bill is about. It's not about selling B.C. Hydro.

As I recall…. I've been in this House long enough to know that it was the NDP that actually had a discussion at one of their party meetings that we got notes from that talked about selling B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro, ICBC — all of them. If there was anybody in this House that was going to sell B.C. Hydro, it was the members opposite.

I remember clearly that there was a piece of legislation here in this House that would have allowed it — while the NDP were here, during the 1990s. I took a stand. This government took a stand. We brought that bill to the House and said: "You can't sell B.C. Hydro. You cannot sell BCTC. In fact, they will remain in the public realm." We put a bill in place that actually said that. The NDP had a bill where they could have moved it out without even coming to the House, and they darn near did. If anybody was looking at selling B.C. Hydro, it was the NDP, so it's interesting to listen to the members opposite talk about this bill.

Let's look at rate rebalancing. I know the member for Peace River South actually left….

I hope that after reading those first ones and talking about the public interest, we'll actually have the NDP get up and say: "You know what? It's not that bad a bill. It actually makes sense. It is in the public interest, and I better vote for it." I hope that takes place. I hope there's a moment…. Maybe they forget their socialist roots and come forward and say: "You know what? We think this bill is actually a good bill."

If they vote against it, they're actually voting for an increase to residential rates of 11 percent. That's what they're doing. They all talked about rates here a bit, but that's what they're doing. They'd be voting for a rate increase. Not only that. For irrigation for farmers…. Listening to the NDP talk about how they're the defenders of the farm community — my goodness — and they're great stewards of the land and everything…. There would have been a 20 percent increase to those farmers that irrigate their land if we had not stopped that rate rebalancing.

The whole works of you across the way all say you're going to vote against the bill. So you're in favour of increasing to farmers 20 percent. You're in favour of increasing to the residential 11 percent. You don't care. You never cared before. I don't imagine why you should start caring now.

It was interesting. I also heard a little bit of stuff about smart meters. In fact, the critic across the way called them a gimmick. What a term. Then, of course, his colleagues who hadn't read the bill were actually reading from the Blues — I saw that this morning — so that they could make their speech. I appreciate that, so they could actually reiterate what somebody else said that they think was classic. Great thinkers really think on their feet and really get at her and understand what an amendment to the Utilities Commission Act is.

Smart meters. You know, almost every jurisdiction in the world is actually putting them in now, has had them for a while. We're actually a bit behind. I guess the members want to go back to the 17th and 18th centuries. I don't know. The Stone Age, the Dark Age. I'm not sure. You know, there's new technology out there. There's new technology. You should embrace some of that.

Actually, some of that technology is here in British Columbia. Why aren't you proud about the technology that's developed in British Columbia — the people that have jobs doing those kinds of things? Why don't you actually say: "Wow. We could lead the world"? Under this government, we could. Under your government,

we'd go back to the 17th century, I guess, because they think they're a gimmick.

But whether you're in Europe, where the price of electricity is sometimes five times as high as it is here, they're actually using smart meters.

The member for Surrey-Whalley, who is sitting in the back corner over there, says: "That's where we want to take British Columbia." That's entirely incorrect. His whole speech was entirely incorrect.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, don't refer to people — whether they're in or out of the House please.

I think members have to be in their seat to heckle too. Right, Mr. Speaker? Would that be correct?

We'll get back to smart meters. Jurisdictions from all over the world are doing this. In Europe smart meters actually….

I understand that the NDP has trouble keeping up to this, but Hydro has been doing a program of smart meters for a couple of years. They've been testing them across the province, even on Vancouver Island. The critic ought to know that. They're doing it on Vancouver Island. In fact, I think Campbell River won last year. I don't know…. That's a little bit further north from where the member lives. But he ought to know. In the process, Campbell River, I think, won. Fort St. John actually came in a very close second in conserving energy on peak, and that's what we're trying to do.

So when you look at smart meters, what people can do in their homes is actually see how much electricity they're drawing and when they're drawing it. If you can move electricity from on peak to off peak, you don't have to build so much generation.

Right now we have to build ten to 15 percent over and above peak. If we can move some of that off peak, that means we have to use less electricity. That's what a smart meter is all about. That's showing people to use electricity a little bit wiser, to think about it in a different way, not the old way that the NDP have — that we just have oodles and tons of electricity; just use whatever you want, wherever you want, how much you want and just carry on. That was the old way. That was the 17th-century way.

Get into the new world, folks. There is a new world out there. There's a different way of doing things, and you can actually manage your electricity demand a lot better.

My home is on that system, on peak and off peak. You pay more for electricity on peak than off peak. Let me tell you, it sends a message to you. Turn the lights off when you leave the room. Unplug what you're not using. Do those kinds of things.

It's always good to hear the member opposite, my critic, talk about wanting to go back to the dark ages. But there is a new age, and there's a new way of doing things. I know that the NDP are not keen about doing anything in the new way. They'd rather stay with the old way.

Let's talk a little bit, because this is part of the bill too, about sustainability. The interesting part is that I had heard from all the members across the way — I guess it was because it was started from the critic — that we shouldn't be self-sufficient. That's exactly what he said. In fact, you know, he said it's lunacy. This is his word; it's not mine. The critic said it's lunacy to be self-sufficient. Can you imagine anything more loony than not being self-sufficient?

The public understands that we should be self-sufficient. The public understands it. Fred and Martha, who haven't even had a chance to read this bill, understand it. But for the NDP with their old socialist ways, it's: "We don't want any new technology. We don't want to curb greenhouse gases. We don't want to look at conservation. We just want to continue to pollute and run all over the land." That's the good old Karl Marx way. They're right on tap; they're working. It's called the flat earth society.

It's amazing that someone in this House should stand up and say we shouldn't have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to keep these lights on — our lights in our house and all the things that we depend on with electricity. That is lunacy. I can't imagine how someone can think we shouldn't have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to actually meet our needs. Why in the world wouldn't we do that?

They also waxed on about W.A.C. Bennett and building the dams and how great that was, and it is. We have a system that is second to none in North America, a system that we're proud of. I just wish the opposition would start being proud of it. I wish they'd start thinking about how good a system this is and how we should maintain it and how we have to build more generation in the province of British Columbia to meet the needs of British Columbians well into the future.

I just wish that little pearl would come out and that people over on that side of the House would actually say: "You know what? I think we should have enough electricity in British Columbia to keep our lights on." So what we do to actually do that is build generation in the province of British Columbia. I don't know. They're even against that. You don't even want to build generation in British Columbia.

You know, it's just amazing. What you say is: "Well, we're hooked into a North American grid, and we're on a market system." No, we're not on a market system, but we buy and sell into a market system. We're on a cost-base system, and that's good enough. We should continue to buy from Alberta. We should continue to buy from south of the border, the United States. As our needs continue to grow and we get shorter and shorter and shorter of electricity, we should be okay with that because — you know what? — someone else is going to build it for me. That's their thought process.

There they are saying how terrible private power developers are. Every one of them stood up and trashed every private sector thing that's happened in the province of British Columbia through their talk. I know they hate the private sector. I know they don't want business. I know what happened in British

Columbia in the '90s. I watched as companies that started their business in northeastern British Columbia actually left B.C. and went to Alberta.

And you know what? We'll get that back, if you ever elect this group across the way again. It will happen again. They'll leave quicker than you can imagine. The wealth and the jobs and all of those kinds of things that we enjoy in the province of British Columbia — record spending on health and education and social services — will be once again gone. They'll be once again gone.

I just can't for the life of me understand how you would not want to actually have the generation in B.C., the jobs, the investment. The people across the province of British Columbia — actually, they're proud of it. The people in British Columbia are proud of our generation capability. They're proud of B.C. Hydro.

What we find from the NDP is that they're against it. So if you want to be dependent on the United States, you guys go ahead. Nothing wrong with the United States, but you can be dependent on them. Be dependent on them for whatever you want.

But I'll tell you, Fred and Martha actually want us to have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to keep their lights on. This government, on this side of the House, will make darn sure that takes place.

Where I come from, 33 percent of electricity is generated in the province of British Columbia — B.C. Hydro, I should say. When all those large dams were built, we couldn't consume all that energy. We had a huge excess of electricity. We sold it to the Americans in long term. It was a great deal, and I know the members actually supported that. They said: "That's great."

But what really confuses me is that back then, when we had a huge excess of electricity, the NDP supported it. But today we're short of electricity. We're actually net importers of electricity. They say: "We're okay with that. We shouldn't build anymore in the province of British Columbia."

Well, they talked about selling electricity as apples. "If you can sell lots of apples," I think one of the member says, "what's the matter with doing that?" I say the same thing. What in the world is the matter with doing that? Why don't we build some more generation in the province of British Columbia so that we can sell it?

You know, in the 1990s the NDP built only about 11 percent of generation in the province. They actually built one in Pakistan, but in the province of British Columbia, for British Columbians, they only built 11 percent of what we needed for growth. Is it any wonder that today we're short?

These numbers come from and are verified by the B.C. Utilities Commission. These numbers are verified by B.C. Hydro. They put them forward, not me. They do it through an integrated electricity plan.

The B.C. Utilities Commission reviews that to make sure those things are right, and they are right. But in 2001 we were short 1,993 gigawatt hours of electricity. Multiplying that by a hundred tells you how many average houses you can actually light up. In 2002 we were short 5,238 gigawatt hours. In 2003 we were short 1,754 gigawatt hours. In 2004 we were short 5,118 gigawatt hours. In '05 we were short 7,381 gigawatt hours. In 2006, 4,352 gigawatt hours — and they're okay with that.

So 4,352 — let me put this in context a bit for the NDP, but also for Fred and Martha.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yeah, you wouldn't know anything about Fred and Martha. They're the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia. You never did care about them.

So let me put this in context. A Site C — one day they're for it; one day they're against it. You never know. The leader says one thing, someone else says another, and someone else says another. But a Site C would produce 4,600 gigawatt hours.

We need 30,000 gigawatt hours in the next 25 years to meet load demand. And you know what? Today we consume 55,000 gigawatt hours, and the NDP say, "Don't worry about it. Don't build anything. We'll be okay. We'll just depend on the market south of us, and we'll depend on the market in Alberta" — until Alberta started talking about building a nuclear plant. Then the Leader of the Opposition wrote me a letter and said: "You better oppose that."

You know, everyone around us is building new generation because they're consuming more. The population is growing — surprise, surprise folks. We should actually have enough electricity in the province of British Columbia to meet our own needs.

I mean, it got crazy enough that we had members starting to talk about deals with Enron and with Alcan. You know that the only group in this House that sold to Enron was the NDP, when they were in power. That was the only group that sold to Enron in this House. They're up there talking about how terrible it is.

You know what? They were great at selling electricity; they sold lots of it. They just couldn't collect for it. You know, we're still owed $300 million U.S. for electricity that was sold in the 1990s by that group of financial wizards across the way. The whole works of them are so smart. They can sell it, but they can't collect. The whole works of them are that bad.

Hon. R. Neufeld: W.A.C. Bennett said they couldn't run a popcorn stand, and nothing could be more truthful.

I want to read what my critic said about self-sufficiency, the notion that self-sufficiency is a priority. This is a quote from my critic, on the fifth of October of '07. "My parents grew up in the Depression. My mom

taught me to take care of myself. Make sure you've got enough stuff in the larder, and that sort of thing."

I think in his heart he knows that. I think he's been taught that, and I think he'll stand up and vote for this because he knows it's the right thing to do to be self-sufficient in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole House for the next sitting after today.

Bill 15, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2008, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. T. Christensen: I call committee stage on Bill 11, the Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; S. Hammell in the chair.

J. Brar: This bill talks about a lot of housekeeping items, but for your reference, Madam Chair, I do have questions on sections 1, 2, 4, 10, 12 and 14. My colleagues may have questions on other sections as well. Just for the information of the Chair, I have questions on those sections.

The first one I would like to ask the minister to clarify, if the minister can provide a clarification on section 1, is about the assessment roll number — what it means and if there's any example that the minister can provide.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm advised that it is a number on the roll that will identify and designate the properties that will fall under this area.

J. Brar: I understand that piece, because that's written in the piece of proposed legislation.

Can the minister provide any example of a particular roll number so that a common person can understand what it means?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It will be an identifier that will be used to identify a particular individual piece of property that will have been identified as a result of regulations that this type of property will fall under.

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister once again. Does that mean that every property in the province will have an assessment roll number?

J. Brar: Section 2 actually adds four different definitions in this section, which include accommodation unit, eligible supportive housing property, leasehold accommodation property and leasehold unit. My first

question to the minister is: can the minister tell us what is the purpose of adding these definitions?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's so that we can identify, by definition, which pertains to each piece of property.

J. Brar: Can the minister explain what difference it is going to make, as compared to the current situation we are in, and when these definitions will be implemented?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The first definition, the eligible supportive housing property, will be identified and defined by order-in-council. That will flow through my ministry as we are responsible for B.C. Assessment. We will receive the definition of eligible supportive housing from the Ministry Responsible for Housing, and then because we administer working with B.C. Assessment — we have the ministerial responsibilities — that will flow through on an order-in-council.

With respect to the leasehold, the next three items.… They are definitions that are used for split-class-property identification. Split-class-property identification is split based on usage, very similar to what we've done with strata properties when we made amendments to the Assessment Act. I believe it was last spring.

J. Brar: To make my question probably more clear, this act proposed to amend and add four new definitions. Can the minister clarify as to what definitions we have today and how these new definitions are going to make a difference?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, all four definitions are new. The supportive housing definition is new because our government, through our throne speech, had identified the need and our position for supportive housing. Therefore, it is new.

The other three are new because they relate to properties very similar to strata properties that were defined in the amendments to the Assessment Act last year — strata properties and, quite frankly, the leased properties. The leased properties were overlooked. They were overlooked when we made the changes. If they hadn't been overlooked last spring, they would have been in the definitions and legislation of last spring.

As we worked through the implementation, we were advised, I believe, both by B.C. Assessment and by the ministry that there had been an oversight, so this oversight we are correcting with these three definition amendments that follow after this supportive housing property item.

J. Brar: The minister is proposing now these new definitions. I understand the intent is that these definitions are going to specifically create new categories and also clarify as per the properties concerned. But today or in the past there were units we can call accommodation units. There were leasehold units as well. So in what category did they fall before this? That's my question.

Hon. R. Thorpe: With respect to the leaseholds, they, like the other strata properties or a large percentage of the strata properties, fell into class 6. Class 6 is business. When we made the amendments last year to strata property, it was based on making a shift based on usage. Some of it could stay in class 6. Some of it could go to class 1. That's what we did in the spring with the amendments last year.

What these definitions now do with respect to leaseholds is provide the exact same treatment as the strata properties — the short-term overnight stays. They will now be split between business and residential based on use, because quite frankly, it was overlooked when we did the amendments last spring.

When we talk about the accommodation units, two particular categories come to my mind: hotels and motels. Can the minister provide some sort of list of what other properties will fall under the accommodation units?

Hon. R. Thorpe: These are what we call — which I have learned they are called — short-term overnight accommodations, or in the industry, STOCAPs. Of course, there are always going to be exceptions, but for the most part, they find themselves in resort-type settings and have been a very important part of facilitating accommodation both for residents and for the tourism sector.

What we did in the spring last year and what this also accommodates with respect to the leaseholds…. If an individual has one of these properties, and they use it for a certain number of days, that information is then filtered through to B.C. Assessment, and when it's used for personal use, it will be deemed residential, which is class 1. When it is actually used for business purposes, tourism-attraction purposes, it's a commercial activity, and then it would be deemed to be in class 6 and be taxed accordingly.

J. Brar: The eligible supportive housing property, as the proposed act defines, means somewhere where a person who receives housing funding from the government lives. I understand that piece.

My question is: will that designation be automatic, or will it be through a particular regulation from the cabinet or what authority?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It will be a specific regulation. That regulation will flow from our ministry through to order-in-council, but it will be based on the information we receive from the Minister/Ministry Responsible for Housing.

They will bring forward from time to time what will be identified as supportive housing. Of course, that will evolve over time as the supportive housing approach is developed and expanded throughout British Columbia to serve the needs that members on our side of the House, members on the other side of the House and municipal leadership have identified as

a result of homelessness, those with addictions and those, perhaps, with physical disabilities and/or mental health concerns.

J. Brar: I'm a little confused with the response, and I would certainly request a clarification from the minister. As I understand from the explanation by the minister, it seems like this will be a process just within different ministries, identifying particularly the Ministry Responsible for Housing and the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue.

My question is: is there any other additional process — any individual or any organization which received funding has to go through a process — whether it's a licensing process or requesting that property, based on this act, as designating supportive housing property?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important for us to know that — I will quote the throne speech of 2007: "A new assessment class and new tax exemptions for small-unit, supportive housing will be developed over the next year for this Legislature's consideration."

That supportive housing will not come through an application process, but it will become…. The recommendations and the policy responsibility will fall within the housing and policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry Responsible for Housing.

They will, through their policy, recognize supportive housing such as properties that are funded by one of several provincial housing program; have conditions for residency that may include or could include low income, mental or physical disabilities, drug or alcohol addiction and provide on-site supportive service; have self-contained housing units. At this point in time I think it's envisaged as, generally, no more than 450 square feet of floor space.

That is generally where we are. That is what we believe will fulfil our commitment to British Columbians, as outlined in the throne speech of 2007.

J. Brar: My understanding, based on the response from the hon. minister, is that this is a process. When we talk about eligible supportive housing property, this is a process taking place within different ministries. In other words, that no individual or any organization is not part of that process when the government is going to define the eligible supportive housing property. That's my understanding from the response.

This act suggests that the eligible supportive housing property will be a property where someone has received funding from the government. So my question is: wherever somebody has received funding, will that be automatically going through the ministry process and getting the designation, or is there any discretionary power with the ministry to say no? If that's the answer, what will that be?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important to recognize that the criterion I outlined a little earlier is that the housing policy branch from the Ministry of Forests and Range responsible for housing recognizes supportive housing, and I've talked about that.

Right now, of course, we're trying to pass the legislation so that we can then go forward through regulation with the policy development of the housing branch — to bring that forward so that we can actually identify the one set of criteria. The preliminary work of the housing branch indicates that at the present time throughout the province of British Columbia there would be between 80 and 100 properties that would fall into this new supportive housing assessment class.

Now, I gathered that the member is wondering why there is one branch of government looking after the policy. The reason they're doing that is because they are the Ministry Responsible for Housing. That's why they're doing that.

We are the ministry responsible for the administration, through our Crown corporation called B.C. Assessment. Therefore, as the minister responsible for B.C. Assessment I must bring forward that order-in-council that will define and then earmark which of the properties in British Columbia will be defined as new supportive housing classifications.

I believe I've gone through the criteria as the policy thoughts at this point in time are envisaged to provide eligibility for those new supportive housing units.

J. Brar: I think the intent of the regulation is clear in this piece of proposed legislation. It states that "eligible supportive housing property…means property that is used by or on behalf of a person who received funding from the government in the preceding calendar year for the provision of supportive housing on that property."

My take on that one is that this is something automatic. The person who received funding…. That property will automatically get this designation called eligible supportive housing property. I'm not clear about that, Minister, yet. If you don't have a clear policy at this point in time, then it is a question.

What I want to know is: is that automatic, or is there or could there be any discretionary power with the Minister of Housing, if it's the case that they can deny someone who has funding from the government?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I believe the member is talking about section 2, where section 19 is amended — the eligible supportive housing property area. I think it's important that we focus in on the first word. The first word is "eligible." It's not automatic that everybody gets it. They have to be eligible. That eligibility kicks off by what I have alluded to as what is seen at this time by the housing policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and Ministry Responsible for Housing as they see supportive housing today.

I will go over those: "…as part of the eligibility, are funded by one of several provincial housing programs, have conditions for residency that include low income, mental or physical disability, drug or alcohol addiction, provide on-site services, have self-contained housing units that are generally no more than 450 square feet in

floor space and do not include housing units that are intended primarily for seniors."

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister for trying to clarify an issue which is a bit confusing.

Can the minister clarify whether both "leasehold unit" and "leasehold accommodation property" refer to rental property?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm sorry. I did not hear the question, hon. Chair. If the member could repeat the question.

J. Brar: There are two categories. One is a "leasehold unit," as defined under section 2. The second one is what we call "leasehold accommodation property." My question was if the minister can clarify whether both definitions refer to rental property.

Hon. R. Thorpe: On the assumption that I have understood the member's question with respect to the leaseholds, it's my understanding — I've been advised — that the overall complex is owned by one entity but the units are within that entity. Leases are entered into on an individual basis, a 99-year basis.

J. Brar: I'll move on to the more complex — and I will call it the key — subsection of this piece of legislation, which is section 2(d), under which…. As I understand, this section provides the cabinet the ability to create a new property class for supportive housing.

My question to the minister is: can the minister tell us what the purpose of this is?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The section, 2(d), that the member refers to…. This amendment amends section 19 of the Assessment Act by adding a subsection and provides for regulation-making authority for cabinet to create a new class of property — namely, a supportive housing property class.

The amendment creates the following new paragraphs…. It allows for cabinet to prescribe supportive housing property as a class of property and by regulation designate — and there's that key word again — eligible supportive housing property to this class, rather than defining the types of uses of the property to be included in that class.

For example, if I could, a small supportive housing property intended for inclusion in the new supporting class will be specifically identified in the regulation designating this property to the new class.

J. Brar: Will this section, then, give sole power to the cabinet to designate supportive housing property as a class of property, or will there be anybody else having some sort of powers?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, this legislation is enabling legislation. Enabling legislation is brought into force through order-in-council, and the minister sponsoring an order-in-council must take that through to cabinet.

So again, let me state that the new supportive housing policy definitions will be the responsibility of the housing policy branch within the Ministry Responsible for Housing — the Ministry of Forests and Range.

They will work and will continually, I believe, be looking at some of the policy areas I talked about before which, generally speaking, address homelessness, identify addictions, mental health, a type of disabilities — folks that are receiving some form of the many different forms of assistance from the province. It's anticipated that generally they will be 450 square feet or less, and there will also be supporting services.

So that policy direction and definition will flow over to me — from the housing responsibility to the minister responsible for B.C. Assessment. I must then take forward that order-in-council to the cabinet, and cabinet will make the final decision on that.

J. Brar: I understand there will be a lot of processes before the proposal goes to the cabinet. But at the end of the day, as I understand it, it is the responsibility — the power — of the cabinet to designate a particular property as supportive housing property. That's my understanding.

Having said that, I understand the intent, because what we have in the province, as the minister indicated before, is an issue of homelessness, mental illness, addiction services and the number of homeless people going up significantly. In fact, as per the latest report, we have more than 15,000 people in the province who are homeless. So we need to work very aggressively to deal with those issues.

If you look at homelessness or mental health issues or addiction services, the situation in Vancouver is probably much bigger than in any other city. Of course, there are other cities — the cities of Surrey, Kelowna and Victoria. But different cities have different needs. So different cities may also want to actively deal with this problem, and they need supportive housing.

The city government, of course, is responsible for city planning and land use and all those kind of things. So will the city government be able to designate a specific property as what we call supportive housing property or not?

Hon. R. Thorpe: In the throne speech of 2007, our government clearly laid out that we would be doing this. But we also said that we will be encouraging local government to exempt small-unit supportive housing projects from development costs, charges and levies.

I think that, simply stated, we must all realize that everyone has to work together, whether it be the provincial government or local government. I think that our government has, through the Minister Responsible for Housing, demonstrated unquestionable leadership in the area of working to address this issue.

I actually believe very strongly that no member of this House believes this is a partisan issue. I believe all members of this House believe that homelessness is an issue that we have to work together at all levels of

government and all political parties. I believe all members of this House and local government want to deal with those with addictions, those with mental illness.

Therefore, I think it's very, very important to recognize that this is just one part of a wide range of options that is going to be available to communities. There's no question in my mind that there is not a one-size-fits-all answer for every community in the province of British Columbia.

That is why recently — as a matter of fact, last week — the Minister Responsible for Housing worked with the city of Kelowna to create up to 140 new supportive housing units, on three city-owned sites, to be built by 2010. The mayor of Kelowna, Her Worship Sharon Shepherd, said: "The city of Kelowna recognizes that supportive housing is needed in neighbourhoods throughout Kelowna, and we're pleased to be able to partner with the province to build capacity in our community at all levels of care."

Just another quote here. The executive director of NOW Canada Society, Liz Talbott, said: "Safe, affordable housing is a fundamental requirement for everyone, especially necessary for women and children. This development will enable NOW to provide a safe home and necessary supportive services for women with a proven financial need…."

I think it's fair to say that our government is encouraging municipalities to make, as part of their official community plans, where facilities to serve those less fortunate than all of us — whether it be as a result of homelessness, whether it be because of drug or alcohol addiction or other reasons…. I think it's important that all of us work together.

I believe, with respect to Vancouver, that our government has demonstrated its commitment to Vancouver. Most recently we've added 19 single-room-occupancy hotels in Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria totalling 1,122 beds. We are continuing to work with communities such as Kamloops, Burnaby, Victoria, Quesnel and Port Alberni, and we've committed $15 million to that.

There is a wide range of programs to address the wide range of challenges that we face as a society throughout British Columbia.

J. Brar: We are debating Bill 11, which is the Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008. We can certainly talk about the issues we have in the province. The minister may have a different opinion than me. But the minister didn't respond to my question — the question I'm going to pose again.

The city of Surrey now has over 500 homeless people. This grew significantly during the last three or four years. If the city of Surrey wants to take action today to deal with the issues the minister is talking about — whether it's homelessness, addictions, mental health issues — and provide housing for those people….

If they want to zone a particular property — we are talking about here, under this proposed piece of legislation — as a supportive housing property, do they have the ability to do it or not, once this piece of legislation becomes law?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's my understanding that they actually could do that under the Community Charter. They could give an exemption for that.

Also, all communities — whether it be the community of Surrey, which the member represents, or the community of Westbank that I represent…. If a community wants to work with the government on new supportive housing opportunities in their communities, I know very well that the Minister Responsible for Housing in British Columbia is very open to working with all British Columbians.

The Minister Responsible for Housing knows that by working in partnership, we can create solutions within communities. So we will continue to work.

But again, to answer the member's question, the municipalities can give full tax exemptions, should they choose, under the Community Charter.

J. Brar: I understand the spirit of cooperation and other issues, but the question here is very simple. The question is about the ability of the city to zone a particular property. My take, from the answer from the minister, is simple.

At this point in time, once this piece of legislation becomes law, it will be only the cabinet, when it comes to zoning the property, which will have the power. The city government will not have the power to zone a particular property as supportive housing. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The member is absolutely incorrect. This legislation has nothing to do with zoning.

J. Brar: We are talking here about the ability of the cabinet to designate a particular property as supportive housing property. What I want to know from the minister is: if a city wants to designate a piece of property as supportive housing property, can they do it after this piece of legislation becomes law or not?

J. Brar: Thanks to the minister. So my understanding is that local government actually does have the power to designate a particular piece of property as supportive housing property.

In areas where cabinet is going to make decisions, what kind of input will the impacted city government have, and what will be the process?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The municipalities, communities, currently have involvement in working with the government of British Columbia on housing projects. I think I just quoted here on Kelowna. I know, for instance, that in another one of the communities I represent, it hasn't materialized yet. The work is still going on, so I won't identify that community.

In my experience in being here, again, under the responsibility of the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing, the housing branch looks forward to working in partnership with municipalities and local governments throughout the province of British Columbia. This legislation does not envisage changing any of that. In fact, we believe the thrust as a government is based on building effective local partnerships to serve the needs within the local community for whatever the needs of that community are.

J. Brar: I think it will probably be helpful if the minister can clarify. We say that the cabinet has the power to designate property as supportive housing property. Now, my understanding on that — and correct me if I'm wrong — is that cabinet may make a decision that in the city of Vancouver, there's a piece of land they want to designate as supportive housing property. Is that a true statement or not?

J. Brar: The difficulty here is that I keep hearing from the Minister for Housing. When we debate the legislation, the minister has a responsibility to answer questions that we are asking. They may be innocent questions, but there is a responsibility because we are debating a piece of legislation which is going to impact, positively or negatively, the lives of people in British Columbia.

Again, I would like to clarify. When the cabinet is going to make a decision, what process will be there? Can the minister tell me of the actions to involve the local government to get their input? I understand the spirit of cooperation and that the government wants to work with the city. I understand that. But will there be any specific process where the city or the local government will have a meaningful role to play?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I think it's important for all members to understand that this legislation is about how property is classified for assessment purposes. That's what the intent is here.

I have attempted several times — but if it's important, I will do it one more time — to make sure that all members of this House know that supportive housing for these purposes has been defined and recognized by the housing policy branch of the Minister of Forests and Range, the Minister Responsible for Housing, as properties that are funded by one of several provincial housing programs; have conditions for residency that include low-income, mental or physical disability, drug or alcohol addiction, and provide on-site support services; have self-contained housing units that are generally no more than 450 square feet in floor space; and do not include housing units that are intended primarily for seniors.

I also want to add that B.C. Housing works with an extensive list and network in all corners of the province of British Columbia, with municipalities and non-profits on all forms of supportive housing. Again, under this policy direction, which has been established by the housing branch, properties will be identified.

As I have mentioned, we believe there are between 80 and 100 at this point in time. They will fall into this new assessment class, and that is how they will be taxed. The OIC to establish the new assessment class will flow from me through to the cabinet, and cabinet will make that decision.

M. Sather: I've been following the debate a bit, and I would like to ask the minister a question — to clarify for me, anyway — around this section and the policy directions here. We have a situation in Maple Ridge where B.C. Housing, as I understand it, is offering to fund supportive housing units. We have a non-profit organization, Alouette Home Start Society, that's willing to build that.

M. Sather: We have a supportive housing unit in Maple Ridge that I understand the Ministry for Housing has offered to fund. There's a non-profit organization, Alouette Home Start, that wants to build it. They're looking for input of land from the municipality.

My understanding is that most of the council, the majority, is in favour of it, but the mayor is very much opposed and I believe has written to the Housing Minister to that effect. What I'm trying to understand is: does this legislation have any bearing on our situation? For example, does it allow the provincial government in any way to pave the way for that development that it can't now? Does it assist that, or does it have no bearing on our situation?

Hon. R. Thorpe: No. This legislation has no impact on that situation. This is for properties that are already built, will be designated and will be assessed.

I would advise the member with respect to his question on this, which is an important question, that he may want to take those details to the Minister for Housing. I'm sure he'd be pleased to work with you on it.

The minister just mentioned, in answering my last question, that property will be identified. I would like to know: what will be the process to identify the property, to designate the property as supportive housing property?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It will be the criteria that I have outlined several times in this House this afternoon. That information will flow through to B.C. Assessment in their various offices throughout British Columbia. That will then form part of the roll and will roll itself up into the new assessment classes both for the municipal rolls and for the provincial rolls.

J. Brar: We can continue talking about this for hours. If that's the intent, that's fine with me.

When I say identify…. There's a process to identify. Will a particular city government, where the property will locate, have a role? If that is the case…. I want to go beyond cooperation. How are they going to provide the input? What will be their role, if there is any role?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I have said several times here this afternoon, with respect to community housing projects, the Ministry Responsible for Housing, B.C. Housing and other organizations work very, very closely and in partnership with local governments. This is not going to change that.

With respect to assessment issues, B.C. Assessment actually considers local governments, municipalities, as one of their stakeholder groups and meets with them all the time. This legislation does not envisage that changing one bit.

The Chair: Member, may I just simply observe that we've spent virtually an hour on this, and I think it has been canvassed quite broadly. You might want to tailor your questions with that in mind.

J. Brar: Madam Chair, thanks for your advice. But certainly at the same time, I think it's my role to debate a piece of legislation and get the answers which people of British Columbia ask us to ask the minister and get clarifications.

My understanding is that whatever the different department is in this case, when cabinet is going to make or designate a particular piece of property for supportive housing property for the assessment property — if I understand that piece — then the impacted city will have a role to say yes or no to a particular property. Or cabinet can go and say: "We have a property in mind, and we will assess that property as supportive housing property."

I would appreciate it if the minister can clarify it so that we can move on to the next question.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I could be mistaken, but I believe I've answered this question several times. I will try one more time.

There is a process that a policy will be developed through the housing policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Minister Responsible for Housing, which will identify and recognize what is supportive housing. I can go through those one, two, three, four bullets again if that's important to the member, but that is clearly laid out.

Once we have that information, that will then flow over to our ministry, which is responsible for B.C. Assessment. We will then do an OIC, because this is enabling legislation. OICs in enabling legislation are something that — I'm not the historian of the Legislative Assembly — have probably been in use for a long, long time in this House. OICs are yet another part of a process to ensure that input is received and considered before the OIC is put through. OICs in the future and in the past have been amended, and they have been rescinded, etc.

The intent here of our government is to fulfil a commitment to British Columbians that was stated in the throne speech of 2007 to create a new property assessment class to support supportive housing as defined through regulation, which will be driven by the housing policy branch of the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry Responsible for Housing.

G. Robertson: The minister, as far as I'm concerned, is not answering the question directly. So I'll try one more time to state this as clearly as possible. Can cabinet designate supportive housing class without the approval of a municipality?

Hon. R. Thorpe: B.C. Assessment, for all the members of this House, has a long history of working with municipalities throughout the province of British Columbia. They consult with them all the time. Again, a local government can provide zoning to build a supportive housing. Once it's built, they can apply for the designation, provided it meets the criteria contemplated here, which I've repeated several times today.

This is not about somebody doing something in complete isolation. This is about people working in partnership to address the issue that I know the members on this side of the House are very concerned with and that I believe members on that side of the House are very concerned with.

We believe this is yet another tool to assist in addressing homelessness, those with alcohol and drug addiction, those with mental health challenges and those who are being funded by one of several provincial housing programs, amongst other things.

G. Robertson: The minister is saying that his government's definition of partnership precludes approval of a municipality in the reclassification or designation for this new supportive housing class. That's my understanding here.

He has said…. We've asked this question at least a half a dozen different ways. Basically, the minister is saying that cabinet can designate supportive housing class for a property without the stated approval of the municipality.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Excuse me, hon. Chair. As the question was asked, I don't understand what the question is, so if the member could say it again, please.

G. Robertson: Okay. We'll try one more time. Can cabinet designate the supportive housing class for a property without the stated approval of the municipality in which that property exists?

If the answer to that is in fact yes, the cabinet, by virtue of this legislation, is creating the right to designate supportive housing class for properties without that approval, then in effect, the minister's definition of partnership means that the municipality actually has no option but to accept the cabinet decision to designate the property. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm getting a little bit concerned. If everyone in this House, who…. I thought everyone in this House at one point in time was concerned about those with homelessness and mental health and drug and alcohol addiction problems and having a home for the homelessness. I actually didn't realize that some people may want to turn this into a political issue when it's an issue that's designed, through the throne speech, to serve a need that community and municipal leaders have suggested.

I'm particularly puzzled by the last member's question. The member from Vancouver, who apparently has other aspirations in the Vancouver area, appears not to recognize the significant, significant millions and millions and millions of dollars that our government has committed to Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver area for 19 single-room-occupancy hotels, additional affordable housing stock throughout the province of British Columbia, the number of homeless outreach programs, the emergency shelter programs. This is yet another tool.

We will try one more time. This is about the provincial government working in partnership with local government to provide supportive housing units that are going to go into, be identified….

As we say, right now we believe that in 22 communities in British Columbia, there are between 80 and 100 of these units that are funded by one of several provincial housing programs; have conditions for residency that include low income, mental or physical disability, drug or alcohol addictions; and provide on-site support services.

They have self-contained housing units — perhaps, for example, a three-piece bathroom and cooking facilities — that are generally no more than 450 square feet in floor space, and they do not include housing units that are intended primarily for seniors, because there are a number of other programs for seniors.

We believe that communities have — and have demonstrated to us — a willingness to participate with the provincial government to address these local community issues, not only in Vancouver but throughout the entire province of British Columbia. This is a commitment we made to British Columbians in throne speech of 2007 and a commitment that we are trying to fulfil here today with this creation of a new assessment class for supportive housing.

J. Brar: I would like to ask, probably, one more question on this, if we can get the right answer. It's a different question, though.

The minister has mentioned quite a few times about the throne speech and the commitment, talking about how this is going to help address the issue of homelessness and people with mental health challenges and addictions. So I would like to ask the minister…. When we set up a policy to do something, there must be some sort of work done to ensure that the policy is going to work and that there will be some visible, clear outcome, at the end of the day.

I would like to ask the minister, although the minister is not responsible for the housing and the homelessness crisis we have in the province: what will the impact be of this change, which is creating, particularly, this new category of supportive housing property to deal with homelessness? Is there any discussion between the minister and the Minister Responsible for Housing? If there is, can the minister specifically tell us how big the impact will be?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our government, since forming government in 2001 to today, has tripled the spending on affordable housing and shelter. This year, the year 2008-2009, it will be $380 million, triple what it was when we took office in 2001. If the member believes that people can identify silver bullets to solve a problem…. I am sure that over the last ten years, if silver bullets would have existed, someone would have found those.

This is yet another tool for the provincial government to work in partnerships with communities throughout British Columbia to provide for those who find themselves challenged with homelessness; who find themselves challenged with addictions, whether it be from drug or alcohol; or who find themselves with mental illness.

As I have laid out before, supportive housing will be units that, perhaps, will have a three-piece bathroom, some cooking facilities and be 450 square feet or less, so that people can actually call it their home. What we are doing through this definition…. It has been defined and brought together by all of the public servants working together in the housing policy branch and, I believe, in discussions with B.C. Housing Matters in British Columbia.

It's been identified by professionals who work in communities each and every day throughout the entire province of British Columbia. Based on that criterion, they will then provide that policy direction to me — the minister responsible for B.C. Assessment. We will take OICs forward to identify that property classification working with B.C. Assessment. Those will go into those classes.

In fact, there will be less property taxes and more money to put back into communities to assist in dealing with homelessness, those who suffer alcohol and drug addictions and those who suffer from mental illness throughout the communities of British Columbia, whether it be the large community of Vancouver or a community like Kelowna or a community like the representative's in Surrey. Whether it be Prince George or Fort St. John, communities throughout the province, I believe, will have the benefit of a new supportive assessment class over time.

Is it going to happen overnight? No, it's not. But you know what? Before you take the last step, you

must take the first step, and we see this as yet another first step in addressing the housing needs for those who need it in our communities throughout British Columbia.

J. Brar: The minister certainly didn't answer my question. My question was: how much is this going to impact the issue of homelessness in the province?

What I want to tell the minister is this. Homelessness in the province since the Liberal government took over has not only doubled but tripled in many areas. The latest report that we see from professors, which includes UBC professors as well, is that there are now 15,000 people in the province who are homeless — when we've had the best economy in the province for the last many years.

It's the same with the issue of poverty. Child poverty is highest in the province for the last four years. That's also the case that we see.

But I will move on to a new question, and that is on section 4, so I have to sit down and then move on.

J. Brar: This legislation will also give the cabinet the power to reduce the assessed value of a property. Based on that, my question will be: is there any assessment done by the minister as to what the impact of this will be on the tax base of the local government?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I've been advised it's estimated that for the 22 communities that we believe will be impacted at this point in time, the net tax impact would be just over a million dollars.

J. Brar: I would appreciate it if the minister can name the city which will have the highest loss.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We believe that the city of Vancouver would have the largest impact, and we believe that the estimate would be a net tax loss….

Hon. R. Thorpe: Excuse me. The member couldn't hear me? Sorry, I've never been accused of having a low voice.

We believe that the community that would be impacted the most with respect to the financial impact would be the city of Vancouver. I am advised that the net estimate is approximately $300,000.

J. Brar: So $300,000 is a lot of money. Is the government thinking about or is there any policy to compensate the local government for the loss of tax base through this change?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I have said earlier, we believe that this is one further tool in the attempts to manage the issues that communities and the province work on in partnership. That is why we've invested $69 million in purchasing 19 single-room-occupancy hotels in Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria. That's why we're spending $30 million to renovate, this year, non-profit operators — to break the cycle of homelessness. We believe that all of these costs are incorporated.

As I said earlier, yes, $300,000 is an important amount of money. But when one takes it in the total context of what the province, working together with the municipalities…. The affordable housing shelter has increased from around $100 million to $380 million this year.

We believe that this is money well spent by communities. We believe that the money the province is putting into communities, through the taxpayers of British Columbia, is well spent to address this. So we believe our investment has been substantial in communities throughout British Columbia.

J. Brar: My understanding, from the response I got from the minister, is that there will not be any grant, compensation to the city for the lost revenue. Is that the correct observation, Minister?

J. Brar: My understanding, from the response I got from the minister, is that there will not be any compensation or any grant to the cities for the lost revenue. Is that the right observation I made from the response the minister gave?

Hon. R. Thorpe: If the member's premise is that he wants to…. I don't know why he continues to consult with the member for Vancouver-Fairview before asking questions. I'm just wondering if it's in his mind….

Hon. R. Thorpe: I don't believe any of the people on this side of the House have any other local political aspirations.

If the question here is: should we keep a scorecard of what one is going to contribute here…? Let's say that cost is $300,000 — or, if you want to look at the provincial, just over $1.1 million, I am advised — or spending $380 million. I don't think that's the way British Columbians want us to look at the situation. I think British Columbians want us to work together.

As a matter of fact, I heard some members there earlier today talking about how we have to work together to solve problems and that all 79 members in this House should work together to solve problems. Many problems are like that, and I actually believe that. This issue is one of those issues. I think we have to be very, very careful, with dealing with issues like homelessness and those with drug and alcohol addictions and others, that we take this down to a scorecard about who's investing more or who's paying for what.

We all want to try to work together to solve this societal issue. That's what we should do. That's what

our government is committed to doing. That's what this is. I know this is a change; I know this is bold leadership. But you know what? We said we were going to do it in 2007 in the throne speech. Our commitment is to do it.

We believe that we've laid out a very good process and policy that defines how people — who find themselves in a homeless situation with drug or alcohol addictions, with mental illness challenges or needing the assistance of the province in one form or another, and who want a home of, say, 450 metres that has washroom facilities and a little kitchenette for them — can help them bring themselves back, to get dignity in life.

We think that's a good investment. We think all the taxpayers in British Columbia — municipal and local taxpayers — will want to contribute to that success that we can all share together when we pass this bill and we move forward.

G. Robertson: Just to set the record straight on behalf of this side of the House, we have pushed hard for almost three years in this House for meaningful solutions and aggressive action to solve homelessness in this province, and we've seen inadequate response from this government to date.

We have homelessness doubling and perhaps even tripling. When we see the numbers next week, we'll have, probably, a very stark view of the ongoing epidemic of homelessness across this province, which this government clearly hasn't taken enough concrete action to address, to stem and to turn around, to make sure that everyone in this province has a home.

For the minister to characterize our tough questions around who makes the decisions and what the partnership between the province and municipalities exactly means…. To characterize that as somehow challenging our support for solutions to homelessness and for meaningful action from this government is absolutely absurd. I'll just state for the record to the minister: we are in support of concrete actions that do this. Clearly, there are some good steps being taken here.

It's the duty of the opposition to ask the tough questions, to ensure that municipalities know where they stand, to ensure they know what kind of funding impacts there are, to encourage the government to reverse the trend of downloading costs on municipalities and, in fact, to support municipalities. When there are billions of dollars of surplus in the treasury of the province and when municipalities are strapped and trying to deal with these problems on their streets, surely the province can and should do more.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased that the member for Vancouver-Fairview has acknowledged that this is a good step forward. I appreciate that, and I thank the member for that comment. I just want to…. You know, there are some things that are said in this House from time to time. As the member said, he wanted to say some things for the record. I, too, am going to say some things on the record.

I can tell you that Budget 2008 provides an additional $104 million over four years to implement new, expanded measures to break the cycle of homelessness through the provincial housing strategy — a $78 million emergency shelters program; $13 million in homeless outreach programs; homeless rent supplements of $3 million; predevelopment costs of $10 million; and one-time funding for predevelopment costs for city-owned sites — as one of the members from Surrey mentioned earlier — such as agricultural, geotechnical and environmental plans to fast-track the construction of affordable and supportive housing units.

We've reached agreements with the city of Vancouver, Victoria and Kelowna to expedite the approval process of over 1,500 new social and supportive housing units. Since 2001, we've committed to creating more than 13,000 new units of subsidized housing.

We've purchased 19 single-room-occupancy hotels in Vancouver, New Westminster and Victoria — 1,122 beds with funding of approximately $69 million. We're spending approximately $30 million to begin the renovation of them this year. We've also preserved additional affordable housing stock with purchase of apartment buildings and townhouses in Kamloops, Burnaby, Victoria, Quesnel and Port Alberni — nearly $15 million for 176 units.

We're also working with first nations to further address the off-reserve aboriginal housing needs. We've committed $50 million to create safe, secure housing options for youth, women, elders and people with alcohol and drug addictions through the aboriginal housing initiative.

Low-income working families renting in the private market. The rental assistance program — 4,400 households. Seniors benefits programs through the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters program — more than 15,000 seniors households are now receiving monthly assistance.

I appreciate their acknowledgment that this is a good step forward, but significant steps have been taken by our government. We have increased affordable housing and shelter to $380 million, three times what it was in 2001.

This is yet another tool in addressing what I believe both sides of this House are saying is a situation that we want to work together with our local governments to resolve. I believe this is yet another step in achieving that goal.

J. Brar: I think we are debating Bill 11 here, not the budget. I just want to repeat that. A budget speech…. We have all got the opportunity, and we did that.

I appreciate that the government is thinking to solve or to deal with the problem of homelessness, but if we look at the history of seven years, that is different. The government has to acknowledge that.

The homeless in the city of Vancouver tripled, and the homeless in the city of Surrey has gone up 140 percent last year, 25 percent this year. And it's the same in Kelowna, Prince George and many other areas.

We also know that child poverty in the province of British Columbia is the highest, as compared to any

other province, during the last four years. If you want to debate that, we can do that. But we can certainly talk about the future actions.

If we look at the last seven years, certainly we didn't see that. We didn't see any positive result. The only people who got the benefit are the rich people of this province. The homeless people actually didn't get anything. We have more and more people coming out because of the changes this government has made in public policy, particularly under the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance.

My last question on this section 4 is…. Since this is going to impact the local government tax base, I would like to ask the minister if there was any consultation process conducted by the minister to talk to the local government.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I've mentioned several times in this House today, B.C. Housing, Housing Matters, works with municipalities each and every day. B.C. Assessment works with municipalities each and every day. I assume that they will consult each other on an ongoing basis to move forward in this area.

J. Brar: Section 10 of the proposed legislation is an amendment that amends the pension credit as a result of amendment to the federal Income Tax Act respecting the federal pension credit. My question to the minister on this one is: how much will this cost the B.C. treasury — this change?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have been advised by staff that the cost to the treasury is minimal, but the fact that we are continuing to harmonize the B.C. and Canada pension credits, we believe, is a great thing to do for British Columbians. That is why we are doing this. To my knowledge, this is a harmonization item that we have done every time there have been federal tax changes.

J. Brar: That gives the minister some kind of relief. We have gone through quite a few sections here.

Section 14 makes a change under which the interjurisdictional commercial vehicle will be exempt from PST. The first question I have is: can the minister tell us what specific categories of vehicle will qualify under this section?

Hon. R. Thorpe: This pertains to commercial vehicles. They are exempt of sales tax at the time of purchase. That sales tax is deferred and collected over time, based on the use and time that the vehicle is used in British Columbia.

J. Brar: I'm confused about this. I think the term used is "exemption." Is that not the term used? It says that there is an exemption for PST. If this is collected back, then how does that term fit into this? I'm a bit confused about that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, this has been in place since 1995. It covers every province in Canada and every state in the United States except Alaska. We have an inkling it might exclude Hawaii too, because we don't think many trucks are being driven from here to Hawaii.

The exemption takes place at the point and time of purchase. So if I buy something today, I'm exempt from that tax. But because of the multi-jurisdiction arrangements we have, over time, based on the amount of time and use of the vehicle would take place in British Columbia, then the operator would pay that tax in British Columbia — as they would in other jurisdictions too.

J. Brar: In an attempt to make it very simple…. Can the minister tell us, when we talk about "over time," how many years it will take to actually get the 100 percent PST back? Is there any criterion which is transparent and objective? What is the policy?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Well, first of all, it depends how long one keeps the vehicle. It depends how much one uses the vehicle in British Columbia and how much time it's used in British Columbia.

I might say that this is a technical amendment. As I said, this practice has been in place since 1995 in the province of British Columbia.

J. Brar: At this point in time, if someone is using a truck full-time — whatever way you want to define full-time — and keeps the vehicle a long time, which could be five, six or seven years, how many years will it take to recover the PST? Is there any objective criterion to which we can say that this is what will happen?

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I said earlier, this is a technical clarification — technical in the nature that it's clarifying the exemption at time of purchase.

There is no simple answer to that question, because it depends on the use. The tax tables, which I'd be more than pleased to share with the member after the debate if the member is interested or to provide a detailed briefing to the member…. It depends on the use.

There's a formula that has been developed. The tax is equal to "the purchase price of the vehicle or, if the vehicle is leased, the greater of the purchase price stated in the lease agreement or the fair market value of the vehicle at the start of the lease; times the tax rate of the vehicle's calendar year — see the following table below; times the travel ratio for the vehicle — estimated distance travelled in British Columbia divided by the total distance travelled by the vehicle in a year;

times T, the number of whole or partial calendar months…in which the vehicle licensing year at the time the vehicle is licensed in British Columbia, divided by 12."

As you can see, it's a very simple and straightforward formula that most people can calculate quickly and remit their tax.

No, it's very, very complex. But again, this is a technical amendment to clarify that the exemption takes place at the point of purchase. By my instinctive feel, that's beneficial to commercial vehicle purchases in British Columbia today. Then, based on the use over time, they will pay the appropriate amount of tax, if they are registered as multi-jurisdictional.…

J. Brar: That was pretty simple. If that's the case, we're not sure how many months and how many years it will take to collect, because it depends on various factors as described by the minister.

If somebody buys a commercial interjurisdictional vehicle for commercial use and sells the vehicle after a month, does it mean that person will basically skip away without paying PST?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Provided that the vehicle is used during that one-month period as a multi-jurisdictional vehicle, then that person would be liable for the tax that we talked about and the complicated formula. If the purchaser purchased it as a multi-jurisdictional vehicle, then that same formula would carry on.

If that person purchased it and was not using it as a multi-jurisdictional vehicle, then they would be subject to full tax liability, which they'd have to pay at ICBC when they are registering to get the plates.

J. Brar: I heard the minister saying a couple of times that this is a technical change. Can the minister define why we need this change?

Hon. R. Thorpe: There was some question, in review by staff, whether the exemption provision that was being applied was clarified sufficiently to support giving individuals that exemption at the beginning for multi-jurisdictional vehicles. Staff believe that this amendment solidifies, clarifies and ensures that that exemption of tax at the initial point would withstand whatever challenges may come from whoever may challenge such a thing.

J. Brar: That's the simple one if I get the answer. The question is: can the minister list — I asked that question before too — what type of vehicle? I know the broad definition. What type of vehicle will be part of this package?

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's defined here as a commercial motor vehicle that you operate in more than one jurisdiction. It's called a multi-jurisdictional vehicle. It just has to be used for the transportation and movement of goods through multi-jurisdictional areas and registered as a multi-jurisdictional vehicle.

J. Brar: Super-last question. It came out from the answer the minister gave. When we define the interjurisdictional, does that mean that it is interprovincial as well?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The multi-jurisdictional designation — and I thought I said this in an earlier answer, but perhaps I wasn't as clear as I should have been — applies to all of the provinces of Canada and all of the states in the United States, with the exclusion of Alaska, and it may exclude Hawaii. I cannot envisage very many people driving from here to Hawaii, but we're not sure that it does exclude Hawaii. I would be prepared to suggest that it may also exclude Hawaii.

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

Bill 11, Small Business and Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 13, Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 13; S. Hammell in the chair.

Hon. O. Ilich: For the benefit of everyone here, I have two people from staff here with me. One is Jim Soles, to my right. He's the assistant deputy minister. Michael Tanner is the director of labour policy.

C. Puchmayr: First of all, I just want to canvass one of the comments that the minister made when she introduced this bill. It was with respect to employment standards inspections. I think the number she gave was that there were six more inspectors. I wasn't sure if it was six more or if it was six total, because it seemed to be inconsistent with what we canvassed during the estimates process.

Hon. O. Ilich: We've gone from four to six employment standards officers, so two new employment standards officers and six new WorkSafe inspectors, with one more being hired.

C. Puchmayr: You've gone from four employment standards field officers to six employment standards field officers?

Hon. O. Ilich: That's correct. Employment standards — we've gone from four to six. WorkSafe inspectors — six new ones, with one additional one that's in the process of being hired, so that would be seven total. So two new employment standards officers, six dedicated entirely to the agricultural sector in total and six new WorkSafe with one additional one — for seven.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister please then share with us where the region of jurisdiction those officers will have is? Where will they be working? Out of what offices will they be working? What regions will be under their mandate?

Hon. O. Ilich: The six employment standards officers work out of the Surrey office, but their mandate is to cover the entire province.

Hon. O. Ilich: From the 2006 census, there are 19,844 farms in British Columbia. However, the vast majority of the farms that employ farm labour contractors, which is what we're primarily talking about with this, are in the Lower Mainland.

C. Puchmayr: Once this legislation is in place, could any of those other farms then employ farm labour contractors?

Hon. O. Ilich: They could, and they could now, so this doesn't really change anything.

C. Puchmayr: On section 30.1, I would like to propose an amendment to Bill 13, intituled Labour and Citizens' Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

C. Puchmayr: My comments with respect to that is that we certainly understand the need to ensure that workers who are now travelling in vehicles that are unsafe, and those vehicles are pulled over on the side of the road…. The concern previous to this legislation was that they often had to find their own way of getting back to their place of employment or getting back to their residence or their place of pickup.

The minister introduced legislation that will take them from the side of the road to the place of employment. Our concern is if that vehicle is taken off the road, they will have no way of getting back to their original point of pickup or getting back to their residence. So the bill is, I think, fair. It doesn't only provide the employer with the workers should those workers have the misfortune of being in a dangerous vehicle; it also provides the ability to return those workers home to their point of impact.

The minister should consider the fact…. I know in my community I have people that work in the agricultural sector and in the hand-harvest sector. Their day starts very early, sometimes before the sun comes up, even in the summertime. They're picked up by buses, and they're transported from New Westminster all the way out to Abbotsford or Chilliwack. That's a considerable length of travel for someone working in a line of work that certainly hasn't shown a very high, significant wage. The cost of getting back to their residence would be extremely high.

The government has identified that there are dangerous vehicles on the road which certainly need to be taken off the road. I think there has to be an onus on the contractor and the person that is hiring the contractor to bring workers to the farmsite. There is an onus there, and there is an onus of fairness to ensure that these workers, which are predominantly women…. In my community they're women of South Asian origin. They are travelling extreme distances to get to a worksite, and suddenly, because of something that is no fault of their own, they're required to try to find a way of returning home again.

Some of them have young children. Some of them have duties that they perform in the home as well. This motion is put forward to ensure that there is fairness and that not only are the employers now guaranteed an ability to get their workers onto those sites, but those workers also have the respect to be able to get back home to their residence.

Hon. O. Ilich: With respect to the proposed amendment to the bill, section 30.1(1) is actually talking about the liability to pay the fee. It sets out conditions under which the fee has to be paid.

To the point that the member is trying to make, we are in fact picking up people, taking them to the worksite, or another location if they do want to go back home. At the end of the day we are also taking them back to that original point of pickup. So that is happening. The proposed amendment doesn't actually address what is happening in section 30.1, which is only meant to deal with the conditions under which the fee is collected.

We are achieving what it is that the member is talking about. We are picking people up, and we are taking them back to where they are going. But the proposed amendment won't address that in the act here.

C. Puchmayr: Certainly, I'm assuming that the administrative fees are to ensure that the cost that is incurred by government to get the worker to the site is the reason that the bill has those fees in place. The explanation would be that the fee is there to get the workers to the site.

Where would the language be explicit enough to state that that fee would also be to return the workers to the point of pickup?

Hon. O. Ilich: It actually doesn't say that anywhere in the act. But if you've taken a car out of service in the morning and we've transported workers to work, then we're assuming that that would still be an unsafe vehicle in the evening, and we are in fact able to take them home.

Your proposed amendment is just looking at the conditions under which we can collect the fee and not what we do with the fee when we collect it.

C. Puchmayr: Well, it's understandable why the fee is in place. That's to cover the cost that the government is incurring by getting the worker to the workplace, and that's clear. It's great to hear the minister say yes, we will take them home as well.

But we're talking about defining that in legislation so that two, three, five years from now, when suddenly there is no ability for a worker to get back to the point of pickup or to get home…. How do you now address the fact that those fees are actually designed not only to get the worker to work but to get the worker back home?

Hon. O. Ilich: I'm told that if the van is taken out of service in the morning when there's been a roadside inspection, then that van is rented for the whole day. It makes sense that they would be taking the people back. If the roadside inspection was done at the end of the day, obviously they're going to be taken home, because that's where they're going. That's why we've got in there that the province will provide "alternative transportation to transport the employees to the employees' work site or another location." That's meant to cover that off.

C. Puchmayr: You know, it's quite explicit on getting the worker to the farmsite, but it isn't explicit on getting the worker home from the farmsite. I want to ensure that this legislation does precisely that. If it's not explicit, an employer could say: "Why am I paying a fee to get a worker to the site and get a worker back home again?"

Where is the direction? The bill talks about getting the workers to the site. My concern is that the fairness of it is getting the workers back to their home and their families.

Hon. O. Ilich: If a van is rented for the whole day and a fee is charged, then that fee will be charged to take the employee to work and home or, if they're pulled out of service at the end of the day, then home. The van will be rented for the whole day. It is assumed that they are going to be taken to work and then home again. That's why it says "or another location" — so that they will be taken home at the end of the day.

There won't be any extra. That's just a fee charged. That's just what is expected — that they will be picked up, taken to work and taken back home.

C. Puchmayr: Well, with all due respect, the legislation is very clear. Section 30.1 says:

It states clearly that the idea is to get them to that site or to another farmsite. It says nothing about getting them home.

If you take a labour contractor whose vehicle is condemned and you pull that vehicle off the road and you have a van that is going to replace that vehicle to take people to the site, couldn't the labour contractor make the argument, after, that there is nothing in legislation that prescribes that contractor to take those employees home?

How does it meet a legal test? I'm not a lawyer. I've done some collective agreement work.

C. Puchmayr: Yeah, we do have some in here. Fortunately, they're not billing us.

When you bring in legislation, you bring in legislation that is not ambiguous. You bring in legislation that's clear and precise so that if somebody does challenge the government on this, the government can say: "No, the legislation clearly says here that if that farm contractor has no vehicle at the end of the shift, those employees will be brought back to their place of pickup or their place of residence."

Just to say: "Yeah, we have great intentions of doing that…." You know, the Labour Minister isn't going to be here next year. I believe the Labour Minister is genuine when she says: "We want to take them to the farm; we also want to take them home." But when the Labour Minister is no longer here, how do we defend that when the contractor says: "I don't see any legislation that says I have to take them home. It's very clear. It says I have to take them to that farm or another farm — end of story."

Hon. O. Ilich: Section 3(1) just deals with the terms and conditions under which the fee can be collected. It's not talking about the transportation or under what conditions the transportation is provided. It's talking about the fee. The intent is that if the vehicle is pulled over and a van has to be rented, then there will be a fee charged.

Section 3 just deals with the liability of a farm labour contractor for transportation costs but doesn't really talk about what will happen. So if it happens in the morning, they will be picked up and taken back, but it doesn't add that to it. It just talks about the collection of the fee, and that's all. It just allows us to collect a fee. It doesn't say what we're going to do with the fee.

C. Puchmayr: Well, with all due respect, if you read (1) and then you go to 1(b), section (1) says: "A farm labour contractor is liable to pay a prescribed administrative fee to the Province if…(b) the Province, at its own cost, provides alternative transportation to transport the employees to the…work site or another location."

That's pretty clear. That defines movement from the side of the road to the worksite. It's very clear, so it does spell out where that contractor is obligated to pay a fee and why the fee is being paid. It's being paid to get the workers from the side of the road to the worksite or another worksite. Could the minister then please explain why she isn't reading that into the legislation?

Hon. O. Ilich: Another location would include home. What we're saying here is that we will pick them up in the morning and we will take them home, and that is why it says another location, not another worksite. But section 3 deals specifically with the ability to collect the fee if they're picking them up, not really what they're going to do with the fee.

C. Puchmayr: Wouldn't the minister agree that it would be a lot clearer to everybody if it explicitly had language in the bill that stated that at the end of the workday the employee will be transported back home or back to their point of pickup?

Hon. O. Ilich: Legal counsel tells us that what we have here in the bill will cover what it is that the member is talking about, and that is certainly the intent.

C. Puchmayr: My last question on that is: will this actually form a regulation in another document, as opposed to just the bill, and will the minister assure us that that document will be more explicit and will make those recommendations?

Hon. O. Ilich: The member opposite is correct. There will be a regulation that will set the fee and that will also describe the conditions under which the fee is collected. This just allows us to collect the fee.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister please explain the concept of the fee? What is the fee? Who pays the fee? Is the fee paid virtually by the actual infraction, or is the fee paid by all contractors? Or is the fee collected by all contractors?

Hon. O. Ilich: The fee will be paid by the farm labour contractor to the province.

C. Puchmayr: Will it be specific to the incident, or will it be a fee that's paid by all the labour contractors?

C. Puchmayr: What is the rate of the fee, and how does the ministry come to that rate?

Hon. O. Ilich: We will have to set that by regulation, but it's proposed to be $500.

C. Puchmayr: It will be $500 per incident. It'll be specific to that incident.

C. Puchmayr: Could the minister let us know how they came to that number or how they quantify the $500?

Hon. O. Ilich: The fee amount of $500 represents the actual cost to government to have safe, alternative transportation on standby during roadside blitzes. Last year we spent about $8,500 on that to have them stand by. That's what that fee is for.

C. Puchmayr: It says an administrative fee. I think the stock exchange uses that, where there's a violation of a regulation and there's a penalty. Sometimes that term is used — an administrative fee. Would this fee be in lieu of other employment standards fines that may be imposed on that labour contractor?

Hon. O. Ilich: This is a new fee. It will be a fee that is only applicable in these cases. Quite frankly, it is one of the things that was suggested by the families.

We have said all along, when we first talked about how we were going to deal with the farm labour contractors, that we would be imposing a fee if the vehicle was pulled over at the side of the road and workers were transported.

Hon. O. Ilich: This isn't in fact a new or additional fee. Any other penalties would still apply.

C. Puchmayr: So the cost, the $800…. Is that what the minister believes that the actual cost is? Does that include a driver for that vehicle as well?

Hon. O. Ilich: Yes, as a matter of fact. It does include a driver. It's $500. That is our cost.

C. Puchmayr: So what happens in the case that a labour contractor has another vehicle available that meets the safety standard and they don't require that vehicle for the whole day? Does the fee change?

Hon. O. Ilich: If there is another vehicle available and it's readily available for the transportation of the workers, then that could be used. I mean, if it meets all of the safety standards and the inspections, then they can use that. If they don't, and generally they don't, then the issue is to try to get the workers where they have to be, not standing by the side of the road for hours waiting for another vehicle and another inspection. If they do have another vehicle ready and it is serviceable and roadworthy and meets the inspections, then they could use that.

Hon. O. Ilich: No, there would not be a fee if we did not provide transportation.

C. Puchmayr: So would there only be half of a fee if they just went to work? What is the formula that's being used to make that calculation on behalf of the contractor?

Hon. O. Ilich: It's intended to be one fee. Whether or not they are taken to work and back or whether the farm labour contractor later provides a serviceable vehicle, that fee is the same fee.

C. Puchmayr: Has there been any consideration given to the possible delays of getting the workers to the sites and potential loss of income? Does the administrative fee compensate the workers?

Hon. O. Ilich: When we have done the roadside blitzes, the vehicle is on standby. If a vehicle's not roadworthy, then the workers are taken immediately to work.

C. Puchmayr: Can the minister tell us how many vehicles were pulled off the road last year that would have fallen into this category of having to have a vehicle supplied?

Hon. O. Ilich: Last year 54 vehicles in total were taken off the road. For the information of the member opposite, we did have increasing compliance as time went on. So 50 of 140 vehicles inspected in May were taken off the road. Three of 32 vehicles inspected in June were taken off the road, and one of the 31 vehicles inspected in July were taken off the road.

C. Puchmayr: With a lot of farming now, especially in the Lower Mainland region with the hothouse farming and greenhouse farming, the fact is that the seasons are getting considerably longer — and the farming season where workers are still transporting to and from the worksites. When would the inspections start? Are the inspections tied in with when the actual activities are going on? Or is the ministry aware of when the activities are going on, on the farms to ensure that there are adequate resources to ensure that these are done at all times when the farming is going on?

Hon. O. Ilich: We have a number of partners in the interagency enforcement prevention and education team, and that includes WorkSafe B.C., the employment standards branch, the commercial vehicle safety and enforcement branch, the RCMP, the Solicitor General, the superintendent of motor vehicles and the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands.

What we've decided to do this year is to preinspect a number of those vehicles. We've had an opportunity to do some planning on that. There will be an opportunity for vehicles to be inspected during the last two weeks of May. They're going to be asked to bring their vehicles in, and there will be inspections done. We will still do the roadside inspections as well.

C. Puchmayr: Is there a requirement or a prerequisite for farms that use transportation contractors to register with the employment standards branch?

C. Puchmayr: What would the penalty be if they were found to not be in compliance with that?

Hon. O. Ilich: The first penalty would be $500, the second offence would be $2,500, and the third offence would be $10,000. So it's an escalating penalty.

C. Puchmayr: Again with respect to the roadside inspections, I know last year we were given information from inspectors who were actually inspecting buses — and that's including school buses — that were

taken out of that inspection and put over onto highways inspections. That would mean that buses weren't being inspected adequately while it was creating a backlog of buses to be inspected, and those inspectors were put on the roadway. What has the ministry done to address that serious situation?

Hon. O. Ilich: We don't do inspections of buses. That would be the highways ministry that does that. So we don't actually do that. We do work with them on this interagency compliance team.

C. Puchmayr: Of course that's exactly how they're inspected. It's with the compliance team. You don't an employment standards inspector that's not versed in mechanics going out and inspecting transport vehicles. It's done in conjunction and in cooperation with the Ministry of Transportation. Does the minister believe that that is, in fact, the way it's being done?

Hon. O. Ilich: Our job and the intent of this legislation is to deal with the farm labour contractors, farmsites and employment standards. We have an interagency compliance team that does have highways and commercial vehicle inspectors with it, but that's…. In this legislation what we're addressing is the farm labour contractors.

C. Puchmayr: The minister actually opened this line with respect to her comments on inspection of vehicles. The inspections are clearly not done by a person that's not versed in inspections. It is a team that's working on this.

But the specifics of where this legislation is triggered are that there's somebody from the Ministry of Transportation that is inspecting that vehicle, finding that there are serious flaws and taking it off the road. That's why this legislation is required; it is to pay for that. So the minister has to certainly agree that that is the link to all of this.

My concern is with the fact that last year there was…. Certainly, when the issue arose and when we had the fatalities on the highway, there was sort of a ramp-up of inspections on the roadside. My concern is that that inspection took from other Ministry of Transportation inspections….

My concern is: what's in place now with your team to ensure that you have adequate inspectors on the roadside and that you're not taking them away from inspecting school buses that our children are travelling in?

Hon. O. Ilich: I think that would be a question for the Minister of Transportation. That is not something that we are addressing with Bill 13. We're looking at farm labour contractors and an administrative fee for taking vehicles out of service for farm labour contractors.

The Chair: Member, I'd like, before I recognize your further questions, to remind you that the essence of this section is about farm labour contractors and that they're liable to pay a prescribed administrative fee. I think we were straying a bit off that topic. Continue, Member.

With respect to the administrative fees, would the administrative fees…? Are they entrenched at that rate? What's the provision for an increase of those fees? Or is the government looking at even decreasing those fees in the future?

I have some concern as to how we got to this number. How is that number dealt with so that it deals with the proper administration of this and ensures that we have adequate transportation for those workers?

Hon. O. Ilich: The $500 is the cost at the moment. It's going to be set by regulation. If the cost goes up, we will increase that fee, also by regulation.

C. Puchmayr: In the legislation is there any consideration of the fact that some employees may not be able to get to the worksite to really engage in a full day's work? Has that been contemplated by the ministry?

Hon. O. Ilich: The vehicle is there on standby. If the inspection happens — and those happen very quickly — they will be taken to work without delay.

K. Conroy: Before I start with my question, I'd just like to take a moment to acknowledge the minister and her staff and the work that they have done on freedom of information and the effort they have put in to try to amend that legislation before the minister takes her leave of politics. I am grateful for that. Hopefully, we can maybe do even more than what has been introduced today.

Hon. O. Ilich: For the members opposite, I have with me Sharon Plater, who is on my right. She's the director of information management/information technology privacy and legislation. And Dave Nikolejsin is the chief information officer.

K. Conroy: I'd just like to again acknowledge the minister and her staff, who are now with us in the chamber, for their commitment to trying to revamp the Freedom of Information Act before the minister leaves politics. I do appreciate the efforts.

I just have some questions on this section. Is it my understanding that when we're reading about whether the Freedom of Information Act shall be…. When a request is put forward, will the clock actually stop on the request being put forward until satisfaction is reached by the head of the public body?

Hon. O. Ilich: The intent here is that the clock does not start until the public body knows what records are being requested. Sometimes there's a vague request as to what is necessary. What this is intended to address is that the public body will need to have a full idea of what is being requested.

K. Conroy: Is the minister saying that when a body puts forth a freedom-of-information request, the clock could keep…? There is no time frame on it? The request could sit in a minister's or someone's office forever until someone is satisfied that they have all the information requested?

Hon. O. Ilich: First of all, this is one of the recommendations of the special committee that reviewed the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act most recently. It is intended to make sure that the request is clear as to what is being asked for.

For instance, if the Ministry of the Attorney General receives a vague request for lawyers' bills and if the request is unclear, then the ministry contacts the applicant, who…. If they take 25 days to clarify the bills that are being sought, then the clock would actually start once they agree that they understand what it is that is being asked for.

K. Conroy: Well, there is a real concern that this amendment might, in fact, create a loophole because the ministry, the public body…. They could continually be saying they don't have the accurate information, because it says: until the person or the body "is satisfied".

What is the definition of satisfaction? There has to be some sort of time limit for a ministry to ask for the information that they're requesting, and there doesn't seem to be here. So if the minister could clarify that….

Hon. O. Ilich: This is a recommendation of the special committee. This is something that the commissioner supports. What we're trying to do here is clarify the time limits and when the time actually starts.

If somebody is dragging their heels on saying that they don't understand what the request is, then there is the option to go to the commissioner. What we're trying to do is make sure that the time period for responding to that request is after they know what it is that's being requested.

K. Conroy: It leaves an incredible amount of interpretation on behalf of the head of the public body to decide if they're in fact satisfied with the request. I think we could have a number of freedom-of-information requesters continually be thinking back to the Rolling Stones song I Can't Get No Satisfaction. So that is a real concern for people — that it is entirely, it seems, up to the interpretation of the ministry that the information is being requested from.

I would wonder if the minister is maybe missing that there should be a time frame where the ministry has to get back to the requester, to actually say what their concerns are before it can continue on and the clocks start again.

Hon. O. Ilich: What I'm told is that this is consistent with section 5 of the act, which talks about understanding when a request is received. So it's consistent with the time lines there. Section 8 talks about transferring that request to a different body. What we're trying to do is make it consistent, and there has been no history that this is something that has been abused. So this one just deals with transferring to another body if you think that the request is not for the right group.

K. Conroy: Well, the concern for this issue with section 11 is one that the Coalition for Open Government and FIPA have. I understand it was not one of the main concerns of the Information Commissioner. But I did understand that the Information Commissioner…. One of his main concerns that he expressed in the letter he sent to the minister last April was that Bill 25 at the time — and this is Bill 13, which is just a reincarnation of that bill — failed to address the serious imbalance under section 13 of the Freedom of Information Act.

The minister, I know, had the information made available to her in an amendment that would have, in fact, remedied the problems with section 13. I know that the minister has had since last April to put these amendments into this act. It doesn't seem that there was time, that it wasn't put in…. Although I know that yesterday it was made clear, with the speech from the member for Peace River South, that she is clearly very receptive now to including an amendment to this bill under section 13….

To that end, I would like to move that this bill be amended to allow the needed changes to section 13. I have a proposed amendment right here, which uses the language actually proposed by the Information Commissioner, such that section 13(1) would now clarify that policy advice could only be withheld if that information would reveal….

The Chair: Member, I'm sorry. I wonder if you can clarify. We're on section 8. You cannot move an amendment to a different section right now.

K. Conroy: Then to the Clerk, perhaps: where would it be the most appropriate time to move an amendment that is, in fact, not included in the bill, even though it was recommended by the Information Commissioner? Those seems to be the guidelines by which the minister is referring to a number of the recommendations that have been made in this bill.

The Chair: Member, if your amendment is on section 8, we can accept it now. Otherwise, we should call the question on section 8, and you should move your amendment when we get to the appropriate section.

Hon. O. Ilich: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY

Hon. M. Coell: It's a pleasure to rise today to present the 2008-2009 spending estimates for the Ministry of Advanced Education. Before I begin, I'd like to introduce some of my staff that are with me: my deputy minister Moura Quayle; Ruth Wittenberg, assistant deputy minister for post-secondary education division; Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister, learning and programs division; Neil Matheson, assistant deputy minister of management services; and Joe Thompson, executive director of funding analysis branch.

In making education one of our highest priorities…. We do that because we know that it's key to a successful economy, to a happy and healthy democratic society. Increasing funds we provide for post-secondary education institutions by 40 percent since 2001 — that's the largest spending increase in government during that time. Since 2001 the largest, most comprehensive expansion of our post-secondary system in the past 40 years — more than $1.4 billion in new funding for 654 capital projects on campuses throughout B.C.

We're further committing $600 million more to accommodate future growth over the next three years. We've met a goal of a B or better for university entry. The expansion efforts have focused on areas of critical shortages, including medical spaces and trades training.

We've doubled the number of first-year medical students in B.C. By May of 2011, B.C. will graduate 256 doctors every year, and that's up from 120 in 2000-2001. We've supported these efforts with $134 million to build medical education centres at UBC Vancouver, UVic and UNBC. And just this year a further commitment of $32 million for health sciences at UBC Okanagan, giving government one of the biggest and best medical schools in North America.

As of 2008-2009 we've also increased the number of seats funded by nursing — and that's 93 percent — as well as developing 22 new nursing programs across the province.

We've invested $128 million in new trades training, campuses and facilities and equipment across the province, and we'll target a million dollars over the next two years to develop and implement a strategy to integrate essential skills into the workplace.

To protect our investments and ensure we're always looking ahead, we are now in the second phase of Campus 2020, which is developing a ten-year action plan. We'll continue to work with the system leadership on development of that plan, finding new approaches to how the system can better work together to provide benefits to students. We want to make sure that everyone in British Columbia can follow their dreams and prepare for their future in a growing knowledge economy.

We've limited the increase of tuition to 2 percent in the last number of years, and we've budgeted more than $400 million in financial aid. We forgave more than $77 million in student loans to over 24,000 students last year alone, and we continue to do that this year. We created the B.C. loan forgiveness program to encourage people to study in high-needs areas and to work in rural and underserved areas.

Through the aboriginal special projects fund, we've invested more than $15 million in 272 projects, benefiting approximately 4,700 aboriginal students. Budget '08-09 further commits $3 million annually in funding to support aboriginal special projects with a base increase of $1 million since last year. This is in addition to us providing $15 million for aboriginal gathering places in all our public post-secondary institutions.

Investing in research and technology. Since 2001 we've committed over $1.5 billion in research and

innovation in B.C. I think importantly, that has leveraged another $900 million in added research funding from other sources, including tax incentive plans for investors, the federal government and the private sector.

Research at universities has created another 200 small to medium-sized companies at the same time, and these companies have also attracted over $500 million in private sector investment in the province.

I want to thank the Ministry of Advanced Education, all our partners and our stakeholders. Their hard work meant we met goals to expand opportunities for students in a very short period of time.

Students view their education as an investment in their future, and government does. We are proud to support B.C. students, and we look forward to the continued vision of 2008-2009 to ensure that British Columbians are indeed the best educated people in North America.

R. Fleming: I want to thank the minister and his staff for their time here today and next week when we have a chance to pursue some other topics. I'll try maybe at the end of my opening remarks, as we did last year, to give the staff some indication of what topics we might canvass so that they can perform other work that we want of our civil servants and attend here when they're needed.

However, I do have to caution that there are a number of members from this side of the House who wish to ask questions. They have institutions. One of the great things about our system is that virtually all 79 MLAs have a satellite or a campus of one of the 25 public post-secondary institutions in their constituencies. Naturally, they have questions there as well.

In particular, in this year where there is a lot of late-breaking correspondence from administrators, faculty and people involved in this sector over year 2 of a three-year service plan that has been changed quite abruptly in the last two weeks over what anticipated funding institutions were to receive…. There are questions that are arising as we speak.

I know that the government's budget letters — I think they're changed to letters of expectation this year — have not been received by those institutions, but the direction has been set as to what institutions can expect in their core funding. It is less than they had anticipated. Plans and programming that had been in place and draft budgets that were in their final stages are having to be revised.

I think that contrasts very interestingly to a number of other provinces that have approved budgets lately — Nova Scotia earlier this week, where they set up their own ambitious new student bursary program, increased core funding to their institutions and generally put a higher priority of the overall budget's funding share to the Ministry of Advanced Education in that province.

New Brunswick as well — a 6 percent increase in that province. As well as Alberta, who are outpacing us in terms of the university-based, direct R-and-D spending — incredibly, by about $200 million a year. That is our direct neighbour to our east, who we compete with for the same research dollars from our National Research Council and compete with internationally, really, for faculty and researcher talent to attract here to British Columbia to make our institutions the best they can be and as attractive as they can be in that same competitive market that we now face.

So that contrasts with here. The questions that I will have over the coming hours really will focus on drilling down into the budget and seeing where the supports are; whether graduate research, for example, is going to be supported; how the scholarship programs, which are in year 2 now, are rolling out; what impact institutional cuts might have on tutorials, for example, that employ graduate students and support them getting through the system; and what the choices are and the reasons for a 7 percent decrease in student aid this year in British Columbia at a time when advanced education under this government has never cost more for a British Columbian than it does today.

Those costs keep going up, and British Columbia now has the second-highest student debt levels in Canada. That trend continues, and that trend hasn't been addressed in any vigorous policy or program way by this government in this budget or in previous budgets either. There are some questions as to why that is.

Every budget, of course, involves a series of choices. I think, not just speaking as the opposition but speaking for stakeholders throughout this sector, that people had anticipation and hopes that some of the fine words from the Premier and other representatives of the government that acknowledge how critical advanced education is to a modern knowledge-based economy, how critical it is to developing the kind of companies and activities in the broader economy that the minister alluded to in his opening remarks….

I think people were pleased with what they were hearing, but when it comes to the 2008 budget, they're not seeing the results that match the fine rhetoric that was occurring in the public realm from representatives of the government. We have some questions around that.

There are some lingering issues that we also canvassed in this place last year. The minister answered some questions but delayed answering some and encouraged us to wait for a review. I'm speaking of private post-secondary education.

Of course, the minister has in his receipt a very thoughtful, thorough report from Mr. John Watson, making over a dozen critical recommendations on how to protect the B.C. brand of education that this province offers — and tries to attract international students mainly from Asia-Pacific but really from everywhere in the world.

That report has been received. Those recommendations remain largely untouched. I think we'd like to examine why that is the case, especially given the recent issuance of warnings from India, China, Korea and potentially other jurisdictions to their own domestic students about the perils and lack of protections

they might encounter in British Columbia should they get in trouble at a private post-secondary institution that has misled them in advertising what programs they have signed up for.

The minister has said to students on case after case in the past: "If you get into trouble in B.C. and you're an international student and you've paid top dollars, sorry. We don't regulate that sector anymore, and if you have an issue, go to small claims court."

We've seen students suffer as a result of that. We've seen their student visas expire. They're now out of the country, and they're telling the world that B.C. let them down. They're telling the world they didn't think something like that could happen in Canada. That's another section that maybe we can pursue next week.

There are a number of institutions, as I was saying a moment ago, that are really looking at this budget quite hard. They're forced to do that, because up until about March 12, when the ministry held a teleconference with the presidents of the institutions of B.C…. They were told that they could expect a 2.6 percent reduction on what had been promised to them as their core funding previously as part of the three-year service plan and budget that had been provided by government last year. They are now having to re-examine the implications of that in an environment where costs do not go up.

In light of that, we will certainly have to talk about specifics institutionally — what choices boards of governors and senates are having to make at these institutions around the programs and courses and variety of options they offer to their students.

We also want to look at something that I know this minister very sincerely cares about and has spoken about previously — he was involved with the Perrin report — and that is: how do we get to a system of stable, reliable funding which recognizes that in advanced education you have institutions that offer two- or four-year programs, or longer, to students?

They have academic scheduling that must occur, they have hirings that are unique to offering programs, and they are also expected — rightly so — to be institutions responsive to the changing labour market demand out there, the changing society and the changing way that knowledge is accumulated and made current and contemporary.

It is for that reason, I suppose, that every ministry and every business entity — what have you — desires to have stability and a clear funding horizon. I think it's been said by this minister and representatives of this government — certainly in reports that have been issued to them before — that it is absolutely critical in advanced education to build out a system that fills the needs of British Columbia, and that stable and secure funding is paramount to the ability to do that.

We want to look at some of the report recommendations that Perrin delivered to government in both his first and second reports. There have been some that have been picked up on, but most of them have not been implemented. You know, the debate rages across this jurisdiction — in North America, really — around the implications and the practicalities of having a higher education price index to guide the funding decisions.

That's not what we have. We have the somewhat modified block funding model here. I appreciate that it will be difficult to make a change in the short term, but I think people are expecting more. Given the consensus and the dissatisfaction with what we've had in the past, we need to be making moves in that direction towards more stability and towards more transparency and towards more fairness.

I think Perrin, too, will be an area that we'll want to look at in particular, because the community colleges and university colleges have been very dissatisfied that for no other reason than 30 years of history or more, there is a different funding model and funding track record for many of those institutions. It doesn't take into account how many satellite campus operations and how many buildings they have to physically operate, how much travel time there is to and from — those kinds of things.

It's a huge challenge for communities, especially this year, when they are getting less than they anticipated from the ministry by way of funding. They had already produced plans to deliver courses and programs for September, and those things are now having to change.

I want to begin this afternoon by actually starting in the area of student financial assistance. In Canada and in British Columbia we have a system that has become less generous and less responsive to the actual needs of students today and their ability and their family's ability to finance themselves through post-secondary education.

This comes at a time when — as the minister will readily acknowledge, because he champions this ministry and this sector — advanced education has never been more critical to somebody's ability to access opportunities and participate fully in the labour market, to better themselves in life, to retrain themselves in midcareer and all of those things. It is at this time that governments — not just this one, although this is the one I'm obviously going to focus on — have failed to provide a system of student aid that is working well for Canadians generally.

Having said that, there are some provinces that have recognized the need. The United States south of us, which has an interesting federal system, has changed their grants system and their system of student loans. We have some questions around why it's really a road not taken in B.C. — that when students are facing and are expected to pay a greater and greater share of the cost of their education, the ability to pay and then repay…. Accessing advanced education has not been made easier for them.

We have a skills gap. We know that three-quarters of the new jobs we need in British Columbia will require an advanced education, yet something like 59 percent of our people have that credential or training and education in their background. We have to meet the demands that are out there, and the ability to afford and access education is critical to that effort.

In terms of roads not taken, I want to ask the minister, just to begin, if we can go straight into the section around student loan reforms that he might be contemplating but didn't put in Budget 2008. I want to ask him for some context.

First of all, this ministry anticipates lending less money to students this year and recovering more money from students who are in repayment. I guess, from a purely fiscal perspective, it's to the good of the province, but none of that higher recovery and lower loan threshold has been….

I wonder if the minister could tell me: has it been examined in terms of options he might have to either make loans fill some of the unmet needs that he's aware of or, on the repayment end of the equation on loans, whether he has looked at anything that might address problems that he's aware of in that regard?

Hon. M. Coell: I want to thank the member for his comments. I look forward to discussing all of those areas with him and his colleagues in the coming days.

There have been, historically in B.C., lots of different student aid programs — most of them coupled with the federal government, as the member knows. What we've found is that we have enough money in the budget to meet the requests that we get from students. That has typically gone down or been less than we've projected in the last few years. So the projection is there. I can assure the member that for anyone applying for funds who qualifies, the funds will be there in this budget.

The member also asked about the review that was generated out of the Campus 2020 recommendations. We're in the midst of that review now. I think all of the comments that the member made are actually being reviewed, and I hope to have some recommendations later this spring that I would use during the budget sessions in the fall of this year.

I was pleased, and I suspect most of us in the Legislature were pleased, with the federal government's renewed interest in student financial aid and with the programs that they've announced. We're working with them, as well, to see how we can coordinate to have one access to student aid that would give students the ability to access both their federal and provincial loans and to see where grants and bursaries and scholarships are as well. That's part of the review, as well, that will come forward, hopefully later this spring.

R. Fleming: Is that review being conducted within the ministry, or is there a consultant or external team that has been assembled to participate in that? I'm just wondering. Maybe the minister can advise if there is a terms of reference available or anything that outlines the parameters of the review so that at least students and the public can know that government is looking at the right things in regards to this problem.

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry staff are talking to the stakeholders within the system — actually, with anyone who'd like to talk to us about student aid. There is a terms-of-reference, and I don't have it with me today, but I'll supply it for the member Monday morning.

The staff, I think, judging from the Campus 2020 recommendations, are trying to make as broad a review as possible, but maybe when we get the terms of reference next week, we could talk further about them.

R. Fleming: I'd appreciate that. Maybe the minister could just quickly tell me the beginning point of that review, when it was undertaken. He's just told us that it hasn't been completed yet. Obviously, it wasn't completed in time for this budget cycle, which I think is unfortunate. If he could tell me when that process first began.

Hon. M. Coell: Once the Campus 2020 report was received, we acted on a number of items: the free tuition for adult basic education, the launch of an on-line interest relief application, streamlining of the eligibility requirements. We piloted the existing loan reduction to residential care aide and home support workers and launched a new on-line process for interest-free status. The default prevention grant program was introduced, and the early childhood educator loan assistance program was introduced pretty quickly after that report was tabled with us.

The specifics of the student financial aid package. Staff started working on that in September and have been working and talking with our stakeholders. As I said, we'd really like anyone who has any ideas for improved student assistance programs to come forward and talk with us.

R. Fleming: One of the ideas that I know we canvassed last year in estimates and that the minister has probably heard from his colleagues and the Council of Ministers of Education, and certainly from students and others in B.C., is around student loan interest rates. Currently interest rates paid here, I think, range from 8½ percent to about 11 percent, and that's a government loan product at those rates.

Now, I was looking through the newspaper again yesterday. I don't usually look through the section that has advertisements from new car dealers and such, but I couldn't help but notice that there were, again, a number of lending products for purchasing a brand-new automobile. I know that our student loan program has an interest-free status for as long as you're studying, but these new car products had zero percent for up to 60 months — very similar to a student loan in that regard. But the overall interest rate was, in some cases, as low as 1.2 percent to finance a vehicle.

I'm kidding a little bit here on comparing it to the motivation of automobile manufacturers to off-load their products. But I know that the minister has heard from a wide spectrum of people that the loan rates offered to students in B.C. are far from being generous. They are part of, according to many studies, default problems that some students experience, and most students who do enter a default period do so within the first three years of repayment.

My question to the minister is: why did he not consider in this budget or manage to offer….? This goes well before September, when this review was undertaken. Why did he not use the last couple of years to seriously examine and then implement a reduction rate on those interest rates, as has been done recently in Nova Scotia?

Hon. M. Coell: We have looked at a number of things with regard to student financial aid, and I think that we probably touched on it last year when we looked at the loan reduction and loan forgiveness programs first, and then they very much…. Probably in the last three years we forgave close to $300 million worth of student loan, affecting probably 25,000 or 26,000 students — one way of doing it.

I don't think there's a perfect way to deliver student loans. That's why we're taking some time with the review to look at what other provinces are doing to see how we can cooperate with the federal government to develop, you know, one-stop shopping.

We only have the one rate now for student loan, and it's prime plus 2.5. That is under review as well. I know that the member asked last year, and we said that that would be part of the review, and it is.

The structures of having up to ten years of interest-free loan. Of course, that would be part of the review and how you mix those and to have further additions to loan forgiveness and for people who will move to different parts of the province to work for the loan reduction programs. We're seeing some takeup on that increasing this year as well as last year.

There are a number of areas that we're going to be looking at during the review, and as I said, if anyone has a good idea, we're certainly open-minded to hearing from them.

R. Fleming: Another idea that I know the minister would be familiar with and that was really brought to the forefront of discussion within advanced education circles was the report this year by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation around the myriad of tax credits available for education that are put in place to induce affordability and to give credits for expenses for education purposes. The report was quite a bombshell, I think, because it looked at the results in terms of who it is giving access to, who it is primarily benefiting and what it is actually costing the public in terms of the forgone revenue costs to the federal government. I know that B.C. has some…. There are some implications for us there too.

This minister chaired the Council of Ministers of Education last year, and I know he'll be familiar with that. I'm just wondering whether there was a response, in any way, from his office or from his ministry to that report or any analysis and correspondence regarding it.

Hon. M. Coell: Just a correction. I wasn't the chair of the ministers last year.

I think it's a long-term project. It would require opening up a national contract with all of the provinces — one that my staff had some discussions with the Ministry of Finance on and are still working through some of the recommendations as to how we would adopt them and where we would go with the ministers council.

R. Fleming: I think the federal-provincial issues are critical here to solving the problems that students in B.C. are having in their ability to afford and repay further education. I know there was a substantive change.

Last year we were speculating during estimates debate what the federal government might do about the sunsetting of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation. They've now given direction as to what they're going to do. Depending on your perspective, there is some good and bad in there. But it will definitely mean for British Columbia a simple transfer of money under the guise of the Millennium Scholarship Foundation that can be used in quite a flexible way by B.C.

This government cancelled the year 1 to 4 grants program that the previous government used to use millennium dollars for. But they put it into the loan forgiveness program, so they flexibly adapted it to their preference and reduced the amount, I would note, as well.

Now that's all changed, and there is direction coming from the federal government. It basically means that there won't be a transfer to B.C. anymore. The Canada student loan program will be the same bureaucracy that administers a new Canada student grant product, or whatever it's going to be called.

Has the minister been briefed by staff as to how this transition will be managed? I wonder if he could tell me what issues have been flagged so far in this regard. Obviously, it's going to create some pressures on the programs that you fund with millennium dollars currently. It may also be forcing a reconsideration of how we deliver loans ourselves.

Hon. M. Coell: The member knows that there was a lot of consultation between the federal and provincial governments before this was brought into effect, and we're continuing to work with them. We'll make some changes to how student financial aid is delivered in British Columbia, but I'm confident we can work to ensure that there are good programs for students. Generally, I'm pleased to see the federal government not just abandon the process but actually put some money back into the system.

The Chair: Committee A will now recess until completion of the vote in the big House.

R. Fleming: We were just speaking to the minister about the millennium scholarship fund and its conversion to a Canada students grant program. I just wanted to ask him, with the anticipation, then, once this takes effect, what it will mean for British Columbia. If he could maybe put in his answer how much money currently is coming to British Columbia and how much of a gap in the next fiscal year British Columbia is going to have to find to fund programs that it's currently using federal dollars for but putting into provincial programs on a co-funded basis.

Hon. M. Coell: We're working through that. We're getting approximately $43 million coming to the province now. Our first initial look is the…. By 2010-2011 it may create about a $10 million pressure for us, so we're just looking at how we can deal with that.

R. Fleming: The 2010–2011 fiscal year is when the payments will cease or when the new regime will be fully up and running?

I wanted to ask the minister a little bit about a trend within student loans around default rates and whether he has any data that he could share, which is current, around default rates in B.C. I know that the trend, for a variety of reasons in Canada, is declining from a high point a few years ago, but that it is still unacceptably high. I wonder if he could give me some numbers that he has and if his ministry tracks any differences between default rates for people that are in the first few months of repayment or any other way that he breaks it down according to what part of repayment they are in their loans.

Hon. M. Coell: The default rate, if I maybe clarify…. The member may want to clarify as well. You know, when you write off a debt, it's quite low. It's down in the sort of 1 percent rate. Someone might default for a period of time and then start again. The default rate would be around 12 percent, 12½ percent, if you looked at 2000 to 2007, in that era.

I think one of the things that we need to do is find ways to help students who are…. I can give you an example. They might be taking a course that's going to give them a lower-paying job. They may be the ones that default because they're just not making enough money to have living conditions and houses and cars and everything like that. So that's an area where I think we need to look into — what's causing students to have a default, whether it's a short-term default of a couple of months or a year.

Something that we're looking at, as well, in the review is: what's causing that default? Is it someone who has taken a program and borrowed money, but once they get a job, that program doesn't pay at a level high enough to assist them in paying their loan back? It's a good question, and one that we're looking into.

R. Fleming: By "default," what I mean, by definition, is missed payments that put the person in arrears of their obligation to repay their loan. I know that in the 2004-2005 year, B.C. had the third-highest default rate in the country. It was very high. Up to one in four students had defaulted, from the numbers that I have. This is from a HRDC study.

So the reason I asked what it is now is that I know, nationally, it's trending downwards, probably because of the awareness of credit bureaus and the importance of that to students, as well as probably just that the rate of unemployment after graduation is better than it was in every province, actually, in Canada. But there may be some other factors there as well.

What I wanted to ask the minister is: is there an issue around defaults? Obviously, one way to see people who are in trouble with defaults is whether they access some of the programs that they have available through your ministry — the grace period, for example, which we don't have, but the federal government has. You could see a difference there.

Also there's a program where students who simply cannot repay are put to a system where they can repay the interest portion of their loan, but they don't pay the principal. If you could maybe speak to me or give the committee here some numbers on what kind of numbers of students are taking advantage of that program.

Hon. M. Coell: I share the concern, I guess, is what I'd start with saying. I think that the number of things that we've done to try to stop people from having to default…. We did, as we were talking earlier, the B.C. loan reduction program, and that's about $75 million a year. For the B.C. loan forgiveness program, the budget is $1.03 million. The Pacific leaders loan forgiveness is $1.7 million. The B.C. loan remission program is just under $400,000. The B.C. interest relief program is interest revenue deferred. The B.C. debt reduction in payment program budget is $1.2 million. The B.C. permanent disabilities benefit program is $2.6 million.

Then there's the extended amortization of the B.C. student loan program, and that's interest revenue deferral as well. Then there's the principal deferment program. The two that we did this year, the early childhood educator loan assistance…. That would be, I think, an example of one of the programs where the pay-once-graduation isn't as high as some other programs that are offered inside the system. So that's a $440,000 budget this year. Then the loan reduction program for residential care aides and home support workers is $3.38 million.

So there are a number of areas where we targeted funds where those programs would help fund students so that they wouldn't default. As I said earlier on, there's never a perfect way of doing this, but that's how we've sort of identified areas where there could be issues and problems and tried to fill the gaps.

R. Fleming: Okay. I appreciate the breakdown of those programs within StudentAid B.C.

I wanted to ask the minister around, in this budget, the receipts that are increasing for recoveries to the program repayment. They're up fairly significantly this year, by $16 million. I wonder if the minister could give me an explanation as to why that is — whether people have bigger loan debts and are repaying more or whether it's because there's a cohort of those repaying that is wider than previously.

Hon. M. Coell: I was looking for a complicated reason, but my staff tell me it's quite simple. There are actually more students leaving. We didn't get into the business of direct loans until 2002, so at this point, you're seeing people graduating from two- and four-year programs, leaving the system. So we actually see that moving up as more students start repaying their loans.

R. Fleming: Okay. It's an interesting position to be in, because the government is bringing in more money from former students and the program is more mature or older. Then in terms of the money that is being given out to students currently in study, that amount is declining again. It's down, I believe, $20 million this year.

I wonder if the minister could tell me if there's a rationale or reason that the takeup rate for B.C. student loans is declining again this year.

Hon. M. Coell: It's a demand-driven program, so I think that there's a variety of reasons, whether it's a hot economy or whatever. It just seems to be that our estimates are a little lower than we were projecting in the last two or three years. I think I said in the House once that anyone who needs a loan will get a loan and will get the assistance they need. There just seem to be less people asking for them.

R. Fleming: Well, that qualifies. Okay, the minister has just…. That's what I was getting at. As part of the review of student loans — I don't want to put this off till the review — one would surely think that perhaps the qualifications for the loan are too difficult for some.

I have heard from students in the Lower Mainland that assets in the family — perhaps real estate assets or what have you that aren't necessarily contributing to family income at all — are part of the evaluation process as to whether someone under the age of 23 who is not a mature student…. That's part of the parental contribution that is expected now. Of course, we know that in the Lower Mainland a lot of people are house-rich, if you like, but quite cash-poor, and it would be unreasonable to insist upon them losing their home to fund their child's education.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me if, indeed, that kind of asset consideration is going on. There are a number of students, in files that have come to our attention, where that seems to be the reason why they were rejected for a B.C. student loan and had to look at a private lending product.

Hon. M. Coell: We haven't assessed the principal residences of parents before and don't intend to. The parent disposable income has actually dropped from 25 percent down to 15 percent, so it's trending in the right area as well.

R. Fleming: Is there, from ministry staff….There must be groupings of students that don't qualify for loans for a number of reasons. I'm just wondering if maybe you could give an indication as to what the major reason is why a low-income/middle-income student might not be entitled to a B.C. student loan.

Hon. M. Coell: Between 96 percent and 99 percent of people who apply actually receive a loan, and the 1 percent or 2 percent that don't, have too much asset or too much of their own money to qualify.

R. Fleming: Well, the question previously was — and the minister says it's under review — why the pool of potential applicants for student loans seems to be contracting. This is the second or third year in a row, I think, that the amount through the loans program has declined again.

That's an interesting trend. It's totally counterintuitive given the direction this government has taken on tuition fees, which are now approximately 15 percent higher than the Canadian average. It doubled in just a few short years. So it's more expensive than it's ever been before to go to school in B.C. One would think that….

Earnings haven't necessarily gone up for students either. Savings for British Columbians and Canadians haven't trended in a positive direction either. So both savings and earnings on that side, not meeting the cost increases on the tuition side…. One would think, intuitively, that demand for student loans would go up.

If the minister could tell me: is he contemplating an expansion of the pool of potential, qualified applicants for B.C. student loans?

Hon. M. Coell: It's an interesting question. I think that the studies have shown that when the economy is hot, you generally have a slow entry into post-secondary, and when the economy turns down, you get an increase.

We looked at student financial aid offices in Alberta and Manitoba, who have had pretty hot economies in 2006, 2007. The number of their applicants went down as well. In southern Ontario, where the economy has not been as healthy, the numbers have actually gone up.

I think that a demand-driven program is probably the best, and when I can see that 96 percent to 99 percent of people who apply are accepted, that means that the need is there. The number of people, as I say and this member knows, has gone down.

We're not projecting it to continue to go down. I think that we've plateaued at a place where with the

present economy and the present seats available inside the system, we'll probably stay around this area.

R. Fleming: I think that one of the concerns around loans being potentially too limiting as to who can apply for them…. Well, there's a corresponding concern around costs to attend school that have gone up. I think aversion to debt, that's well documented in studies, that low-income students have, which is kind of a paradox: those that need it most seek to avoid it most.

When you look at the situation that British Columbia is in around enrolment, where we have declining enrolment at most of our rural colleges and many of our university colleges, it's a real concern. It really urges a responsibility from the ministry to determine whether both the aversion to debt and the limitations that we might have in our student loan system is related to declining enrolment.

Another problem within institutions of students who are already there is the dropout rate. There was some research done and released this year that is national. It had a B.C. component to it, I believe. It was conducted by the millennium scholarship fund. It found that 23 percent of students leaving school do so for financial reasons.

I guess the question for the minister is whether he has determined any relationship between declining enrolment at a number of institutions in B.C. and potential problems within the student aid system.

Hon. M. Coell: That's a major part of the review. I think that we want to make sure you retain a student. I think both the member and I went to the University of Victoria — be it in different generations, I think.

I made lots of friends. Some were there a year and didn't come back, whether it was for being lonely for home or for lack of money. But I think that there needs to be…. That's why this is a major part of the review: how do you retain people in the system?

I mean, there will be times when you just take some courses and you think: "This just isn't for me. I'm going to change and do something else and move on." I recognize that. But if there are reasons that we can assist with for keeping people in the system, I think that we should do that.

I'm looking forward to the report, and I'm sure probably all the members in the Legislature are, to see what changes can be made in working with the federal government with the new programs and collaborating with our programs.

R. Fleming: I was saying earlier that I think that the B.C. student loan program is not as generous as it should be and that it doesn't compare favourably to some products that are available on the private market. Having said that, I want to also ask questions about private lending for people to get through school.

I know that in the United States there was a study that showed that from a decade ago to now, those that are attending school that have their own private arrangement for funding, for borrowing, have grown from 6 percent to 24 percent. So that's now a multi-billion-dollar business south of the border.

I know that Canadian banks and Canadian institutions, Canadian lenders of all kinds, are also offering, on their rack of loan items that you can involve yourself in, and branding their own student packages now. I'm wondering if the minister has any indication and whether he's keeping statistics on the share…. While the public lending system seems to diminish, again, for another year, is there a corresponding increase on the private side of student loans?

Hon. M. Coell: We don't have a lot of information on that. The last one that we did with the colleges looked at 2003 to 2007. Unfortunately, we don't have it broken down between loans for family members that people said they had. Did you borrow from any other source? That would be family, a bank, whatever. That was around 25 percent in 2006. So I think that's something that probably is pretty common all across the country, would be my guess, although we don't have any more than one study to show us.

R. Fleming: Well, I wonder if the ministry would consider keeping track of that. I'm surprised that they don't because they do get reporting from the institutions as part of their accountability commitments, and the student financial aid offices at those institutions would certainly know.

I've seen statistics, admittedly from the larger universities, around data on exit surveys on student use of credit cards and those kinds of things in terms of how they finance their way through school. So is that information not required or assembled by the ministry to try and get an overall provincial picture? Is that what you're saying?

Hon. M. Coell: Yeah, to the member. We just have that one, I would say, minor survey that we referenced. It's pretty hard — other than doing surveys — to get that information. But I don't disagree; it may be helpful.

R. Fleming: I just want to go back to the amount loaned through StudentAid B.C. It's declining by $20 million this year, but it's still a $250 million a year program. I just wonder if the minister could give me an indication of what amount of that goes to students who study at the 25 public post-secondary institutions and what amount goes to students that are in the private system.

Hon. M. Coell: The answer to that is 15.5 percent went to the private sector, and the rest went into the public sector.

R. Fleming: Thank you, Minister, for that answer, because I wanted to ask you some questions just building on that.

You gave presumably a blended default rate on the student loans earlier. I wonder if you could go back and break it down between those studying at private

career training colleges that are on loans and those at the public institutions.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have that information, but I will get it for next week for the member.

R. Fleming: I look forward to that, because I know that the Canadian government's data on it shows that the default rate is significantly higher for the private career trainers. That may have to do with the significantly higher cost of fees at most of those institutions typically.

It may have to do with something else. It may have to do with the fact that some of the training being offered is very poor and isn't leading to the employment outcomes we would expect it to, in which case we have a problem because we have public dollars basically being the lifeblood of these private institutions. The worth in value of what the students' training is when they're completed out of those programs is not enabling them to repay. They are defaulting, and that is affecting the system.

The reason I want to know is because…. The question that maybe you can answer today is: what are the cost implications of a high-default rate on the overall interest rate charged to students? In other words, that prime plus 2.5 that we charge here in B.C. is higher than a number of other provinces charge. Is there a cost pressure when you look at the overall administration costs and the write-offs within the loan program caused by that default rate?

Hon. M. Coell: There hasn't been an attempt by government to connect the default rate to the interest rates. I don't know whether the member might clarify the comment. But we haven't put any correlation between default rate and the interest rates, or I haven't seen anything anyways.

R. Fleming: Well, the correlation was whether it's a driver or a factor. I mean, you set up the loan program based on a number of assumptions, and one of them is the cost to administer it. There are cost pressures on administering any program of that nature.

I'm just wondering if a default rate or bad loans being issued…. Perhaps you don't have the information today, but I'm interested to see whether lost loans, I suppose, issued to people studying in private training institutions are creating problems on the public students.

Hon. M. Coell: My staff have found the answer to the question re the default rates. Being that about 15 percent of the student financial aid goes into the private sector, the default rate is around 23 percent. With the default rate in the public sector, it's about 10 percent for the other 75 percent. So that's similar to the rest of the country, as the member was saying.

I think one of the things — and it's probably worth talking about in a little more depth…. Once a person, let's say, does a bachelor's degree and they've got four years' worth of debt and haven't paid interest on that for the four years they've been in, they would have a couple of options. If they could find a better lender or a cheaper rate, they could actually move their debt into that. But that would take them out of the loan forgiveness program, so you would lose that loan forgiveness by taking your money out to a lender that was maybe less percentagewise.

R. Fleming: I'll look at that response and then maybe, with the benefit of more information, ask more about that.

I mentioned earlier the study that was done federally about the elaborate array of advanced education–related tax credits that the federal government administers. I think it cost the treasury about $1.9 billion a year. That's pretty significant in that it's approximately 45 percent higher than the entire Canada student loan program. The cash value of that is very high, and most of the benefits accrue to households that have incomes over $70,000.

The report was of interest to a number of MPs and those working within the sector, because it was the first examination of whether in fact those tuition tax credit policies and ones for books and all kinds of things actually are helping governments that are interested in expanding accessibility or whether it's not well targeted money.

Those are federal programs, by and large, and that is our federal tax system. But I do note that B.C. has its own tuition tax credit program. The latest data I have available says that it's valued at $45 million a year. So if the minister could confirm maybe if my number is wrong.

Also, in light of the suggestion that we do not receive good value for money on the elaborate system of tax credit policies federally, I'm wondering if the minister has examined whether we're getting good value from this tuition tax credit here in B.C.

Hon. M. Coell: My staff and I were just talking. That particular tax credit, I think, has been around since about 1976. It's of use to the student. If the student can't use it, then it can be passed to the parent to use, or a guardian, I guess.

It's an interesting discussion. A lot of the tax credits that I've seen from the federal level aren't necessarily there to add assistance in more people coming in. They're actually a tax relief across the board generally for people. I'm not sure I don't agree with the premise the member says — that the tax credit doesn't actually help a lot more people go. It helps the people that are going with their finances.

I think there may be some other areas where you could actually…. Maybe we could get into that a little, what governments can do to actually take that 10 percent of the population that aren't going to post-secondary and help them get in. The ones that are going are obviously getting some benefit from tax breaks, either them or their parents, but I don't think that would necessarily encourage more people to go. I think there's a lot more we can do as a government and as a society to encourage people to go to post-secondary as well.

R. Fleming: It's probably an interesting history about how that program from 1976 came into being. I'm just wondering if it's one that is being examined, though, I suppose, within the parameters of the student aid review.

The minister has already said here this afternoon that there will be a shortfall expected from the millennium scholarship fund being wound down. There are a lot of demands and ideas for improving student financial aid in B.C. that have cost implications, and I'm wondering if that is part of the review.

Hon. M. Coell: You can see that from the 1970s to now it hasn't changed. There are 14 governments now who are signing, and they'd all have to get together and agree to change it, which I think probably says a lot in itself as to why it hasn't changed.

R. Fleming: I think that would be as interesting or achievable as a constitutional discussion. Okay, fair enough. I didn't actually know that bit of the history that it was with every jurisdiction and territory.

I wanted to ask about student debt statistics in B.C. Here again we've seen quite a remarkable and disturbing trend line upwards for B.C. students graduating with debt loads.

For that 50 percent of B.C. students that are graduating with a student loan debt, I'm wondering if the minister can give me any statistics that he has around what the average is. Those would be both gross and net numbers, if he has them available.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, of the total student population, about 50 percent don't borrow any funds at all. Of the ones who borrow — our latest statistics are 2006-2007 — $26,165 would be your average debt.

R. Fleming: If the minister could just tell me when the next time is that those numbers will be updated. That was a couple of years ago, and I know the trend line is quite steep. It was perhaps $10,000 below that, on average, just a decade prior to it.

It's imperative, I think, to see whether government's efforts are helping. If this government, in fact, thinks that student debt levels are unacceptably high and problematic, I think it's imperative to craft policies. While we have a student aid system under review, I think this is the time to examine those. If the minister has any numbers for '07-08 or could maybe indicate when new numbers might be available.

Hon. M. Coell: That program year '06-07 would transfer into '07-08, so that's as up to date as we would have. We would have that coming out next year for this year.

I agree. I think the debt level is a concern. That's one of the main reasons we're doing the review right now — to find some ways to relieve that student debt.

R. Fleming: I think one of the areas that's a concern is that there have been a number of studies that have shown a link that those with financial needs typically take longer to complete their studies, and in doing that, they can take on more and more debt. I wonder if the minister has any statistics on completion rates or time-to-completion rates.

I know it was something that was talked about. I don't know whether it was an actual commitment of government or what, but there are some numbers there from 2001. I think we canvassed this last year, but I wanted to see if he had any numbers that he could maybe give me — a snapshot over time as to how long it typically takes B.C. students to complete…. The data you probably have is for degree programs. Four-year programs are primarily what I'm interested in.

Hon. M. Coell: I just have three years of percentage of university direct-entry students that complete BAs within seven years of admission. In 2004-2005 it was 71.7 percent; 2005-2006, 74.1 percent, and the target this year, or in 2006-07, was 74.1 percent as well. So it's trending in the right direction but, you know, slightly.

The other one was percentage of university transfer students that complete BA degrees within five years of admission. In 2004-2005 it was at 72.7 percent; 2005-2006, 75.2 percent; and targeted, again, in 2006-07 at 75.2 percent — so trending in the right way, but slightly.

R. Fleming: It's hard to go back and forth on statistics, so I won't. I maybe want to get some paper on that. It's kind of like those numbers you get that say percentage of people satisfied are very satisfied. You get them sometimes with the student engagement surveys. It's meaningless, if you don't know…. The difference between satisfied and very satisfied can be quite substantial.

Similarly here, I'm not understanding it. You gave me some percentages of students who complete within seven years and within five years, and the ones that complete within five years are greater than the ones that complete within seven years, if I recorded that right.

Those completing a four-year program within seven years — that's not a very meaningful indicator. I think what would be of greater use is to see it broken down, you know, to see who falls where between the four years that the program is designed to be completed in and maybe a time period as far out as eight or nine years.

Hon. M. Coell: As we're having this debate on a Thursday, we've got a couple of days. I'll try and put that information together for the member for early next week.

R. Fleming: Mr. Chair, I'd like to pass some time over to the member for Surrey-Newton to ask a few questions of the minister at this time.

H. Bains: Minister, I want to take you back to our discussion last year on Barkel College and the subsequent correspondence and some meetings that took

place since that time with your assistant deputy and ministerial assistant, I believe it was.

The issue at hand, just to give a little background, was that Barkel College was involved in some controversy. Last time the minister advised us that the issue was serious enough that the RCMP was called in. The RCMP was conducting an investigation into the affairs of that college. Perhaps the minister could give us an update on that investigation to begin with. Then I have some more subsequent questions.

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, we referred all our records to the RCMP, and we haven't heard back from them at this point. I can tell you, with regard to that particular institution, that there are currently no students in default of their loans right now and that only one student has needed any repayment assistance and has applied for it at this point.

H. Bains: I think we may have missed the point here. The issue wasn't whether the students were at default or not. The issue that was brought to your attention last time and then, subsequent to that, to the assistant deputy minister when we brought those files to the office was this.

Barkel College advertised in local newspapers to ask for potential students to come in to upgrade their skills. They promised that they would be entitled to student loans and student grants, and as such, a number of them went to that college. Many of them were qualified for the grants and the student loans, but the issue was that when they went to the college, according to these students, they did not get the education they were promised, so they thought they were wasting their time.

Some of them left with a promise from the college that their money would be refunded. Then subsequently the college closed anyway because of the audit that was conducted, I believe, by the ministry and then the RCMP.

The question was this. These students didn't get the education, didn't receive the money they were entitled to under the student loan and the student grants, and the college is under investigation. It shows clearly that students were not at fault, and for the students, the issue wasn't whether they were in default or not.

The issue was: why were they asked to pay for the student loan money and the student grant money? Most of it went to the college, and now the students are being asked to pay and refund that money, when it was the college at fault.

Hon. M. Coell: I agree with the member. It was a very unfortunate incident, and we did have a number of them. They were all around the time we went from student grants to loans. There was a spike in a number of institutions that we have had difficulty with. I believe we've got a handle on that now.

It does leave students with some loans. They may feel they didn't get what they were promised. I don't disagree with that. But I have confidence that we've probably passed the era where there are going to be the types of problems that we had two, three years ago. Again, I agree with the member. It was an unfortunate incident for students.

H. Bains: I guess the question that I'm asking on behalf of those students…. Many of them happen to be my constituents, and they all come from different backgrounds. If I could shed a little further light on the background of these students. These were new students. Most of them came to this country under the skilled category, and all they were looking for was to upgrade their skills, as they were promised by the college, so that they can actually exercise their credentials here in Canada, be productive members of society and work in the workplace to the fullest of their potential.

They went there with good intentions, and we know what took place at the college — the shutdown and the RCMP investigation. But this question remains, and those students are still asking this question. Why is the ministry asking them to pay for the student grants and student loans when it was the college who defaulted?

Instead of going after the college, the ministry is going after the students. The victims are being victimized twice. I think that's the situation that the students are saying the minister should look at. That's why we brought those files, so that they could take a look. They gave all the information: how much money actually went to the student, how much money went directly to the college.

They said that any money that went to the student they feel they are willing to pay. But the money that went to the college, which didn't deliver the services that they promised under the charter and under the promise they made….

The ministry should be going after the college. Although the money was approved on behalf of the student, it went directly to the college. That's the question. Why are the students being asked to pay for something, for services they never received? The ministry should be going after the college, not the students.

Hon. M. Coell: I do understand where the member is coming from. There were a number of instances in the private sector where we did indeed look at what the obligations of the government and the private institutions were, and a number have closed, which we closed. We've taken a number to court, as well, on different issues. Unfortunately, at this point we would not be able to offer any relief to those students under the present circumstances.

H. Bains: I guess that is very, very unfortunate, because the students were hoping that the minister would see through this — and I'm sure you're serious about this issue — how they were victimized, the new immigrants that wanted to move ahead in life.

We invited them to this country. We advertised in those countries: "Come. We need your skills." Here is their first experience with our education system — where they didn't get the education but actually ended up in debt, at no fault of their own. They were willing to go and get the education. They took the first step, and it was the college who actually defaulted. It was the college who failed the ministry and failed the students.

I am asking the minister to revisit that and forgo the portion that they didn't receive, the money that went to the college. The ministry should take whatever recourse it has to collect from that college. Apparently the owners are still operating somewhere else in the system, here in that city. So find some means to go after whoever you have to go after, because the students didn't receive the money and didn't receive the education.

I'm pleading on their behalf that this is not a very good situation. These are not rich folks. They are new immigrants, and they did everything that we as a country asked of new immigrants to do. The minister needs to revisit that and forgo the portion that the students didn't receive.

Hon. M. Coell: Again, I do understand the member's point of view. You know, I can reiterate that there were a number of instances — as I say, three or four years ago now — where we had some colleges that we closed or that closed on their own. We have taken legal action against a number of them, but again, at this time, we have taken all of the information that we have and given it to the RCMP. It's in their hands, in Crown counsel's hands. You know, eventually…. At this time we're not able to provide any relief to those students.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minimum the minister and the ministry can do — until that investigation continues on and is concluded — is to call the collection agencies off. They should not go after these students, because the investigation is going on. Once the investigation is concluded, perhaps then the decision should be made on what help is available to these students.

Hon. M. Coell: I thank the member for his question. I think at this point we have actually…. There aren't any in arrears at this point or in default. We have worked with them to do interest reduction and a number of other programs that they're involved in, and we'll continue to work with them.

H. Bains: I actually have also been advised by some of these students that they are getting very nasty phone calls from these collection agencies. They are saying: "Look, you know, we're the victims. Don't come after us, and don't be rude and nasty to us."

I would ask the minister to look into this situation and see what tactics these collection agencies are using. I think the prudent thing to do at this time would be to ask those collection agencies not to go after these students until the investigation by the RCMP is concluded and the ministry is in a position to make a decision about what to do with these students and with the student loans and grants.

Hon. M. Coell: That's new information to me. The information I have is that we have 12 students that are part of our loan repayment program. We've worked with them to reduce interest where we can and to show them the other programs that we've got to assist.

H. Bains: Perhaps the minister can give us a commitment here today that the ministry will speak to the collection agencies — that they're not to aggressively go after these students and that they need to wait until the RCMP concludes its investigation and the ministry is in a position to make a decision as to who to go after to collect that money.

Hon. M. Coell: If the member can give me the names of the people that you're looking at, we can see if we can get them on to some support program.

H. Bains: All those files were brought to the assistant deputy minister, I believe in June of 2007, with the full background on each one of them. Those are the students that we're working with. They are the ones who are asking that the collection agencies shouldn't come after them until the RCMP concludes its investigation and that the ministry perhaps at that time should sit down with the students to see what happens.

Hon. M. Coell: It would be helpful. When we go through the files, we don't see any, other than those paying loans back and one that we've helped into another program. So if you have the names of those people, it would be very helpful to me.

H. Bains: So that we're clear, perhaps I could get the report that you may have from the assistant deputy minister — who, at that particular time, told us to take a look at each individual file and see what the background was, whether these people were to pay back any of the loan or not. I think that's the answer that they are waiting for.

If that work hasn't been done, then I'm prepared to perhaps sit down with the ADM again to go over those files again, if that's what it will take, and see what information your office needs. Then we can pass this on to the students.

Hon. M. Coell: I think that's a very good idea, and my assistant deputy minister Tom Vincent will arrange a meeting with you.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for his commitment on that matter, because it has been going on a long time. I know that the students are still out there and trying to move on with their lives, and it's appreciated.

I wanted to just get back to the student loan programs in B.C. again in general, with some more

questions around their administration and some aspects of the program. A small program in there — and I want to get an indication of its size — is principal deferment, the PDP plan, where students, rather than applying for interest relief, can choose to make minimal payments on their interest only and not the principal amount of their loan, if that's deemed to be what their ability to pay is.

This is an interesting program. Nowhere else in Canada is this done. No other provinces do it. It is done in the States a little bit, but there is a concern that, when you look at it under a certain lens, this is rather poor public policy.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's almost like payday lending, where you have rollover loans where you never actually get at the principal amount of what you originally borrowed. You are perpetually repaying just the interest amount on that principal. We're the only one of ten provinces that even bothers having a program like this.

I want to ask the minister if this is part of the scope and parameters of the student financial assistance review and whether he can tell me how many people are participating in this, what the value of it is to the system. My indications are that it's a rather minor program. I think it's unimportant to government, and I think it's bad public policy. But not enough is known about it, quite frankly.

Hon. M. Coell: It's a very small program. There are only 250 people. We're projecting it could go up to maybe 600 eventually. It's designed to tide people over if they've lost a job or something like that and have to take a few months where they want to just pay the interest that they would have been paying in any event.

As I say, it's a very small program, and if it helps some people, I think it's a good thing. We'll always review, as we do all programs, but it's been in effect now for a few years and isn't growing significantly.

R. Fleming: Well, it sounds like if it could grow from 250 to 600 people, while that is still small, that is a growing program. I maintain that I think there is an element of this program that's distasteful. While it's under the guise to help the individual, it can actually get them into more trouble if they tread water for an extended period of time and never actually get at the principal of the loan.

Are there parameters on the PDP program in terms of a length of time that a person can be participating in it? It's a program that's a few years old now. If you have any statistics about who's using it, anything that might be regionally significant or institutionally significant — graduates of colleges or universities — but particularly about the length of time that people are on this plan.

Hon. M. Coell: The program has been around since 2002. It was just one of a suite of programs that were put in place. What I'll do is look for any data that we have on it and make it available to the member. As I say, it's a small number of students now, but I'll check and see what data we've been gathering and make it available.

Just moving on to the B.C. student loan website. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me if the administration and maintenance of that website is done by employees of his ministry or whether that's contracted out and, if so, to whom.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could tell me a little bit about the call centre where students are making inquiries about the status of their loans, having to respond to elements within their repayment period. If he could tell me who's providing that service and any details, like from which country and that kind of thing.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't know whether I would call it a call centre, but we have 18 staff in Victoria that take calls from students regarding student loans. Then the contract with Resolve is in Mississauga and they would take any financial questions from students there.

R. Fleming: Just going back to the website. There have been some complaints that students who can easily see their banking records on line in an instant — charge something on their card and log on and see it there moments later…. There's no such thing when it comes to calculation of interest. There are no real-time components available to students who are in a repayment position to the ministry.

I'm wondering if that's an element that the ministry could commit to making available to students, because they do…. You know, these are secure sections where people can get records, and there's no issue there. It's just how frequently the information is updated that's the issue. I wonder if the minister has endeavoured or committed to improve that.

Hon. M. Coell: Indeed we are. We have a service delivery initiative with the federal government — and I talked about it a couple of hours ago, I think — to have one window where you would be able to go and see all of your loans, whether they be federal or provincial.

So we're working with the federal government on that to develop that website, where you would go on, and you could see your years, the borrowing or both federal portions and provincial portions. So I think it will be really good when we get it done, and we're working with them to do that as quickly as possible.

R. Fleming: I wonder if we could put a finer point on "as quickly as possible." I ask that seriously, because I think this is probably something that a lot of MLAs can relate to. Because some of these files where people aren't getting accurate information or a dispute with BCSL or Resolve Corp. has arisen….

It often relates to the quality, accuracy and timeliness of information that is available to all of the parties involved. I think having this kind of feature in real time…. I note that this is available to Resolve, the people who are collecting the loans. It's just not available to the borrowers who are on that side of the equation.

I think it would help people get on the same page, so to speak, and have the same information before them and maybe eliminate some of these disputes. I'm just wondering if the minister…. When he says they're working as quickly as possible, what kind of resources and staff do you have dedicated to this?

It always makes me nervous when cooperation with the other level of government is required to make timely progress on something. I certainly hope that we're not tied into other provinces sharing the same interest that we might have in this regard.

Hon. M. Coell: This is a national initiative, one that we're obviously excited about as well as the member across. We have a signed agreement now with the federal government on how we will proceed. We've assigned staff to it.

We'll have a single consolidated view on all loans, a master loan agreement, electronic processing, a single electronic application for debt management, and most important, I think — and the one we're talking about — a single loan payment for multiple loans as well. So I think there are some very positive things coming, but as I said, it's a national initiative, one which we're kind of first in the door on.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask about some other services that might make a more student-friendly student loan system — imagine that — where students would have more control and ability when they're in the repayment portion of that agreement. One of them is that…. It has been suggested to me that it would be very helpful in tracking payments, where you, again, have a dispute between somebody receiving payment and somebody making the payment, to have financial institutions provide a descriptor on their statements for the student.

This often happens. Well, if you're shopping in any retail outlet, it generally will give you a descriptor. But for some reason there doesn't seem to be anything of the sort when it comes to a payment directly, or even when it's made through the financial institution to go directly to a BCSL. There's no descriptor that's then on the statement for the borrower to later review.

Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member could clarify descriptor and how that works.

R. Fleming: For example, if somebody were doing on-line banking to make their payment at the time in the month it's due. So they did it from the Internet. Say they're a Vancity Credit Union member or something like that. It would say where the payment was going. It would be a description of the transaction.

Hon. M. Coell: As the member knows, a student loan is automatically taken out of an account if that's been set up. Since September we've had the ability for students to make payments using PC banking or telephone and do it direct to B.C. student loans. So I think we probably have that in place. As of, actually, September '04 we've had it in place.

R. Fleming: In terms of making it even easier or another avenue of making a payment, is there the ability…? I know an increasing volume of commercial transactions are now occurring on secure systems like PayPal. Some students who have — let's say, maybe to us — unorthodox means of depositing and cashing income and such might prefer to use that system. It might make it easier and go towards that goal of lowering default rates. Is that something that the ministry could do?

I understand it's actually less costly to the receiver than other conventional methods of payment.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, that's a very good idea. I've asked staff to look into it, but we don't do it at this point.

I wanted to ask about e-mail–based inquiries to the B.C. student loan system. There's obviously a fairly good volume when you have as many borrowers as our system does. In terms of a service standard, my constituents who are participants in this program have told me that, in some cases, they won't get a response to even basic inquiries sometimes for over four business days. That, to me, seems like a long time in this day and age of Net-based communication.

I'm just wondering if there is a ministry standard in the BCSL program, whether there's such a standard in maybe other ministries and what the feasibility would be of having a 24-hour standard in this regard for all e-mail–based inquiries.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, we've got now a four-day turnaround on applications. If someone applies, we've got it down so that we're actually the best in the country at this point for the turnaround time on applications.

As far as e-mails go, I think it's probably the detail of the e-mail. If someone's just asking for something simple, it might come that day. If it has a whole list of questions, the research might take a couple of days. I think it would depend on the type and the questions in the e-mail. What we've concentrated on is making sure that we've got sort of a four-day turnaround on applications as our most important thing we do for students.

R. Fleming: Are the call centre employees also responding to the e-mail–based inquiries? If I heard you correctly, Minister, there is a protocol, and it's four business days for a response to an e-mail–based inquiry.

Hon. M. Coell: The staff we have do answer e-mail as well as phone requests. If it's identified as a person

with a disability, we have a special unit that they would be transferred to, or if it's an appeal, we would transfer them to that. So there are a number of avenues for phone, to get a live person on the line, as well as the e-mails.

They do vary. Sometimes we'll get an e-mail that's four or five pages long with a number of requests, and it will take a few days to get back to them. Sometimes it's just an e-mail request of one sentence, and they get back to them within the day.

I wanted to ask the minister about parameters for default. B.C. tends to be on the ungenerous side in terms of the length-of-time designation for borrowers. You're in default, I think by our definition, after 90 days — so in other words, three missed payments. In some jurisdictions it's 270 days. I can't remember if there's a difference between the province and the federal government, whether we're congruent or misaligned with them.

I wanted to ask the minister if that's something that's under consideration — maybe making it easier for a student to avoid the designation of default. Then, of course, they're dealing with another part of the system and Resolve Corp. I wonder if the minister could let me know about those details.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess, technically, if you miss a payment in anything, you're in default. That sort of triggers our staff to start working with that person to try and get them on track or into some of the programs we've got that would assist them. After 150 days — it's not 90; it's 150 days — it would go to Small Business and Revenue for their action, but we really try to work with them between that period to find a solution to the problem.

R. Fleming: By Small Business and Revenue, the minister means Resolve Corp.? Okay. He'll get back to me on that.

So 150 days. Still, it is not congruent, then, with the federal designation. It's a default designation, which is 270 days. What you have is a student who may be in B.C. They will be dealing a lot sooner with collections than they would be in the federal system. Often a student in that unfortunate situation — and we're talking about a small percent, but it's a worrisome percent — will be trying to negotiate some kind of package or financial ability to get them out of all kinds of cumulative trouble that they might have, not just with loans. They have less time in British Columbia to accomplish that.

Even though they are both student loans, and they were applied for under the same application, this is one of the differences they have in the terms and conditions of the loan. I'm wondering if the minister could, then, go through the steps — he told me it was 150 days; I had understood it was 90 — of what happens at the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue, and who is collecting what at that point?

Hon. M. Coell: As I was saying, if we find that someone is in default, we want to work with them, because the longer you're in default, I think, the worse it is for you. You want to get back on track or have interest relief or some program. So Resolve is the person who works with us up to 150 days. It then would be transferred after that, and if we weren't able to contact the person or weren't able to assist them, it would be transferred to the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. They have a contract with EAS corporation that they would be the ones that pursue the defaulted loan.

R. Fleming: I'm wondering if the minister could describe to me the functions and the terms of contract with Resolve Corp., in other words, the actions that they take that they're contracted to do and how many files they're managing currently that originate from the B.C. student loan program.

Hon. M. Coell: The Resolve Corp.'s contract with us is that they would manage right from the beginning of a student loan. All of the students in repayment would be being managed through Resolve. Where we would come in is sort of when students need information or wish to make changes, they would work with us on that.

So actually the total number of students in repayment would be for the first 150 days with the Resolve Corp. At that time, if there is a small number who might be in default, they would then move into the other ministry for collection.

R. Fleming: I'm just wondering. In the contract, what I think would be interesting to know is the percentage of recovery that Resolve keeps on these payments. I think that when students are dealing with them, one of the difficulties is that…. Again, I don't know the structure of the contract, but you want to have it so that there's not a financial incentive for that company interacting with students to not, for example, refer them to programs like deferment programs, because that would be a cost of business that wouldn't be advantageous to them.

So I'm wondering if the minister can tell me: are there financial incentives built into that contract to actually help borrowers avoid a default status?

Hon. M. Coell: That's a good point. There are incentives in the contract so that it's more favourable for them to get someone back paying than it is to refer them on to the Ministry of Small Business and Revenue. The incentives are actually built into the contract to do that.

R. Fleming: The minister used the words "more favourable." I'm just wondering if they get paid regardless and what the differential might be between getting a student back on the regular repayment plan or referring them further down the line into an enforced collection agreement.

Hon. M. Coell: I'll have to get back to the member on that. I don't have the contract here, but the idea would be that we would prefer people to be paying their student loan back rather than defaulting. I don't think that's good for anyone, and I don't believe anyone in this room would think that it's healthy for someone to default.

We would want to help them to get back on track, and the incentives in the Resolve contract are philosophically the same as what we would have, I think, as a ministry.

R. Fleming: I just want to ask about the idea of having a six-month interest-free grace period after graduation. This is a feature of other loan programs. P.E.I., Manitoba and Nova Scotia are ones that I'm aware of. This is something that has a certain logic to it. It helps students link up to stable employment related to the area they studied and then begin an orderly repayment.

I think what we're finding in the default statistics — the minister didn't have them at his disposal today — is that too many of those students right out of the gate are finding themselves with a problem.

I want to know if the minister has considered the six-month grace period, and whether he's studied the benefits of how that would help them. They're still going to have to make payments, I realize that.

If the minister were favourable to it, would that be an amendment to the contract that might have cost implications with Resolve?

We do have a grace period now, where you have six months. The interest accumulates and then is put on the overall loan. What we are doing is looking at what the member is suggesting, and that's a grace period where there is no interest. That's part of the review that I'm expecting later this spring.

R. Fleming: Another thing that I think is part of the students' bill of rights package — of what might be considered here as borrowers — and might be helpful for them is that there are times when there are credit rating disputes based on the repayment history that they accumulate as they participate in this plan. Often BCSL makes the error; the fault is with them.

I'm just wondering if there's an interest on the part of the minister to help where there are disputes between the student and BCSL, whether there could be a commitment or a 30-day guarantee that from the time that disagreement is lodged that it would be resolved.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, if there is a dispute and we're found to be wrong, we go immediately to the agency and have that changed. We also have developed an appeal procedure, so that if someone disagrees with us, within the ministry there is an appeal committee that they can go to.

I certainly take the member's comments seriously. You don't want to be held up for a long period of time. So it can rapidly be addressed within the ministry. As I say, if we make a mistake we go directly to the bank or agency and correct that.

R. Fleming: I'm familiar with the committee that resolves some of those disputed cases. I think there's some dissatisfaction — inevitably there is. There are some incidences where, I guess, it would go to the ombudsperson in some cases after that.

I'm wondering if there's an arrangement that the ministry could contemplate where you have an independent party that is nevertheless connected to the ministry or an appropriate agency somewhere in government that would give it a measure of independence.

You do have some case files that I'm familiar with where the nastiest disputes between the borrower and B.C. student loans are around overawards, often where there have been mistakes or where payments have gone directly to institutions and not to the student themselves for their tuition. Then the overaward is passed…. My colleague from Surrey-Newton was talking about an instance here. Then the fault or responsibility is with the student.

Is that something that the minister has contemplated — those persistent disputes, where there might be some benefit to having an independent party from another area or branch of government? Perhaps they would have a committee modified, as to the one that we have today, that would be part of an adjudication to help give that third-party status to them.

Hon. M. Coell: I think that from my perspective we've got, on the committee, financial aid officers from some of our institutions. We have some students. Their recommendations go directly to my deputy minister.

R. Fleming: I just wanted to reconfirm. We're talking about interest rates, prime plus 2.5 being quite high. That's B.C.'s rate for student loans. I wanted the minister to reconfirm the interest rate at which the B.C. government borrows the funds for this program. Basically, what I'm asking is: is it still prime minus 1? In other words, is there a 3½-point spread between what government borrows and what it then lends to students?

Hon. M. Coell: The short answer is yes, that would be the interest rate. Again, that's one of the things we're looking at in the review.

R. Fleming: The figures on the loan defaults…. I hope I didn't miss it earlier, but is that something that you have an annual figure for?

R. Fleming: Within those quarterly reports, then…. I think this is something that goes to a bigger point, which maybe I'll just state for now and then ask the detailed questions.

With a significant program that lends $250 million, has lent more in the past, and has tens of thousands of individuals participating in it in repayment and each year takes on new loans — really, something like that should have exemplary public reporting. I think there's a concern that this program is not well known in the administrative detail. I mean, it's a public lending program.

I wonder, in the spirit of better and more transparent public reporting, whether the minister would consider having some of his staff work on how the information that they obviously use quarterly for their own internal interests might be collated and available to the public. This program has tens of thousands of participants, and they have a hard time finding some of these details.

I'll ask the question, then, if that's something that the minister would consider undertaking. I don't think that it's a costly exercise, but I think it's one that, within the spirit of good governance, would be one that students as, I guess, shareholders of that program, might find very helpful.

Hon. M. Coell: At present, of course, the public accounts do it once a year with all that information. It's an interesting idea. It's not one that we've thought of — having a separate report, report out on student financial assistance. Worth considering.

R. Fleming: Collection of default loans. I wonder if the minister could enlighten me on how much is currently being collected by B.C. revenue annually.

Hon. M. Coell: In just conferring with my staff. It's probably a question for Small Business and Revenue. It's not something that we get, actually, back into this ministry. His estimates have not been up yet, and it's something you could refer that to.

R. Fleming: Okay. At the point that they are referred to that ministry, though, this ministry should have an idea as to the total value there. I guess that was the question — not the cumulative amount that the Ministry of Revenue is pursuing but the value of the files referred to them. How much, annually, are they worth?

R. Fleming: I think, with that, I would also like to ask for how many individuals are currently being subject to the collection procedures, along with the dollar amount last year. If you have any numbers that go back several years, I think that would be interesting for comparative reasons.

I want to ask the minister: on the principal deferment program, how many people were selected or approved last year for that program?

Hon. M. Coell: It was at 247 this year. We had, to be perfectly blunt, a guess at maybe 400 this year. It may be 247 again. It's such a small number. It's hard to predict what it will get to, and as I said, it's a small number of people that find it helpful.

R. Fleming: Do you have a figure of how many were declined that wished to access that?

Hon. M. Coell: They're not declined under that option. It's totally their decision to use that program.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister just in general that…. I know that the Plant report, the Campus 2020 report, is with cabinet, but it's something that the minister has spoken to frequently in a variety of venues. He stands behind the recommendations, because I've heard him say that.

There are a number of recommendations, but in keeping with what we're talking about right now, I wanted to ask him, just in general, the extent to which that report contemplated changed participation rates in our system.

I think one of the bolder recommendations in that report is, by 2020, to achieve equal representation in our college and university system of people from the top income quartile and the bottom income quartile.

Similarly, there is a recommendation to level off the participation rates, make equal participation rates between aboriginal and non-aboriginal populations. This is something that would take some time to accomplish. I don't think that anybody would reasonably deny that, but it would take sustained efforts and steps and program refinement to induce and to incentivize and, frankly, influence cultural values within lower-income families that are well studied around the benefits of pursuing a higher education and saving for it and all those kinds of things.

That's a substantial recommendation, and it's one where I think critics of this budget have said that they didn't see even small steps pointing along that road to achieve that central recommendation in the report.

I wanted to ask the minister what he is contemplating, what he would do in the very near future, to look at options that would go some way towards fulfilling that recommendation. I ask it in the context of this section, which is around how student financial aid might be improved to fulfil that goal.

Hon. M. Coell: If I could use an example…. I agree with that recommendation. I'm sure the member does as well. With the aboriginal students we've done a number of things, from the $15 million worth of projects…. I think there are 270 projects around the province. We want to see the gathering places built on campuses. In this budget we've sort of targeted seats

for aboriginal learners to open up our ministry and our institutions to aboriginal learners. Those are some of the areas.

The review is, of course, looking at that. It's interesting that we were seeing growth in participation until the economy took off, and then it's flattened out. But there's more work to be done. I think that we've made a start with aboriginal learners in this budget and, indeed, last year's budget as well. But I'm fully cognizant that more needs to be done.

R. Fleming: Well, I know the minister always misses no opportunity to link the economy as a reason for participation rates being disappointing and enrolment, but really that's not the case in other provincial jurisdictions. I think there's an unwillingness to examine the tuition fee policies that were pursued by this government that have priced education beyond the Canadian average in B.C. and have caused a real impact on rising student debt, which we discussed earlier this afternoon.

I think that pursuing the goal that the Plant report has as one of its core recommendations on equalizing participation rates is going to require looking at fees, and it's going to require looking at student financial aid. Those are things that…. As I said, people were hoping to see some steps taken in this budget to accomplish that goal.

I note that we've already discussed how lending is declining and how recoveries are increasing in the student loan program. So one could very readily say that even from within the existing student financial aid system we have, there's money there that could have been reallocated.

We talked about interest rates that are being charged to students here being quite high. Canada is among the highest in the G8 countries in that regard, and B.C. is among the highest of the provinces in this country. I was looking over some estimates documents from last year. I asked the minister how much it would cost to lower each point of interest charged of the prime plus 2.5, and I got a response. I think the response in Hansard was $4 million. I think I got a letter later that was a different figure.

My question to the minister is if he could give me a definitive figure — and we'll get that on the record — and then to ask why some of the money, the growing recoveries within the student financial aid system, might not be seen as a source to allow a policy change on lowering student interest rates.

Hon. M. Coell: I apologize if I gave two conflicting numbers. I didn't mean to. A 1 percent cut would be $6.7 million, a cut to 2.5 would be $16.8 million, and a cut to government cost of borrowing of prime minus 1 would be $23.5 million. If we were to cut the percentage in half, it would be $26 million.

R. Fleming: Well, I appreciate having that here to report back. Earlier the minister asked for…. He said that the committee that is examining student aid was in search of good ideas. I think we have a good idea there. I think we've found a way to pay for it right here this afternoon. So I'm looking even more forward to the minister making steps in that regard.

As far as the student grant program goes — the program that was eliminated in 2004 — we now…. That used to be funded by the millennium scholarship program. It was an agreement signed by the province in 1999. It was changed by this government. You use it to fund the loan forgiveness program. But there was a reduction of $30 million out of the student financial assistance budget when that was accomplished.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me, once the Millennium Scholarship Foundation has wound down after the following fiscal year from this, what the gap is going to be in terms of funding B.C.'s loan forgiveness program.

Hon. M. Coell: The amount of money that the federal government gives us for that program would be in the range of $37 million. It will cause us to make some decisions on how we proceed — whether we reformat the program or inject new funds into the program as well. This is obviously a decision for the government after the next election, I would think.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could give me some numbers on the B.C. loan forgiveness program. I think we disagree, or we have disagreed — maybe he's coming around to a different perspective on this — on the benefits of this program. We feel that they could be much more useful to further the goals of access and lowering average student debt upon graduation if they were provided in upfront grants.

There's an added benefit to a known, upfront grant program that the research done by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation has discovered, and that is that there is definitely a tangible link between those who receive a grant and those who complete more required credits. So it goes to the timely completion of degrees that we were talking about a little earlier, and the minister didn't have those numbers available quite yet.

This is what I'm trying to get to. I think there is a problem with growing student debt, and it's also linked to people completing degrees in a longer period of time. They're borrowing for more years as they get through school. What I wanted to ask the minister, maybe in this regard, is just to examine the current loan forgiveness program. And if I could ask him again, maybe to just start with the basics: how many people were approved last year for that program?

Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member could clarify. Is it loan forgiveness or loan reduction?

R. Fleming: I could ask about both. Yeah, it doesn't really matter where we start. Let's start with the loan reduction program.

Hon. M. Coell: The loan reduction program — the estimate is $75 million — would affect approximately

25,000 students. Over the last three years you're looking at, I guess, over $200 million, including this year, in loan reduction programs. I believe that it affects about the same number of students every year.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I can ask about the…. Well, he says he believes that it affects the same amount of students every year. The question that I'm interested in is the average size of the award per student.

This is sort of a first come, first served program, as I understand it, until the amount is expended in the budget. Or it's one that waits for everyone that's eligible and then divides by the amount of available money. I want to see what the trend line is on what the average amount of loan reduction is for those students.

Hon. M. Coell: I can give the member a couple of examples — or actually, maybe six examples.

If a person is borrowing at the maximum and they have no dependents, that would be $10,880. After loan reduction it would be $7,740. That would be the amount that they would owe after the reduction. Someone, let's say, has dependents, and they're in their fifth year. They could borrow $15,980. After loan reduction they would actually owe $7,140, so it's a significant savings for someone in their fifth year with dependents.

R. Fleming: Okay. Maybe we'll move on to the B.C. loan forgiveness program, then. If the minister could tell me how many participants there are in that program, what the value of the program is now — and again, as much as possible, going a few years back, just to see what the trend line is there.

Hon. M. Coell: The loan forgiveness program is for graduates from accredited schools. I'll just run through…. We've added a number of professions — schools of nursing, including licensed practical nurse; nurse practitioners; along with medical midwifery, pharmacy schools. We've just added accredited schools in speech language pathology, occupational therapy, audiology, physiotherapy, teachers for the blind and the deaf, school psychologist. Recently technology education teachers were added to the program.

We have, to date, 620 people enrolled in the program, and it will cost about $1.037 million in 2007-2008.

R. Fleming: Okay. The $1.037 million is based on actuals from last year. Is that what you were…? I just want to know if this program is performing to expectation.

Normally, when you're adding professions, it would, hopefully, be on the basis of merit and need, particularly in the professions where B.C. is having retention issues, where we're training people and losing them to another jurisdiction that didn't have to pay for any of the training and gets all the benefit. Is the expansion of the pool of accredited programs growing because the program is undersubscribed, or is it close to original budget?

Hon. M. Coell: We're pleased with the program. As you know, if someone goes and works in an underserved area, their entire loan will be written off for them.

I'll give you an idea of some of the places where people have gone. You've got 100 Mile House, Port Alberni, Stewart, Sparwood, Sorrento, Smithers, Sechelt, Ucluelet. So there are lots of areas in the province that were underserved by doctors and nurses. I look through the list: Port Hardy, Port McNeill, Port Simpson, Powell River, Queen Charlotte, Quesnel.

There are a number of areas that needed these professionals, and we were able to supply them and at the same time give, I think, a sizeable benefit to the professionals. It's certainly something that we're pleased we tried, and we're pleased with the success so far.

R. Fleming: I wonder if the minister could give me an idea of some of the other professions that have been maybe considered but rejected? When this was announced there were professionals where they had difficulty because of the salary structure. Even though there's a high education need, there's a low salary, and that creates an extra burden on student loan repayment that led them to be interested in this program.

I'm wondering if the minister could give me an idea of other professions that have maybe approached the ministry but, at this point, are maybe not under active consideration.

Hon. M. Coell: We actually work pretty closely with Education, Health, and Children and Families, which sort of point us to areas where they have…. I think the obvious one was the huge amount of nursing vacancies that we've got. That was probably the first one that we put, because there are not just vacancies in Vancouver and Victoria; there are huge vacancies in other parts of the province.

So nurses were, basically, some of the first ones that we put in there and the practical nurses, nurse practitioners and midwives as well. We get recommendations from other ministries, as well, and we'll continue to work…. I haven't actually had that many other professions approach me wanting to come into the program.

I think that we've probably hit the ones right now that we need to. We did do two things with early childhood educators and residential care aide programs earlier, where we did sort of a bursary program. It just didn't fit the loan repayment, probably because of the wage structure after they leave the college system.

So we're continuing to look at ways where, in areas and in occupations, we're underserved as a province. I know that probably next week we'll get into talking more about the budget and why we've targeted funding in nursing and trades as well. It's another example of where we see the needs in the province and trying to meet them.

R. Fleming: In terms of the bursaries for the RCA and the early childhood education programs, I'm just wondering. I know that the early childhood education bursary, for example, was announced by the Minister of State for Childcare. I'm just wondering if you could tell me where that bursary program…. It's the Ministry of Advanced Education, is my understanding, that is funding it. I just want to put that on the record.

Hon. M. Coell: It actually funds from their budget, and we administrate it for them.

I'll look forward to that set of estimates, as well, because I do have some concerns, at least in this region, that it's not generating the kind of interest that we need in those two professions.

I just wanted to ask the minister about another small program within BCSL. That is the B.C. disability benefit program — again, to get a handle on the size of this program and how well it's working. This is obviously another critically under-represented group in advanced education. I'm sure that the minister would very much like to enhance that participation rate. This program is contemplated to do that.

Maybe to get an idea of that, could the minister tell me how many borrowers have applied for this program last year? Again, if he could tell me in relation to previous years so we can see if there's a trend line that is positive for people with disabilities looking to access that program to get into colleges and universities.

Hon. M. Coell: Again, a smaller program — 250 applications approved in 2006-07 and $1,500,074. This year the projection is 372 and $3.19 million.

R. Fleming: Well, thank you for that, Minister. I'd like to ask just a couple of questions about adult basic education. We canvassed this last year. I was very pleased, and I think that everybody who has an interest in literacy was pleased, that the government reversed its prior decision from 2004 which introduced tuition fees for adult basic education programs, reversing the previous government's decision to abolish those. We lived with the results. The results were not positive. We saw thousands of ABE spaces disappear throughout the system in a variety of colleges.

I definitely credit this minister with taking an interest, looking at those results objectively, admitting that his government was wrong and putting what is a relatively small amount back into the system — again, restoring what I think is progressive policy that serves the goal of being a literate jurisdiction.

So along with that restoration of funding for ABE programs, I wonder if the minister could maybe tell me…. It hasn't been long since that policy reversal occurred and since the funding flowed to the institutions, but I wonder if he can give me an indication. Of those colleges that provide ABE education, a number of them had seen enrolment declines. I'm wondering if we can already see an enrolment stabilization or, in some cases, improvement, and if he has numbers, if he could share those.

Hon. M. Coell: We don't actually have numbers in yet. We, as the member is, are waiting anxiously to see what changes that will have, as well as when the on line, the college and then the K-to-12 system is up and running — whether we'll see any growth. I suspect we will.

I didn't give as complete an answer as I should have for the B.C. permanent disabilities benefits. It's for student borrowers with a persons-with-a-disability or persons-with-persistent-multiple-barrier designation as determined by the ministry of human resources or the Canada Pension Plan disability benefits. They're all eligible for the system. The 372 that we're projecting this year would come from those groups.

R. Fleming: Still on adult basic education. I wonder if the minister could tell the committee…. I don't know whether this is still the case, but in 2002 there was the ability for people on social assistance…. We're talking about people with barriers to employment, education being critical to that. Achieving a Dogwood certificate maybe is one of those barriers to stable employment. Those that were already on social assistance…. After 2002 it became prohibited that they study at an institution, at a community college and enrol in an ABE course. They would have to lose the benefit in order to be able to enrol.

I think that for those in a situation of poverty who are trying to dig themselves out, it was an additional barrier and a disincentive to trying to get that education.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me today…. I know that there was a recent announcement about some extra help for those on social assistance to enrol in ABE programs, but I'm wondering if that policy conundrum is still in place — where a condition of your enrolment is that you cannot be on those kind of benefits at the same time.

Hon. M. Coell: I find this a very interesting question, a very interesting area for debate. I think that what our government was trying to accomplish, we did, and that was to move people from income assistance to work. The people on income assistance now, the type of person…. It has dramatically changed. There are many more with persistent multiple barriers and many more with permanent disabilities.

We've got that ability now for those people to be in the program that we were just discussing, for assistance. I think there is some potential for some pilot projects around specific types of people with possibly not disabilities but types of situations. So we've been talking with MEIA about that.

What we want is to make sure that people don't just stay on income assistance and go to school permanently. We want them to move from income assistance to school to work. I think that — from my perspective,

anyway — it's the ability to better oneself through work and the benefits that come with that, whether it be health and significantly more money than they would have on income assistance.

I've had lots of conversations with people over the years as to what's the right program to move that person from income assistance to eventual work. Is it job training? Is it job training and education? Is it just education and then moving into work? It's quite a diverse opinion in this around this question. I look forward to more comments from the member and flushing some ideas out that might be helpful.

R. Fleming: Well, I think part of this problem is for those who have fairly deep persistent barriers to employment. One of them might be just the length of time they've been out of the workforce and where it's linked to educational attainment. Some of these individuals, I think, are on a category of income assistance that may include other disabilities or barriers. They need educational attainment, and they may have a capacity — a limited capacity, but it's a capacity nonetheless — to work, but that barrier remains around education.

The potential loss of benefit versus the gain from maybe transitioning into some employment, however limited that might be, remains. These are the employees not of the minister's ministry, but there has to be some discretion for front-line social workers to be able to work with the educational institutions — the student financial aid officer or whomever might be involved — that are registering students to overcome that.

I would put that back to the minister as to how he could collaborate with his colleague to make sure that those who are sort of in a poverty trap or in a poverty situation and wanting to find a way out of it, where education has a clear benefit to getting out of it even in a limited way, how we can do that.

Hon. M. Coell: Before I answer that, I do actually have some information on ABE FTEs. It has gone up. Last year we had 11,825, and this year it's 12,258. So there's a movement in a positive way there, I think.

With regard to working with MEIA, I think that there is some potential for some pilot projects. I think the caseload of income assistance has changed so dramatically in the last seven years and the makeup of the types of people with disabilities and multiple barriers.

Then there is sort of a grey area of people — and I think that the member correctly identifies that — who may have some disabilities but not enough to get into those two other categories where there's more support and more leverage into education, and into employment as well. So I'm looking forward to….

I think you have to always be open for ideas as to how those pilot projects might be developed and might work and what type of people and how long the programs would be in place before you would evaluate it. I'm pleased with that, and I think we're probably both on the same track with regard to that.

R. Fleming: Thank you to the minister for the answer. I think it's something that…. You know, it's a small amount of people but it is a group that is being prohibited from enjoying the benefits. I would hope that the intent around the announcement around re-eliminating — if that's a word — the tuition fees for adult basic education…. It's one that I think could be resolved this year. I was hoping that it was part of the announcement when it was originally made last year.

I wanted to ask the minister just briefly about high school transition rates to advanced education. When we talk about the skills mix and the skills needs and where B.C. falls in terms of the degree production, which is on the low end of the Canadian average of how many people achieve credentials each year and have credentials in the general population.

Often the problem starts with that transition from high school to advanced education, and it's related to disappointing high school graduation rates. I think that in some districts those are improving. I know that in my district it's improving, but it's still slightly more than one in five young people not completing high school and, obviously, being excluded, in most cases, from advanced education beyond that.

So in terms of the transition rates, those that are actually graduating high school…. Admittedly, that number is too low, and we're working to make that better, but how many of those are managing to get into advanced education? And if you could give any detail on where that is in the system, vis-à-vis degree and non-degree programs.

Hon. M. Coell: I find myself in agreement with some of the comments that were made that more needs to be done to attract British Columbians to the post-secondary sector. It's interesting, when you look back, at the percentages after grade 12. The next year about 50 percent show up for some sort of post-secondary education, and the next year another 11 show up, and the next year another 5, and the next year another 3 percent, so you get to the 70 percent range who show up. That doesn't mean they complete and finish, but they've attempted. We have to make sure that we have things in place that help them succeed.

One of the things, when you look at that 30 percent…. I think that we all know that it's families that traditionally hadn't gone to post-secondary — their children. Some new immigrants, aboriginal learners make up a portion of those. All of those are different things.

One of the things that the Ministry of Education and ourselves worked on this year was a program for grade 10s — a number of discs, where it's actually first- and second-year university and college students and trade students talking about what it's like to go into post-secondary and sort of encouraging them, and a bunch of work programs and worksheets and stuff that they can work through.

So much depends on whether the parents or guardians push you in a direction when you're young, but I think there's some stuff that we can do in grades 9

and 10. The program is called Perspectives. I watched a number of the videos in the fall. It was really good to see a student talking to a grade 10, saying "It's not as scary as you might think. It's actually fun. You'll meet some new friends." There were a couple of aboriginal learners talking about how isolated they felt going to university, but they overcame it with a whole bunch of support from the institutions they were in.

I think that the more we can do to get at, as I say, the grades 8, 9 and 10…. So by the time they're in grade 11, they're actually planning to seek a profession or a trade or a skill or a degree. It's a really important area for us as a province. I think we've made some gains.

Again, I think there's a lot more work we can do in the decade ahead of us to encourage more people to attend. As we all know, I think we're going to graduate 650,000 students by 2015, and we're going to need a million skilled tradespeople and graduates from universities and colleges as well.

It's a real challenge for an aging population, so we're going to have to look to those groups that hadn't traditionally gone to trades and academic post-secondary and try and bring them in.

R. Fleming: Compounding that, as the minister knows, is the baby-boomer retirement that's coming on as well. The minister has said elsewhere that the enrolment frustrations that his ministry has — you know, not achieving the targets that were set out for them…. He blames it on a better economy. I think that it's related to the financial aid and tuition policies as well, and I think that it's related to a number of factors. But the challenge is there, and we have to meet it.

I appreciate the part of his answer where he talked about the cultural obstacles to getting people to more actively consider and then pursue advanced education. This kind of peer-based education that he describes, I think, is a very good thing. The earlier the age, the better. As I've told my own parents sometimes, we don't get to choose our parents, but our….

The transition rate is a serious issue, and I think that it's one that government wants to improve all the time. You know, the statistics of what our needs are in…. I know that the ministry has a labour market needs evaluation team of some kind. I don't know the exact name of it. But I want to know, in terms of what they are projecting….

Well, first of all, the answer that I didn't get was that I wanted to break out that 70 percent of people who attempt post-secondary education. I wonder if you could give me an idea how many are completers, if your ministry has that, so that we could see and get an idea of how many degrees and programs might be being abandoned.

Also, of the 70 percent that attempt, if the minister could give me an idea or an accurate depiction of how many people are going into the university system and how many people are going into other parts of the advanced education system, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. M. Coell: I think that the member was referring to the trades capacity review that was done. I can just give a bit of information on that. It was my ministry — the Ministry of Advanced Education — and the Ministry of Economic Development that worked to complete a physical capacity of the post-secondary institutions that deliver the trades programs. We had looked at an additional review of the physical capacity of existing trades training facilities to examine their utilization, even looking at things like summer months and increased class size from 16 to 18, to reduced program length and establishing a centralized wait-list intake. I think a lot of times you might have a wait-list at one college and then you've got vacancies in another.

I can give the member an example. I was at the Chilliwack trades facility about a month ago. It's a brand-new facility. I went into one of the electrical program areas. It's a new lab. I asked the instructor: "Well, how many will you hold in this class?" He said: "I've got room for 22, 24, but I've only got 11 right now." So they've built the capacity in that.

What we've done with the review is looked at the capacity we've got, where the wait-lists are, how we could dovetail some sort of joint wait-list. If someone just wanted to take a program, they could apply, and then they'd find out where in the province there wasn't a wait-list so that they didn't waste their time. We're working through that now. Hopefully, we'll have some answers in the spring as well.

R. Fleming: There's probably a lot of information that is needed to give an entire depiction there. I would just make the request to the minister that if he has information on the transition rate, that it does give as much statistical cross-analysis as possible. By region it varies significantly. It's quite staggering, in terms of high school completion, how different parts of the province differ from one another.

Again, when we're talking about equity and achieving equity across income and across aboriginal and non-aboriginal status by 2020, we're again looking, unfortunately, at a real dichotomy between the lives of aboriginal people and other British Columbians on this transition rate to post-secondary education.

I wanted to just go back to talking about the student loan program for a few more minutes, if we could. One of the questions I had for the minister was around the amortization period for our loans in this province. My understanding is that loans are over a 174-month schedule, and federal and other loans in other provinces are over a shorter ten-year schedule — ten years minus six months where they have a grace period of six months upon graduation.

I wonder if the minister could tell me if that is indeed the case in all instances or whether there is an option within the program to have it over the longer or the shorter period.

Hon. M. Coell: We actually will allow up to 19 years to repay, but most people repay long before that. When their financial situation changes as you get older, I think we find most of them are repaid long before the 19 years. But we do give them up to 19 years.

R. Fleming: Yeah, 19 years sounds like debtor prison. You know, most people would hopefully be at a point in their lives where, well before that, they're saving up for their own children's education because they have those costs to deal with, not repaying their own.

I want to ask the minister why there is this difference between B.C. and other provinces and why we feel it's a good thing to lengthen that repayment period. For the federal loan program it's 114 months. Again, we don't have congruence with that federal loan program. I hope we're going to head in that direction, not just for simplicity's sake for the student and their understanding.

Now that the federal government has indicated that it's going to create a federal student grant program, it seems that we have more and more things out of alignment. We have that 60-40 split in terms of the dollar amount that the student gets from the feds versus the province. Again, in what I think is an important detail on the term of repayment, B.C. has a significantly longer period of repayment — up to 19 years. That was new to me; I thought it was up to 15 years. I'm just wondering why we don't stick to the same schedule that the federal government does.

Hon. M. Coell: We actually are working with the federal government to do just that, to try and bring things together so that they're all very similar and the programs fit together much better.

One of the things that I…. The reason we probably haven't changed it is that it's a benefit to students because they can pay off principal at any time. So the amortization actually keeps your payment low, but if you've got more money, you can pay down the principal and get the benefit of the lower interest rate longevity as well as the ability to pay off principal at any time.

R. Fleming: Well, that's true. I think one of the things that statistically you can see is that there are a number of students who actually repay their loans in just a few years. That's actually a good thing, and I think we should welcome that. There shouldn't be penalties for that.

But my point is that on the other end we're not doing anyone any favour by creating a schedule up to 19 years in length to repay a loan for a typically four-year program. So again I would ask the minister when these changes were made, because it's my understanding that up until a few years ago we had the same repayment periods in place that the federal government does, but now I find that B.C. is significantly longer than most provinces.

Hon. M. Coell: As far as we know, it's always been that length. But we'll check, and if we're in error, we'll get back to you on Monday.

R. Fleming: I appreciate that. I think that by having it so significantly higher in the number of years, we're basically making a statement that our loan forgiveness programs aren't working, quite frankly, that people would go up to 19 years carrying a debt like that for a program.

I wanted to ask the minister…. There was an interesting Auditor General report federally of the Canada student loan program and the millennium scholarship fund that is fairly recent. It's in the last nine or ten months that it was produced. One of the issues it focused on — we were talking about it a little bit earlier — was the importance of…. You know, the Auditor General, I think, agreed, and I agree with these sentiments that the student loan program should be customer-friendly. It should serve students very well, and it should have high internal guidelines and targets of customer satisfaction within the mission and mandate of the administration of those programs.

What they found was that Canada's student loan program did have some satisfaction targets for students. They arbitrarily, I think, picked the number 76 percent. They strived for 76 percent satisfaction amongst their clients. I guess 24 percent of them being annoyed was something that they felt was acceptable loss. I'm wondering if there are similar guidelines or targets within our own ministry, particularly where we're dealing with private contractors who, in turn, are the interface with student borrowers.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, we're developing a client satisfaction survey for our own ministry as well, so we'll have that. What we've been doing is setting service targets for people like Resolve, and when those targets are met, I guess we believe that satisfaction should be going up. But we're going to set some targets and do some surveys as well.

R. Fleming: Would the minister consider 76 percent being the ideal target for satisfaction for that program? I appreciate that they're under development. I would hope he would strive for more.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions, Chair — mindful of the time — that stem from the same audit review, and then just conclude on this item.

There were some other findings. Actually, one of the things that caught my eye in light of our discussion…. The minister has said today that they're working with the federal government, or that the ministry's review…. There is a table open for discussions with the federal government about all sorts of harmonization

efforts between the programs. But my understanding from this audit…. There was one finding that had no explanation, but the government had said that its promised review, a comprehensive review, had been delayed from 2006 to 2011.

Is this a change that impacted our efforts, or is this audit finding out of date?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that some of the harmonization discussions and changes that are contemplated with the federal government would be in the first part of this year.

R. Fleming: Noting the hour, I'll ask just a final question on another of the audit findings that was conducted federally.

There was a suggestion that government needs to do much more to better communicate with clients about debt relief measures that might be available to them. I think that the same can be said of B.C., at least from my experience doing constituency casework and as the critic. I hear from students who are in that situation and who don't simply get directed in the right place to access programs that they in fact do qualify for. So I think there has to be a service standard there that strives to have accurate information at all times, openly given to students.

The other thing that I think is imperative…. I know that the Resolve Corp. contract does expire fairly soon. I think it's one that we have to be mindful…. I think that service should be brought back in-house. But as a service standard, it should be compliance measures when people give out wrong information on behalf of the government, which is a service provider for them.

I wonder if the minister could tell me what kind of compliance measures are in place where you have found out that — through no fault of the student, but in fact through the fault of the service provider — there has been an error, and it has caused considerable upset.

Hon. M. Coell: As the member may not know, we have a number of ways to monitor Resolve, from actually sending people in to audit, actually having people listen in on a call to make sure they're being answered correctly…. So if we find a mistake, we try and fix it very quickly. I think that there's nothing worse for a student than to have an issue with either my ministry or any of our contractors that we can't solve quickly.

R. Fleming: I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.


	YEAS — 37

Falcon	Coell	Ilich
Chong	Christensen	Bell
van Dongen	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Cantelon	Thorpe
Hagen	de Jong	Taylor
Bond	Hansen	Abbott
Penner	Neufeld	Coleman
Hogg	Sultan	Bennett
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 23

Brar	S. Simpson	Fleming
Kwan	Ralston	Hammell
Coons	Simons	Puchmayr
Routley	Fraser	Horgan
Lali	Dix	Trevena
Bains	Robertson	Karagianis
Krog	Austin	Wyse
Sather		Conroy