Hansard — Tuesday, May 13, 2008 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Second Reading of Bills		12321
	Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32)
	Hon. C. Hansen
	C. Wyse

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12332
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	N. Simons

Hon. R. Thorpe: In this House I call Bill 32, Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act, for second reading, and in Committee A, I call continued debate of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act be read a second time.

British Columbia and Alberta have taken a major step to further strengthen the economy in western Canada by entering into the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta or, as we have come to know it, TILMA.

First of all, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the need for an agreement of this nature. When you look at the European Union, where among independent sovereign nations…. They have been able to break down the economic barriers between these various countries, including things like full labour mobility among the 15 core nations of the European Union. I know they're working to eliminate the barriers to labour mobility in all 27 of the countries that make up the European Union today.

Yet in Canada there have been various efforts over the decades to try to break down not our international barriers to economic activity but the barriers between our provinces and territories within Canada. I think the most significant progress made in that regard was the negotiation of the agreement on internal trade, which was negotiated in the early 1990s and actually resulted in the signing of an agreement in 1994. That agreement came into effect in 1995.

But the agreement on internal trade was really quite limited in terms of how far it went and how effective it was at, in fact, breaking down the barriers to economic activity within Canada. It did make some progress, and I think there's been lots of discussion over the following decade to try to make further progress on the agreement on internal trade.

There has been, in fact, very little progress achieved in that regard. We still find that there are significant barriers for labour mobility from province to province. I'm aware of a young lady from British Columbia who is a licensed practical nurse, who was moving to Ontario for other reasons but wanted to continue with her career in Ontario, only to find that when she got there….

She had been told previously that it would take about three weeks to have her LPN credentials recognized in Ontario, but when she actually started to apply for that process, it became very lengthy. In fact, it was months and months and months. So here is a very valuable nurse who we need — every province of course needs nurses — and yet that nurse could not practise in Ontario because of the bureaucracy and the lack of ability to have the credentials recognized from one province to the other.

TILMA will make progress in breaking down those barriers, at least between British Columbia and Alberta, and will show other provinces how it can be done. We believe that this agreement is in fact showing the rest of Canada the way in breaking down some of these barriers to interprovincial economic activity within Canada.

Bill 32 will ensure that the province can meet its obligations under TILMA by providing the necessary statutory authority to fully exercise its rights and obligations. Bill 32 also ensures that monetary awards that may potentially be awarded under the agreement are in fact enforceable. This is one of the biggest weaknesses in the agreement on internal trade. There really is no significant dispute settlement mechanism within the agreement on internal trade.

Again, there's been lots of talk about strengthening the AIT in that regard, but there has been very little action to actually make progress on that. So having the ability to enforce awards is absolutely essential in ensuring the effectiveness of a dispute resolution process under TILMA.

Finally, Bill 32 amends 14 statutes that have been identified with provisions that create obstacles to trade, investment and labour mobility between the two provinces. The bill also reflects a cross-government review of all provincial statutes confirming compliance with the province's non-discrimination obligation under the agreement.

On a national level the TILMA has prompted us to adjust our way of thinking about interprovincial trade and commit to the elimination of protectionist barriers that still exist between provinces in Canada. We have created a blueprint for all provinces to follow, and we are being recognized nationally and internationally for this progressive effort.

We have taken bold steps with TILMA to show consumers, workers and businesses that the two governments are serious about dealing with these barriers. By breaking down the barriers to labour mobility, people are free to live and work where they desire, and have the ability to pursue their career aspirations.

In fact, by April 1, 2009, there will be full labour mobility for all occupations between British Columbia and Alberta. If a person is entitled to practise a profession in one province, they will be entitled to practise that profession in the other province.

It still means that they will have to register with the appropriate licensing body in the other jurisdiction, but they will not have to go back to school or take additional courses and that type of thing in order to be qualified for that profession. There's been a lot of work done by the various licensing bodies and professional associations to ensure that they are in a position to ensure mutual recognition of credentials from the other jurisdiction.

The amendments in Bill 32 that seek to primarily address the issues around labour mobility are as follows. There are amendments to the Architects Act, which eliminate the requirement to have two years of work experience in the other jurisdiction before being eligible to register as an architect in British Columbia.

Secondly, there are amendments to the Notaries Act, which eliminate the notarial districts and a quantitative restriction on the number of notaries eligible to practise in British Columbia.

With the recent downturn in the U.S. economy, we know that remaining competitive in the global economy is more important than ever, and our economic competitiveness as a province depends on agreements like TILMA. We have heard from many people that they are concerned about the mounting red tape at all levels of government, and the cost to business and individuals of complying with regulations rivals the cost of taxation. They are both key competitiveness factors.

Then we have other amendments in Bill 32 that seek primarily to address barriers to trade. There are amendments to the Business Corporations Act to eliminate the duplicative registration and reporting requirements for extraprovincial companies from a designated province. In other words, where the company is registered in British Columbia, they will be deemed to be registered in Alberta and vice versa.

There are changes to the Partnership Act to eliminate the duplicative registration or reporting requirements for extraprovincial limited partnerships and limited liability partnerships from a designated province — in this case, Alberta. But we're structuring this in a way that we will be able to get other provinces included in this framework in the future.

There are amendments to the Cooperative Association Act which eliminate, again, the duplicative registration and reporting requirements for extraprovincial cooperative associations from a designated province.

There are changes to the Accountants (Management) Act to eliminate the requirement that certified management accounting firms operating in British Columbia must have a partner who is a resident of British Columbia. Next we will amend the Credit Union Incorporation Act to enable B.C. credit unions to amalgamate with or sell their assets to or buy assets from extraprovincial credit unions from, again, designated jurisdictions.

There are amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act to eliminate the requirement that a person must be a resident of British Columbia to obtain a liquor licence or special occasion licence in this province.

There are amendments to the Land Title Act to eliminate the requirement that an agent registering a land title document on behalf of an applicant must be a resident of British Columbia. There are amendments to the Transportation Act which eliminate and replace a reference that limits the province's obligations to send notices to an organization's last known British Columbia address by expanding it to any last known address.

TILMA is just one part of a bigger vision for the province. It works in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific initiative, the Gateway and others, with a goal to bring economic prosperity to British Columbians. B.C. and Alberta have a huge opportunity to attract investment with this agreement in place, and that's for two reasons.

First of all, internal trade barriers will be removed, and no other Canadian jurisdiction has such an agreement in place. That's going to give British Columbia and Alberta a very significant competitive international advantage.

The amendments to this bill, which primarily seek to address barriers to investments, are as follows: changes to the Employee Investment Act to eliminate the requirement that a corporation registered under the act establish and maintain a place of business in British Columbia; changes to the Small Business Venture Capital Act to eliminate a requirement that a corporation registered under the act establish and maintain a place of business in British Columbia and to eliminate a prohibition on these corporations for maintaining an establishment outside of the province.

There are changes to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act to eliminate the requirement that a community care facility that is a corporation must have a director who is a permanent resident of British Columbia.

Before I wrap up, I just want to address some of the things that TILMA is not. If you go on some of the websites that have been generated and are trying to stir up opposition to TILMA, there is a lot of quite blatant misinformation on many of those websites. For example, I have seen claims that somehow TILMA is going to restrict a municipality's ability to govern the size of billboards. Well, that is absolutely not true and not factual.

There are others who say that it will be the demise of our agricultural land reserve in British Columbia, and that is absolutely not true. TILMA would not have that effect at all.

As I've gone through some of those websites, I've been surprised at the degree to which some organizations have tried to stir up opposition by spreading blatant misinformation about this particular agreement. I would urge anybody that is doing a study of TILMA and wants information about TILMA to go into the website that we have built as part of the Ministry of Economic Development website.

There is a series of things that we have posted there. In fact, we've tried to shy on the side of putting too much information on that website as opposed to too little. As we have drafted letters to the editor and other open letters, for example, we have tried to post them. As we have given substantive responses about TILMA to organizations, again, we've tried to post those. We've put in there a series of fact sheets about

TILMA as it affects various sectors. I strongly urge anyone who would like to be accurately informed about TILMA to avail themselves of the material there on the website.

Just in closing, I would like to say that Canada must remain internationally competitive. We must ensure that there is a level playing field and ensure that our exporters and investors have competitive access to international markets. Agreements like TILMA will ensure that a strong economy will be there for the future of our province, for our children and for our families.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my privilege to finally stand up here in the Legislature and be provided with the opportunity to respond to Bill 32, which is the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act.

I wish to emphasize that our debate today is on the implementation act. In actual fact, it is not on the agreement itself. That agreement itself was signed after discussions had taken place in private by the governments of British Columbia and Alberta. It was discussed privately and announced after it had been signed. That in actual fact has aspects that come into play about the agreement itself.

Let's look at the implementation portion of this particular act itself — what it was based upon and the need for it. It's based upon a report by the Conference Board of Canada announcing that it would add $4.8 billion and 78,000 jobs.

Now, those claims have been discredited by many economists. In actual fact, when we look at the jobs that were referred to here, the Conference Board left industries in their report that are excluded under the agreement itself.

The ministry only allowed two groups to actually bid on the development of the study, the Conference Board of Canada and MMK Consulting. MMK withdrew.

Now, how do we know this information I'm going to talk about? Was it posted? No. It was obtained through freedom-of-information documentation. In that documentation it was discovered that $50,000 was the size of the contract and that the Conference Board had 38 days in order to develop the rationale for the need for this implementation act.

It surveyed 24 organizations, 11 from government and 13 from industry. We received four responses from industry, and we received six from the various government agencies here in British Columbia. But it didn't include the Ministry of Finance, and it did not include the Ministry of Forests, two very significant ministries to be excluded in developing the report that leads to the need for this particular act to be in front of us.

When we look at two of the ministries that did respond, the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum…. I would like to refer to their responses to the survey. From the Ministry of Transportation, it includes these three comments: "Trade is currently fairly open between the provinces, and I'm not sure there would be significant gains from a further reduction in barriers. However, coverage to every provincial measure might prove problematic. There are many reasons for differences, some legitimate and some more political in nature."

The third point the Ministry of Transportation makes is: "From the perspective of transportation, there are certain legitimate reasons for differences — for example, geography, climate and safety." That's from one of the six ministries that replied.

From the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, their response included: "Unless otherwise addressed, some of the challenges described in the answers below appear to outweigh the anticipated specific regional and sectoral benefits. Also, it appears the agreement does not recognize that the growth or management of the provincial economy is a legitimate objective."

From those comments we have the need for this implementation act. Now let's look at a couple of ministries of the six that did respond.

The ministry of state for intergovernmental relations. This particular ministry responded enthusiastically to every question. It even assumed that the northeast and the Kootenays will benefit as much from TILMA as regions that do not share a border with Alberta.

Finally, we have the Ministry of Agriculture, which responded enthusiastically to all the questions. That, of course, is the ministry that, we recognize, receives amongst the lowest support of any of the provincial governments for its particular industry anywhere in Canada. So that in actual fact may explain their enthusiasm for contributing to a report that leads to the need for the particular act we are talking about today.

The government went with the sole-source contract with low costs and less than six weeks to complete the project — in other words, quick and dirty. It led to conclusions that were easily discredited, an agreement that turned over the right to govern to a three-person panel. That's the backdrop for the particular piece of legislation we have in front of us.

We have the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, based on this particular study, being introduced here — the implementation act for it. It was not debated. It was never discussed with the public. There was no public debate leading to possible improvements or possibly to outright rejection, as in Saskatchewan — this by the government that claims to be open, accountable and transparent.

TILMA took effect long before this bill to implement the act was put in front of us last month. In actual fact, it has been in effect since April 1, 2007.

As I go through the discussion on the need for the implementation of this act, I will draw attention to why there is limited support for TILMA anywhere in Canada. In spite of what has been said, it has been rejected as an entire document right across all of Canada.

There are references to portions in the area of labour mobility, but when we look at the document in entirety — which includes trade, investment and labour mobility — it does not obtain favourable response in Canada. Here within British Columbia, without being consulted, organizations that are also encompassed under TILMA and affected by this implementation act — such as the

Union of B.C. Municipalities and B.C. School Trustees Association — likewise have rejected TILMA as it stands.

TILMA has far-reaching implications for business, local governments, labour, professional certification standards and communities across British Columbia. Once TILMA became known across the province and across Canada, once it had a chance to be reviewed and studied, other provinces moved right away from TILMA.

Let's put it in the context of possibly why this occurred. It's in the context of this particular quote from Alberta's then Minister of International and Intergovernmental Relations, Mr. Mar, who told the Richmond Chamber of Commerce in June 2006 that the TILMA dispute process is "everything Canadian business asked for."

Since when did Canadian business represent all the interests of British Columbians? Since when is it only the interests of Canadian business that are stood up for in this House? Since when did Canadian business obtain such a direct inside road to how things are going to unfold between two provinces? Since when did Canadian business obtain the ability to override the government policies of this Legislature, local governments and school boards?

We have in front of us the implementation that allows TILMA to be put into place within that particular environment. It allows individuals and corporations to challenge decisions that are made to a three-person panel. There is no dispute about that.

The implementation ensures that the clubs will be there. It passes on the ability for those to happen, and the agreement itself insists — it mandates — that the province of British Columbia adhere to that set of circumstances. It guarantees that that is what will occur — everything Canadian business asked for. This implementation act also provides for expansion of this beyond the two parties, the signatures of British Columbia and Alberta.

Let's review the reception of this particular agreement. Let's have a look at it. Let's look at the record.

August 2007, TILMA rejected by the first ministers meeting at Moncton. They backed Manitoba's idea of a national strategy. There was talk about the need for mobility but not the implementation of this act — that they did not. They did not support the broadness of the agreement nor the implementation. It has been rejected by Manitoba as the chosen method to remove internal trade between the provinces, as the minister referred to in his statement. The agreement on internal trade has successfully stepped in immediately and removed challenges to internal trade barriers between the provinces.

Saskatchewan's Premier, newly elected Mr. Wall of the conservative government, told the Regina Leader-Post on April 16, 2008 — that's this year — that his Saskatchewan Party government still has concerns about the trade pact, citing outstanding issues such as TILMA's impact on trade incentives and on Crown corporations. Mr. Wall also said: "TILMA has been presented as a take-it-or-leave-it agreement, and under these circumstances, we will not take it."

In anything that I have read, I have not heard Mr. Wall being accused of being someone who is a scaremonger, as someone who would intentionally mislead the people of Canada or the people of Saskatchewan.

As a matter of fact, as recently as May 10, in discussions with the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, it is reported that while the Saskatchewan chamber backed away from a resolution that used the acronym TILMA…. TILMA has become a word that scares people away from cooperation. There has been a chance to look at TILMA and the effect that it does have. I will be speaking shortly upon the actual agreement itself and pointing out the concerns that TILMA brings to many governments, local and otherwise.

Returning to Mr. Wall in Saskatchewan. The chamber backed away from the resolution that used the acronym TILMA to describe the internal trade agreement between B.C. and Alberta. The delegates did urge Saskatchewan to review the subagreements between the two westerly provinces and request observer status, as Alberta and B.C. continue to work out the details of the internal trade agreement.

Interviewed following his speech Friday, Mr. Wall took this opportunity to make sure there was no ambiguity on his government's response to the invitation to join this implementation of TILMA. Mr. Wall says that he has had an invitation from his counterparts in B.C. and Alberta to join talks but explains that Saskatchewan remains concerned about the effects that TILMA would have on the province's Crown sector and its municipalities — subjects that aren't up for negotiations. That's true.

Here in British Columbia they were not up for negotiations. They were not up for debate. They were not up for input. They were simply put into place. Shame.

Now, I quote from Mr. Wall: "It was in our platform and it remains our position that we want to move toward greater western cooperation. There are other vehicles for that kind of enhanced economic cooperation, such as labour mobility, and we're going to press those ones." So if there is any ambiguity about how Saskatchewan feels on this item, I believe Mr. Wall has removed any of those concerns.

Let's continue moving across the country. In the recent Ontario election the Conservative Party stated that it was in favour of having Ontario join TILMA and, therefore, would be in support of the implementation act that is in front of us. But that same party also issued entirely contradictory agricultural protection policies that would not be allowed underneath TILMA, and Mr. McGuinty's Liberals have not shown any enthusiasm in joining.

The new Stelmach government made its equally technical TILMA implementation bill the centrepiece legislation of its current spring session, which commentators found rather laughable. Also, Mr. Stelmach's claims of bringing the Wall government on board are likely what prompted Mr. Brad Wall's April 15 and May 10 statements of rejecting TILMA.

There is a quick review of the receptiveness of TILMA as it stands across all of Canada: rejected, rejected, rejected, after it had a chance to be reviewed.

I would like to return to British Columbia and talk about the need for this particular bill as it has encompassed local governments and trustees and their response

for the need for this particular bill. I wish to start off with the B.C. School Trustees Association TILMA resolution in the spring of 2007 at their annual general meeting.

The BCSTA called upon the provincial government to hold public hearings on the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. The BCSTA called upon the provincial government to exempt school districts completely from the provisions of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. From their perspective, there is no need for this particular bill to be applied to them.

Their rationale, which I would like to share with all British Columbians, is simple, straightforward, practical. It is what people in the streets back home understand, not the agreement like TILMA, which has been devised here in Victoria and implemented without discussion.

From the BCSTA perspective, TILMA is a comprehensive trade agreement signed by the B.C. and Alberta governments in April 2006 without publicity or prior public consultation. The TILMA commits the signing partners to eliminating any measures that restrict or impair investment, and the word "measures" is a very important term. Measures, legally, is a very broad term. It picks up almost everything, including the garbage in the kitchen. It is a very broad term.

Now back to the BCSTA. School boards are covered by TILMA as of April 1, 2007, because they are forbidden to do anything inconsistent with its provisions. Many educational policies and administrative decisions, such as the province's healthy schools initiative or ethical purchasing policies put in place by individual boards, can impact investments and, therefore, are placed in jeopardy by the provisions of TILMA.

That is from the B.C. School Trustees Association. That is their point of view. That is their reason for not being in support of Bill 32, the implementation of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — the implementation of that particular bill.

Let's move to the other local level of government covered by the Union of B.C. Municipalities and how they have responded to the need for this particular bill. On September 26, 2007, this is the decision that was made at their annual general meeting here at the coast where people from all over British Columbia — from the smallest hamlet in northern British Columbia to the biggest communities…. In something that I have never witnessed, with one dissenting vote from hundreds of delegates all across the province, this was the position that was taken by the representatives of all the local governments that likewise are covered by this implementation act. They are covered underneath TILMA.

The last one — "request that the province withdraw from the agreement altogether" — is quite something coming from the local governments across British Columbia.

There was an amendment to remove that phrase, an amendment that failed. Twelve councillors spoke to the amendment with nine speaking in opposition of making any changes to the amendment. When that part was done at their meeting, they sat as an entity — one dissenting vote. To me, that very clearly makes the point about no need to be moving on the implementation of an agreement that is not before us and cannot be amended. That speaks loudly on why this particular bill must be defeated.

Let's now look at it in the terms of overall mismanagement that has been demonstrated here over the last couple of years around this particular aspect of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. As I started off, I pointed out that the actual report that TILMA is based upon showed that it was done quick and dirty, done hastily from very limited input. It has been in effect since April 1, 2007. This is now May of 2008, and we're finally getting to look at the implementation of the bill. But it has been in effect for more than a year.

In actual fact, the government last spring introduced Bill 17, which was to deal with the implementation of this particular act, but they withdrew it.

We now have Bill 32 with no support outside of Alberta and British Columbia, anywhere in Canada — and, within the province itself, strong opposition, not from organizations that are misleading the province but from organizations that have been elected, as we have been, across this great province of ours. It has been rejected by locally elected trustees. It has been rejected by locally elected government officials. I will be stating, shortly, why the implementation of this bill should not proceed from their point of view.

It is a bill of overkill. It is a bill whose objectives, if they are as presented, could have been achieved figuratively with a one-ounce ball-peen hammer, not the five-pound sledgehammer that this represents. It is overkill. It is an act that goes way beyond what is necessary.

It removes the right of this province and local government to govern. It allows the policies of governments to be challenged by a three-person panel. There are people that would believe that government has fettered away its rights to look after the interests of the people that they are elected to look after.

Having laid the backdrop for not supporting the implementation bill, let's have a look at, in actual fact, what does happen underneath TILMA. TILMA commits the B.C. and Alberta governments to ensure that its measures do not restrict or impair trade, investment and labour mobility between the provinces. It prohibits any business subsidies that distort investment, and its labour mobility provision erases differing standards for regulating professions.

TILMA, as I have mentioned, is extremely broad. It assumes that everything is covered by it except those areas designated specifically as excluded. There is the difference. If it's not mentioned in TILMA, it is covered by TILMA.

When we have a look at that aspect of it…. Because I distracted myself, I'm going to repeat where my thought was. If it's not covered in TILMA, specifically mentioned, it is included underneath TILMA.

These will be the first two provinces ever that believe they have the ability to read the future and know what is going to happen tomorrow or the following year in any of those areas. But if it's not included in the agreement, it is covered by TILMA. That's quite a powerful piece of legislation — the implementation of the agreement of TILMA.

Also, TILMA includes the requirement that any new measure must be least restrictive possible — puts a chill on any innovation governments may want to do.

Local governments do not have the huge resources of a provincial secretariat to ensure that what they're looking at is not encompassed underneath TILMA. It puts a chill, basically, on everything local government may want to try. I will come back to that a little later.

But let's return to the province of Saskatchewan — Saskatchewan has had a chance to actually study and have a look at TILMA — and have a look at their response from the aspect of trade and its effect upon its local governments. It has reported.

It's encouraging to see that Saskatchewan's 12 largest cities — with the exception of Regina, which is doing its own thing — have tapped the estimable resources of the Saskatoon-based Estey Centre for Law and Economics in International Trade to analyze TILMA. I don't believe that Estey is an organization that is attempting to scare people, as had been alluded to earlier, but they do have, from their expertise, these comments. They recommend ways to incorporate the needs of municipalities before this province signs on to it or any other future interprovincial economic deal.

In fact, it goes on to state: "This comprehensive and cogent analysis will provide a nationally useful tool, with B.C. and Alberta inviting others to join or emulate their agreement." This is from Saskatchewan. They are throwing out a caution and warning for the rest of Canada to use this well-thought-out, well-balanced analysis of the agreement.

As the report A Space for Cities in Trade Agreements makes clear, an economic agreement such as the TILMA, struck between the governments at the provincial level, does not adequately reflect the concerns and realities that confront cities. The Estey Centre senior associate and university international trade economist Mr. Bill Kerr states that senior governments tend to think of cities as mini-versions of themselves rather than as entities whose operations and law-making can have huge ramifications for investment decisions made by local, national and international companies within their boundaries — a goal that all in this House strive for.

But as we see, there is concern that TILMA in actual fact will not assist that particular goal. "While the senior governments may consider municipalities no more than creatures of the province, how the cities operate their interests in maintaining unique identities and meeting local needs has a great bearing on the economic success of the province and country." Mr. Kerr proposes that startling thought.

Relating directly to TILMA, Mr. Kerr notes that it's unusual in terms of a comprehensive trade pact in that it is a negative list agreement. What negative list means is that, unlike such positive list agreements as NAFTA that set out specific items of economic activities to which the agreed-upon rules apply, the TILMA rules apply to everything that's not specifically excluded from what's listed.

So when we come back to the bill that is in front of us…. The implementation of an agreement that covers items that we have no idea what they're covering questions the soundness of the reason for this particular bill that is in front of us.

Now, the report that I referred to, A Space for Cities in Trade Agreements…. "In effect, this prevents governments from intervening in future activities that may not have existed or been deemed worthy of intervention when the list of exemptions was agreed. For example, a negative agreement signed in the 1970s would not have included the regulation of cell phone towers as an exemption."

It also goes on to point out the reasons for not supporting Bill 32. I quote again…. As many municipalities in Alberta and B.C. are discovering belatedly, these issues they should have raised at the outset instead of having concerns arise after the fact — as we are going to carry on with Bill 32. "The signatory provinces…have unequivocally stated that it is not their intention or TILMA's to control cities or…interfere with their ability to manage their jurisdictions."

The Kerr report notes: "However, verbal guarantees tend to be as enduring as the current government's term in power." I wish to repeat that. "However, verbal guarantees tend to be as enduring as the current government's term in power." The text of the agreement is what endures. That comes from an international trade expert.

In my judgment, the advice is well worth heeding, and the Saskatchewan conservative government heeded that advice. But here we are in the House talking about the implementation of TILMA, a bill that should not be supported.

I wish to return closer to home. I want to return to British Columbia and talk about some reasons for not supporting the implementation of TILMA and not supporting Bill 32. Again, from the report that the Union of B.C. Municipalities received from their lawyer Mr. Lidstone, an individual who, in my mind, is not alarmist and is not misleading….

An organization, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which I have nothing but the highest regard for, as the other side of the bench, I'm sure, do also…. I'm sure that, though they walk by them and they ignore them — their intentions and their wishes — they do not go as far as to suggest that they would be intentionally

I don't think anybody would go that far. I would be as bold as to suggest that people who want to get a countering, informed balance to what my colleague on the side opposite suggested may want to go and have a look at some reports that likewise have been posted by the Union of B.C. Municipalities on this very same topic and then determine whether that is alarmist, whether that is intentionally misleading, whether that is any other type of motive.

I'm not here to try and shoot messengers, as others may or may not. I'm here to develop a reasoned, thought-out, rational aspect for not passing Bill 32, not to implement a poorly conceived and thought-out trade agreement between two provinces, done quietly, announced with some fanfare, and not saleable anywhere else in the country and not saleable within communities here in British Columbia at the local government levels.

I prefer to use a reasoned, rational outlook and approach to convince members on the other side that they have put their foot in the cow-pie. They should take it out, shake their foot off and recognize the errors of their ways and defeat Bill 32, the implementation act.

But I digressed. I wish to return to the message, the reasoned approach that has been developed by the UBCM — by their lawyer, from their report.

UBCM's legal analysis raises the following concerns for the Union of B.C. Municipalities and local governments. They have general concerns. They raise the concerns of the vagueness of the TILMA language. They raise the ambiguities in the agreement. They raise the lack of precedent. They raise the chilling effect on local governments. They raise the retooling of local government measures to satisfy TILMA in case of breach of TILMA. None of those, to me, sound anything but serious.

They have specific concerns, also raised within their report. They include the procurement threshold being too low, a minor point contained in the overall general concerns. As I go on, I will have a look at the investment aspect of it later, but it is a specific concern that is raised.

"The language on subsidies in TILMA needs to be revised," Mr. Lidstone says. He goes on to state that these subsidies may result in banning assistance that local government now provides. He mentions heritage and local improvements, which are the result of the two-year Community Charter process. That's the lawyer for the Union of B.C. Municipalities raising those concerns — concerns that should have Bill 32 minimally tabled, defeated.

He goes on to also point out that the reconciliation requirement for standards and regulations could be contrary to local policy. Mr. Lidstone states some examples. He states in his presentation to Metro Vancouver, formerly the GVRD: "Meth labs, grow ops, secondhand goods and massage parlours."

He raises the concerns about Bill 32, its implementation — how local governments lose the ability to respond to local needs and issues that come up in their communities. I'm going to repeat that. They lose their ability to respond to the local needs that come up within their communities. Is that not what local government is put in place for? Is that not what they're there for?

Now, let's have a look at some of the details of how TILMA provisions do apply to local government. The municipal polities could be challenged, and municipalities could be forced to pay up to a $5 million monetary penalty in any of these circumstances.

I will move through the discussions and point out where this conclusion is made and the contradictory statements that have been made by the other side.

If local government creates obstacles to investment by restricting or impairing it. That's under article 3. Investments are defined as financial assets or the establishment, acquisition or expansion of an enterprise, such as the establishment or expansion of a company's real estate investments.

If the local government does not mutually recognize Alberta municipal regulations, under article 5.1, under mutual recognition, developers could choose which regulations they want to abide by, those of Alberta municipalities or B.C. local governments. B.C. local governments' protection of such items as scenic views, rental housing, pesticide restrictions and green building standards are all regulations not reconciled with those of Alberta municipalities. They are not reconciled. They fall under it. If it's not named in the agreement, it's covered by the agreement.

If local government ever introduces new regulations that restrict or impair investment — article 5.3. Stricter pesticide laws, green building standards or noise bylaws all could be challenged under TILMA as impairing investments by increasing an enterprise's costs — again, not excluded, covered.

If local government does not notify and take the views of the Alberta government into consideration when it introduces new bylaws covered by TILMA. That's article 7.2 — more reasons not to be supporting Bill 32.

If the local government provides a business subsidy — article 12 — including tax waivers or infrastructure charge deductions for any activity. Let me step back. Thank you for your patience with me. I distract easily when my mind is involved in the complexity of an agreement that lays down such an effect upon all British Columbians.

Backing up to where I was, if the local government provides a business subsidy, under article 12, including tax waivers or infrastructure charge deductions for any activity not exempted…. For example, subsidies for heritage conservation are not exempted by TILMA.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that there's a member of the Legislature here who would like to make an introduction. If that is agreeable with you, we could allow that to happen, and then I would like to reserve my right to stand up and continue speaking.

D. Thorne: Today visiting in the House are 26 grade 5 students from Parkland School in my riding. Parkland Elementary School is the school my own children attended. It's a wonderful, wonderful school. As the saying in this House goes, I think it's one of the very best schools in British Columbia.

I'm very proud to represent these students. I'm going to meet with them in a few minutes, when they're finished in the House, and we're going to talk about lots of interesting things. They're going to have lots of good questions, I'm sure. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

C. Wyse: Under article 14, we have the procurement restrictions that come into play. I have mentioned earlier that in the broader scheme of things, this is a minor point. It is still of concern, albeit minor.

British Columbians must be very careful that they do not take any changes here to any numbers to make TILMA more in agreement with the agreement in internal trade because, in actual fact, the numbers here underneath procurement, underneath article 14, have very, very low sums of money for procurement.

A timing aspect is another reason not to be supporting this particular Bill 32. All of the above provisions could be used to challenge local government after April 2009 if the municipalities are not exempted from TILMA. As well, any bylaw local government amends or renews before then can be challenged immediately if it becomes less consistent with TILMA.

Now, defences against TILMA. Let's have a look at it, against the challenges. Remember the advice that we received earlier from Saskatchewan. It's the words of the agreement, not any other words that govern, not any other words that say what is going to occur. It is the agreement, and it includes Bill 32.

TILMA covers everything local government does unless it explicitly is exempted under part 5. In addition, none of the following local government objectives are defined by TILMA as legitimate underneath the definitions of part 6.

Taking into account the opinions of residents. Let me repeat that: taking into account the opinions of residents. That seems to mirror this government, who takes everything into cabinet, away from this House, away from debate, and makes the decisions. Local government has a habit, a long tradition of listening to its electorate, listening to its residents, but that's no longer part of the defence.

Avoiding potential negative impacts on neighbourhoods. No longer in the defence. Not covered underneath TILMA — another reason for not voting for Bill 32.

Preservation of rental accommodations, ethical purchasing, heritage properties or industrial lands. Again, not covered, not included and open for challenge.

So none of these objectives could be used to defend local government bylaws or subsidies that violate the agreement underneath article 6. And even if a bylaw could be defended by an objective, recognizing TILMA as legitimate, local governments would be obligated to pursue this objective in a way that is the least restrictive to business as defined by the dispute panel — as defined by the dispute panel. Notice, no longer by government, by a dispute panel. Three people, chosen arbitrarily.

Where, pray tell, has democracy gone? It has fallen off the table — a reason to be defeating Bill 32. We should be ashamed that we are debating the lack of democracy. We should be hanging our heads in shame that I should be standing here needing to make these points, here in the provincial Legislature of British Columbia.

Under TILMA, local government policies could be challenged before a trade tribunal appointed by the respective provincial governments. Only the provincial governments, as parties, are allowed to defend measures before a TILMA tribunal, which means that whether and how municipal policies are defended is up to the province.

The B.C. Liberal government, in my judgment and possibly others, is unlikely to put up a defence if the TILMA challenge is against a local government measure that blocks the kind of development it favours and might rather just force the municipality to comply. Don't agree? Dead in the water, regardless of what that community wants, because they do not have the right to be at the table with a tribunal to defend their legislation that has been put into place.

I am hanging my head lower and lower as I go through the debate on this particular bill, Bill 32, a bill for implementing this agreement, a bill that must be defeated.

There's no question that the province would force local governments to comply. They are obligated to do so under article 2.2. They are obligated by the agreement that they have signed with Alberta to do that. They do not have a choice. They must force them to comply. I quote: "Each party is responsible for compliance with this agreement by its government entities." If they did not secure compliance, that itself would be cause for a successful challenge under the agreement.

Now, on the question of whether local government would have to pay any monetary awards up to $5 million, that alarmed Mr. Lidstone, who provided the legal analysis for UBCM that deals with that question extensively. As I promised earlier, I would return to that point of paying the fine. Mr. Lidstone provided the legal analysis for UBCM that deals with this question extensively.

The Lidstone opinion notes the contradiction between what the B.C. Liberal government says in its public

information on TILMA — remember that website that you're encouraged to go and see to get an impartial analysis of things? — and how the province answers this query that he asked. That's the lawyer on behalf of UBCM regarding the who-pays question.

In its public information — for example, the Ministry of Economic Development backgrounder, "Fact, Not Fiction, on TILMA…." Check that out on the website, "Fact, Not Fiction." Look at it in isolation, by itself. The B.C. Liberal government tries to rebut the criticism that TILMA allows business to challenge municipal bylaws and claim damages, even from small communities, by stating that municipalities are not required to defend their own measures or pay monetary awards.

Yet in its response to Mr. Lidstone, on behalf of UBCM, the province's answer to the who-pays question was instead this: "It is impossible to answer the question definitively. The course of action that the province would take in any dispute proceeding involving municipalities would depend on the particular circumstances of the dispute." I'm hoping that that quote likewise will be found on the same government webpage so that both sides of the answer to this question are available to the public at large.

Madam Speaker, I think we're beginning to develop quite a flavour for why Bill 32 should not be passed. It implements this agreement.

In case I may have wandered around the particular point from local government, I'd like to encapsulate those points that I've made over the last few minutes on behalf of local government. The municipal lawyer on their behalf notes that bylaws and civic practices that have been upheld through court decisions over the years may now fail to comply with TILMA and trigger challenges. So where local government has established where they are legally, from past practices, it has turned into quicksand for them, not only for the local government but, more importantly, for the people for whom they govern.

They have the right to expect that they would have been involved in something as profound, something as far-reaching, something that moves expected democracy off the table. That is indeed not too much of an expectation, and the fact that we're here in May 2008, before there's been an opportunity to discuss this particular aspect in this House, is in my judgment shameful, shameful, shameful.

Even if the province is liable for penalties, Mr. Lidstone says that fear of challenges arising under TILMA may put a chill on decision-making by city councils. Here we have had a whole rash of legislation in front of us to deal with major issues of the environment. Greenwashing is what they become when you put them up against TILMA and the effect that TILMA may well have upon the legislation. With what one hand is talking about enabling to do, Bill 32 is clipping it off at the knees. It is leaving it incapacitated and not able to be moved forward.

Mr. Lidstone said, "Municipalities we know to be very conservative and careful," and added: "It may lead to the scenario of the tail wagging the dog." Lidstone said that some areas where cities may find themselves constrained by TILMA include — and let's go back over them — policies of buying from local firms; ethical purchasing requirements, such as boycotts of companies linked to slave labour; subsidies to businesses, potentially including the provision of land below market value to achieve goals like revitalization or affordable housing development.

He goes on to state about that minor issue of those procurements: "Do not be misled by moving a couple of numbers around in a document as compared to the overall profound effect that there exists underneath TILMA."

Now, let's move on to an item that is of utmost importance, and that is the effect that climate is having upon the environment. It's something, I guess, similar to TILMA. The other side has had an epiphany and has recognized that things need to be done around this item.

But when we look at TILMA and its effect, potentially, on achieving those necessary goals to deal with the climate, you will again see why there are concerns about Bill 32, the implementation of TILMA, and why Bill 32 should not be passed.

Now, again, I don't recall finding these sources on the government website, and it does not surprise me that they're not on the government website. We would expect that from the government website there would be a very narrow interpretation of an agreement that has not been open to public scrutiny. But when it was open to public scrutiny…. There are a couple of environmentally connected organizations that I want to refer to. I will leave it up to the people of British Columbia to determine whether, in actual fact, these organizations are attempting to mislead you with concerns around TILMA. I will leave it up to you to make your own judgment.

A very long time ago, when I was knee-high to something, I was taught to try and listen to the message. Don't shoot messengers. In actual fact, what you are being told, regardless of who may be delivering it, may have merit and may have insights that you have not thought of. But arrogant people — and I guess you could protract that to arrogant governments — say: "If it's not on my website, it's not worthy of consideration." That's narrow. That doesn't allow for openness. It doesn't allow for solid, encompassing government that governs for all of British Columbians — not, as has been reported, everything that the business community asks for.

Since when does government become arrogant enough that they govern only for one segment of our communities? Since when?

C. Wyse: My colleague across the way has suggested that it started in 2000. Was it 2001? But it may have started….

C. Wyse: My colleague has his opportunity to make his point, and I encourage him to get up and make his point. I just hope that his government will provide the

opportunity to do such, that this bill will not be yanked and that it will be provided with the ample opportunity required to debate it.

Returning to what the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre makes of TILMA's effect upon implementation of other acts that are in front of this House this year, a reason for not voting for Bill 32. So from the University of Victoria Environmental Law Society, the legal analysis has identified key areas of concern for local governments seeking to implement measures to address environmental issues, and these concerns include the level of government that some estimates place as responsible for 70 percent of the greenhouse gases that are produced.

We have another bill that is in front of us that is meant to empower local government to do such, to implement. But here, when we move on the next day to Bill 32, lo and behold, we find that there are legal opinions, legal analyses, from organizations that, in my mind, are not alarmists and that raise these concerns.

Let's have a look at some of them, as the implementation of this bill affects local government and the environment. The sweeping nature of TILMA itself has prohibitions against measures that impact trade, investment and labour mobility. The potential application of these prohibitions to key environmental measures because of the limited TILMA exemptions for environmental measures…. Remember: not stated, not included in TILMA, you're covered by TILMA. A government arrogant enough to think that they knew in 2007 all the issues that would come into play to deal with the environment and deal with the issues around greenhouse gases, for example — that's only one aspect that is not covered specifically underneath TILMA.

The onerous burden faced when seeking to justify a local government measure challenged by business. Where do the small communities obtain these resources? For that matter, where do the larger municipalities obtain those resources? This is not like Victoria, where we're talking about budgets with billions of dollars. We're talking about local government that has primarily one source of revenue, that of property tax — the one pocket that is available to local government to come up with their revenue.

This government has consistently been putting their hand into that same pocket so that the last time a local government went in there to see whether there were resources available to look after their local government needs, they found lint, and lint only. The province had picked their pockets for such things as transit and other items of that nature.

Now, with Bill 32, we are expecting them to take on this onerous challenge of ensuring that everything that they do is not in contravention of TILMA.

Finally, the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre Society points out the concern of the unsatisfactory dispute resolution process. It is noted that "much of the language in the agreement is undefined or ambiguous. As a result, a full understanding of TILMA's impact awaits future panel, court rulings and amendments by the parties. However, current wording of the agreement clearly raises concerns for local governments that want to protect the environment."

As we move through other legislation in front of this House, we'll be required to do such underneath Bill 27, an item that possibly the government overlooked — the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing — as they continue to beat up on democracy, ignore it, put things into the hands of the cabinet and carry on.

The University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre goes on and points out about the cumbersomeness and the difficult, if not impossible, aspect of dealing with TILMA at the local government level.

As a matter of a fact, we're seeing signs as early as now that there is a chilling effect that is taking place.

Now, if that one august body in my judgment, not an alarmist group…. I haven't heard a lot of people point to the University of Victoria Environmental Law Society and accuse them of being some alarmist group. Then let's have a look at what the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, now Ecojustice, has to say about TILMA and the environment.

At this time I don't wish to start at the local government level. I want to share with the province of British Columbia, with all of those people at home listening to this debate and with all members here in the House who are giving me their undivided attention on Bill 32, and the need for it not passing, not proceeding….

At the provincial level, from Ecojustice, the former Sierra Legal Defence Fund: "Although the aim of the agreement is to turn Alberta and B.C. into an economic powerhouse, a legal analysis of TILMA by Sierra Legal reveals it could seriously threaten the province's endangered species and jeopardize potential initiatives to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions."

I don't think I'm going to find that on the government website. I don't. But for other people listening to this particular debate and conversation, I've attempted to identify specifically where this reference has come from. It is available to the public. They are not required to go through freedom-of-information requests, as others have been, to get the background on the TILMA document.

It took eight, almost two full hands of digits, to get the information to put together how TILMA research was found — that was shocking; it was shocking to me to find out how quick and dirty it was done — to look at Bill 32, again moving things off into cabinet, again

gutting democracy, removing democracy at the local government level and putting challenges to it.

But let's go back and again have a look at Ecojustice, the Sierra group, on local government and the environment and see where they are standing. "TILMA includes some broad exemptions related to the environment, such as measures relating to water; the promotion of renewable and alternative energy; the conservation of forests, fish and wildlife; and the management of hazardous and waste materials." I've listed the exemptions. But as we have discussed here, they are not mentioned as included under TILMA.

So let's go back and have a look at some of the items that are not listed under TILMA and therefore are included under TILMA. I go on. "However, these exemptions do not appear to include measures related to a number of other critical environmental issues, such as the reduction of greenhouse gases."

The reduction of greenhouse gases. All that greenwashing that we have been sitting through, and lo and behold, we have hidden in the woodpile a piece of legislation that, according to this group, is challengeable under TILMA.

Besides greenhouse gases, protection of endangered plants in some of the most endangered ecosystems in the country…. Then they list some examples, such as B.C. Garry oak, grassland and wetland ecosystems. Finally, also not included, therefore covered by TILMA, is the reduction of air pollution. I hope we are going to have lots of time for debate.

So on climate change and global warming. I mentioned at the start of my discussion that I would be coming back to this issue that is so important and requires our attention. I wish to put it into context, not from me but from Sir Nicholas Stern and his view on the importance of this issue. Then I'm going to return to how Ecojustice matches up TILMA to that particular statement by Mr. Stern.

"Global warming is one of if not the key challenge of the 21st century," as recently noted by Mr. Stern. "Our actions over the coming few decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity later in this century and in the next on a scale similar to those associated with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th century, and it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes."

Mr. Stern goes on to note further: "Climate change presents a unique challenge for economics. It is the greatest and widest-ranging market failure ever seen. In essence, we have treated the atmosphere as a dumping site with minimal limitations or cost requirements."

Now back to Ecojustice and their comment after that statement. "Will TILMA make it more difficult for Alberta and B.C. to address this failure? The answer appears to be yes." Further, this group goes on: "A range of other environmental measures identified by Sierra Legal as being potentially subject to challenge under TILMA are" — and there are five of them — "urban land use planning, agricultural land reserve, mandatory eco-labelling, soil contamination and limitation on the use of Crown land."

These are the opinions of Ecojustice. I'm sure the minister will consult his website, and he will have his opinion.

I have put up the opinions of other groups that have an entirely different opinion. They may not have their heads buried in the sand as the other side does.

Once more, I believe we have a colleague who would like to make an introduction, so I would like to provide the opportunity to do that and reserve my right to carry on with my discussion.

D. MacKay: Today in the chamber we've got 11 students representing grades 6 to 9 from the community of Atlin. For those of you that don't know, Atlin is located up in the northwestern part of our province. These young students have travelled 2,650 kilometres to be with us today, and they are here with the principal Chris Stacey and their teacher ?sa Berg. I would ask the chamber to please make them feel welcome.

C. Wyse: I did start off with acknowledging some aspects here underneath TILMA where there has been some support found, and that's in the area of labour mobility. However, it's worth reminding everyone in this House and all those people watching that when the entire package of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement had been examined, it had been rejected everywhere else but where it had been signed originally — by B.C. and Alberta.

I wish to have a look at labour mobility through the eyes of another organization and how they look upon TILMA as being the vehicle by which to achieve greater labour mobility. That group was the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

In my judgment, I have chosen highly reputable organizations in developing my argument, organizations that are not likely in their practice to go off without having spent time to develop a reasoned response. If members on the other side believe that the sources I've used to develop my case are of such an ilk, they will have the opportunity to challenge their opinions. They will have ample opportunity to tell local government "uh-uh." They will have ample opportunity to tell all of Canada and the other levels of government "uh-uh." They will have ample opportunity to make their point.

Let's go back and have a look at what the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has to say about TILMA and labour mobility: "In our striving for the ideal of a domestic free market open to unrestricted competition, it is critically important to remember that not all standards and regulations are inherently bad. Nor are they necessarily anti-competitive, particularly where

the standards and regulations are present for the specific purposes of protecting the public."

What a novel idea, protecting the public. Wow. That I would be forced to stand up in this House and point out that there is more than looking after the interests of just the business community that is the responsibility of the 79 of us…. Wow. But even the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has recognized that.

Chartered accountants endorse labour mobility. In fact, years ago we harmonized our accreditation process to ensure that CAs can freely move across Canada and work in all provinces. Then they go on: "Although we support the merits of trying to enhance labour mobility, we bring to your attention the important need to recognize that provisions such as article 13.1 of TILMA could lead inevitably to the risk" — the risk — "that standards of qualifications for professionals are reduced to the lowest level prevailing in the country." That is from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

"As professional standards of regulation of professions are not uniform to begin with, this provision essentially makes the lowest of the standards that may exist in Canada acceptable as the base of qualifications — essentially a race to the bottom, if you will."

The chartered accountants: "We do not believe that this is consistent with the obligations of legislators and government nor of the professions themselves to ensure that the public is protected" — not my words, but the words of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

Madam Speaker, even when we are in the area of…. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how you managed to sneak in on me. It must be getting close to lunchtime. However, it's very, very good to see you, as it always is. I hope that helps cover and recover.

I would like to come back and remind people here of one of the areas where we began. That's the quote from Mr. Mar. Alberta's former minister, in 2006, made this statement to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce with regards to the TILMA dispute process: "It is everything Canadian business asked for."

Heather Douglas, president of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, is also quoted. She praised the Alberta government's role in negotiating TILMA, saying: "It acted on our suggestions." This is the president of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. Paraphrasing the old saying about General Motors, Miss Douglas promoted TILMA on the basis that what's good for Alberta will be good for the country. As I demonstrated earlier, the rest of the country, including many local governments here in B.C., disagrees with that point.

I ask: who looked out for B.C. and its citizens when the Premier signed this deal? It raises the need for Bill 32 to be defeated. The government has signed away the rights of B.C. to govern itself. The government has turned over the province to the interpretation of a three-person panel. That is quite clear.

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

C. Trevena: To the minister: we have limited time, so we'll get straight to it.

I wanted first off to start on, literally, the budget allocation for child care. In the resource summary section of the estimates, we have under the 2007-2008 estimates a sum of $421.865 million. For 2008-2009 it goes up to $466.338 million, and there is a footnote that says that figure includes the federal funding of $33

C. Trevena: Is it possible to give a breakdown of what those figures are going to be spent on? In the plan it just says it basically all together, but in previous plans we've had early childhood development, child care and support for special needs separated out. I wonder if it would be possible to separate those out.

Hon. L. Reid: The breakdown, as requested for '07-08: for subsidy, $4.91 million; for CCOF, $6.37 million; for CCRR, $6 million; major capital, $12.5 million; minor capital, $700,000; ECE bursaries, $500,000; CC operations and administration, $1.2 million; ECD staffing, $500,000; and MCFD-supported child development, $440,000; which gives you the total of $33.12 million.

C. Trevena: I've got to apologize. We've gone straight into this, and I haven't given the minister the opportunity to introduce her staff. I don't know if she'd like to right now or as we proceed.

What I was wondering, just to get the question in while we are moving ahead quite quickly…. The $466 million estimate that we have of the breakdown there. In previous years we've had early childhood development, child care and support for special needs. I just wanted to get the breakdown of those figures.

Hon. L. Reid: While my staff is pulling that together, I'm pleased to introduce Lesley du Toit, deputy minister for the Ministry of Children and Family Development. Alan Markwart is with us, and directly behind, our financial officer, Sarf Ahmed.

We'll come back to you momentarily. If you have other questions, what we'll do is keep a running tally of your questions that require some compilation. Please go ahead and pose the next question.

C. Trevena: I would like the breakdown for all the years, if that would be possible. But what I wondered also is that we do have the $33 million of federal funding that has gone into child care. Obviously, $12.5 million has gone into capital funding and the recent announcement of the various child care spaces. I just wondered where the other $20.5 million has gone to.

Hon. L. Reid: The list I just read for the member opposite included the $12½ million for major capital. That was the list that totalled the $33.12 million.

Going on to the $12.5 million capital funding, I wonder if the minister could just explain a little to me how the moneys were allocated. I know there have been a number of announcements over the last few weeks and months about child care spaces. I was wondering how it was decided that those places would get that spending.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to spend a few minutes on the process. You will know, probably, that in 2005 there was about $14½ million that went to child care capital construction across British Columbia, and a very similar adjudication process was underway. Probably ten or 12 different souls across ministries came to adjudicate the actual application. It's a request for proposal. This round, more than 250 applications came in for $12½ million. Our sense, in terms of quality of the proposal: no question. But we also attempt to put dollars regionally across British Columbia to look at how it is we can have some equity as we go forward.

You're probably aware of most of the announcements that have gone forward. Certainly, you will know that it's been a passion to have co-located integrated service. So we've tended to look at how we can support hubs across British Columbia, how we can have families seek services at a single location during the course of their day, as opposed to…. We're both familiar with the scenario where a mom has two or three youngsters of different ages and may go to two or three different places — the mom or dad — on the way to work or school in the morning.

The ways we can in fact create better kindnesses around the provision of this service when those opportunities present themselves…. We should absolutely seize those opportunities. We have attempted to do that, both in the 2005 capital round and in this capital round.

You will know that we've also had direction from the Premier in terms of better utilization of public space. You will know that in the last round we were successful in relocating a child care program into the former Squamish courthouse — glorious program. I would absolutely encourage you to visit. It's a great, great hub now for downtown Squamish. It's the central, focal point of view for downtown Squamish.

The same undertaking in terms of child care going into classrooms across British Columbia…. You will know, given the difficulties in terms of hiring contractors today, that they're busy working on a whole array of products and provisions in British Columbia. Any time we can go to a renovation, that's usually three to six or seven months from the day you make that decision to the day you occupy that premise. It's a glorious return on investment for British Columbia taxpayers and for families that get into those spaces that much more quickly.

A new ground-up build in British Columbia — two to three years today. So if we want the spaces open and available that much more readily for families, certainly that type of approach is working for us. You will know that in this round we funded lots of classroom conversions to child care space, and I think it's going to be a remarkable kindness to families in that they can actually have their neighbourhood school as the hub.

My eventual dream as we go through this process, as more StrongStarts come on, is that StrongStart centres, located adjacent to child care centres, located adjacent to kindergarten classrooms, have that primary wing as preparation for youngsters who will at some point be in grade 1, grade 2 and moving through the elementary system. It in no way precludes child care going into secondary schools. We have lots of young-parent programs in secondary schools that have child care attached. So that kind of work is underway as well.

The majority of the announcements will be complete by the end of May. So $12½ million will be in the field by the end of May. For many of those centres, many of them have said that they will be operational, particularly in the school space, come September. So a very, very effective turnaround.

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could explain — she said there was sort of a board adjudicating — who was on that board and what the criteria were for the grants for that capital funding?

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly we had the representative from each of the five regions. So we would have the five regional reps. We had representatives from the child care policy branch and representatives from the Ministry of Health in terms of licensing. So in this particular round of capital, there were 12 individuals who came together to adjudicate those 254 applications.

C. Trevena: What were the criteria used for saying…? The minister had said, obviously, that she wants to get a breadth across the province, and I can quite understand that. I know that in my own constituency you recently announced child care spaces in Tahsis, but I just wondered what other criteria the minister and the team adjudicating were using.

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly, there were a number of different criteria that were employed in terms of evaluating the criteria. It was a proposal process, so people actually made application based on a number of different criteria.

Space sufficiency. If they're going into a school, was there sufficient space to accommodate a child care provider should they be successful? Definitely looked at categories of social need and, frankly, looked at the inventory of existing child care space in the region. Early childhood development indicator scores were folded in.

Feasibility — whether or not there was a business plan to deliver the program and whether or not there was community support for the provision of child care in that area, in that region. So there were probably six broad categories and a number of different facets of each of those categories explored in some detail. The adjudicators brought their experience and their knowledge of how child care delivery happened in other parts of the province to bear in terms of ranking each of those applications.

C. Trevena: The minister mentioned that there were 250 applications. Sorry, I might have missed how many were successful out of that 250.

Hon. L. Reid: While they're looking for that breakdown, I will give you the response to the question you posed earlier.

You asked for a provisional breakdown for early childhood development, child care, supportive child development and special needs. Child care in '08-09, $290 million; ECD, $23 million; special needs, $153 million — equalling $466 million. In '07-08, the year previous, $288 million for child care, $23 for early childhood development, and $144 million for special needs — equalling $455 million.

C. Trevena: And the subsequent years, if you're looking for '09-10 and '10-11. Do we have those yet?

Thank you, Minister. We are rushing through this, and I thank the minister because there are a lot of issues that we want to cover in literally a short time.

One of the questions, again, on the capital funding: I wondered if there were applications from, say, the private sector, not the family child care operators but any private sector operators, any businesses that are running as child care. Obviously, we have the family child care operators that are up and running. I know some have applied, because they've come to me and wondered about the application process. I'm sure they've come to the minister as well.

I wondered if there were any other private sector applicants outside that range of the usually established private sector within child care.

Hon. L. Reid: We'll just be sort of one pace. We are on a number of successful applications. So 114 projects in 60 B.C. communities are receiving major child care funding; 68 are group child care centres, and 43 are family child care centres.

You will be aware, I know, of the work we've done with B.C. Housing in terms of siting child care developments adjacent to where people live. Again, I think it's wholly appropriate that people have the opportunity not to have to worry about transporting all the bits and pieces that go along with caring for children if they do not indeed have transportation opportunities.

We've done three in the last round and three in this round in terms of child care adjacent to B.C. Housing projects. Some 38 of these projects will locate in vacant space in schools and public buildings, and ten of these projects will create or expand neighbourhood hubs.

What I can do while I'm on my feet is give you the breakdown by region. The Fraser region, 28 projects for the number of 697 new spaces created. In the Interior, 33 projects for 504 spaces. In the north, 13 projects for 206 spaces. In Vancouver coastal, 23 projects for 511 spaces. On Vancouver Island, 17 projects for 311 spaces. So again, across British Columbia, 114 projects and 2,229 child care spaces created.

I wonder if the minister could…. There were 250 applicants; 114 were successful. Will the applicants who were not successful get the chance to apply in a second round, or is this it? Is there going to be further funding available?

Hon. L. Reid: The dramatic lift in child care space will absolutely have a drawdown on the number of dollars available for subsidy and for CCOF, so we're not certain yet what the next round might look like. We will know more once these spaces are operational, in terms of how much dollar is drawn down on subsidy and CCOF.

CCOF can be predicted, but subsidy is a little more uncertain. Certainly, there's been intense drawdown on it today. I welcome that. I think there are opportunities for those most vulnerable to actually have places in child care, and we will just gauge that better over the next three to six months as we go forward.

In terms of your question about independent child care operators, there were 18 recipients, for the creation of 633 child care spaces.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. The 18 recipients, the independent…. We have 43 family operators that have received it, 18 independent. I wondered if the minister could explain what "independent" is. I'm wondering whether it's sort of a small business, a large business…. What are we looking at when we're saying "independent"?

When we're talking about child care, it's easy to look at the family child care, the group child care. There are one or two small business child care models. In a house where somebody is running a small business that's child care…. I'll ask whether that is independent or whether we're talking about something really a bit bigger — company child care.

Hon. L. Reid: I know the question has been whether or not British Columbia will be home to large, corporate child care. The answer to that is no. We have small, independent operators today, and there has been no interest in having anything else come to British Columbia, and it simply does not exist today in British Columbia.

The minister said that we're in all five regions — 28 in the Fraser, 33 in the Interior, 13 in the north, 23 in the coast and 17 on the Island. We obviously know some of those locations with the announcements that have come out recently. Is it possible for the minister — through her staff, through you, Chair — to say where all these spaces are going to be so we know the different communities where the spaces are going to be?

Hon. L. Reid: The member posed the question in terms of '09-10 and '10-11. Child care in '09-10, 291; ECD, 23; children and youth with special needs, 160. That's a total of 474. In '10-11, 293 for child care, 23 for early childhood development and 162 for children and youth with special needs, for a total of 478.

I'm certainly happy to give the member a flavour of where we've made the announcements to date and to reiterate that all the announcements will probably be done in the next two to three weeks. The full $12½ million will be accounted for in terms of the northern region. Treehouse Early Learning and Telkwa have gone forward. Family YM/YWCA of Prince George has gone forward. The hub has gone; the dollars have gone into Prince George. There are additional announcements still to be made for the north.

The Interior region. We have Kamloops and Clearwater that have gone forward. Westbank, Kelowna, Vernon and Salmon Arm have gone forward, and there are still two additional announcements to be made.

In the Fraser Valley, Global Montessori has gone forward. The village of Anmore has gone forward, and Delta has gone forward.

On Vancouver Island. Comox and Ladysmith have gone forward. Victoria — CFB Esquimalt — was the one we did most recently. Victoria again — Sooke and Victoria.

Vancouver coastal. We've had Halfmoon Bay go forward, Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association, Trafalgar Out-of-School Care Society and the district of West Vancouver. There are, on those last two, a number of announcements still to go forward on behalf of each.

C. Trevena: I'd just like a bit of clarification from the minister on that list. For instance, on the Island, as I say, I know that in my community there was the announcement about Tahsis. So we are talking about the same list here. It's the same announcements for child care spaces. I know, for instance, that we had Vernon. There was one in Tahsis at the rec centre. We've had Vernon, Kamloops, Clearwater, Sunshine Coast. These are the ones that were all announced quite recently. So we are talking about the same round of announcements.

I actually have a couple of other requests. Rather than asking all my colleagues to come in and bombard the minister with lots of questions as well, because of limited time, I have a couple of requests for a bit more detailed information.

I know that my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds has actually written to the minister about child care spaces in Burnaby and the grant applications, and whether any child care capital funding is going to Burnaby in this latest round and whether any hub capital funding was allocated to Burnaby and, if so, where in Burnaby.

Hon. L. Reid: I trust that the member will be satisfied that the announcement will be this week.

C. Trevena: I hope the member will be satisfied, and if he's not, he'll come and ask the minister for further detail.

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has specific questions about capital funding for Harbour View. Harbour View is, at present, in a portable and has understood that capital funding has gone to other portables in Vancouver — Kitsilano Montessori, Learning Tree day care and Gingerbread House. Kiwassa Neighbourhood House was wondering whether they were also going to be getting some capital funding.

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly this issue has had some good discussion and probably will continue to have some good discussion as we go forward. The ownership of the other portables that the member mentions has not been in question. The ownership of this particular portable is in question.

The province continued to pay the building occupancy costs for the others, not for this one. In fact, it has paid out probably close to $500,000 in capital allocation. That dollar has been matched by the city of Vancouver. We certainly have ongoing discussion, but I'm not sure there is resolution beyond the allocation of the $500,000.

C. Trevena: I'm sure the member will come back to you and ask a few more questions on that.

Obviously, we don't want to pre-empt the announcements as they come, and we eagerly await, like the applicants do, the announcements. Would it be possible that beyond those announcement press releases, we could get in writing a list of all the successful applications, the 114 out of the 250 that are successful?

I just wanted to explore a little bit more about the spaces. I've got two areas that I want to look at. One is the B.C. Housing partnership. What investment is the ministry putting into the partnership with B.C. Housing? Financially and, obviously, philosophically there's a big investment in it. But what is the financial investment, and how will that be ongoing? What sort of partnership are you talking about?

Hon. L. Reid: The capital allocation, as you know, is $2.5 million. What will be ongoing will be what any child care centre would be able to access, which is the CCOF, child care operating funding, and the subsidy costs, should they have children who would qualify for subsidy.

C. Trevena: The creation of spaces in school buildings. Again, this is a question that has been raised to me as I've gone to different schools and, literally, seen certain areas where there is a StrongStart and a preschool in the same building, or there's a StrongStart and a child care in the same building.

Everyone says how wonderful it works, and they love the fact that there's a StrongStart and a kindergarten in the same building. But there is the issue of child care centres. People have to pay for them. Even if you are on subsidy, there is still the gap there. People have to pay something, whereas if the parents can access StrongStarts, they're there with them. They don't have to pay.

Is the minister addressing in any way, with her colleagues around the table, how to really integrate the system so that parents do see it as seamless? Can we get to that stage, maybe, where a not-for-profit is able to operate in a school system without that differentiation of paying and not paying?

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite will know that we continue to have an array of discussion. The member opposite will know that the early learning agency is debating all the questions that pertain to how and if we program for full-day kindergarten in the province, how we look at programming for three-year-olds and how we look at programming for four-year-olds. Will that issue come up? Undoubtedly, it will come up.

In terms of whether or not it is seen to be seamless today, what families have said they're looking for is the convenience of a single drop-off and pickup point for their children. The fact that they pay today for out-of-school care doesn't seem to deter them from simply wanting each school to have out-of-school care so that, indeed, there is some ease of access.

Are there a number of different models employed across British Columbia today? Absolutely there are. Will we continue to work that discussion forward? Yes, we will.

In terms of the number of schools today that offer child care, there are some districts doing some outstanding things. Central Okanagan, Abbotsford, the Kootenays — they're just folding those youngsters in, acknowledging that they share the same child.

That's the part that speaks to me, when we as a government went on to the Ready, Set, Learn piece. How you acquaint a three-year-old with his first exposure to a school classroom? How you make him feel welcome? How you introduce him or her to the school librarian? How you make them welcome in a place is the gift of centralized programming for me — that they don't have disruption in their day, that they don't have significant attachment issues.

We have youngsters today, the member will know, who go to three or four different places in the course of a day. None of that should be what we accept as we go forward. We should always be attempting to streamline the process from the perspective of being that youngster — having some continuity and some sense of attachment in their life.

My priority is how we have the day available in a similar location and, hopefully, with caregivers that are

You may be aware that Norma Mickelson, who was the chancellor at the University of Victoria…. She and I, some years back, shared a speaking platform where she talked about how the quality of the graduate student that she was able to move through graduate programming was pretty much determined by the time that little person was six.

Is this critical in terms of how we structure a day for a youngster? It's critical to me. I have a four-year-old, and I have an eight-year-old. It's critical to me that there's some sense of continuity as we go forward — what I want for my children and what I want for school districts, for public buildings across the province and for communities to embrace.

C. Trevena: That's something that I think will be very welcome to families as well as to providers — if we can have it seamless and make sure there is an ease there. It's so that we don't have all that constant transition for both the parents and the children — with the parents going, as the minister mentioned, to drop off and pick up and the whole mess they're facing, as well as the children who are being moved about the place.

On the spaces that have been created under the $12.5 million, the minister has stated that it's basically 2,200 spaces we're talking about here. I wondered if she could explain how she is translating the money that's going into capital into the number of spaces available.

Hon. L. Reid: In terms of the member's question, it is probably a question of weighting how you arrive at a particular cost for a particular space. You will know that when the early learning and child care agreement was operational across the country, they were pretty much driving to a cost deliverable of $10,000 per space created. But the reality is that that only works in urban centres. The cost of building a space in Tahsis, as an example, is going to be extremely different than what it is building it in Vancouver.

Do we have to take into account all the variables across the province in terms of construction time, seasonal build and soil quality? All of those aspects, frankly, drive up costs. We had projects that have been very expensive, yes. Have we had projects that are inexpensive? Yes. Sometimes it's just about whether or not a contractor was available in terms of beginning the project as soon as the dollar was in the field.

There is absolutely a variation. Nationally it was $10,000. It's probably sitting closer to $15,000 to $18,000 today for space creation. Will that number continue to rise? I believe it will, based on availability of contract, based on the pace of an economy. When things are going well in a province — as I believe things are going well in British Columbia today — it's tougher to find folks to build small projects, and typically, child care centres are smaller projects.

In terms of our regional breakdown, if you were to think of this in terms of where the majority of children reside by percentage, the Fraser region has the largest number of youngsters and, frankly, has the largest number of spaces being created, based at about 38 percent of the child population in the province — close to 700 spaces. The Interior has 500 spaces, roughly; the north, 206 spaces; Vancouver coastal, 511 spaces; and Vancouver Island, 311 spaces.

It's not to the nth degree in terms of reflecting population, but it's pretty close. It's a pretty decent accommodation in terms of where the children reside, in terms of how we've attempted to site the spaces. But is the cost per space identical from the north to Vancouver? No.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that explanation. One of the things about spaces and space creation is that it's all very well having the physical space there, but you've got to have the staff who are going to run it. You can say, "We've got 15 spaces," but if you don't have the two or three staff people there to keep the spaces open, it's academic, I believe.

I wondered whether the minister, through her staff, has noted the number of licensed ECEs in the province at the moment.

Hon. L. Reid: This year we will license an additional 800 early childhood educators, for a total of 10,500 ECEs across British Columbia. Has the annual lift increased over time? It absolutely has. There were years where it was 300 or 350 early childhood educators coming onto the registry. In the past number of years 800 and 900 were not unusual — and leading in that.

I can tell you that May is a glorious month to be travelling the province. I attend and see many graduates of the early childhood education programs. Frankly, many are employed before they leave the program, which is wonderful news for any new graduate in any program.

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister has figures or the percentage of the ECEs on the register — the 10,500 — who are actually working in early childhood education at the moment.

C. Trevena: Is that a figure that the ministry would have? Or is it just that you've got the numbers totally, but there is no way of tracking how many are actually working?

Hon. L. Reid: I share the member's curiosity. The reality is that many of them don't have regular contact with the registry. It's something…. They send in their cheque. Am I opposed to surveying them at some future point in terms of understanding where they all are? I, too, would be interested in that information.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. I think it might be worthwhile if there is the possibility of looking at that, because the minister says that after graduation, people are finding jobs very quickly or already have jobs.

What I'm hearing — as I'm sure the minister is as well — is the real need, the difficulty that people are having in finding early childhood educators. If you go onto a notice board and see the applications there or look in the newspaper, there are a lot of early childhood educator spaces, jobs available.

I also am aware of places such as…. I know that it has now changed a little in Kamloops, but there they had their wonderful new building but weren't able to open because they couldn't find the staff to run it.

When we're talking about spaces, I think we really have to be very careful that we're not just talking about the money that's going to the physical space but that we are ensuring that we do have the staff, the early childhood educators, who are able to work in that space.

I wondered if the minister could tell me. We have, now this year, the extra 900 early childhood educators coming on line, and most of them…. As I say, it's not surprising they have found work already. Are these ECEs ones who have done their full year? Or are they ones…? I know that now you can get your ECE without actually doing the full year. You can do some of it distance learning and so on as sort of more compressed courses. I wonder if the minister is aware of the different levels there.

Hon. L. Reid: The member touched on a number of points in terms of graduation and the availability of ECEs. There are some great initiatives underway in the province. I can tell you that in the 2005 capital round, there were dollars that went into the Splats'in First Nation. They were building a gorgeous child care centre.

They knew they would need staff 18 months out, so basically, they brought the training program to their community. They found a professor to come and teach the course. We provided the dollars for that level of initiative, because I think that's fabulous. They had 16 students start the program and 16 students graduate the program. They hired eight of them and freed up the other eight to be employed in the surrounding areas. I welcome that.

The reality is that anyone who is building a child care centre today knows that there are dollars on deposit at the Vancity Foundation for that level of professional development because, frankly, that's where we want to have programs operational so that families who might have…. A person in their midst who would wish to take the programming isn't travelling a long distance to take the course. They know they can find the course close to home.

You certainly have enough time, knowing what the building cycle is, to accomplish that level of educated student, that level of graduation. So in terms of where they go, how they're made available to the system, many students today — and probably predominantly — are still in the one-year program. We have lots of classes that graduate the full two-year program.

We certainly have ongoing professional development opportunities in the new regulation so that they continue to enhance their skills as they go forward. I'm not hearing that there is a lack of the best-educated early childhood educators there. The majority of folks complete at least the full year, if not the second year.

C. Trevena: The minister mentioned in her answer that there are dollars from Vancity for professional development. Are there also dollars from the ministry for professional development?

I know that one of the things people are saying is that under the new licensing it's great to have the extra requirement to do the professional development and extra training and improvement in people's skills. It is a matter of cost and a matter of money to do that, as well as a matter of time. So I wondered…. Money from Vancity — where else is money available?

Hon. L. Reid: The dollars I referenced, Member…. That is provincial dollar that's on deposit at the Vancity Foundation. It's $4.5 million. There are certainly communities and individual early childhood educators today who are writing proposals to access that dollar and, indeed, taking training programs back to their communities.

In terms of other dollars available, there are dollars available for the regional professional development that we do through the child care resource and referral. We have five regional professional development coordinators today.

There are the quality improvement funds — the $40 million. Some $20 million went out in the first year, $10 million this year and $10 million in February '09. We encourage centres to use that for professional development as well, should they so desire.

There are three different funding sources for ongoing professional development. But the $4.5 million on deposit at the Vancity Foundation was put on deposit by the province of British Columbia. Again, I would encourage folks to apply for that dollar. I would much rather see that dollar in the field producing enhanced levels of expertise for engagement with young children than generating interest sitting in a fund.

The province continues to operate bursaries and to do tuition reimbursement. We've created the incentive grant to bring back people who may have left to have children or to do something else in early childhood education. There are probably four or five different irons in the fire in terms of ensuring that someone who has a genuine interest in becoming an early childhood educator has some resources and supports to do that or that someone who is a qualified early childhood educator has some opportunity to return to the sector with some enhanced funding.

C. Trevena: The minister has opened up a great field of questions for me, which I was about to move on to. She reminds me of the $40 million that went

through the B.C. Council for Families for distribution — $20 million, $10 million and $10 million. Vancity is by application; B.C. Council for Families, I'm assuming, is by application. Obviously it's the CCRRs in discussion with child care operators.

What oversight is the ministry giving these bodies in their distribution of funds, and what are the guidelines for that distribution?

Hon. L. Reid: Let me just respond to the B.C. Council for Families piece. The first $20 million went directly from government, and it was done to the CCOF recipients in the province. So it wasn't an application process. It was a direct award.

The same process was engaged in by the B.C. Council for the $10 million that they directed this year. It's a direct award if you're a CCOF recipient in the province of British Columbia — i.e., the province provided you with operating dollars. That dollar continued to flow in that quality enhancement grant.

I understand that we're using the same process in February '09. If you're a CCOF recipient, those dollars will continue to flow.

C. Trevena: But the $4.5 million in provincial dollars that have been handed to Vancity to gain some interest there is on an RFP basis or a proposal basis. The people have to apply. They have to have some proposal about how they want to spend that and some project they want to spend it on, rather than being distributed for a specific targeted project.

Hon. L. Reid: I believe it is a proposal process, but I do believe it's posted on their website. For anyone interested in securing any of that dollar, simply go to the Vancity Foundation and pull down "Child Care."

C. Trevena: The minister also cites another couple of projects that have been launched in the last year about, I believe, trying to attract people and retain people.

I just wanted to ask the minister: in the student loan assistance, how much money is available for the ECE student loan assistance program?

Hon. L. Reid: In terms of the ECE loan assistance program, $440,000 in 2008-09. We have the opportunity to lift it to $880,000 next year should we continue to require that same level of graduates, going forward.

C. Trevena: I would just like to know how many people have applied for this.

Hon. L. Reid: Most folks won't be applying until they graduate, which is this month. So I think I'll be able to give you a clearer sense of that once our application process moves through — probably by September.

C. Trevena: I'm wondering if the minister could provide the information when the ministry has it. It would be very helpful.

Hon. L. Reid: The ECE loan assistance program will provide up to $2,500 towards the outstanding B.C. student loan of new graduates who work as early childhood educators in the licensed child care sector. Graduates from 2007-08 will be eligible to have their B.C. student loan debt reduced by up to $1,250 after each of their first and second years of employment in licensed child care, reducing the average B.C. student loan debt for ECEs by as much as 38 percent, close to 40 percent.

Loan reduction payments will be prorated for part-time regular employees, with the first ones expected to begin in June of '08. That may help you.

C. Trevena: This is available to any person who has gone through an ECE program, the one or two-year program? It's open to any recent graduate?

Hon. L. Reid: That's correct. As long as they're employed in a licensed child care centre.

C. Trevena: Just one other figure. I wondered if the minister has any estimate or any figure on the cost of managing this program.

Hon. L. Reid: The program costs are actually managed through the Ministry of Advanced Education.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I understand — this is an aside; it's not specifically on this — that there are some ECE courses that…. With the cuts in the budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education, a number of ECE courses are having to close. I wondered if the minister has any concerns about that or is working at all with the Minister of Advanced Education to ensure that we can keep getting ECEs trained.

Hon. L. Reid: The decision to offer a course at any college or university, frankly, is typically driven by enrolment. As more jobs come available, as more construction happens in the child care sector, I do believe you'll continue to see that course offered across British Columbia.

It certainly hasn't been an enormous difficulty for individuals interested in taking the course because many more communities are tailoring it to where their students live — i.e., the Splats'in example earlier. A number of different communities have done that. They've brought someone from the college into their community to deliver the course work.

In terms of maintaining a level of graduates, the level of graduates in British Columbia is actually going up last year and this year, so I think we're fine on that score.

C. Trevena: I think the minister is looking at the different ways of providing the course not necessarily through the college environment. I don't have note of

which ones, but I believe a couple of the ECE courses through the colleges have had to close because of cuts. Just going back to — noting that we don't have so much more time — some of the issues that the minister raised a couple of answers ago. She mentioned the wage subsidy for people returning. This has been on offer now for a few months, and it's $500,000 or up to $5,000 each. It was going to be for a hundred people. I wonder if the minister could say how many people have actually applied for this.

Hon. L. Reid: I would be absolutely charmed if we got 20 or 30 applications as we go through the process. In the province of Alberta I think they had 57 applications at the end of their second year, but 50 additional bodies into areas of the province that have not been able to secure one — for a whole array of reasons — may be helpful, and I believe we're at 20 today.

C. Trevena: Twenty out of a potential 100, when this has been ongoing for many months. What is the minister doing to either encourage people to apply for it, to make people aware of it or, perhaps, to tailor the program so it makes it more attractive?

We have many, many ECEs. We have 10,000 registered ECEs in B.C., and they're not all working in child care. We do have an issue of wait-lists in a number of places and a number of places where, obviously, we are trying to build child care spaces. I wondered how the ministry is going to try and encourage 80 more people to take this subsidy.

Hon. L. Reid: By having the conversation. That's probably a very good place to start. In terms of the program being relatively new, it takes a good year for it to become part of the understanding, if you will, around how folks can access the service. We'll be measuring success at the end of the second year, very similar to how they looked at it in Alberta, so I believe we're on track. I believe we will meet that goal easily as we go forward. Should folks not require that incentive to come back, that's actually good news for the sector as well. I think this is a win-win.

If someone is contemplating whether or not they come back…. The folks who contemplate a little longer than others are those who have small children of their own. They're pondering whether or not, at the end of their second year of the absence from the sector — and frankly, from any profession — whether or not they will return to work. If this allows us to entice some folks to come back, it's fabulous. If they don't require this program, it's equally fabulous.

C. Trevena: Is this money ongoing indefinitely until it's all taken up, or is it going to be a fixed program, as the minister said, that will be reviewed at the end of the second year? Is there just this one pot of money that will be ongoing two, three, four years? I just wondered if the minister could clarify a little bit about this.

Hon. L. Reid: If we had sufficient interest expressed, we would certainly extend our existing deadlines. The reality is that we're piloting both of them to see if they give us the desired result. If it turns out that neither program is required and we continue to see a lift of 800, 900 new registrants every year on the ECE registry, we would be charmed by that outcome as well.

These are facilitators, if you will, to see if people require some extra enticement to come back. If it turns out they're coming back in record numbers without these programs, again, fabulous — either way.

Hon. L. Reid: Again, I think we're probably better able to answer these questions in September, once folks have had an opportunity to make application. But again, as I stated earlier, we're more than happy to extend the deadlines should we get sufficient interest. If indeed we see the programs working, we'll take them forward.

C. Trevena: I guess I'm a little confused. So these programs have started up. We haven't got a set date for ending them. They are pilot programs. They're going to be evaluated in September. But they might be dropped if they're not successful at the end of September. Is this correct? I just wanted a bit of clarification. Maybe I'm mishearing this.

Hon. L. Reid: I think that I can put on the record again that the loan reduction payments will be prorated, part-time and regular employees with first payments expected in June of '08. The member opposite will know that — because the second program is the incentive program, to get the folks to come back — you must complete the two full years of employment to achieve the full value.

So who begins the program…. Absolutely, we will see them through that process. As we have indicated, it's $1,250 at the end of each year of employment. Absolutely, we are going to meet that obligation. Again, we will probably have more and better information for you in September. By then we will know, frankly, the interest and the appetite for the program.

C. Trevena: Again, if I might put in a bid to get that information in September from her staff about how many people have actually applied.

But I would like also to raise with the minister at this point that, having talked to a number of ECEs in the field who have been working for many years and have had children and have come back to work or have continued to work while their children were young, they have felt somewhat insulted by this idea of the money to attract people back to the field. They say: "Well, we've been here, and we've been doing it all

along, and we've got no more money. So why should these people who are going off now have the opportunity to get that bit of extra money?" I wondered what the minister's response to that would be.

Hon. L. Reid: I appreciate the question, because I think it allows us to have a discussion about how we characterize the sector. I think the majority of folks — frankly, all the folks — that have come to me first asking for programs such as that…. What they wanted was a colleague. They wanted someone to join them in the delivery and the provision of child care.

The fact that they asked for incentives, asked for strategies that would encourage more people to come back to the sector and the fact that we've delivered on that…. I haven't found someone who has been anything other than delighted with the program.

Do I understand the sentiment that the member expresses in terms of the prodigal son, if you will? What about the folks who continue to deliver the service day in, day out? For the first time ever, we have programs where we actually acknowledge long service in the child care sector, which speaks to me.

We began the Legacy Awards this past spring, where we believe we found all of the child care centres — and I'll apologize in advance if we've missed one — in the province who have delivered child care for in excess of 40 years. We did some wonderful recognition for them in terms of understanding how challenging it is to deliver service — to operate any entity, any venture — for 40 years. That's a significant contribution to the province, to families and to the life and livelihood of youngsters.

We are engaging now in child care, early childhood educator and family child care provider recognition, as well, that will come to fruition at the end of this month as part of the Child Care Month celebration.

I agree with you. I do believe there are opportunities to celebrate, which I'm taking as minister responsible, because I do believe that they perform an amazing service and are, frankly, often overlooked. I certainly want to change that as minister, but I also want to change that as government — that, indeed, these are services that are essential. Child care allows us to share parenting with individuals who are part and parcel of our lives and the lives of our youngsters. Some of those relationships begin in infancy, and those children, as adults having their own children, stay in touch with their original child care providers.

So it's important work. It's valued work. It's something that I have tremendous regard for as a parent, and I know that my youngsters appreciate the child care settings they are in, in terms of true commitment to who they will be as adults. I welcome all of that.

So do I understand the sentiment the member is raising? I absolutely do understand the sentiment. What about the folks who have stayed and delivered the service over time? We are doing our best to ensure that there is some recognition, some acknowledgment, some celebration of some very extraordinary service.

C. Trevena: The minister is quite right. The attachment is great, and the celebration is…. I'm sure people are very happy. I know people from my own community who were involved in the Legacy celebration. Obviously, they're very proud, and we've got the awards coming up, which I will ask the minister about shortly.

But I think that one of the points of recognition isn't getting the award or, to be frank, meeting the minister or coming down to a celebration. The reward for many of the early childhood educators is a living wage. I think that many of the early childhood educators are extraordinarily dedicated. In fact, nearly all early childhood educators I've ever come across are extraordinarily dedicated and are sharing the parenting, the upbringing of the children. They are our provincial trust. They are quite extraordinary. There's no question about that.

Yes, we should celebrate them. We should acknowledge them. May being Child Care Month, let's make sure that we do. But as I say, I think that their celebration would be if they got, basically, a living wage. I know that there is a campaign for a $20-an-hour wage by child care providers, and I wondered if the minister would endorse this $20-an-hour wage for child care providers?

Hon. L. Reid: We were hoping that we had the actual breakdown. Since I've been in this role, I can tell you that the average wage was $11 an hour. It's now very close to $15 an hour. The dilemma with wages is…. You'll know that that is an average. Given the range, there are certainly individuals today earning far in excess of $15 an hour to deliver child care. So do I believe we're heading in the right direction? Yes, I do.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I think $15 is the maximum that I've heard many people are getting paid. I did ask the minister if she would endorse a $20-an-hour wage.

Hon. L. Reid: Again, happy to repeat. I believe we're moving in the right direction; $15 today is the average wage. It's the average wage in British Columbia for child care.

C. Trevena: As my colleague has just said, that means that some people are earning less than $15 an hour. I question the minister on this, because I've met early childhood educators who simply can't afford to put their own children through child care, which is one of the reasons they drop out of the field. They're not getting paid enough that they can also put their children through child care.

So the minister will not give a specific figure. I'm not going to belabour the point on this, but I think it is a little unfortunate.

On the issue of children — providers being able to put their own children through child care — under present licensing arrangements, if a family child care provider has their own children they are not counted

as part of the numbers in the licensing scenario. I wondered if the minister could explain the thinking on that.

Hon. L. Reid: You will know that those regulatory questions are, frankly, the domain of the Ministry of Health, which regulates child care. We understand that the caregivers' own children are included in those totals.

C. Trevena: I'll clarify that with the Minister of Health, because I had been, again, talking to some providers who had raised that with me.

I just wanted to go on to some of the feel-good stuff that the ministry has been doing, Child Care Awards of Excellence being the latest one. A couple of questions about this.

Obviously, it's great to recognize people for their work. I wondered how long the conception of this campaign was. The letter went out in mid-April for the campaign, where nominations would be accepted until April 25. The press release actually was on April 4. But as I say, the letter went out on April 14 to, I believe, MLAs and others, and I know that one of my colleagues, in fact, didn't receive it until well after the deadline date for the nominations.

I wonder if the minister could clarify the conception of this a little bit — she has obviously talked about what the hope is — but also a little bit about how much this is going to cost and what the ceremony is going to look like, without pre-empting some of the good feeling that's going to be out there.

Hon. L. Reid: I know the member opposite would like me to tell her all about the ceremony, but I'm going to resist that, because it is something that we are going to do to celebrate the recipients.

I'm happy to tell her that the posting was early April on the website — probably April 2, April 3, somewhere in that range — so more than about three and a half weeks to respond. It certainly didn't pose a barrier to those who would respond. We're looking in the neighbourhood of 10 to 15 awards, and we had well over a hundred responses.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister, and I wouldn't want to spoil the surprise for people because it is a celebration. I wonder, as we are doing the budget estimates, if the minister could just tell me how much the program is costing.

Hon. L. Reid: We are just in the throes of the selection process. The committee is making those determinations. Frankly, our costs will be driven mostly by travel, and we won't know that until the final selection. But I'll be happy to provide that to you.

C. Trevena: I just want to talk about a couple of other campaigns that have been ongoing in the past year. I'm not sure whether they're going to be continuing. The issue of the campaign done with BCAA, the booster seat campaign. I wonder how much was spent by the ministry on this.

Hon. L. Reid: I am pleased to talk about this program. I spy one of your colleagues who actually did assist in the delivery of booster seats through his constituency office, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, so I'm delighted he's in the room with us today.

In terms of the booster seat campaign, child passenger safety program, it was $350,000, indeed, to do the promotion of the program. I can tell you that in terms of tutelage for families and for educators, they have done an outstanding job in terms of being in many, many thousands of classrooms across British Columbia over the last few years.

The member opposite will know that the regulation does not come into effect until the first of July. So in terms of how we would support families to understand the regulation…. I think, ultimately, everyone in the chamber shares the same goal. Can we reduce the number of children injured and killed in motor vehicle crashes in British Columbia today?

When we began this program, 18 percent of British Columbia families utilized a booster seat. We do very well on car seats for infants. We do very well on that piece. We have probably 80 percent usage. A child gets to be over 40 pounds, and our usage dropped to 18 percent.

The reality is that many, many children, probably 800 injuries annually…. Those who understand better child safety believe a majority of those could be avoided, which is why we embrace the program. In our second year we have lifted the usage well over 50 percent, and we're heading in the right direction. So indeed, if we can have the usage of booster seats match child passenger safety seats for very young infants, we would be absolutely delighted, as I think everyone in the province would, to know that youngsters are not needlessly being injured and/or dying in car crashes.

C. Trevena: I would like clarification from the minister on whether the $350,000 was for the first year or for both years. How many seats have been distributed?

Hon. L. Reid: It was $100,000 — the first grant that went to the B.C. Automobile Traffic Safety Foundation — and $250,000 in the second round. They believe they have exceeded the distribution of 4,000 booster seats across British Columbia.

C. Trevena: The minister is obviously aware of the allegations and questions from this side of the House about making it a partisan issue. I wanted to make sure how the minister and her ministry are making sure that the applications on the second round are being distributed equitably.

Hon. L. Reid: The entire 4,000 booster seats have been distributed equitably across the province of British

Columbia. We have certainly paid particular attention to low-income families, those who may not be able to purchase a booster seat. Throughout the province, the distribution of booster seats helped 2,200 low-income families stay safe in the event of an automobile crash.

One of the partners to the B.C. Automobile Association, Toys "R" Us, provided 10,000 coupons that had a $5-off cost towards the purchase of a booster seat. Out-of-school care programs have been involved — child care resource and referral programs, foster parent associations and friendship centres. Out-of-school care programs have also been involved.

Certainly we have — I know we have put it on the record numerous times — the actual breakdown of seats per region of the province. I continue to stand by the program. Those who assisted in the delivery — I thank them most sincerely. The fact that we have lifted booster seat usage over 50 percent is, frankly, great news for the province of British Columbia.

C. Trevena: Does the minister have any figures on how many organizations or individuals actually applied for the booster seats and how they were distributed?

C. Trevena: So the program is basically now being administered solely through the BCAA?

Hon. L. Reid: The program was always administered through the B.C. Automobile Association. Those who assisted in distribution — I thank them most sincerely.

Just my last question on this, I hope, because it has been going around for some time. Those who assisted in distribution — how was the assistance in distribution agreed upon to make sure that these 4,000 booster seats were equitably distributed?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to have opportunities to continue to talk about this program, I can tell you. I think anytime you get that kind of lift in public policy usage, it's good news. Opportunities to have more and more youngsters safe when travelling in automobiles today have to warm the heart of every single member in the chamber. I can't imagine anyone would wish otherwise.

In terms of how BCAA made the contacts and who they connected with, all of that is on their website today. They have guaranteed a regional breakdown in distribution across child care resource and referral, across out-of-school care, across community centres and aboriginal friendship houses. I don't think they have left many stones unturned. I know they've got feedback from individuals who made contact with them seeking seats, and I do believe they've done their very best to meet all the requests that have come in.

C. Trevena: I would have to go to the BCAA website to find out if any of these booster seats were delivered on reserve. It would be through the BCAA website and not through the minister. I take that nodding of the head as….

We have not much time left, and I would like to proceed. I've got a couple more areas I would like to touch on. It's very sad that none were delivered there, but we'll check on the BCAA website.

The other campaigns I just wanted to quickly check with the minister — WorkLife B.C. I understand that after two years, WorkLife B.C. is wrapping up. I wonder if the minister could explain why that is the case and whether there were basically any in-company or in situ child care centres established as a result of WorkLife B.C. Obviously, there is the one at Syscon, but are there other child care places established?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, another initiative that I'm extraordinarily proud of. Our challenge was to launch WorkLife B.C. across British Columbia. We in fact have done that. There are more employers today paying attention to employees who are attempting to balance child care at the same time that they are balancing elder care. It's hugely important for families today.

Those of us, if I may be so bold, Member, in our age range, often have young children and often have concerns about other family members, parents. All of that is perhaps different than it was 20 or 30 years ago, when frankly, many families had their children when they were much younger.

The notion that it was timely to have that discussion over the last few years absolutely spoke to me. It was an assignment that I received gladly in terms of testing the waters about whether or not we could have employers in British Columbia be more responsive to the challenges their employees face and be more articulate about what that looks like.

There wasn't anyone who said: "No, I'm opposed to work-life balance." But how is it you bring it to life on the ground? The best advice I can give anyone who might be contemplating that is: ask your employees.

Every single one of our award recipients — again, regionally done; we had winners in each of the categories in each region of the province — had the best applications, the best proposals, frankly, because they indeed sat down with their employees and said: "What is it that makes this a useful place to work, a helpful place to work and a supportive work environment, and how is it that we can we improve upon it?" Hugely important.

Hon. L. Reid: She's going soon. I would also commend to her a visit to Exploration Place in Prince George. They were a winner in our first round, and they went home and built a child care centre on top of what is, frankly, a children's museum. These youngsters come

in the door, and there's glorious activity. I think there's a very large dinosaur on the first floor. Who wouldn't want to go to a child care centre that had a dinosaur on the first floor? Up the stairs you're in a glorious, probably 80-child-plus child care centre. It's a glorious undertaking.

One of our other recipients, NRI, a distribution company in Kamloops, is actually building purpose-built child care on their site. So there are some great opportunities. I think we have at least one, if not two, underway in each of the regions of the province. Two are very near making those announcements themselves in terms of having understood the concept and understood that — you know what? — in today's family it's probably not just a gym membership and every second Friday off. It's about how you support families day in, day out.

I've been pleased with the initiative. I can absolutely tell you that the initiative was a success. We've launched it. Our challenge was to launch it. We have more people talking about it. We have good contacts. B.C. Business are taking it forward as they go. And most award entities in the province are looking at having a work-life category as they go forward.

So are we able to say that we've successfully met our deliverable? Absolutely we have. Have we introduced the concept across British Columbia? Absolutely we have. Were our recipients of those awards in both first year and second year, year one and year two, delighted to receive those awards and that acknowledgment? They were. Frankly, lots of them now have it on their websites when they're recruiting staff: "We are a work-life winner. We understand balance. Even better, we have on-site child care. Please think of us."

You will know that Syscon Justice Systems is able to attract design engineers, computing engineers the world over, and that is one of the draws that brings them to that business. So has it made sense for the employees? Absolutely. Is it making better and better sense for employers as we go forward? There's no question that it is.

In terms of an initiative that has borne fruit, it has done that. I think it's been extraordinarily successful. I can assure the member that I will not rest until I have at least one or two work-based, near-site child cares going forward across the province, because frankly, it takes some champions. It takes some businesses who said: "You know what? I'm doing it. It's making sense for my employees. We don't want to think about it."

I can tell you that each of these three employers spends lots of time talking to other employers who come to visit their sites to understand how it's done. I'll give you one of the best examples. We had a business that said to us: "We have an art program in our business. We spend more on purchasing a piece of art each year than it would cost us to fund a child care centre."

So is it doable? Absolutely, it's doable. Is it worth doing? If you value your employees, it's absolutely worth doing.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for this. I wanted to ask a couple of questions as a result of that. One, if it's so successful…. I know it's an initiative and it has people talking about it, but often these initiatives continue. So you have the annual WorkLife B.C. Award, and it's an annual part of the fabric, the dialogue. I was surprised, and I know that participants on the WorkLife B.C. table were surprised, that it's no longer there beyond the two years. We no longer have the WorkLife B.C. Awards. We're not going to have the WorkLife B.C. program going ahead.

You've got the dialogue happening with the communities and with the companies. We're starting to see that moving. The companies are pushing ahead. I wondered if I could ask the minister why it has stopped and what its cost was.

Hon. L. Reid: I am happy to have this conversation. The notion that WorkLife is alive and well across British Columbia will be borne out by each and every other award-giving organization that has a work-life category. There will be many come this fall and into early next spring, because I've had lots of conversations about how important it is.

As for the measure for success, are we successful? Have we launched the notion? Absolutely. Our mandate was to launch it. We have done that. The best by-product for me was to see business sites come on and build child care centres. The mandate was to launch WorkLife British Columbia, to get employers thinking about those who were balancing child care at the same time as elder care. The by-product, the best return for me, has been the creation of child care space. Frankly, hundreds of child care spaces have been created, and more are in the hopper as we speak.

In terms of those who absolutely have embraced the notion of understanding why it's important to deliver that for employees, were all the folks who are now interested in building child care space attendees at the one-day forum? Some of them weren't. They have heard about it. So the reach is growing across British Columbia. That's the measure of success.

Hon. L. Reid: I was totally excited about that for a moment. The administration of the program, actually, was handled through B.C. Council for Families, and it was $250,000.

C. Trevena: I would like to ask the minister whether that $250,000 comes out of the $40 million that the B.C. Council for Families got for delivering various child care initiatives.

Hon. L. Reid: No, and I'm happy to revisit that for the member. Of the $40 million we talked about, $20 million was a directed distribution from the province. So it was not $40 million to B.C. Council; it was $20 million to B.C. Council, $10 million this year and $10 million in February of '09. It's directly going to CCOF recipients in British Columbia. This was an additional allocation.

C. Trevena: I'd like to wrap this question up quite quickly. Because of the time, I will try to just give the whole question in one run rather than breaking it up. It's going back to some of the service plan and the service measurements.

It appears, from looking at the service measurements, that two service measurements are being dropped. One is the number of children whose families received subsidy, and the second is the percentage of children who received early intervention or supported child development within a few months of requesting it. One, are these service measurements being dropped?

Hon. L. Reid: Apparently, what is routinely reported are changes as we go forward. It's not that we don't collect all the other data. We simply do, and we can certainly find that for you as we go forward. Typically, three-to-five measures are what surround the child care debate, and I think that's been pretty constant over the last number of years.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister very quickly what she means by three-to-five measures. Is this the age group three to five? Secondly, how will these be measured, and assuming that they will still be measured, how will they be reported in the future?

Hon. L. Reid: The member may be enchanted to learn that we have numerous measures. We have all kinds of bits and pieces. We have Strong, Safe and Supported, where we track a number of different measures. The child care report is currently up on the website. The ministry measures are reported out in an annual report, also posted. Service plan deliverables, also posted.

C. Trevena: I had mentioned the percentage of the number of children whose families are receiving subsidy, in particular, and the percentage who are getting supported child development within three months. I mean, these were ones that were measured before, so it was just the change.

Hon. L. Reid: We do keep a rolling tally on the website, but as of today it's about 24,600 youngsters monthly who would receive a subsidy.

N. Simons: Hon. Chair, I note the time. Just a quick question about a facility, a program in Powell River. It's called Powell River Family Place. They had received funding since 2003 in the amount of, I think, $35,000 a year — not a very large budget. Let me just look at my notes to be sure. Yes.

This year their budget was cut in half, and I note that this is a program that in Powell River, a relatively isolated community…. It's a place where parents can drop in with their children, zero to five. It's been providing a number of extremely important services to the community members in Powell River.

I know I've brought this to the attention of the regional offices with respect to keeping this valuable and well-respected program open. It operates out of one of the malls, where there's incredibly good foot traffic with people who are, perhaps, marginalized and not likely to take full advantage of other programs.

I am wondering if the minister would take special attention to look into that particular situation and see if there's a way that we can ensure that that program continues.

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite has raised a particular interest of mine in terms of how we provide supports to families. Parenting is always challenging, and some of the best gifts you can provide to someone is to allow them to see their youngster engaged with another adult. It gives you a different sense, a different strategy, a different approach.

Certainly, I will endeavour to get back to the member opposite. I am happy to do that. It's probably that the decision was taken regionally, but I will find out.

As the other member opposite earlier talked about StrongStart, it's for exactly the same reasons that we're supporting that. It's an opportunity for families to engage with their youngsters and to actually see some other adult engage with their youngsters. So I have lots of time for family resource programs in British Columbia.

N. Simons: Noting the time, I move we 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.