Hansard — Thursday, May 22, 2008 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		12733

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		12733
	Actions of Burmese government
	S. Fraser
	Rocky Mountain Rangers Cadet Corps
	J. Rustad
	Challenges of autism
	D. Routley
	Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference in Vancouver
	J. McIntyre
	Tzu Chi Foundation
	R. Chouhan
	Contributions of seniors
	D. Hayer

Oral Questions		12735
	B.C. Lottery Corporation management of casino transactions
	L. Krog
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	G. Gentner
	B. Ralston
	Investigation into death in Maple Ridge
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	Education funding
	G. Coons
	Hon. S. Bond
	C. Wyse
	D. Cubberley
	Child care spaces in B.C.
	C. Trevena
	Hon. L. Reid
	Homelessness
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Regulation of new home pre-sale agreements
	D. Thorne
	Hon. C. Taylor

Committee of the Whole House		12740
	Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)
	L. Krog
	Hon. J. van Dongen

Report and Third Reading of Bills		12741
	Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)

Committee of the Whole House		12741
	Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)
	C. Wyse
	Hon. I. Chong

Reporting of Bills		12747
	Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

Third Reading of Bills		12748
	Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

Committee of the Whole House		12748
	University Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 34)
	B. Ralston
	Hon. M. Coell
	R. Fleming

Report and Third Reading of Bills		12762
	University Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 34)

Committee of the Whole House		12762
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 33)
	L. Krog
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Hon. M. Coell
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. K. Falcon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		12768
	Estimates: Ministry of Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and Sustainable Communities (continued)
	S. Simpson
	Hon. B. Penner
	J. Horgan
	M. Sather
	G. Robertson

L. Krog: It is with some pleasure and delight today that I introduce in the gallery a visiting former staffer who worked very hard as both a legislative assistant and an administrative assistant to the member for Nelson-Creston when he was in cabinet, trying to polish this rough diamond as vigorously as she could. I'll let the chamber decide whether or not she was successful.

I'd introduce Ann Fraser-Mol. Accompanying her is a longtime volunteer in the dynamic '90s when the NDP were in power, and that's Peggy Close. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Lekstrom: It's my pleasure today to introduce a friend and special guest to the Legislature. Mr. Dick Powell joins us from Dawson Creek. We were involved in the education system together. I was a student, and he was my teacher. He moved on.

Dick is an amazing gentleman. He has contributed greatly to our education system in Dawson Creek and in our province, as well as in our community. Will the House please help me welcome him.

R. Chouhan: I introduce with great honour Mr. Gary Ho, who is the chief executive officer of the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada, with us in the gallery. Mr. Gary Ho arrived in Canada in 1992 from Taiwan, and he is a very dedicated volunteer of the Tzu Chi Foundation and a disciple of Master Cheng. Under his leadership, the Tzu Chi Foundation in Canada has really expanded the work it does to help lots of people who need help in every community. Please join me to welcome Mr. Gary Ho.

M. Polak: In the gallery today we're joined by three representatives of the Valley Transportation Advisory Committee. Would the House please welcome Sonia Patterson, Lee Lockwood and Peter Holt.

H. Bains: Visiting us in this House from Ontario are two young people, Bobby and Kathy Sidhu, and I'm really proud to say that they're both physiotherapists. I think there will be an opportunity for the Minister of Health to talk to them and see if he could keep them here so he doesn't have to go through the painful questioning on shortage of staff in British Columbia. Please help me extend a warm welcome to them both.

J. Nuraney: I'm really delighted today to introduce to the House my nephew Faizal Nuraney, who is here visiting us. He is aspiring to someday occupy one of the seats in this chamber. Please join me in welcoming my nephew Faizal Nuraney.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me welcome Christine Mazur, my wife and partner of 26 years and the loving mother of my two daughters, Madeline, 12, and Sasha, 20. For the first time I'm able to introduce her to you. Please help me welcome her here.

May I also have the House help me welcome two friends from Cowichan school district, parents of autistic children, Julie Nygaard and Heather Bosch. They have founded a society representing the interests of parents with autistic children.

I think that politics from the ground up that way, when our constituents organize around issues that affect them, is something we should all applaud, and I'd like us to do that for them now.

R. Lee: I, too, would like to welcome Mr. Gary Ho, the CEO of the Tzu Chi Foundation of Canada. I would also like the House to thank the Tzu Chi Foundation for fundraising over $2 million so far already for the China earthquake relief, together with AM 1320 and TNT. Would the House please join me in thanking them.

S. Fraser: On May 31 last year I stood in this Legislature requesting that all MLAs join me in calling for the immediate release of Nobel Prize laureate and true elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi. She remains under house arrest today in Burma.

We are witnessing an indifferent response from the Burmese military junta to what started out as a natural disaster, Cyclone Nargis, and quickly turned into a humanitarian catastrophe — a man-made disaster. The junta's continued refusal of foreign aid workers, the unwillingness to accept logistical assistance that is imperative and the theft of foreign aid products by the junta are all putting the lives of 1.5 million people at risk.

It is bad enough that the initial cyclone has killed over 200,000 people — close to the same number of lives lost by all countries combined in the 2004 tsunami — but the military junta didn't even warn its own citizens it was coming. The military junta of Burma is now actually letting another 1.5 million of its citizens move towards death. This is unacceptable.

Since the military government stole power in 1962, the world has sat and watched Burma violate human rights to the extreme. The list is as long as one's morbid imagination — murder, rape, imprisonment of political prisoners The killing of monks and the military junta's indifference to the lives of cyclone survivors must have stressed — hopefully, has stressed — our collective apathy to its limit.

We are a global community. We must do more. Canada is accepting refugees from camps in Thailand full of Burmese who have fled the junta, but this is not enough. All Burmese deserve basic human rights, but

J. Rustad: The Rocky Mountain Rangers have a long and proud history in B.C. and in Prince George. Originally formed in 1885, they played important roles in World Wars I and II and Canadian peacekeeping missions, and there are currently about ten Rocky Mountain Rangers serving in Afghanistan.

After the Second World War a group of individuals decided to create a cadet corps in Prince George. In 1957 Const. Lorne Newson of the RCMP and Anthony Embleton, a vice-principal of Prince George Secondary School, took on the task. They formed the 2618 Rocky Mountain Ranger Cadet Corps.

The 1970s were an important time for the corps, with the Prince George Lions Club becoming the official corps sponsor in 1972. In 1975 women were officially admitted into the corps.

Over the years, many young men and women benefited from being part of the cadet corps. The goal of the cadet movement is to develop in young people leadership and a sense of citizenship, and to encourage interests in the Canadian Armed Forces.

On May 17 of this year the city of Prince George granted the 2618 Rocky Mountain Rangers the prestigious honour of Freedom of the City. The cadet corps marched from its headquarters to city hall accompanied by some 90 former cadets, members of the RCMP and the Prince George Legion Pipe Band. This event marked the cadet corps Annual Ceremonial Review and the unit's 50th anniversary reunion.

The 2618 Rocky Mountain Ranger Cadet Corps have enjoyed a proud 50 years of accomplishment and are well poised to continue these accomplishments into the future. Please join me in thanking the many volunteers and individuals over the years that have worked with these remarkable young men and women of the 2618 Rocky Mountain Ranger Cadet Corps. Also, please join me in congratulating the cadet corps on their 50th anniversary.

D. Routley: I rise today to speak to the House about the challenges facing the families of autistic children, particularly those children who are within our school systems. The lack of understanding in our society and the lack of awareness of what the challenges of autism mean to families have perhaps been the greatest barrier that these families face.

Since the decision of a court around the court case of Auton et al., it has been recognized that it would be discrimination not to provide services to these children. Funding was established at that time, but a lack of funding has now forced parents into a situation where they find it very difficult to find the services they need.

First, families face the shock of diagnosis and the unknowns that they can only anticipate will be challenging them to the depth of their core. Families face a dizzying array of challenges in providing services and understanding for themselves what it means to have children with autism. Children with challenges — that's what we think of. But we should also think of children with great strengths.

We face a demography that places youth at a great premium. We have an aging society and a shrinking workforce. We have to make the most of the people of British Columbia and help them make the most of their lives. Our demography demands it, but our humanity really, in the end, is the core driver of what we must do to address autism.

I'd like the House to help me applaud the parents of British Columbia who every day deal with the challenges of autistic children. I'd like the House to make a commitment today that every citizen of British Columbia will be helped by this House to realize their full potential for the benefit of our communities but also for the benefit of our humanity. So I applaud the parents and the families of autistic children.

J. McIntyre: I rise today to inform the House and viewers that this summer, B.C. will be hosting the annual PNWER summit in Vancouver from July 20 to July 24. There's been growing interest in this non-partisan organization. It comprises eight jurisdictions. That would be the four northwest U.S. states — Washington, Oregon, Idaho and Montana, along with Alaska — and in Canada it's B.C., Alberta and the Yukon. The members are U.S. and Canadian legislators, and we have a significant portion from the private sector as well.

We deal with a variety of issues, discussing and sharing information and best practices, and continually seeking common ground and identifying the issues that we jointly want to make progress on. I think one of the best examples would be the progress we made, the success story, on the enhanced driver's licence that Washington State and B.C. worked on.

There are many other cross-border issues. We have energy, environment, health planning, tourism, agriculture, innovation, Asia-Pacific and transportation. As a government delegate I personally want to thank the organizers — that is, the minister and staff in Intergovernmental Relations, particularly Sukumar Periwal, who is working every day on this conference; Matt Morrison, executive director of PNWER, who was here on a legislative visit a week or so ago; the private sector sponsors led by Larry Berg at YVR; and all the volunteers, including B.C. Business Council.

We have an opportunity to set the bar high this summer after a great conference in Anchorage last year, and I'm confident we'll do it.

R. Chouhan: Tzu Chi Merit Society, currently known as the Tzu Chi Foundation, was founded on April 16, 1966, by Master Cheng Yen in Hualien, Taiwan. Initially, the Tzu Chi Merit Society was supported by 30 housewives who set aside an equivalent of 13 cents of their grocery money each day to provide relief and assistance for the poor.

Over the years the program became very popular and gathered strength. Today the Tzu Chi Foundation has offices in many countries, with its headquarters in Taiwan. In fact, today this non-profit organization has over four million supporters worldwide.

Tzu Chi is committed to serve and uplift humanity by helping the needy and enlightening the rich with gratitude. It has established 102 schools in six countries and six general hospitals in Taiwan. Tzu Chi has donated food, clothing, shelter and funds to disaster victims in El Salvador, Turkey, Iran, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, New Orleans, Afghanistan and Myanmar. It is currently helping the earthquake victims in China. They have collected over $2 million in donations to help those victims.

It has made donations to most major medical institutions in greater Vancouver. In addition, it has provided meals for seniors, breakfast and hot lunch to students in several Lower Mainland schools, including Burnaby. I'm very grateful for its help for the fire victims in Burnaby at the Hillside Gardens and Dow Avenue.

Mr. Speaker, 100 percent of all donations received by the Tzu Chi Foundation are used strictly towards helping the victims, and no administration fee is charged. I urge everyone to support Tzu Chi Foundation to help in its mission of kindness, compassion, joy and selfless giving. For more information, please check its website at www.tzuchi.ca.

D. Hayer: When all of us are in our constituencies attending the events to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the founding of the province of British Columbia in 1858, I hope all MLAs remember the contributions of our seniors who built our province, who led the way and created the wonderful place we now call home.

In my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead it was our seniors, our pioneers' hard work and their dedication to community and family that created the very city that surrounds us. In the beginning it was the Tynehead area, the Port Kells area, the Fleetwood area, the Guildford area and Fraser Heights. In the communities throughout British Columbia, seniors worked all their lives to build our province and our cities. They created a legacy that now we call our home, and we call our province the best place on earth to live in.

Over the decades, over the past 150 years, young men and women have built homes and industry and worked hard all their lives, and in their golden years of retirement they enjoy the fruits of their labour. Seniors built our city of Surrey, and they built our province and our country. Every day more and more are joining the ranks of seniors. It is their efforts and contributions that we need to recognize and appreciate every day and every week.

Mr. Speaker, each one of us in this House very soon, with good health and good fortune, will also one day be joining the ranks of seniors. Hopefully, we can look back with fond memories of our contribution to our society and know that like the other ones before us, we made a difference in our society and our community.

With that, I ask all the MLAs in this House to remember and honour the hundreds of thousands of our seniors who worked so hard to bring British Columbia to this milestone anniversary and to make British Columbia the best place in Canada and the best place to work and live.

Hon. P. Bell: We're joined by three members of the integrated land management bureau in the gallery today. Joining us are Kevin Jardine, Jennifer Tudhope and a recent recruit from Prince George, Dr. Aaron Sherry. I would ask the House to please make them very welcome.

R. Chouhan: I would like to introduce Sam Schechter, my CA who worked with me for two years from 2005 until 2007. Please make him welcome to the House.

L. Krog: We continue to hear of troubling problems at B.C. Lotteries — money laundering, loansharking, fraud. The Premier, however, says he's confident in the system.

But this is a system that under the B.C. Liberal government has time and time again been plagued with serious problems. It took an independent review by the Ombudsman to expose the problems with retailer fraud and an investigation by the media to uncover problems with money laundering and loansharking.

How many more people have to fall victim to this mismanaged system before the Solicitor General will admit that it's not just his government's promise not to expand gambling that's broken, it's the entire B.C. lotteries system?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I said yesterday, it's our government's goal to ensure the integrity and responsible gaming operations in British Columbia. We

have in place, under the act, very comprehensive procedures, reporting requirements and systems. We have in place extensive and sophisticated surveillance systems, and we have comprehensive and diligent money-handling procedures.

Any fair-minded reading of the 2005 Auditor General's report will confirm that B.C. Lottery Corporation and the gaming policy and enforcement branch are doing a responsible job of ensuring integrity under the act in our gaming systems in British Columbia.

L. Krog: …developing confidence in the system when the only reason it came to light is because the media requested documents through FOI. It took four long years for those documents to be released.

The government should have known about this problem. Three years ago the Auditor General warned them about the potential for organized crime to use casinos for money laundering. So to the Solicitor General, very simply: has the government been asleep at the switch? Did they know something about this problem all along, or did they just hope no one would uncover it?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I indicated to this House yesterday, I will be following up on the CBC reports in terms of reporting to the federal agency responsible for tracking movement of large sums of currency. To that end, I will be reviewing this matter with the board of the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the gaming policy and enforcement branch, report back and take action as appropriate, as I indicated to this House yesterday.

L. Krog: Well, that's wonderful. The Solicitor General is going to meet with the board, but I respectfully suggest to the Solicitor General that it's gone a little beyond the point where holding meetings is going to cut it with the people of British Columbia. It's time for something to be done about the ongoing mess at the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

So I ask the Solicitor General: today will he agree to an independent review of the management of the gambling industry and direct that investigation to look into whether the former Solicitor General tried to cover this up?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I refer the member back to the introduction of the Gaming Control Act of 2002, which put additional requirements in place. This was all reviewed by the Auditor General. We know that the nature of these issues requires constant vigilance by casino operators, by the B.C. Lottery Corporation and by the gaming policy and enforcement branch.

As I said, I will follow up and take whatever action I believe is necessary to deal with any CBC reports or any other information that comes to my attention.

G. Gentner: By law, under section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act…. Section 75 of the act makes it an offence to knowingly fail to report. By law — under section 86.2 of the Gaming Control Act, which requires BCLC to notify the gaming policy and enforcement branch — the provincial government is supposed to report all of these incidents to the federal regulator. But the Liberal government did not. In 2003 B.C. casino workers found 49 suspicious financial transactions, but the B.C. lotteries commission only reported nine of those to the federal government.

Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker? The casinos will now have to bypass the provincial government, because they don't have their confidence, and start reporting directly to the federal government.

How can the Solicitor General have any confidence in the agency or agencies that are supposed to be overseeing the gaming industry when his own agencies that are supposed to report such occurrences are themselves breaking the law?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Our government has been very clear, as is set out in the Gaming Control Act. That is the governing legislation. I have been very clear with the B.C. lotteries board about my expectations of both legal compliance and in meeting all of the tests of integrity, which, as I said, were fully discussed in the Auditor General's report in 2005 — which was a random audit, I might add.

I will pursue the specifics of this particular issue, which involves compliance with a federal agency, and take whatever action is appropriate.

G. Gentner: The minister doesn't quite get it. Here's an enforcement agency that is more concerned about running a felt pen across an FOI than actually reporting it and enforcing the law.

While Ontario reported over $15 million in suspicious transactions to the federal government in 2006, the B.C. government reported a mere $60,000. This has a similar smell. Last year we had something similar, called the lottery retail fraud incident. Then, again, this government denied that was happening here. Clearly, B.C. Lottery and the enforcement branch were not doing their jobs regarding lottery fraud, and they were not doing their jobs when it came down to reporting money laundering in casinos.

Why should British Columbians have any faith in the system when the same ministry that is responsible for promoting gaming is also supposed to enforce the law?

Hon. J. van Dongen: As I've said to the members, the requirement in the legislation — the highest requirement in the legislation — for the gaming policy and enforcement branch is to establish and maintain integrity in gaming operations in British Columbia We have as a reference the Auditor General's report.

As I've said, I will take the information that has come forward from the CBC reports and pursue that. When I have satisfied myself that I have done sufficient due diligence to properly interpret all of the information, I will do two things. I will take whatever action I believe is appropriate as minister responsible — that is my personal responsibility — and I will report to this House on whatever those actions might be.

B. Ralston: It took the media lawyers four years to pry these documents out of the hands of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. Obviously, someone had some reason to delay the release of those documents for four years. It's a very, very unusual delay.

What assurance can the minister give the public of British Columbia that the minister or the minister's office was not involved in this delay?

Hon. J. van Dongen: There is a law in place which governs the release of documents by government. There are requirements in place that require staff, in releasing those documents, to ensure that personal and private information and various types of information are not released that legally should not be released. I expect the staff of the ministry to follow those procedures under the law in any request for information.

M. Farnworth: November 15, 2007, Karen Beck was brutally murdered by her husband. Ms. Beck had numerous contacts with the police, social service agencies and government agencies about the dangerous relationship she was in and concerns about her husband. Since that tragedy occurred, the family has tried to get answers to what happened, how the system failed her. They've not received answers to those questions.

My question is to the Solicitor General. Will he ask for a coroner's inquest into the death of Ms. Beck?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to first of all, on behalf of the government and the members of this House, express condolences to the family of Karen Beck in the tragic incident that happened to her.

The coroner's office, which is an independent office in my ministry, is investigating. The coroner's office will do a thorough and complete investigation of all the factors that led to the death of Karen Beck. They have the ability to make recommendations for any kind of policies or changes that they think are relevant and will prevent future incidents like this, and I believe it's appropriate at this time to let the coroner conduct their work.

G. Coons: Last week the Prince Rupert school district sent an SOS to the whole community to act immediately for the sake of their children. A $2 million shortfall is affecting vital school programs and services, resulting in the loss of 18 teaching positions and up to 40 support staff positions, which has put the whole community in a crisis mode.

This government committed to cover collective agreement adjustments, but what they've done is failed to fund other vital areas where costs have gone up. The school board chair, Tina Last, says this is a direct result of this minister's policies and actions. The B.C. Liberals are playing a shell game with our children's education funding.

What is the minister going to do to ensure that this school district is adequately funded so they can deliver needed programs to our children?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, one of the things that this government has been committed to and will continue to be committed to is adding record amounts of funding to public education in British Columbia. Not only that, we are very proud of the record we had settling public sector contracts across this province…

Hon. S. Bond: …which was historic. In fact, we have fully funded the agreements that were negotiated.

G. Coons: Deny, deny, deny — that's all this minister does. The Queen of Denial. That's what's happening on that side of the House. This minister says funding is stable, that it has increased. Parents, teachers and school districts are saying no.

This minister is the only one that thinks things are well. It's a shell game. Rising costs are not covered, and the taxes on fuels have not even been factored in yet. School districts themselves have difficulty figuring out the minister's formula. This has to change.

Districts were promised funding protection to ensure districts would have, year to year, 99 percent of the previous year's funding in the operating grants. According to documents put out by the secretary-treasurer, Prince Rupert will only get 95 percent, a devastating cut of 4 percent — a $2 million cut due to this minister's broken promises.

The school district superintendent says: "It's due to wages not being funded the way they once were." He also says: "The district must deal with non-funded wage increases." This is a result of this minister's policies and denial…

Will the minister commit not only to Prince Rupert but to all school districts to fund her negotiated labour settlements and ensure funding protection at the 99 percent level?

Hon. S. Bond: I know that every single time in the Legislature, when we read out the actual numbers in terms of the increases in public education, the members opposite roll their eyes and complain. Let's do it one more time, just so we can make sure the member opposite…. Let's do it one more time. Let's start….

Hon. S. Bond: Let's start in 2006, with $470 million of increase in funding to education. Let's look at 2007-2008 — $116 million in new funding. We didn't stop there. Let's look at 2008-2009 — 122 million new dollars to education.

C. Wyse: The chronic underfunding of education is affecting Interior schools as well. In the Cariboo, the Quesnel district alone is short $1½ million. While the minister stands in this House and says that education is adequately funded, teachers and staff are being laid off because school districts do not have the funding in order to retain them in their schools. Twelve teachers and staff are being laid off to balance budgets. These cuts are coming directly out of the classrooms. Children are directly affected by the cuts to the programs.

My question: will this minister commit now to simplify the funding formula and ensure that our children get the quality education they so deserve and the districts get the financial support they need?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things that occur typically here is that we only hear part of the equation from the other side of the House. Let's look at the circumstances in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: We have 50,000 fewer children than we had in 2000-2001, and at the same time we have record levels of funding in British Columbia. So we need to always look at the entire picture.

Let's look at the Quesnel school district. In fact, enrolment in that district is expected to be 21 percent lower than it was in 2000-2001, and their per-pupil funding is $1,987 higher per student than it was in 2000-2001.

C. Wyse: The minister continues to make my point. Let's move to another district that is very close to where she has members sitting. The Kamloops district is facing the loss of 24 full-time teaching positions. School closures are being projected. The financial officer has resigned. Mill closures and the Campbell fuel tax bring further uncertainty into the financial pictures facing the students and parents of the Kamloops area.

Again my question to the minister: will the minister commit to providing school districts with stable funding to keep schools open and classrooms available for students?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite may not want to hear the numbers that are actually in place today for education funding, but let's look at this. Per-pupil funding in British Columbia has increased for the eighth consecutive year.

I'm not sure what it is about the facts that the members opposite don't like to hear. But let's look at the enrolment numbers in the Kamloops school district. Next year's enrolment in the Kamloops-Thompson school district is expected to be 16 percent lower than it was, and yet — wait for it — they're going to receive $1.7 million more….

D. Cubberley: This government's record on education funding is a litany of cuts, downsizing, off-loading, reneging on agreements and midyear funding changes.

D. Cubberley: On the ground, whether they like it or not, that means school closures, staff layoffs, service cuts…

D. Cubberley: …and deteriorating conditions in classrooms. When the minister deals with that, she denies that it's happening. "That's not happening out there in British Columbia. It must be that they're incompetent in school districts, and that's the reason that all of these things are occurring."

My question is: when is she going to recognize the damage that's being done in communities across B.C. and put the resources in play to keep B.C.'s local schools in business? Or does she just love the idea of big-box schools?

Hon. S. Bond: I'll put this government's record on education funding up against the opposition's record any day. You know, we've had a lot of questions in this question period about our commitment to a negotiated contract. Maybe the Education critic should have checked with his leader before he stood up today.

Let's look at what the Leader of the Opposition said about their budget and whether they'd consider teachers' increases. On May 12, 2005…

Hon. S. Bond: …the leader of the NDP said: "There's no money for increases for teachers in our budget." We'll take our record every day over comments like that from the Leader of the Opposition.

C. Trevena: Teddy Bear Daycare in Whistler is due to close. Apparently, it's not an appropriate use of the space with the Olympics coming.

But when the parents turned to the Minister of State for Childcare for help, she wrote them with some alternatives: child care in Squamish, which is a 54-kilometre one-way trip for parents and their children; child care in Pemberton, where one centre is full and the other is closing; or child care in Spring Creek, which is only 40 kilometres a day but already close to capacity.

It's not surprising that the parents were flabbergasted and described the minister's response as ridiculous. I'd like the Minister of State for Childcare to explain to those parents, who are desperately needing child care, what they're supposed to do.

Hon. L. Reid: It is about the spaces in British Columbia. I am more than happy to put on the record yet again that since we came to government, we've created 5,500 additional child care spaces in the province of British Columbia.

Hon. L. Reid: We have in fact been the only government who's lifted the rates for out-of-school care, the only government who has in fact looked at extending the subsidy for children into the end of their sixth year.

C. Trevena: Yes, the minister of state has responded, but the minister of state has given answers that provide no solution for parents either in Whistler or anywhere in the province. Parents are desperate.

The Minister of State for Childcare said in this House a couple of days ago: "Everything the sector has asked for has been delivered." I have to say that parents say she's wrong, providers say she's wrong, early childhood educators say she's wrong, chambers of commerce say she's wrong, and businesses say she's wrong.

I'd like the minister to tell those thousands of people how she's planning to prove herself right.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm always delighted to talk about child care. We in fact have new partners in child care delivery that this province has never had in the past. We are building child care today with the B.C. housing association. We have in fact delivered child care where people live, closest to home. We have worked with individuals as partners, indeed, in terms of providing child care closest to where people work.

There are opportunities today to go forward. There are opportunities for us to continue to work closely with those who believe in the delivery of child care. I welcome that opportunity.

D. Chudnovsky: In only nine months homeless people in greater Vancouver were turned away 40,000 times from emergency shelters. The biggest demographic was women and families, with 15,885 turn-aways. That's an undercount, because many shelters didn't provide records.

In 2002 this government cancelled B.C.'s social housing program and made it harder to get on income assistance and stay on income assistance. Since that time, there's been a 364 percent increase in street-level homelessness in Metro Vancouver.

My question is for the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance. What steps will government take today to make sure the homelessness crisis is dealt with?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll take the question on notice for the Minister for Housing.

D. Thorne: In February I asked the Finance Minister what she intended to do regarding the increasing trend of pre-sale agreement collapses for condominium buyers in British Columbia. Families and first-time buyers lose their homes with little warning or are forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars more to try and keep them.

There has been another collapse now in the Lower Mainland, with the Anvil development in New Westminster. Pre-sale buyers are being asked to spend $20,000 to $40,000 more if they want to keep their homes. These owners are only being given 14 days to decide whether they want to pay up or lose these homes.

My question to the Minister of Finance is: what has she done in the past several months to protect these families and young buyers from being forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars or lose their homes? Last year we saw some minor housekeeping amendments. This year we have seen nothing except the continued increasing collapses. Has this minister done nothing?

Hon. C. Taylor: The situation of pre-sales is a very difficult one for our community and our market. What we have seen is people making a commitment to buy a property at a price when markets have been rising at such an extraordinary pace. So we have seen a number of instances where the developers have not been able to complete.

In the instance that was just quoted by the member opposite, my understanding is that the developer is saying that he has two issues that he needs help with. One is financing to finish it, and the second is the completion date. The completion date is supposed to be July 31, and he is saying that he is not going to be able to make that date.

Hon. C. Taylor: He has sent out a letter explaining his situation and asking, as I understand it, for the owners to either increase the amount of money they put into the project or to in fact let him have a bit more time.

Hon. C. Taylor: The superintendent of real estate, of course, has asked the developer to file a new disclosure form, as is required.

I will say to you and to all the members opposite, hon. Speaker, that this is something we have been working on not only with industry but also with the superintendent. I'm awaiting the member opposite, who has said she has a bill on this matter that she is going to introduce. I have encouraged her to come forward with solutions that we'd be very happy to look at.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 36 and in Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 36; S. Hammell in the chair.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to rise to speak to this bill. It's probably the shortest bill I've seen introduced in this House in my legislative career. It might even be as long as the member for Peace River North has been here.

I'm just curious. It bans the smoking of tobacco leaves or products produced from tobacco. I'm just wondering what "products produced from tobacco in any form or for any use" might include.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'd like to first just introduce the staff that are assisting me here: Anne Preyde with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, Shelley Canitz with the Ministry of Health, and behind me Ron Bell with the legal services branch of the Ministry of Attorney General.

In answer to the member's question, what is included there would be cigars, cigarillos and pipes. The governing definition here is the one that's used in the Tobacco Control Act.

L. Krog: In terms of the age of 16, I'm just wondering how that particular age was arrived at.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for the question. Certainly, the considerations were that the goal of this legislation was to protect young children, because their lungs are not as well developed as adults'. We wanted to be consistent with the age in the Motor Vehicle Act that allows an individual to operate a motor vehicle.

I note that some provinces are electing to go to the age of 16, and some are choosing other points. But those were the considerations that went into our decision to choose 16 in this legislation, and as I recall, the member had the same age in his private member's bill on this issue.

L. Krog: I'm delighted to hear the minister recognize the contribution of the opposition to this particular piece of legislation. He's very gracious.

With respect to subsection (4), it says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this section and prescribing conditions for those exemptions." I'm just wondering what that section is contemplating in terms of exemptions.

Hon. J. van Dongen: The reason for including this provision is…. As I said in my second reading comments, the definition of motor vehicle under the act can include recreational vehicles and motorhomes. And I stress that there may be circumstances under which, in developing regulations, we may want to consider certain exemptions.

For instance, if a recreational vehicle or a motorhome is parked in a fixed location for some period of time, this subsection (4) gives cabinet the possibility of doing that. That does not mean that we're necessarily intending to do it, but it was felt we should provide that option so that if there was going to be any consideration there, we would consult with people and then use this provision to make that exemption if required.

L. Krog: The minister has raised a matter of some concern, because the concept behind this particular piece of legislation and the reason it's been enacted in various places is because of the confined space involved, generally speaking. I appreciate that there are some motorhomes that are 60 feet long and, you could argue, may not present the same health risks. But there's no question that there are many motorhomes, fifth wheels and things of that nature that are much smaller in size and would present some significant health risks to children.

I'm just wondering if the minister has turned his mind — or through the staff — to the size that we're talking about. Is the minister contemplating that 60 feet is reasonable and ten isn't, or what is the situation?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member raises a legitimate point — that part of the scientific consideration is that a vehicle is a confined space. Having said that, this would be a consideration in any exemption. I want to assure the member that there is no preconceived notion to provide any exemptions. So the point that he raises would be a valid one in any consideration where an exemption was to be made.

L. Krog: Obviously, the opposition's view was that this legislation should have been passed last fall. We know that other health regulations around smoking have been postponed for some period of time. Does the minister have in contemplation some time when he would hope to see this act actually come into force?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I can assure the member that we do want to move forward as expeditiously as possible on this legislation. We do have to consider the fine amount for the violation ticket and implement that. But subject to that, it's our intent to move forward on this.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 36, Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 27, intituled Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 27; S. Hammell in the chair.

C. Wyse: A question, if I may, to the minister. Would she explain what the amendment for this particular section does to the act?

Hon. I. Chong: Before I begin, I would like to introduce staff who are here with me today. To my left I have Meagan Gergley, to my right Lois-Leah Goodwin and behind me Alan Osborne, all of whom have been very helpful in ensuring this legislation has been brought forward in this manner.

The purpose of section 1 of this bill is to enable local governments to deposit money received in lieu of the provision of off-street parking spaces into a reserve fund established for the purposes of providing infrastructure that supports alternative forms of transportation such as walking, bicycling or public transit.

The significance of this. It will provide local governments with the flexibility to accept cash in lieu of off-street parking spaces for those purposes, as I've mentioned. It will encourage greater investment in alternative transportation infrastructure and, we would expect, the reduction of automobile-centred infrastructure development.

C. Wyse: To the minister: I would ask her explanation of what section 3 does to development cost charges for the Greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district.

Hon. I. Chong: This section will specify that development cost charges are not payable for self-contained residential dwelling units that are 29 square metres or less, which I understand is 312 square feet, for those who are still working in the old calculations of area.

The significance of this is to exempt the small residential dwelling units from paying development cost charges, or DCCS as we commonly refer to them, and to encourage the development of small affordable housing by reducing the cost to build these kinds of units.

Again, we'll be encouraging local governments to take a look at building these smaller units to increase our stock of affordable housing. I know local governments want to be a part of a solution. This exemption of DCCs in this area will ensure that those units remain affordable.

C. Wyse: The minister is to be commended for a laudable goal, but I do notice that to obtain this goal, the funds are out of the purse of local government. Therefore, I will be moving an amendment here. I have copies of the amendment, and if you like, I will read it.

The Chair: Member, the motion is out of order because it imposes a financial burden on the Crown.

C. Wyse: Then on the intent of the motion. The motion is very laudable, and the section is such, but it does put the financial burden upon the local government to fund that particular item. The minister could consider the amendment herself. I don't know the rules that well.

The point being made…. It has been made by local governments, and I will use one that is not in the greater Vancouver area, because it will come up later in the bill. For example, in Kamloops the mayor of Kamloops drew to attention, at a meeting I was at, that the development cost charge area from the local government for a project in his community was about $7,000 or $8,000. However, for that same particular project, the cost for the property transfer tax paid to the province is about $27,000 or $28,000.

In the general gist of wanting to encourage these projects to go ahead and not continue to require the local governments to download the costs onto local government, I had intended to propose the amendment. I would turn it over to the minister for her response on how she sees getting around this particular conundrum that faces local government, if in actual fact she has something in mind in order to address that fact.

Hon. I. Chong: As the member knows, if he indicates that he's going to move another amendment in a further section, the amendment that he has proposed is certainly out of order.

The purpose of this section was actually to address some of the concerns that have been raised throughout my travels around the province. As well, we've heard

from municipalities who have met with various ministers and at UBCM meetings throughout the province.

The issue of affordable housing is a growing concern within British Columbia, and the idea of a small-unit DCC exemption is focused on the very smallest of units — 29 square metres or 312 square feet. These provide an opportunity for local governments to consider those kinds of units and then be able to ensure that they remain affordable.

Again, if in fact a municipality chooses not to deal with the issue of affordable housing where we have a tool that will allow them to do so, they can continue to help the large-unit developments they continue to have, continue to charge DCCs and continue not to be able to address the issue of affordable housing.

We have spoken with UBCM. We have consulted with them, and we have determined that this threshold was appropriate to encourage development of small-unit affordable housing units. This is the intent and the purpose. If the communities feel that is not an area they would like to pursue, then they're welcome to continue on as they have been, as I have indicated.

C. Wyse: On section 5, I would ask the minister for the rationale for this particular section being inserted.

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize. I was just ensuring that I had heard the question appropriately.

The purpose of inserting that part of the section is to require the corporation to consider if development cost charges will discourage development with a low environmental impact. We want them certainly to consider that, because it ensures that the corporation does consider the relative costs and impacts of green versus traditional development when setting development cost charges. Also, it encourages the corporation to consider lower development cost charges, which supports green development where infrastructure costs are reduced by such development — again, more opportunities for looking at green development.

C. Wyse: The reason, in part, that I'm asking this question is that under the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, there are definitely some legal concerns being raised around the ability of local government to actually proceed in the area of greenhouse gas reductions and similar related issues.

My question to the minister is whether her staff has given any consideration to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement and its possible effect on this section and other sections contained in this particular bill.

Hon. I. Chong: TILMA — the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — does not prohibit municipalities from promoting the social, economic and environmental well-being of their communities. TILMA contains a number of provisions that will allow both British Columbia and Alberta and their local governments to continue to act in the public interest.

Just as an example, TILMA does not prevent municipalities from applying measures that protect consumers and the environment or which address other legitimate public policy objectives. So I trust the member is satisfied that we have looked into this matter, and we'll still allow local governments to develop bylaws dealing with green developments.

C. Wyse: I believe it's very important for the record to show that in actual fact, TILMA as an agreement is very, very specific as a document. It states that unless you are expressly excluded by the agreement, then you are included. There's nowhere in TILMA, in that agreement, that I find the expressed specific exclusion for greenhouse gases as one of the exclusions for being covered by TILMA.

Having stated this and put it on the record, I appreciate the time of the House.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to make sure that this is clear for the record for future readers of Hansard. Article 6 of the agreement clearly states that the government can pursue what are called legitimate objectives under TILMA.

A legitimate objective is defined in part 7 as protection of the environment, public security and safety, health and social services, conservation and prevention of waste of non-renewable or exhaustive resources. Certainly under the protection of environment, I would believe that dealing with green development and greenhouse gases, that would follow.

This means there is nothing in TILMA that would prevent either the province or local governments from implementing actions related to climate change. Clearly, reducing greenhouse gas emissions relates to climate change. Specifically, TILMA would not prevent local governments from taking action and implementing those measures regarding greenhouse gas emissions, regarding conservation of energy and regarding conservation of water.

C. Wyse: The particular section that is referred to under TILMA has three parts to it — one, two and three — and TILMA is very specific. All three parts of that section must be reached. It's not one or two or three; it's all three parts. There's quite a battery of legal people who have the exact opposite opinion. I again thank the minister for her time.

Hon. I. Chong: Regarding article 6 and the agreement, the only way that British Columbia could be subject to a dispute under TILMA is if British Columbia were to discriminate actively against Alberta-based companies or individuals. There's no discrimination; there's no dispute.

C. Wyse: A question to the minister: the rationale for the addition of section 14?

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of this section is to require regional districts to include targets, policies and actions for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in their regional growth strategy. The time line or the requirement date for this will be, in case it's not been clear, March 31, 2011.

C. Wyse: I have some questions on section 16. Would my interpretation of section 16 be accurate in that the need for a public hearing is removed? If my interpretation is correct, then it becomes permissive when a public hearing is in actual fact held.

Again, assuming that is correct, my question to the minister is: under what conditions, then, would she envision that a public hearing would be called?

Hon. I. Chong: This section will require that during the development of a regional growth strategy consultation plan, the regional district board must consider the need for a separate public hearing before the adoption of a regional growth strategy.

I want to be clear that throughout the development of the regional growth strategy, there is considerable involvement of the public. The consultation plan requirements for regional growth strategies really are significant, if the member has been involved in them as I have in the past. An additional public hearing at the end of a multi-year regional growth strategy consultation process often is a redundant formality which adds a burden to an already fairly lengthy process that takes place.

So it's not that we are removing public consultation or the opportunity for the public to have input into the development of a regional growth strategy, but it is to consider whether or not there is a need for a further public hearing after several of which have taken place before the adoption of the regional growth strategy.

C. Wyse: My question is: are these previous public hearings mandated, or are they likewise at the discretion of the regional district in this case?

Hon. I. Chong: As I mentioned earlier, in the development of a regional growth strategy there is extensive consultation that takes place. There is usually a plan that is presented for the public to be engaged in, to be made aware of what kinds of issues are coming forward so that they can be involved in that consultative process. In that sense, that will continue and will still be made available.

What this will do, though, is require and will provide to the board when they are developing the regional growth strategy…. In their consultation plan they will outline what will be taking place. They can also then say: "If at the end of the consultation we have concluded all matters that are outstanding, we can decide whether or not we need to have a separate public hearing before the adoption." They will make that clear in the development of their regional growth strategy plan consultation plan.

People who are going to be involved or engaged can certainly express their views and say they feel that they might, if there is a need, have a separate public hearing for the adoption. Others may feel it's not necessary. We are going to allow the boards to require them to consider that during the development of the regional growth strategy consultation plan.

C. Wyse: I hope I've understood this correctly. Throughout this process there is no mandated area for public hearings to be called. There is a provision for a consultative process but not for an actual public hearing anywhere in the process.

Hon. I. Chong: What this amendment does is ensure that a regional district board discusses and makes a decision about including a public hearing as part of its comprehensive consultation plans.

C. Wyse: This likely is one of the proposed amendments contained in the act that actually provides the streamlining that occurs between the different levels of local government, the regional districts and the incorporated areas. I would like to provide the minister an opportunity to explain how section 18 does work in actual fact.

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of this section is to in fact authorize regional district boards to make minor amendments to a regional growth strategy using either a customized minor amendment process that the regional district designs or a statutory default minor amendment process.

In relation to a customized minor amendment process, the regional district is to include criteria for how "minor" is defined and how the board will notify and hear from affected local governments in procedures for adoption. I hope that gives some clarity to the member.

C. Wyse: On section 20. The official community plan now must include the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the area covered by the plan. This part is very specific.

My question to the minister is: what resources, if any, does the ministry have in the works for helping local government with the financial costs of making these official changes now required to their official community plans?

Hon. I. Chong: This section is not unlike that one in section 14 where municipalities and regional districts are to include targets, policies and actions for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in their official community plans. In this particular case, for municipalities the deadline date will be May 31, 2010.

A number of municipalities are already identifying their targets, their policies and their actions for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions as a result of the fact that they signed on to the climate action charter. The climate action charter is designed to encourage governments — and all indications are that they're interested in doing this — to reduce their greenhouse gases and therefore become carbon neutral by the year 2012.

I know many of them are in the process of developing these targets and these policies. There would not be additional costs associated with that because, as I say, having signed onto the charter, my understanding of that is their willingness and their intention to move forward and have that information available…. So there should not be an additional cost associated with that.

As with all things, from time to time there will be additional work that is done by staff, new work that is brought on as a result of new technology or changes that we have in how we run our municipalities. They will have other work they had previously done that they will no longer be required to do. It certainly is a shift in what staff may be focusing on now as opposed to what they had focused on in the past.

C. Wyse: Not to take great difference with the point that the minister is making…. When something is required to be done and there are set processes to it, it will require expenditures in order to achieve that.

What I hear from local government representatives is that there are concerns about coming up with the costs to look after such items that are being mandated here in Victoria. While we're on section 20, the minister likewise has recognized, I think, a point that I made under section 14. This section here now sets actual targets mandated for local governments to find for greenhouse gas reductions within their plans.

There are, increasingly, legal interpretations about the ability of local governments to be able to achieve this particular section. So I also wish it to be on record that under TILMA, there are increasing numbers of informed individuals who are concerned about whether this particular section likewise will be achievable under agreements that have been signed by the cabinet.

Once more, I'm seeking assurances of the minister of her particular position on this section as it stands with regards to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement signed by this government, which came into effect April 1, 2007.

Hon. I. Chong: Well, again I would say that many local governments are already taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage green development in their communities. It certainly is very commendable that they are doing that.

We know that much more needs to be done. We know it's important to be able to meet targets for greenhouse gas emission reductions, particularly as a provincial government. We are moving towards that direction. By virtue of the fact that local governments have signed on to a climate action charter, we know they are also interested in that.

This requirement and this section are basically saying that we do want local governments to set those greenhouse gas emission targets in their official community plans and in their regional growth strategies. We are not going to tell the local governments what those targets or policies and actions need to be or need to take. Those are local choices. They only need to provide in those official community plans what those targets will be, what those actions will be, and what their targets and their policies will be.

I expect there will be variations from one local government to another. As I said, we're not telling them what it needs to be. As a government, we are actively developing ways to provide information to communities regarding their energy use and emissions, and to support them in their setting of targets, policies and objectives so that…. If they were to provide a particular policy direction or a particular target, then they may not know the consequence or the benefit of what the greenhouse gas emissions are.

We can work with them and share that information with them so that they can then put those in their plans. But again, each local government will determine what those targets are to be, what those policies are and what those actions will be.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the answer from the minister. I did understand that the targets that are set up for greenhouse gas limits will be the responsibility of the local government.

My question is: if those targets are challenged under TILMA, will the provincial government defend the targets that have been devised by the local government? It is only under TILMA that the province has the authority to defend those particular targets.

So my question, again, is whether the minister will provide assurances to local governments that if their targets are challenged under the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, the province will defend them at the third-person panel that they would be referred to.

Hon. I. Chong: I want to again assure the member of this. The only way that British Columbia could be subject to a dispute under TILMA is if British Columbia were to discriminate actively against Alberta-based companies or individuals. If there is no discrimination, there is no dispute.

C. Wyse: The minister refers to the province of British Columbia. My question deals specifically with another legal entity that is defined within the province of British Columbia, which is a local government constituted by this House and which likewise is covered under TILMA. I'm looking for those same assur-

ances from the minister that should challenges occur to regulations that local governments are mandated to do by this House under this bill — should challenges develop against those decisions — the province will defend those challenges of that local government when and if they do occur.

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to be clear on the issues regarding TILMA, and I know that the member has canvassed this with the minister responsible. We've been clear all along that TILMA does not limit a municipality's ability to do what is in its community's and in the public's best interest.

For example, TILMA does not constrain a local government's ability to establish or maintain bona fide non-discriminatory measures, such as bylaws. So this legislation will ensure that municipalities continue to have the authority they need to do what is in their communities' and the public's best interest. That is what TILMA permits.

C. Wyse: It appears to me that the minister is not willing to commit to defend local governments if they're challenged under this particular section of this act, as compared to the agreement that the province has signed. So unless I hear differently, there has been no commitment given by the minister, and I accept her answer.

Hon. I. Chong: I move the amendment to section 21 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. I. Chong: I don't know if the member opposite has had a chance to take a look at the amendment that I have brought forward. Perhaps I'll just take a moment to explain the amendment. This amendment is being made to ensure that the words of the legislation accurately reflect the intention of the legislation in relation to phased development agreements.

A phased development agreement is a special form of agreement entered into voluntarily between a local government and a developer. The effect of such an agreement is that any changes to zoning bylaws and to certain types of development permits that affect the siting, the size or the dimensions of buildings and land uses do not apply to the area covered by the agreement for a set period of time unless the developer agrees that they do.

In exceptional circumstances the local government can change the zoning in an area without the agreement of the developer, even though it has entered a phased development agreement — for example, in order to comply with provincial laws. This form of agreement ensures certainty for a phased development project, as it reduces risk to developers and makes it easier to secure financing for large development projects, which are built in phases over several years.

Phased development agreements enable local governments to provide that certainty while at the same time recognizing that some changes need to be accommodated. Local governments can also currently apply development permits for protection of the natural environment in farming and for protection from hazardous conditions, without the agreement of the developer, to land covered by the phased development agreement even if these matters are provided for in the agreement.

This amendment will now require local governments to get the approval of the inspector of municipalities for a development permit before it can be applied to land that is subject to a phased development agreement for the purposes of protection of the natural environment, protection from hazardous conditions, protection of farming, energy conservation, water conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.

This amendment will ensure fairness and certainty that a local government cannot use its authority to issue a development permit that undermines the zoning guarantees it has provided for in the phased development agreement.

C. Wyse: On section 27, my question is on whether this provides the opportunity, again, for the minister and/or the cabinet to waive development cost charges for the incorporated areas that have such development cost charges in place.

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of this section is to add the authority for local governments to waive or reduce development cost charges for the following eligible developments: for-profit residential housing, a subdivision of small lots that is designed to result in low greenhouse gas emissions and a development that is designed to result in a low environmental impact.

Currently there are restrictive provisions in place on the waiving or the reduction of DCCs. This will now provide more authority for local governments to broaden where they can do that. It is permissive. It is not mandatory.

When I looked through this particular section, it appeared to me — how I read it — that both a bylaw and regulations are required — a bylaw by the local government as well as the ministerial regulations. I'm wondering whether that may be just the way I've read the bill or whether in actual fact that is the overall intent when we go through all of section 27.

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, this section was a permissive section allowing local governments to look at waiving or reducing development cost charges for those eligible developments — as I've indicated, primarily those three areas.

It is not that there would be a requirement for the province to step in, but if there was need to clarify where there is a consideration that the local government is making to provide a waiver exemption under this section, then we would have the ability to provide or assist in providing the definition of what those items would be. Again, it would begin with the local governments determining whether they wish or do not wish to waive or reduce development cost charges.

C. Wyse: I would ask the minister how this particular section is different from past practices.

Hon. I. Chong: What this is amending is subsection 934(4). That is being repealed and replaced here. It is unchanged except for the addition of the requirement to consider how development designed to result in low environmental impact may affect the capital costs of infrastructure and whether the charges will discourage this form of development.

So again, it ensures that the corporation considers the relative cost impacts of green versus traditional development when setting development cost charges.

C. Wyse: On section 31. Again, if I understand this correctly — and I will leave it to the minister to correct any misinterpretation I may have — now this section would require a fund that…. Normally, an incorporated area, if they had the appropriate bylaw to collect funds for future acquisitions of school sites that may be needed down the road….

If I understand section 31 correctly, that source of revenue for acquisition of those sites is now removed from the school districts or from the local government to provide for those particular site acquisitions.

Hon. I. Chong: For the benefit of those who may be following these debates, a school site acquisition charge is a charge applied to the developers of new residential developments — similar to development cost charges. The charge is collected by local governments and then transferred to school boards. The money collected is used to help pay for new school sites needed as a result of new residential development.

What this amendment does is provide the same exemption from school site acquisition charges for small residential dwelling units as well as any reductions or waivers for green development as provided by local government in relation to development cost charges. I trust that provides the clarification for the member.

C. Wyse: As I mentioned earlier, there are places where I have those concerns about the costs being passed on to various levels of local government when they have such limited sources of revenue. My point has been made.

C. Wyse: The question I have on section 36 is a general one of the minister — for her to provide assurances that the general changes are in essence the same ones that have been made to the other parts of the act so that we're basically bringing Vancouver into conformity with the other levels of local government.

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

Bill 27, Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 27, Local Government (Green Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Richmond: I call committee stage of Bill 34, intituled University Amendment Act, 2008.

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

B. Ralston: The first question I have is a relatively straightforward one. I'm not sure just where in the act one finds the mechanism by which the names of the institutions are changed. Does that flow from section 1(c), "by repealing the definition of 'university'…"? Or is it somewhere else in the act?

Hon. M. Coell: I draw the member's attention to section 71. It's amended, and it will be the regulatory powers after that.

B. Ralston: Then I would accept guidance from the Chair on this, because I do have some questions about the proposed name change in the case of what's now to be called Kwantlen Polytechnic University. Would it be more appropriate to ask it there, under section 15, than here? Perhaps the Chair can guide me on that.

The Chair: In response to the member's question, section 15 would be the most appropriate place to address those questions.

B. Ralston: I'll thank the Chair, and I'll reserve my question till that space in the committee.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about this section and the ones that follow, which outline the elimination, at four of our existing universities, of the provision to elect chancellors and substitutes for that an appointment process and also would, I suppose, in consistency in repealing that at the existing universities — a tradition that goes back, in the case of the University of British Columbia, to 1908 — extend that to the new designated university institutions.

I think there's a lot of concern around this provision. There are a number of unanswered questions that have been posed to the minister outside of the debate on this legislation in the public realm. Some of the answers….

The rationale that has been given by the minister to date confuses me. There was a suggestion by him that this was in order to be consistent with universities across Canada. I did a scan of universities in Canada as best I could and really focused on western Canada. I've found the idea that elected chancellors are somehow the exception rather than the rule to be incorrect, based on knowledge that I have gained.

First of all, the old universities, the established universities in Canada, of which the University of British Columbia is prominent among them…. Its colleagues at Queens and Western in Ontario have elected chancellors. In western Canada our neighbours in Alberta at the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta have elected chancellors. In Regina, the University of Regina and the University of Saskatchewan both have elected chancellors. The University of Winnipeg, the University of Manitoba — elected chancellors again.

I have failed to understand the rationale that has been advanced through the media by the minister — and, I believe, in second reading debate, when he motivated on the bill — that this is in keeping with the norm of Canadian practice, because it would appear very much that it is not. In fact, an elected chancellor is one of the critical elements of the function of alumni and of the function of democratic senates and the collegial governance system that has been a part of university life for many years.

I would ask the minister if he could maybe motivate or provide some more insight here, at committee stage of the bill, as to what the origin is of the idea of abolishing the provisions for an elected chancellor at UNBC, the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University, and the University of Victoria.

Hon. M. Coell: Let me first introduce two of my staff members that are here with me. Deborah Hull and Tony Loughran are here for committee stage with me.

We were acting on the request from the University Presidents Council for two years in a row. I can read you their comments. They might be of assistance.

R. Fleming: That helps, I suppose, explain where the interest group pressure maybe was applied to the minister, coming through the University Presidents Council. But that doesn't sound to me sufficiently like a broad consultation or a very broad interest in changing what has been a tradition at the University of British Columbia since 1908 — to elect chancellors.

The minister mentioned that TRU and Royal Roads currently have appointed chancellors. Correct. They do. Of course, the minister knows that the legislation for those two institutions is very recent — in one case, barely over a decade old and only several years old in the case of Thompson Rivers. In actual fact, TRU and Royal Roads are the exception as two of six universities in British Columbia that appoint rather than elect chancellors.

I fail to understand why, on the basis of comments that the University Presidents Council…. I know they deal with the minister on a whole range of issues. I know they're interested in research and development capacity at our institutions. They're interested in stable funding issues at the universities. They're interested in academic reform of a variety of types and in the ability to attract and retain faculty and graduate students from around the world. Those are some of the core issues of TUPC, or the University Presidents Council.

Certainly, I am not aware that there has been a burning interest or a top of mind prioritization of abolishing elected chancellors by the University Presidents Council. I wonder if I could ask the minister, because I find the explanation somewhat wanting. His reference to why this is being done today, why this is part of this amendment bill, is on the basis of something that may have come up rather casually and has only come up in the last two years in B.C.

I mentioned earlier that this is completely out of step with the rest of western Canada and with most of eastern and central Canada as well. He cited Concordia and McGill, but I could cite dozens of universities where chancellors are elected and have been for decades, since their inception. That's the case at the majority of institutions in B.C. today.

I'm not satisfied with the reasons, and I would ask the minister if there are additional organizations or stakeholder groups within the advanced education sector that have focused in on this. I look forward to his response.

Hon. M. Coell: I think, as I said before, we were acting on a request by the University Presidents Council, which really represents all of the universities. It will also bring all of the new universities and the research-intensive universities to using the same process to appoint a chancellor.

I don't know whether this is of any use to the member or not, but one of the issues, I guess, is the turnout for voting. In 2008, just to use UBC for an example, the turnout was 1.5 percent of the potential voters; in 2005, 1.4 percent; in 2002, 1 percent of the eligible voters voted. Then in 1999, '96 and '93 there was actually acclamation. I don't know whether that is something that they take into consideration in wishing a change or not, but it is an awfully low voter turnout for election of, I think, a very important post.

R. Fleming: In terms of who is eligible to vote at the University of British Columbia, the example that the minister just cited, I know that that number increases dramatically every year as more and more students convocate and become eligible and part of the alumni association outreach. I know that UBC is very proud of the fact that they and some of our other institutions are cultivating international alumni branches and trying to involve Canadians who are working abroad in Asia and in Europe and on other continents.

Those are all good things, because they produce business and cultural contacts for the province as well as give those people a network in other cities where they might be living. Alumni are obviously critical for universities to conduct fundraising, to cultivate relationships with donors — as students have graduated to take their places in various professions and earn incomes, and they think back fondly on those institutions and then donate. I think one of the things — and maybe the minister will agree with me — that he may have heard is that it's not enough for an alumni association just to engage their alumni as donors.

The fact that people are eligible and can receive a ballot and participate in who the chancellor of the university may be and, in some cases, where you have multiple candidates…. I think back to UVic's recent election of their chancellor. I think there were at least three or possibly four candidates that had very different community connections and brought different perspectives to the role of chancellor. That was a competitive election, and it was of interest. It engaged the campus community.

Again, I would ask the minister if he's actually had conversations with leaders of the academic senates, the four that have elected chancellors currently, before he

decided to take what is a rather dramatic departure from past practice and put it in the legislation. I think it's odd that the opportunity to fulfil what the minister identified in Campus 2020, and to look at rebranding and redesignating our university colleges, has snuck in a provision to deprive and take away the elected chancellor as a feature of campus life at our major universities.

I would ask him again if he has had conversations that go beyond just casual conversations with the University Presidents Council — whether he's talked to leaders of academic senates, whether he's talked to board of governors members or whether he's talked to student organizations, who do in fact have opinions that are opposed to what is outlined in section 4 and the other sections here.

Hon. M. Coell: The board chairs, as well as the presidents and the University Presidents Council, have all seen the proposed changes. From my perspective, this adds a formal role for the alumni association and still a consultative role for the senate.

The process here is to find good people to fill this position, and I think the change does that. I think it does now, and all of the universities in the province will have the same method for electing that person.

R. Fleming: I think the minister maybe used the wrong word at the end, because they wouldn't in fact have any role in electing a chancellor. It would be by appointment.

I wanted to get his comment on the current process, because a university's convocation and their participation in electing a chancellor are, of course, not restricted to alumni. It is something that includes all alumni of course, but it also includes all current faculty. It includes librarians, for example, and senators. Even those most recently honoured with emeritus status have the ability to participate in selecting a chancellor.

I think many people feel that's a good feature so that chancellors aren't simply political appointees that maybe have no or little connection to a campus, but actually have the confidence of the people who work and study and pay fees at the institution that they are, in essence, able to exercise a voice.

The minister made the point that perhaps not enough of them choose to do that. Well, that's fair enough. Participation rates can be low, although I do note that at UBC, where he cited the last three elections, at least the participation rates are on the upswing and going in the right direction. When you think that there's something like 250,000 eligible electors at UBC, the fact that 5,000 people or more in a given year do take advantage of the franchise that they have to elect a chancellor is something that shouldn't be diminished.

The question for the minister is whether he has talked to people who are going to be disenfranchised — which would include faculty, librarians, senators at these institutions and those who have received emeritus status at the universities — about making this proposed change?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said to the member, we are reacting to a request specifically from the University Presidents Council and the university presidents and, I believe, their board chairs as well.

I share the member's concern over low voter turnout. I think that when you're getting 1 percent or 1½ percent turnout, that process probably isn't as interesting for the potential voters. There still would be, as I mentioned…. The board would still have an elected vote to appoint a chancellor. I believe this will be a good system. I believe it's something that will work and look forward to seeing it in place.

R. Fleming: It's interesting that the reason that the minister has provided for contemplating it and putting this into the amendment act today is that the University Presidents Council has requested it. Well, they've requested a lot of things.

I remember, in advance of Budget 2008, receiving materials from the University Presidents Council urging us to proceed to catch up with Alberta, next door to us, and become on par with the university-based research funding they enjoy from their government, which is some $200 million more than British Columbia supplies to its major universities. I think the budget response was to add an additional $1.5 million to the budget.

Perhaps in 90 or 95 years we might catch up with Alberta at that pace. They certainly invested a lot of lobbying efforts into perhaps receiving significantly more funding, which would have positive effects on the productivity of our economy, on job creation and on the ability to diversify our knowledge-based industries.

That request went begging. But now, apparently, it's good enough to take away 90 years of history, 100 years of history, a centenary of history at the University of British Columbia just because it came up casually from the University Presidents Council.

By not commenting on the part of the question that I asked him — whether the senates and other university leaders below the presidents, the people that work there, the academics and those eligible to vote who sit on senate as students or what have you…. I take that to mean that they have not, in fact, been consulted at all.

When the minister provided a rationale that we are somehow conforming to a norm that is out there in Canadian universities…. In fact, we are not. We will be the only western Canadian province not to have elected chancellors.

I can also recall many occasions when this minister and his predecessors said that this government respected the autonomy of institutions to make as many decisions as they could, around the academic content and the specializations and projects that they may be interested in and undertake.

It seems to me that by moving to an appointment method and abolishing an elected chancellor provision, this is an intrusion by the province that is not being based on widespread support and is not the product of consultation with the university community, the broad campus community.

Again to the minister: have there been any other meetings or discussions regarding the electoral process

that we have with chancellors and why he wishes to move to an appointment system that would basically be an aberration within most of Canadian provinces' common practices?

Hon. M. Coell: With this change, I believe that then all our universities will be consistent.

R. Fleming: I think it's about how you look at it. Maybe I'd ask the minister to look at it this way. Currently we have two universities of six that appoint rather than elect chancellors. The majority, four — two-thirds of the universities — elect chancellors. They have done so for 100 years in the case of UBC and for decades in the cases of the other institutions.

He's suggesting that the tail would wag the dog and that the two would require the four become consistent with their method of selecting a chancellor — the non-democratic method of selecting a chancellor. Am I interpreting the minister's response correctly in suggesting that's how he's thinking about it and approaching this section of the bill?

Hon. M. Coell: In the Campus 2020 report, they recommended the same model as TRU for the new universities. So with the request from the University Presidents Council as well as the recommendations from Campus 2020, it was an opportune time to do this.

R. Fleming: The minister cited the Campus 2020 report, which recommended for the new institutions, the university colleges formerly, that they be consistent with Thompson Rivers University and, in fact, that they fit into that new differentiation within the sector. Fair enough.

Why, then, is the minister dragging in institutions that have had a democratic, elected method of selecting their chancellor for a century or for many decades into the equation? Why not grandfather or maintain that system that they have had that has worked so well for those institutions and leave them out of the bill instead of ensnaring them in the new regional university method of appointment?

Hon. M. Coell: I think it's specifically because of the request from their leadership.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister has said that he has only talked to one stakeholder organization, the University Presidents Council. That represents, really, six people — six university presidents. They have an infrastructure. They represent a perspective, and I appreciate it, but it is one of many stakeholder groups.

I know that the minister does take the time to meet with all of them — students, faculty organizations, labour unions on campus — on a variety of issues. I wonder why he has not even bothered to consult with those who are losing a vote on this critical position of campus leadership and why he would take the opinions of six university leaders but not take the opinions of those who represent tens and tens of thousands of people at those institutions.

Hon. M. Coell: I would, again, comment on Campus 2020, which consulted widely throughout the province before making recommendations. They recommended this model for the new universities at the same time as a request. I thought consistency across the sector would be an important aspect of this.

R. Fleming: A question for the minister. In his report, did Mr. Plant request, for the four universities that have elected chancellors, that that practice be rescinded?

Hon. M. Coell: No, he didn't speak to that. Again, from my perspective, if we were making the change for new universities and for Thompson Rivers as well, for consistency across the sector — and, I believe, in agreement with the leadership of the other universities — this makes sense.

R. Fleming: There are, as the minister knows, other sections of this bill that maintain a distinction and a division of powers that the various governance boards have at the traditional large, I think we would call them, research universities and the regional universities that are named here and that already exist at Thompson Rivers.

There are differences that are contemplated and supported in legislation on a variety of functions. That being the case, I would ask the minister…. In light of that, why his explanation that he's trying to be consistent? Why would he take away a practice that existed for a century and not allow different methods for the appointment and the election of chancellors at the different institutions? Because there is a distinction made between them elsewhere in this very amendment act.

Hon. M. Coell: I think it was recommendation 35 of the Campus 2020 report that said to adopt the Thompson Rivers University governance structure for regional universities, and we're doing that. I believe this is the right decision for consistency with all the universities across the province.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister whether he had contemplated working with the existing system, if he was concerned about participation rates. The general sense I have is that universities don't necessarily spend a lot of money on promoting elections if participation rates are a concern in various election years for the position of chancellor — whether the minister considered actually getting involved in finding ways to increase opportunities and avenues to participate….

I think it's a difficult job that they have, simply because the number of electors keeps increasing to a great extent, so the ratio of potential voters grows. The onus is on the alumni association particularly. But this is not an expensive process. In fact, there was a question raised recently, I understand, at a UBC senate meeting. Because there has been a suggestion that this is an

efficiency — an appointment versus the election — the question was how much money could UBC expect to save by abolishing elections to the position of chancellor.

Bear in mind that they elect some 60 or 65 other positions, so the chancellor election is run concurrently with that other process. We're not abolishing elections entirely; we're just abolishing it for this position. The response that was given by the administrator on the question of how much savings could be anticipated by eliminating the chancellor election was $6,000 every three years.

It would seem to me that the efficiency argument does not hold. The cost factor is insignificant. It would seem that dissatisfaction with having elected chancellors has not been a recurring complaint by anyone. It's been going on for a century at UBC. The minister mentioned that just in the last two years, he's heard it occasionally from the University Presidents Council.

In fact, many people are very strongly attached to having an elected chancellor, because it is something that is a central part of what the collegial governance model is all about — the right to vote, the right to have confidence in those who lead and represent the institutions. The democratic will does carry a certain amount of legitimacy that an appointee cannot enjoy in the same way. They will be seen as perhaps being government's person rather than the person that the campus community entrusts to best lead them.

There are a number of examples that I think we could give this afternoon. I think this move deserves debate and discussion. I'm not getting a great sense of why the minister has decided to include this. I know the showpiece and purpose of this legislation is actually to change the university colleges and rebrand and expand their mandate to become regional universities.

Nevertheless, this is included for reasons that aren't being well explained, in my opinion, by the minister, because they are not in fact well motivated within the four universities that are going to lose the ability to elect their chancellor.

The question I have for the minister is whether he would consider and view supportively an amendment, for now, to remove those four institutions that elect chancellors and allow the new regional universities to have the same system as TRU, which is fine, and go back and do a wider consultation before perhaps asking the House to look at this again.

I know that many people are just becoming aware of this now. The minister has probably received the same letters I have. I have received letters from the Canadian university faculty association, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the national organization. I've received letters from leaders in UBC's senate and the University of Victoria as well.

All of them are saying: "Where did this come from? Why is the minister doing this? The ministry at least owes us an explanation — in person, preferably." They don't understand the motives. It hasn't been well explained. There just seems to be no demonstrated need to do it.

So before we take this step, which would be very difficult to reverse, I wonder if the minister would consider grandfathering those institutions that currently elect the chancellors and, by all means, have the new regional universities adopt the same method of selecting the chancellor as Thompson Rivers has.

Hon. M. Coell: I have a great deal of respect for the presidents of the universities, and they're in agreement with this. I think it will be consistent across all of the universities in British Columbia, and they will deal with the appointment of a chancellor in the same way.

R. Fleming: I would like to move an amendment which would strike out sections 4 through 8 in order to maintain the current method of electing a chancellor at the four institutions.

The Chair: Member, that amendment is out of order. The appropriate thing to do would be to vote on those sections.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister some questions about the implications of section 9 and specifically whether there are exclusions around the senate composition regulations that this seeks to put in place for the special purpose teaching universities as they're defined.

If the minister could explain in as much detail as he can, for my benefit, how that would work — the new senate composition regulations — and also whether in fact some of the existing longstanding universities like UBC are excluded from these regulations.

Hon. M. Coell: The new universities senate structure is modelled after Thompson Rivers University, which I think has been very successful. This section sort of states that there will be no changes to the senates at the other universities other than the new ones that are being created, which would use the Thompson Rivers University model.

R. Fleming: Just further on that, if the minister could assure me whether the senate and the composition of the existing universities then…. This section and the ones that follow — what impact will it have on the various groups and the entitlements they have to a formula or a percentage of representation on the senate?

Hon. M. Coell: There is no impact on the existing universities. This is a change only for the new ones.

R. Fleming: Actually, this is probably a section 10 question. So maybe we'll just proceed there.

R. Fleming: There is some interest here, I think, about the compositions and powers of the senate of the new special purpose teaching universities. They are of course not consistent with the research institutions, or the big four institutions as they're sometimes called. They are of a lower standard in all manner of representation for those that teach, those that work and those that pay fees to study at the institution. Their votes are of a lower number in terms of the major decision-making that this body has on academic matters.

I wonder if the minister could explain to me why it's important to him that those major components of the campus community — that their voices are diminished in relation to others who have an appointed or a board capacity within this body…. Is there a lower threshold of trust for special purpose universities to do a competent job designing new curriculum and making academic decisions than there is at the established institutions? If he can just provide as much detail as he can on that.

Hon. M. Coell: As we talked earlier, the Campus 2020 report had a lot of consultations around the province and came up with some recommendations — this one, basically, to set up the senate for the new special purpose teaching universities like the university council for Thompson Rivers University. It has worked very well. It is also in this act to be renamed a senate from a university council.

The recommendation of Campus 2020 on this model, I think, is consistent. It doesn't stop future governments from changing the senate around on recommendations, but I think that with the success of Thompson Rivers University, after a few years there may be some suggestions for changes. But I think this is consistent with the recommendations of the Campus 2020 report at this time.

R. Fleming: I would suggest to the minister that there has been a process of review at Thompson Rivers University, and there is dissatisfaction on the record from students and other stakeholder groups at the campus with how the current academic senate is composed.

There is a letter that I know is addressed to the minister himself regarding the anticipated debate on the bill here in the Legislature. It requests an opportunity to have their voices and perspective heard on how they would wish to reform the senate model that they have now and would enshrine senates, in general, in the legislation in this amendment act.

I want to just read a section from the letter and then ask the minister whether he's responded formally in writing or whether he would care to put his opinion on the record here today. The section of the letter I want to read here is the one that really comes to the heart of the request they are making of him as minister. It reads as follows:

I wonder if the minister could comment on that opinion. It is not one that is shared just by Thompson Rivers University Students Union, but it is also one that has been shared with me from the organizations representing students at now Capilano University, Emily Carr University of Art and Design, Kwantlen Polytechnic University, University of the Fraser Valley and the new Vancouver Island University, formerly Malaspina College.

Those are organizations that represent in excess of 30,000 students — in the case of Thompson Rivers 6,000 members of that student union who feel this way. If the minister could comment on these concerns, as they were addressed to him originally.

Hon. M. Coell: I have received those letters and read them. That's why I said that at some future date, a government could amend the senate for special

purpose teaching universities. I think at this time I'm going really with the recommendations that the Thompson Rivers University senate be the model, and I'm comfortable with doing that.

R. Fleming: A definition of sometime in the future could be just a couple of minutes from now. There's an opportunity for the minister to take care of the issues around democratic representation that students and faculty have in this legislation. Perhaps minutes from now I will ask him whether he would support doing just that by proposing an amendment.

I wanted to ask him where the very specific numbers of students — the limits, the constraints in this section of the bill as to how many elected voices students can enjoy at these new special purpose teaching universities…. How was the number of four arrived at, and why was representation of academics therefore diminished in the senate structure?

Hon. M. Coell: Again, that's the model for Thompson Rivers University — to have four students.

R. Fleming: The minister said that he might be agreeable to looking at this in the future, based on feedback. He has feedback now. The organization representing Thompson Rivers students wishes to change, to have senate representation that is in keeping with representation enjoyed at other institutions, the other universities.

He said he's read the letters. I'm wondering what impact they had and what consideration he's given them. I certainly think that committee stage of debate here is for both sides of the House and for all members here who wish to participate in debate to provide all the sober second thoughts that they can and produce the best possible legislation.

Rather than answer the question and say there may be a hypothetical date at some point far into the future, maybe in a different parliament, given the amount of time left in the life of this one, would he consider today — before we go forth and put Bill 34 into law — the strong opinions that student leaders at all of the new designated universities have put to him directly?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I'm comfortable at this time going with the amendments from Campus 2020, which reflect the makeup of the senate at Thompson Rivers University.

R. Fleming: I wonder if I could ask the minister a question about faculty representation on the special purpose teaching universities senate. How was the number of two per faculty arrived at? And could he also share with the committee stage of the bill whether he has received opinions from organizations that represent faculty members at these institutions?

Hon. M. Coell: I have probably received the same letters as the member opposite from the CUFABC and from the Canadian Association of University Teachers. I have read them. I haven't had a chance to respond to them yet.

R. Fleming: I would like to move an amendment to subsection 35.2(2)(h) of section 10 that refers to the number of students elected by the students to read as follows:

R. Fleming: If I can motivate on the amendment, that would be consistent with practice in other universities. It's one that all of the student organizations are supporting. It's one that Thompson Rivers, which has the most recent and direct experience with the model that's now being proposed for all the other special purpose universities, wishes to move towards. It's based on feedback from that experience at what was Cariboo College, now Thompson Rivers University.

The feedback that the minister requests before considering changes to the composition has already been given. It has been reflected upon in very recent years. He said that he listened to the University Presidents Council, which was the only group that was interested in abolishing the chancellor, and casually brought it up on two occasions in the last two years and didn't talk to elected senate leaders.

I wonder if you would give consideration to the strong interest from organizations that represent substantially greater numbers of people that have an interest in campus life and campus governance and accept this amendment.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said earlier to the member, I'm quite comfortable at this time moving ahead with the bill as it is, stemming from the recommendations of Campus 2020. I can't speak for future governments, but future governments would have an opportunity to amend this if there were problems found.

At Thompson Rivers, as I said, I haven't seen problems using this model in the last few years, so I'm quite comfortable moving ahead as the bill is printed.

R. Fleming: I want to ask the minister whether he feels that institutions and their academic governance structures are strengthened by the participation, the presence and the active involvement of student representatives.

Hon. M. Coell: I think that what you're looking for in a senate is balance. I think that we had commented

earlier that the universities' senates, specifically of the research-intensive universities, do not change. This structure has been tried at Thompson Rivers, has been successful, and I am comfortable with it.

R. Fleming: Well, the minister in his answer just said that he thinks what works best in these matters is balance, and I think that's what the amendment exactly proposes. It proposes not a very radical notion but the notion that the number of students would be equal to the number of administrators. That, to me — the equal number of each — is the very definition of balance.

What we have in this structure that's being advanced in this bill are the four student representatives, capped at that number, being outvoted and outnumbered by the chancellor, the president, the academic VP, the deans of all faculties — which can be any number, depending on which institution you're talking about — the chief librarian, the registrar and a non-voting member of the senate. I suppose that wouldn't impact the balance.

We're talking about a number of senior administrators that may outnumber by at least 2 to 1, maybe 3 to 1, student representatives on this academic body. Having considered that, I wonder whether the minister would personally define that as signifying balance — having three administrator votes equal to one student vote.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said to the member, I believe that the bill the way it's presented will work for the new universities very well.

R. Fleming: I asked the minister whether he thought that student representatives added value, made these institutions function better, and whether their input, in fact, strengthened both the quality of decision-making and the outcomes that they produce. I'd like to get his opinion on that as an answer, because he has been minister of this ministry for a number of years.

He has worked directly with all manner of representatives on these boards, and I'd just like to ask him whether in his experience student participation in an elected capacity on these boards has the effect of strengthening the quality of the decisions and improves the decision-making process itself.

R. Fleming: Well, I would like to ask the minister, then, if in his opinion he has seen and would agree to examine the importance of student representation in light of the fact that at the large institutions the numbers are equivalent to the number of faculties represented — one per faculty — and are the equivalent of the administrative voices there.

That is the balance, I think, that he said he was seeking, and it is not, unfortunately, part of this legislation. So I would ask the minister whether he would consider what works very well at a number of our established university institutions and, instead of having a two-tiered, substantially different, substantially less democratic governance model, adopt the one governance model.

He just motivated his views on cancelling having an elected chancellor, saying he desired to have consistency. He felt it was important to cancel out four universities' traditions to match the two that were appointed. Now, when the shoe is on the other foot and we're talking about representation on these boards, I wonder whether he would consider making these new institutions consistent with the existing institutions, UBC, SFU and UVic, that have actually benefited from many years of hard work and increased student representation on those senates.

Hon. M. Coell: Again, I think this is appropriate. It's a recommendation out of Campus 2020, and it's consistent with Thompson Rivers University, which is performing well.

R. Fleming: I just want to also ask the minister on this section of the bill for a response to a concern that he has received about the pending legislation from student representatives. It is the request that Bill 34 be amended on exactly this — that student, faculty and staff representation on the senates at the new universities be equal to the established research universities.

He's given answers to my questions that are basically on the same topic here this afternoon. He's had the request to ensure that these new senates have equal powers and responsibilities to the established ones. I wonder if he could, maybe, give an indication at the committee stage of debate here of how he has formally responded to those requests that he has received in the past couple of weeks.

Hon. M. Coell: I received those letters, I believe, around May 15 or 16. I haven't responded to them yet. Possibly our conversation in the chamber will be helpful to them.

R. Fleming: Was it the minister's intention, then, to respond through directing them to Hansard, or was it his intention to respond after the deed had been done, so to speak, after the legislation had been proclaimed? The minister was correct; May 15 was the date of the letter — last week. Is it his intention to respond, then, after this bill would be passed?

In other words, he won't take into consideration the concerns that have been raised by student organizations representing over 30,000 students until after he has made up his mind and has demonstrated that by voting accordingly in the bill.

Hon. M. Coell: I think this bill was tabled approximately a month ago, so people have had a chance to look at it. The intention, when government tables a bill, is generally to pass it.

R. Fleming: Madam Chair, I moved the amendment. I strongly believe that this is a critical opportu-

nity for us to improve the governance model. It is based on one that has proven effective for decades in the established universities. It would make the senate structure stronger. It would make it balanced, as the minister himself said he is interested in doing, by making student votes equivalent to administrative votes on that structure.

That has helped our universities become within the top ten in Canada. It has made UBC, SFU and UVic internationally renowned institutions. It has served us well in those institutions. I just think that Bill 34 represents an opportunity for us to put the best practices, put the features of excellence that we have in those institutions into law and to set them on a course that has served our other universities very well in the past.

N. Simons: I'd just like to make an introduction, if I have permission and the leave of the House.

N. Simons: In the House today I'd like to introduce a class of political science students from the University of Victoria and their professor Charles Horn. I've known Charles for a long time. He's worked tirelessly on behalf of first nations and aboriginal people in this province in the area of child welfare. He was also a legislative intern here about four years ago, when the Minister of Environment was a legislative intern. I'd also like to say that he's a very, very committed teacher. Oh, and he's a wonderful harmonica player too, so his students know that. Will the House please make the entire class welcome.

R. Fleming: I will beg the indulgence of the minister and appeal to the members on his side — again, on the issue of democratic governance for the senate institutions — to look at, with the new special purpose teaching universities, having the same faculty representation. The government has just declined to reciprocate student representation at these new institutions.

For faculty, I would propose an amendment that would match what exists at the established universities around having a true academic senate that is mainly composed of members of academia who teach and research at the institution. So the amendment would read as follows, if I can just read it out. I understand the minister has a copy.

R. Fleming: If I may, just to motivate on this amendment. This is a system that is at the very core of the definition of what a university is in Canada and in Commonwealth countries and in nations around the world. This is how senates govern themselves typically, and it is a feature that has added a dynamism and innovation over the years at our established universities in British Columbia.

It is a feature that I believe should be included in the new special purpose universities. I think it would add an incredible amount of value there and help these institutions carve out a niche and an identity for themselves — a specialization that we all seek and wish for these institutions as they pursue success within the advanced education sector in this province.

Bill 34 does not in fact grant the same powers and composition of an academic senate as we have traditionally known it here in British Columbia and in the other provinces of Canada. In fact, it greatly diminishes faculty representation on the senate so that, again, administrators will outnumber and effectively control the decision-making process at these institutions.

Why we think that is a bad idea is that at the core of any university is a collegiality — based on respect, on persuasion, on careful consideration and expertise that has been cultivated in areas that a university may wish to pursue, new academic tracks that they may wish to pursue. And it is fully debated there.

The governance model that we have had at our major universities has served us well. This amendment would seek to duplicate that at the new special purpose universities to make them all consistent in how faculty representation is proportioned, as well as in how it is selected, elected and then internally selected through joint meetings or in whatever manner the faculty determines, which are democratic methods internal to those faculties and those institutions.

With that, I would move this amendment and hope that it will be supported by the House. As we have discussed on some of the earlier amendments, which unfortunately haven't passed, this is really our one opportunity here in the spring session to debate legislation that was quite recently tabled and to get it right. We won't likely have an opportunity to review the University Act for some time.

This is an amendment that is supported broadly by organizations like CUFABC, the Confederation of University Faculty Associations, B.C. section. It is supported by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. It is supported by the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, who wish to have the same governance model as their colleagues in the established universities.

It is with that and for all the advantages that I've just spoken of, which I think would make better universities from the university colleges that they have been, that I move this amendment.

Hon. M. Coell: Just speaking briefly to the amendment. In the future, governments will have an opportunity to evaluate this senate and make changes if they wish. But at this point, I am going by recommendations of Campus 2020 and also the successes, I think, of the Thompson Rivers University senate — or university council, as it was known when it was begun.

B. Ralston: This was a section I was directed to ask the following question on. The name chosen for the Kwantlen University College is Kwantlen Polytechnic University. It is the only institution to be given that designation or that name, the element "polytechnic" being unique to this institution.

I've been approached by people who are wondering: why that choice of name? There is the sense that by choosing that particular name, unique among the institutions, it may suggest that there's something different about the institution that may have implications for funding or for the programs that will be launched there or for any number of things.

I might say, just in addition, that I and other colleagues, members of the Legislature, have met with the president and members of the board in the past. Certainly, representations have been made about the desirability of the university designation as opposed to the university college designation, but at no point — and I think I can speak for everyone who was at the meetings — was it ever suggested that they were requesting the term "polytechnic university" be applied to them.

I would also just note that in Britain, in England, a number of institutions were called polytechnics. They went through a very similar process to this one where the name polytechnic…. They were all changed to be universities. So amalgamating the two terms seems a bit unusual. I would ask the minister, since this is the appropriate section: why was that name chosen, and at whose recommendation?

Hon. M. Coell: Thank you for the question, Member. I guess, simply, a polytechnic institution is an institution that provides courses in technical and vocational matters as well as bachelor's- and master's-level programming. I think, really, the name recognizes and reflects what Kwantlen is doing now.

I could give you an example, I guess. BCIT, of course, is recognized as a polytechnic institute, and that brand is well known and respected, I think, throughout Canada. The difference between BCIT and Kwantlen is that Kwantlen offers the academic programming in addition to the technical and vocational, and they have continued to develop the academic side as well as the technical side.

B. Ralston: Well, I admit to being confused. In section 14, which we just passed, the definition of a special purpose teaching university says that it "must do all of the following: (a) in the case of a special purpose, teaching university that serves a geographic area or region of the province, provide adult basic education, career, technical, trade, and academic programs leading to certificates, diplomas and baccalaureate and masters degrees…."

What the minister has just said is that this institution isn't any different from the other two that are receiving a slightly different description. That's the definition. So how is Kwantlen any different from the proposed University of the Fraser Valley, for example? Can he explain the differences and why the choice has been made here? Because so far, he hasn't answered the question.

Hon. M. Coell: I think, too, you need to look at the proportion of programs offered. Right from Kwantlen's beginning, it's been highly involved in trades and technology, and it continues to do that. At the same time it's developed some very, very good academic programs. They have, I think, the ability to do both, and to do both in a big, successful way.

B. Ralston: Well, I don't disagree with the minister's characterization of the successes of the institution. I'm just wondering, particularly on behalf of those people who work there or those people who might want their children to attend there, why this title has been chosen as opposed to the title that's been chosen for the proposed University of the Fraser Valley.

The University of the Fraser Valley, similarly, has academic programs, and it also has technical programs, so there doesn't appear to be any difference. There may be some slight difference in the mix, but given the definition of a "special purpose, teaching university that serves a geographic area or region of the province," they're obliged to provide that variety of programs.

Hon. M. Coell: Again, it's the mix of the programs. Another example would be the Emily Carr University of Art and Design. That name reflects what they do and reflects it in a more succinct way. I think that polytechnic university lets people know the mix and the type of programming that Kwantlen has. I think it suits them.

Ultimately, it's the ministry in conjunction with the board chair and the president of the university who discuss the names. I understand that the chair and the president are both in agreement with the ministry that polytechnic should be in there.

B. Ralston: Again I'm going to return to the contrast between the University College of the Fraser Valley and Kwantlen University College — not too far apart, in roughly the same geographic region and, I would suggest, offering roughly the same mix of programs. Why was the polytechnic designation chosen for Kwantlen and not for Fraser Valley?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the ministry believes that it adequately and accurately reflects the mix of programs as to what Kwantlen does.

B. Ralston: Will the minister confirm that neither the board nor the president of Kwantlen requested the addition of this polytechnic term to the title of the institution — that it was at the instigation of the ministry, and they were obliged to accept the ministry's suggestion?

Hon. M. Coell: With all of the new universities there were discussions on names, and ultimately, it's the ministry's responsibility. In this case, I believe the board chair and the president are both in agreement with it.

B. Ralston: As I've stated — and it's pretty clear I'm not going to get an answer to this, I'd suggest — at no point in the discussions that I or a number of other members of the Legislature had with the board and the president of Kwantlen was the term polytechnic ever referred to, asked for or requested in any correspondence, in any meetings whatsoever. So it seems to me that a reasonable conclusion is that this is something that the ministry decided was appropriate. Will the minister confirm that?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess in the long and short of it, it is a government bill. It's my bill, and I am supporting the names.

B. Ralston: Well, it's clearly not an answer, and I don't expect I'm going to get one.

Then, moving on to a slightly different element of this question, given that the ministry has chosen and the minister has chosen to give this institution a different title, a polytechnic university, different from every other institution in the province…. The reason that's given is apparently some sense of what the mix of programming is there.

What implications does that have for future funding of this institution, given that it's based on some kind of sense that the mix here in this institution is different from, for example, the University of the Fraser Valley? The question arises: what are the implications for future funding at this institution?

Hon. M. Coell: I can look at the track record of funding for Kwantlen as well as the other university colleges. They've all been treated very equally and fairly over the years. I think that with this designation it actually opens up more doors for Kwantlen, because it will have a much more diverse program mix.

B. Ralston: Is the minister saying, because people will be looking at the record of our exchange for some assurance from the minister, that funding will not be cut? It might be thought in some quarters that calling it a polytechnic university, as opposed to a university, implied a lesser mission or something not quite up to the loftier heights of a university, which is what has been sought by the Kwantlen board for some time.

Given that, will the minister say here, on the record, that the change in name will not affect the future funding of this institution in any way at all?

Hon. M. Coell: That is the intention, but as I said to the member, I view this as an opportunity that funding for a variety of programs is opened up on a much larger scale.

B. Ralston: One of the anxieties about calling the institution a university has been that trades training or adult basic education, which colleges have historically done very well, provided access to adult learners at a level of accessibility, in terms of geography and in

terms of fees, that are just easier to get to and get into. They've been very successful in that. The anxiety is that these institutions, if they change their names, might change their notions of themselves and their missions and let some of those programs fall.

Is the minister saying, by opportunities, that the commitment to those programs remains the same in the view of the ministry and of himself as the minister?

R. Fleming: I had a question about another institution but not for the same purposes as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley, who had concerns about polytechnic being a differentiation within a differentiation and perhaps penalizing them as they develop or as they try and access funding from the government.

My question was really around, I guess, some of the arbitrariness of name changes. This is perhaps more humorous correspondence that the minister has received than the serious stuff that we talked about earlier around representation. This is simply to do with Malaspina University losing a name that many people have become attached to and that they feel is known as part of Nanaimo, in accepting the name change to Vancouver Island University.

I don't particularly have any strong feelings one way or the other but ask here at this stage of debate just so the minister can maybe explain how it was arrived at that the connection with the old name at Malaspina University was not pursued in this instance. With regard to some of the other special purpose universities being created in this bill, there is that connection to their past.

Hon. M. Coell: Malaspina, when it does change over, will still keep the Malaspina campus. It really reflects the area that Malaspina serves. It's very much serving from the Cowichan Valley up way past Nanaimo. We hope to see a new campus in Duncan, I think, with a different name that reflects more of what we're expecting.

Also, from a marketing point of view — for international students and for marketing — I think it gives them an advantage that they can use overseas. When the Olympics are here in a year or so, I think that having that new name, Vancouver Island University, will give them an advantage with the international community as well. And they do a lot of work as that, again, in the area they serve.

B. Ralston: Just a broader question about the implications of this process that the minister set out where some now university colleges and colleges will be designated as these special purpose universities.

Would the minister share his thoughts as to what the implications are for the remaining colleges in the system, of which there are a number, given that there now appears to be a separate tier being created which, just as the minister has said, will be considered perhaps more attractive for what he calls marketing purposes to foreign students?

Where does that leave the rest of the colleges in the province? Has the minister thought, or does he care to share his thoughts, about what implications that might have for them in terms of their ability to attract students in the future, given that this extra value has been placed around the university title for some institutions but not the majority of the remaining colleges?

Hon. M. Coell: You know, throughout the hundred-year-plus history of post-secondary education in B.C., it's evolved and, I think, evolved to meet the needs of the citizens of the day.

We have a tremendous college program throughout the province with literally dozens and dozens of campuses in small areas that meet those needs. I think what we're seeing with the needs now is that you've got research-intensive universities. You're going to have teaching-intensive universities and, then, a very vibrant college system.

More important for me are some of the recommendations out of the Campus 2020 report, and it's the collaboration between the colleges and the universities, the research universities to the teaching universities. We'll be working on that in the years to come, and I think that the focus right now is going to meet the needs of what the citizens of B.C. need.

B. Ralston: Would the minister care to share his thoughts about what the implications are for colleges in their ability to attract some of the same kind of students that this new tier of teaching universities that's being created is proposing to go after? Are there any thoughts or have any studies been done about what the implications might be for their enrolment and the kind of students that they seek to attract?

If the proposition is accepted that for foreign students, which I don't accept entirely…. But say, for the purposes of argument, that somehow the university title is more attractive to foreign students, what are the financial implications for the ability of the remaining colleges in British Columbia to attract foreign students to their programs, as many of them do now?

Hon. M. Coell: That's a good question. I think one of the aspects of British Columbia, if you look at how the…. Even since the university colleges were created some 15, 16 years ago, there have been literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands more people in British Columbia. We're attracting at all levels. Whether it be UBC or Northern Lights College, we're attracting international students because of the quality of the entire system. I think that what we're seeing at the colleges is their ability to expand into international students in areas of specialty.

UBC has such a broad range of programs that they're attracting people who are coming here to do bachelor's and master's and doctorate degrees. Some of the colleges are attracting people who are coming here to do English as a second language and who then move into the college system and on to the university system.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister, under this section of the bill, about some of the selection criteria for the five institutions that are becoming special purpose universities. I think the three university colleges — UCFV, Malaspina and Kwantlen — were widely anticipated. They were backed by Campus 2020 recommendations to become designated as regional universities.

There was a public process, and there has been a longstanding debate and interest in, I suppose, abandoning the designation of university college, simply because it's not well understood. It is kind of a double-compound label. You know, is it a university, or is it a college? It was confusing to many outside our jurisdiction, but it was well understood in B.C. that it was a place of excellence.

I understand how that is backed by campaigns that have long generated interest in adopting the name university. I understand Emily Carr well. I know that institution well, and the minister has explained very well why he selected Emily Carr to become a university. They have a very narrow but important specialization and focus and have also, within the gamut of fine arts and arts degrees offered there, created all kinds of new innovative programs, even at the master's level. So their time had arrived, quite clearly, in the view of many people familiar with that institution.

Less understood and less well explained, perhaps, is Capilano College. Just so that we understand that there was no arbitrariness or favouritism involved in the selection of Capilano College, I wanted to ask the minister some questions about that. Certainly, from the perspective of Langara College, Douglas College, even Vancouver Community College — very large institutions, relatively speaking, that serve the Lower Mainland, just as Capilano College does — they were turned down and not given any consideration. They're not in this bill.

Many of them wonder why Capilano College will become Capilano University when, for example, VCC — Vancouver Community College, which has 25,000 students, considerably more than Capilano College, perhaps five times more — did not get that consideration. Similarly, there was Langara, with their longstanding links to Simon Fraser and UBC and the density, if you will, of the university transfer program at Langara — not considered, not in this bill.

I wanted to ask the minister if he could explain how Capilano College was selected. I know he may offer what he said in second reading debate, which is that Capilano College serves a distinct region, but to my mind it is based in Metro Vancouver, just as are the other institutions I mentioned who were not selected to be universities. It's on the North Shore of Vancouver. The North Shore is very well represented within post-secondary participation studies. North Shore students who reside in that region have tremendous access to SFU and UBC and attend in high numbers, disproportionate to other regions in Metro Vancouver.

If the minister could explain why and how, most importantly, Cap College was selected when so many other colleges have not been chosen.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said in second reading, the catchment area for Capilano College is really the next logical area for the number of people it serves. It really stretches from, you know, North Vancouver through to Pemberton and the Sunshine Coast. As I joked with your member from the Sunshine Coast, who actually signed the petition to have Cap College be a university….

The idea of what we have is that when you're doing this…. Possibly the members of the opposition wouldn't believe that government would do this, but we're trying to think ahead ten, 20, 30 years. The area that Capilano will serve — Squamish, Whistler — is going to grow significantly. We're going to invest in a new campus in Squamish in the near future, and also on the Sunshine Coast. We're looking at ways to expand there as well. You're going to see a population base that is quite significant served by a university.

R. Fleming: I must say I'm not completely satisfied with the answer. The minister has basically tried to carve out an explanation saying that there is a distinct region when 80 percent, perhaps 90 percent, of the students are based at the North Van campus, which is in Metro Vancouver, very solidly within the catchment area of greater Vancouver. There are some satellite campuses; it's true. The biggest would be in Squamish, and in Pemberton as well.

That's no different than, say, North Island College, which has satellite campuses up and down the coast, well away from Vancouver Island and not within, say, the same health authority region that Vancouver Island is in. Many of our colleges in every part of the province, whether it's the Okanagan or northern B.C., have reach beyond the town where their main campus may be in and have a number of satellite campuses.

Again, that's a strength of the system, but it's perhaps not a reason that's adequate in my view to explain why Cap College was selected over Langara or Douglas College or Vancouver Community College in Metro Vancouver. They're all within and serving the same population, potentially.

There are arguments I could construct, and I tried to argue one off the top of my head as to why Langara might be more deserving, given their links with SFU and UBC on transfer programs to those universities. But that would be off the top of my head and be arbitrary.

I want to be convinced that Cap College didn't get some kind of special treatment that didn't fit the other four or five institutions that we're talking about and that are empowered under this bill to become special purpose universities. If the minister could maybe help me a little bit more with whether there are some other reasons why, of the Metro Vancouver region, Cap College was selected.

I should also say that the concern my colleague from Surrey-Whalley raised, which is how do the

community colleges know that, inadvertently, by designating more and more special purpose universities, we're not demeaning or even diminishing the excellent work that community colleges do in B.C….

I could build a very good case as to why Selkirk College should become Selkirk University. The Kootenay region, which is much larger than the Sea to Sky region that the minister is suggesting Cap College uniquely serves, is much bigger in terms of population and serves communities at Castlegar, Trail and Nelson. There was no consideration that I'm aware of that Selkirk College become Selkirk University or that College of the Rockies in Cranbrook become the Kootenay-based university.

Again, I need a better reason than that Capilano University is somehow the flagship university of Sea to Sky country, and I would ask the minister to maybe provide that here now.

Hon. M. Coell: Neither the member nor I live on the north shore of Vancouver, stretching out from North Vancouver to Pemberton and Sunshine Coast. But I can guarantee you that the people who live there believe that they should be able to have a university or university degrees closer to home. As I said, it's the next populous place.

You mentioned Selkirk. Well, Selkirk has a population to draw on of about 77,000. Capilano has a population well over a quarter of a million to draw on. There's definitely a region there — from North Van through to Pemberton and the Sunshine Coast — that is growing rapidly and will continue to grow rapidly. So that's the main reason.

R. Fleming: It's not a region as recognized on any planning maps or any regional district boundaries that we would commonly use with local government. It's not even a region as defined in a major consultation that this ministry has conducted in this term of its mandate, the Campus 2020 process, which had a distinct map of British Columbia that referenced where the institutions were and where people could participate.

This, to me, seems like something that's being made on the fly and is a rather spurious argument, because most people in the North Shore, who are residents of Metro Vancouver, who pay taxes into TransLink, who are in the same health authority and every other layer of government and who view themselves as residents of greater Vancouver, attend the main campus of Cap College.

Fine, they have some satellites, as almost every college in our province does, up the highway to Whistler and beyond, but they are a Vancouver-based college like many others that I have listed. If the argument is that there are a quarter-million people on the North Shore, primarily the North Shore, and that somehow it's underserved because it's a certain distance from UBC and SFU…. Well, you know, Maple Ridge, even Richmond and Delta are longer commutes from Simon Fraser and UBC and the major universities in the Lower Mainland.

I would ask the minister just to maybe tease out some details, if there was something more there that gave Capilano College that special consideration that apparently other colleges within Metro Vancouver didn't receive.

Hon. M. Coell: As I say, you and I don't live on the north shore stretching from Pemberton and the Sunshine Coast to North Vancouver, but I can almost guarantee that the people over there are happy to see a university there.

R. Fleming: Just on the answer, the one new detail that the minister has provided is that it would seem that part of the criteria for designating special purpose teaching universities is to make people happy. If happiness is the goal, I wonder if he had canvassed, again, one of the two institutions that serve the Kootenay region or one of the three institutions that serve northern British Columbia, or perhaps looked at an additional distinct regional university in the Okanagan. The only university they have there is actually part of UBC.

There might have been a happiness quotient that could have been reached that the minister would have been equally pleased with in those regions. I wonder if he did in fact do that.

Hon. M. Coell: I think a lot of those discussions did happen during the almost year that Campus 2020 took place.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise when he expects that the act will come into force? It comes into force by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor. When will the new names become official?

Hon. M. Coell: I know that the new universities are aiming for the fall. We're going to work with them. Thompson Rivers took about four to five months before they were able to make the transition.

Hon. M. Coell: I would move that we rise and report completion without amendment.

Bill 34, University Amendment Act, 2008, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

L. Krog: I'm delighted to see the government wanting to move very quickly this afternoon. I'm always glad to see the government on its feet.

With respect to section 1, I'm just asking: what's the point of this section, given that we just passed the Adult Guardianship Act last year and it hasn't even been proclaimed yet?

Hon. W. Oppal: The amendment here is a drafting clarification of the original policy intent. It's a housekeeping matter.

Hon. W. Oppal: As I stated a moment ago, it's to clarify the original policy intent that a property guardian could only make a new beneficiary designation on behalf of an adult in respect of a newly purchased investment.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can explain the effect of section 2.

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose of this section is that it amends 63(2) of the Adult Guardianship Act, and it provides a regulation-making authority to allow regulations to be made to provide exceptions from the general requirement that an adult's incapacity be automatically reassessed upon discharge from any mental health institution.

L. Krog: So if I understand the Attorney General, it's again another example of where cabinet will be given the power to make further regulation as opposed to this Legislature passing legislation that would actually have the effect of making the changes that cabinet might desire to make from time to time.

Hon. W. Oppal: What this amendment does is it addresses the concerns that were raised by health authorities that the automatic assessment requirement may be impractical and unnecessary in certain circumstances. The policy rationale here for the automatic reassessment requirement is to ensure that an adult does not remain under statutory guardianship unnecessarily. However, there may be situations where exceptions could be considered.

L. Krog: Yes. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can explain the effect of section 4.

Hon. W. Oppal: This amends section 20 of the Power of Attorney Act to add a provision that clarifies the authority of an attorney acting under the power of attorney in respect to beneficiary designations. So the provision like that for property guardians, essentially, clarifies that an attorney may only make or change a beneficiary designation on behalf of the adult for whom he or she is acting, in limited circumstances. Those circumstances are set out there. That is, if the court authorizes a change, if a new beneficiary designation is being made in a new instrument, the beneficiary is the adult's estate. So matters of that nature.

L. Krog: Again, just to clarify, this would, I take it, relate to designations under — what? — RRSPs, RRIFs, insurance policies? What sort of instruments are we talking about?

L. Krog: I couldn't resist rising and asking a question around the Business Paper Reduction Act, which is, in fact, being repealed. It's a shocking thing that when we're thinking about coming into a green world, we'd be repealing an act that supposedly had as its intent the reduction of business papers. I'm just wondering if the Attorney General can explain this.

Hon. W. Oppal: The Business Paper Reduction Act was repealed because it was made redundant by the Business Corporations Act that was passed in 2002.

L. Krog: So I take it that this terrible statute has been on the books now for six years, causing great

problems within the legal community, and that we're now finally getting around to repealing it.

L. Krog: Well, I want to compliment the Attorney General on the speed with which government has dealt with this serious issue, and we can perhaps move on to the next section.

L. Krog: This provision allows private degree-granting institutions to grant honorary degrees, and I'm just wondering where the drive for this particular change came from.

Hon. M. Coell: A request from private universities that they be given the same authority as public universities.

L. Krog: Given that, in the opposition's view, governments aren't funding post-secondary education in the public system appropriately, it strikes me that the effect of this section would be, indeed, to encourage people of wealth or corporations to donate money to private institutions as opposed to those wonderful public institutions, which this government has in this session just created so many more of in the province.

I find some striking disparity, if I may say so, between the purpose of proposing new public institutions and creating so many more of them and then encouraging private degree-granting institutions by ensuring, perhaps, that some person of no other great skill or value in society other than the ability to make a great deal of money gets to now drop a big pile of cash down on a private university and get some wonderful building named after them — as opposed to doing it at a public university, where the public has already supported such institutions at great expense.

Hon. M. Coell: It clears up an inequity. A private university that has an act has the ability. One that goes through the degree authorization route doesn't have that ability, so it makes, I think, the private universities all the same in having that ability.

L. Krog: So I take it, then, that the government's purpose in this is, essentially, to make equal, if you will, public institutions and private institutions.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the rationale here is to make the private institutions that have the ability to grant an honorary degree equal to those that don't have the ability because they don't have a separate act, so the private sector will all be treated the same.

L. Krog: Surely, the minister would agree that the conferring of an honorary degree is one of the ways in which society recognizes the important contribution of individuals, whether in arts or culture or often, unfortunately, just through the contribution of moneys.

Essentially, what this provision does, if you will, is debase the coinage of honorary degrees. We're now essentially allowing numerous other institutions that may not have had that ability to do exactly that — to grant honorary degrees.

In other words, the person who has made a long and distinguished career at, perhaps, SFU in teaching is granted an honorary degree, and the person who represents some minor, if you will, private institution with 300 students grants a degree, and society is going to look on them as both being doctorates?

Surely, the minister understands my point in this particular provision — that, in fact, we are indeed debasing the coinage of honorary degrees and the significant recognition they deliver or provide to people who receive them.

Hon. M. Coell: I think I would fundamentally disagree with the member. I think that when I look at the people who are recognized with honorary doctorates in both the public and the private sector, it's usually for the good works they've done during a lifetime, not the money they've given.

L. Krog: Perhaps the minister could tell the House how many private degree-granting institutions operate in B.C. presently and how many of them, under existing legislation, have the power to grant honorary degrees.

L. Krog: So if I can understand the minister's rationale here today, we're told that he's trying to bring consistency, and the minister can't tell this House how many institutions in this province actually grant honorary degrees and have the power to do so. How many private institutions have that power already? Can the minister even give me a guesstimate?

Hon. M. Coell: I believe there are about 15. This is about making equity within the private system.

I'm just wondering if the minister could explain the effect of section 9 and why it's necessary.

Hon. C. Taylor: The point of this is to adjust for the new phased retirement plan that we are bringing forward with this legislation. Currently, the provision

says that if a marital breakdown has happened before a pension is being received, the former spouse has the option of waiting until the person retires and then receiving a pension. Because we will now be bringing in a phased retirement possibility, rather than say that that spouse now has to wait perhaps much longer than they had expected to receive a pension, they would be able to receive a proportionate share of the phased retirement benefits.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could explain why it's necessary to make this change and what the policy rationale behind the change in section 12 is.

Hon. C. Taylor: This is improving governance and bringing it up to standards. There was some concern that when the same people were serving as chair and vice-chair of both FICOM and also the tribunal, there was a potential for, if not conflict of interest, a difficulty in the perception of it being a separate and proper tribunal. So this is to separate those appointments. They'll be different people.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just to advise members. By agreement, the sections involving the Forests Minister, which I believe are 14 through 28, will be deferred for discussion at a subsequent time.

L. Krog: I'm just wondering if the minister can explain why the change has to be made with respect to the listing as a public body.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised and can inform the member that the change is a consequential…. The amendment to section 2 to remove the appeals advisory committee is consequential to the repeal of the Scholarship Act, which is proposed later in this legislation.

L. Krog: This section, as I understand it, provides that a matter which the act says "must be referred to a judge can only be heard by a judge if an adjudicator decides it should be referred if the judge accepts an application." Was this a change, a request, from the UBCM or any other bodies? Again, what's the policy rationale for it?

Hon. M. de Jong: The advice I have and can pass on to the member is that the request for the amendment was not initiated by the UBCM though by a review of the legislation. It has been thoroughly reviewed and canvassed with the UBCM, who, I am advised, are supportive of the change.

M. Karagianis: Can the minister explain what the implications are and why the definitions are being added to the Motor Vehicle Act?

Hon. K. Falcon: What we're doing here is to allow for designation of highway lanes or highways. It's particularly going to be important during the Olympics, when we will have to make decisions on how to move traffic effectively, especially official vehicles or athletes or what have you, along any of our highway corridors. It's been written in such a way that it will allow us to continue to have that flexibility even after the Olympics is done.

For example, on the Sea to Sky Highway…. Post-Olympics they have an annual cycling race. It's a very big cycling race. We would be able to designate a lane of the traffic to be utilized for the cycles on that race, and it would allow us to also identify traffic control persons or individuals or groups of people that will be able to direct the traffic on those designated laneways. So it's allowing us the ability to effectively move traffic during major events, and obviously the Olympics would be a major one.

M. Karagianis: Does the ministry not have that capacity right now to do all of that kind of direction and designation for events?

Hon. K. Falcon: Essentially, what it does is provide us with more certainty. It provides us with more detail in terms of what would be allowed and what would not be allowed in terms of designating a lane or lanes on the highway system. So it's really about making it very clear what the powers would be and how they could work.

Hon. K. Falcon: There would be no cost, at least that we can think of. This is enabling legislation that would just allow us to make a designation. You've already got the highway there. Basically, as an example, what you're saying is: "This lane of the highway is going to be reserved for the exclusive use of moving athletes from 9 a.m. till 11 a.m. in the morning." They would be able to zip along that lane of highway, and no other traffic would be able to.

It's really just about making sure that we've got the flexibility to undertake those kinds of decisions, and do

them effectively and efficiently, to move people around at a major event like this.

M. Karagianis: Does this not require some kind of installation of something — either signage or…? I mean, I would certainly think, in the examples that the minister has given, where you're now going to designate, say, a lane of the Sea to Sky Highway as being very specific for athlete access only, that it's like having an HOV lane or something very similar. I would think that you're not just going to throw a bunch of red cones up and say: "Well, for the next eight hours nobody use this lane."

What kind of installation is going to be required to, in fact, create that kind of designation and to be able to alter that, as the minister said, so that it's only in effect for some days, some hours, specific events?

Hon. K. Falcon: What we would do is we would use existing signage. For example, if you had a sign that said "HOV lane," you might temporarily change that to say "designated use lane," or something, "for the Olympics."

In more cases than not we would likely utilize permits — it's referenced in the legislative changes — where permits would be given out and provided to whoever would be using the roadways for those designated periods. Then the traffic control people would be making sure that people have the appropriate permits before allowing them to continue on.

M. Karagianis: Whose responsibility, then, is the traffic control system, the policing and monitoring of that permitting?

Hon. K. Falcon: With respect to the Olympics, we're in the midst of discussions right now with VANOC in terms of how we're going to deal with the issues of transportation around the Olympics. The legislation allows for delegation of responsibility from the minister to ministry staff. Obviously, we want to make sure that people on the ground can make decisions quickly, as they need to. It allows for delegation to the municipalities.

It's enabling legislation which gives us the flexibility to ensure that decisions can be made promptly, quickly, without too much of a bureaucratic process involved, particularly when, sometimes, decisions need to be made very quickly on the ground. This enables that, it allows that, and we believe that the consultations we'll be having with VANOC will get us to a point where, as we develop the transportation plan, we will have a very clear sense as to how all of this is going to work. This just gives us the flexibility of making sure that we can appropriately delegate those decisions.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I can sympathize with the government's challenge here. I know that when I worked in government in 1999, in the Ministry of Transportation, we looked then at what was going to be required to move the appropriate amount of traffic along the Sea to Sky Highway to Whistler in order to try and satisfy the demand of both moving athletes and moving family members, goods and services up and down that corridor, and supplying opportunities, of course, for people who have purchased tickets to access the Olympic events up in Whistler. It was a challenge then — no question whatsoever.

Is it anticipated, then, that the entire Sea to Sky Highway is likely to be a permit-only zone during the Olympics event time period?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's part of the work that's underway right now as we build a transportation plan and work on it with VANOC. Clearly, there's going to be a heavy emphasis on public transit. No question about that.

There's going to have to be a fair bit of work done to figure out what the likely traffic volumes would be and what the most efficient way of moving those people would be. There's no question that buses and transit are going to be a big part of that because we want to, obviously, reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles as much as possible.

What these changes really do is just allow the appropriate delegation of authority to MOT staff that are going to be on the ground working as part of this or to municipal officials or to traffic control people — flagpeople, for example — that have the ability to act quickly and make decisions in terms of moving the traffic along, which traffic goes into which designated lanes, etc. We still have a lot of work to do in that regard, but what this legislation does is enable us to have a decision-making structure that will work smoothly not only during the Olympics but even beyond the Olympics.

As I say, we are periodically approached within the ministry — I have been, on many, many occasions — by groups that are planning…. Often it has to do with cycling events where there are enormous numbers of cyclists involved — thousands, sometimes — in some of these major races that need to utilize highway corridors. There's a major safety element associated with it.

This will enable us to be able to designate, for example, a lane of the highway temporarily — during a brief period where those cyclists, for example, might need to go along that particular route — and do it in a manner that's safe and has the appropriate number of traffic controllers, etc.

We think the legislation is going to be efficient and very helpful not only during the Olympics but also during any other major or even minor events that are going to involve large numbers of people, vehicles, buses or what have you.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, there's a big difference between a cycling event of a few hours that occurs once a year and shutting down the entire highway to permit-only use in the Sea to Sky corridor for the entire Olympic venue, because you have to move traffic up there, and you have to move traffic back.

Hon. K. Falcon: To the member's last point first: there will be no cost associated with the permits. The permits will be issued to accredited associations — athletes organizations and what have you — to make sure that we've got the proper movement of traffic.

To the member's first point about shutting down the Sea to Sky Highway to permit-only access, that's not what I said. What I said was that we are developing a transportation plan. A transportation plan has to be pretty broad, because it's not just the Sea to Sky Highway. There are venues, as you know, throughout the Lower Mainland. It requires an enormous amount of cooperation and consultation with affected municipalities, etc. But it also requires the flexibility to be able to make decisions wisely, efficiently and quickly.

For example, if in Vancouver they need to have access to a route at a certain time in the morning to be able to get athletes from the athletes village to one of the venues, then it's likely that there will be a designated lane made available just for the athletes between certain hours. Maybe it's between nine and ten or however long they think it's appropriate, in terms of time frame, to move those people along that particular corridor.

There's a fair bit of work that has to be done on this, but this is all part of the learning experience. We're trying to gather information from other host nations. We're trying to learn from some of the experiences of jurisdictions that have held major events like this and also those that are holding them, like Beijing, for example. We are still working on that plan, and I just don't want the member to think that we've landed at the final solution there yet. We haven't.

M. Karagianis: Again, let's go back to the not-so-hypothetical case of the Sea to Sky Highway where permitting will be given out, as the minister has indicated, to organizations and athletes that need to move back and forth along the corridor. Certainly, there are a lot of local communities along that corridor, from Britannia Beach to Squamish and beyond, that need to move back and forth in that corridor. Often, some of those people may commute to work back and forth, up and down that corridor. How are they going to be treated? How do they fit into this model plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's what I meant when I referred to "authorized persons." So for example, anyone that is a resident or a tenant or lives anywhere along the corridor would be, certainly, one of those groups of folks that would be recognized as authorized people with the right, obviously, to travel back and forth. We're not in any way intending to make it not possible for people to get to and from their homes or places of work.

Again, that's part of the discussion that we will have. This is enabling legislation that just allows us to be able to deal with this in a sensible manner and ensure that decisions can be made so that, for example, if a local individual shows up and needs to get somewhere, the traffic control person, recognizing that this is an authorized individual, can very quickly say, "Go; yes, you can head along here," or what have you.

M. Karagianis: Now, let's anticipate the case of tourists who are trying to access areas that have nothing to do with the Olympics. Certainly, there are lots of very attractive tourist areas along the Sea to Sky Highway, and there may be lots of visitors who in fact are not necessarily coming for the Olympics or interested in the Olympics.

How are you going to discern between those members and the large volume of people that have to be moved back and forth on that corridor in order to satisfy the needs at the Olympic village?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's part of the very wide-ranging discussions that we will be having with tourism associations, chambers of commerce, residents and communities. All of those will be part of the discussion that we're having. We do want to make sure that as we develop the transportation plan we do it in a way that recognizes those exact issues.

At the end of the day, we want this to work for as many people as we possibly can, and I think that the enabling legislation we're talking about here really gives us that flexibility to make sure that we will be able to deliver on the ground to benefit those seasonal tourists that may be there unrelated to the Olympics, etc.

M. Karagianis: It does dawn on me that we're going to designate a highway or portions of a highway for such events as the Olympics, but we are going to allow athletes, their families, those servicing that area, all local traffic and tourists. What would be the point of having a designated lane? It would seem to me that it is the definition of everything that would be used on the highway.

Where is the need for a designated highway, if in fact this is going to have to encompass every conceivable kind of traffic that would go up and down the corridor to the Olympics?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's why we're engaging in and will be engaging in a very wide-ranging, consultative process to ensure that we plan this and put it together in such a way as to meet the needs of all the respective groups the member talked about.

Clearly, not all of them will be driving at the exact same time. By working with them and developing proper communication protocols, we can ensure, for example, that residents are not choosing to go back and forth during the peak periods of when you're going to perhaps be moving lots of athletes or officials through on buses or what have you. That is part of the discussion we're having now.

Unfortunately, for the benefit of the member, we won't be able to provide all the answers today with respect to those kinds of issues, only because we still have an enormous amount of discussions, and we do have significant time to engage in those discussions.

What we are doing here, though, is making some changes which were identified in consultation with our MOT staff — understanding the needs and requirements of a major event like this — and VANOC to make sure that we had legislation which enabled us to properly carry out the decisions that need to be made periodically in terms of allocating a certain lane or lanes on certain roadways or highways that will be necessary to effectively move people around, but we still have lots of work to do on the transportation plan itself.

M. Karagianis: The minister does, then, anticipate that there will be some prohibitions on who can and cannot access these designated areas?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. The whole point of this is that as we go through the discussions that we are going to have with the various groups, we will identify through those consultations where and at what times you would want to have prohibitions in place for temporary periods. It may be from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. when you're trying to move athletes, for example, up to the venues so that they can compete effectively — whatever the case may be.

Yes, there will be periodic times in managing traffic where you will have prohibitions that state that only those with authorized groups or individuals or what have you — those with the appropriate permits — will be able to utilize certain lanes on the corridor or corridors.

M. Karagianis: Is this consultation, presumably, going to involve those municipalities that will be affected along the Sea to Sky corridor, the business community, the chambers of commerce? Because, I think, that just the anticipation that there would be any kinds of prohibitions there….

I've lived in Squamish, and I know that often, if you're required to do any business back and forth on that corridor, prohibitions can be seen as being pretty counterintuitive to the largesse that those communities are expected to participate in around the Olympics. So this could have huge economic costs to those communities if there are prohibitions on who can come and go in certain hours along the Sea to Sky Highway.

Hon. K. Falcon: Look, I think the member must recognize that when you're putting on an event on the scale of something like the 2010 Olympics, there are, obviously, during that two-week period when you will have the bulk of the activity, going to have to be some reasonable decisions made in terms of how the highway is utilized.

You'll be happy to know that many businesses and many individuals, in fact, recognizing that this two-week event is coming along, actually adjust their work schedules, adjust their personal schedules and they make the kind of normal, rational decisions one would expect to make when they know there's going to be a huge influx of people into their area to celebrate a very important event.

The experience in jurisdictions that have hosted the Olympics is that there is a tremendous amount of good faith and cooperation amongst communities, amongst chambers, amongst businesses and amongst individuals that take place. We don't for a second think it will be any different here, and we will be fully consulting all of the groups that the member mentioned, including the municipalities, to make sure that as we develop the transportation plan, we get it right.

M. Karagianis: I think that the minister certainly is making an assumption about what the communities may or may not perceive as their right to travel up and down on those highways and have free access into and out of their communities.

Now in the case of the traffic control person, because I see in the first three definitions being added here — designated use of the entire highway, designated use of a lane and then this issue of traffic control persons…. Is it anticipated, then, that there will be additional staff hired under the ministry in order to satisfy this? Or is this a contracted-out scenario? How are you going to incorporate this concept of traffic control persons? It's a long corridor at the Sea to Sky, and one would expect that there may be need for more than one traffic control person in a distance that great.

Hon. K. Falcon: When we talk about traffic control persons, we will be utilizing properly trained staff, properly trained volunteers, in some cases utilizing Ministry of Transportation expertise. There may be public safety officials — police, for example — that would be involved. Those are the kinds of people that we would be referencing when we talk about traffic control person.

Hon. K. Falcon: Noting the time, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ENVIRONMENT AND MINISTER
RESPONSIBLE FOR WATER STEWARDSHIP
AND SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES
(continued)

S. Simpson: It's good to be back in estimates again. It's like old home week.

I wanted to start this with some discussion that will revolve not totally around the resource summary on page 32 of the service plan, which talks about some funding levels. We'll talk about that and some FTE levels — just a few questions around that. We'll also ask some questions related to the minister's accountability statement and then probably move from there into climate change issues.

The budget, between the 2007-2008 restated estimates and the estimates for '08-09, shows an increase of a little less than $35 million in overall spending. I see that the biggest piece of that is the water stewardship piece, at about $24 million. Could the minister tell us what that money in water stewardship is for, as the biggest piece of the increase?

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member is referring to page 101 of the estimates book.

Hon. B. Penner: Okay. I don't have that document right in front of me. But referring to the estimates book itself, on page 101, under "Ministry Operations," it does indicate an increase of $22 million for water rental remissions.

Last year saw the ordering of at least two significant water use plans for B.C. Hydro, the Peace and the Columbia systems. That increase of $22 million represents, effectively, the cost or the impact of those water use plans.

S. Simpson: If I reflect back on last year's estimates, the water remissions piece, the $22 million that the minister talks about…. If I'm correct, much of this is a bookkeeping exercise related to B.C. Hydro and the ministry. It's the movement of money related to remissions on that. So it's more of a bookkeeping exercise than dollars related to staff or specific programs. Would that be correct?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is essentially correct in terms of the water rental remission process. I'd like the member to have a briefing about it sometime and see how he feels after the briefing, because I know I never feel particularly good afterwards. But I'll let the member perhaps experience that sometime and try and have the explanation from the accountants about how that works.

A couple of other changes in terms of the water stewardship division of the ministry, there's a $1.76 million adjustment related to climate-related monitoring networks, and that is mostly hydrometric monitoring. I think there's an adjustment of three FTEs for that as well. There's $641,000 extra to reduce permitting and licensing backlogs and to improve enforcement. There's $150,000 to assess climate change impacts on water quality, and one FTE. There's another lift of $172,000 for negotiated salary increases, in addition to the $22 million for water rental remissions.

S. Simpson: I thank the minister for the offer of the briefing. Maybe if I have nothing to do over the next year, I'll take him up on that.

The minister made a comment here about hydrometric water monitoring and an additional commitment, I think he said, of $1.76 million into that area. Could the minister tell us — since he's referenced that, maybe I'll just ask it now: what will that mean in terms of additional stations or hydrometric services?

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that a plan has been completed for the Okanagan region in terms of where we would want to locate additional hydrometric monitoring stations. In addition, the ministry is looking at upgrading a number of existing stations to convert them to real-time or near-real-time data monitoring. This is particularly useful in the event of an anticipated flood event, or the concern about a flood event, as we're able to see with some accuracy and some immediacy what's happening to actual river levels.

I don't have a precise breakdown with me at this moment about how many we expect will get launched with this $1.76 million lift this year, but I would hope to get that fairly soon.

S. Simpson: I'm happy to wait for that information. Possibly, if the minister could provide information that essentially says, "Here's how many we have today, here's how many we will have when we implement this, and here's how many of the existing ones will be upgraded or improved with the new real-time technologies," that would be helpful information, and I'd thank the minister for that.

The budget, generally, when I look through the areas…. I'm just going to walk through these, and I'm sure the minister will be able to enlighten me. In most of the areas the increases look like they're largely cost-of-living-related kinds of increases. I'm sure that in areas there are some program increases. Could we get some idea of what those program increases look like in a couple of the other areas within the expenses?

Environmental stewardship. We have about a $4 million increase in the budget between the '07-08 restated estimates and the '08-09 estimates. It's about $4 million for environmental stewardship. I wonder if the minister could tell us what those dollars will be spent on.

Hon. B. Penner: I think the member made reference to cost-of-living adjustments or changes to reflect that. About $661,000 is allocated for negotiated salary increases. I think that's what the member was referring to, that cost of living. There are other changes as well.

About $1.935 million is for the management of new protected areas — developing management plans, employing park rangers and park supervisors for some of the new areas that are currently before the House, I think, in the form of Bill 38, if my memory serves correctly.

Hon. B. Penner: Pardon me. That's for last year's new parks that were established.

There's $300,000 to assist with fish hatchery maintenance, $207,000 to reduce permitting and licensing backlogs and $400,000 for the park enhancement fund special account. That was something that was established, I think, via Bill 2 this session. I should also note that the $207,000 to reduce permitting and licensing backlogs…. There is also a component there for improving enforcement, and there are three FTEs allocated to that.

S. Simpson: The minister talked about how the bulk of that, or a large portion of that, is related to management planning and park rangers for some of the new areas or the areas that were put in place last year — I believe the minister said for the conservancies or parks that were identified and legislated last year.

Could the minister tell us how many new rangers and supervisors were added, with that budget last year, to be able to support those plans, those new facilities?

Hon. B. Penner: We're still just trying to pin down exactly whether some of this funding that's in the budget is for the conservancies that are before the House this year. I had corrected myself, perhaps in error, when I said that it's just for last year. It may, in fact, be for the ones currently before the Legislature. Greater minds than mine are trying to sort that out right now.

For last year, '07-08, we saw an increase of five FTEs in terms of the park ranger positions, which translated into approximately, I'm told, 11.5 additional positions. They're typically just used on a seasonal basis. For this coming year, 2008-2009, we're looking at an extra four FTEs — or translated into something just more than nine positions.

S. Simpson: The portion of funds that the minister spoke about that are for planning purposes for the new conservancy or park areas…. I believe it's for management planning areas. How much of that allocation of the $1.9 million is allocated for the planning component versus, obviously, what some of these dollars will pay for staffing commitments as well? How much of those dollars were going to the management planning component, and what's the expectation about what that will be able to accomplish in terms of management plans?

Hon. B. Penner: I think I can best answer the question by breaking it down in terms of FTEs. The $1.935 million allows us an additional 11 FTEs. That will, I believe, fund three park planners — people who have a planning function — four area supervisors and then four FTEs for park rangers for this current year, which, as I said earlier, translates into something over nine positions.

S. Simpson: Maybe I'll come back to this area when we get to the parks discussion, because I don't want to get into too much detail about parks until we get to parks.

If I look down, again, in the core business areas, environmental protection gets about a $4 million lift from the restated estimates to the '08-09 estimates. Could the minister tell us what that $4 million will largely be spent on?

Hon. B. Penner: The member notes correctly that it's an increase of about $3.984 million for the current fiscal year, 2008-2009. Of that, about $1.8 million is targeted to support climate action initiatives such as reducing tailpipe and large industry emissions, work on landfill gas recovery, modelling and emissions inventories, and conducting climate change assessments. In total, that supports eight FTEs.

There's $394,000 to reduce waste through industry product stewardship. So we've added some resources there, including two FTES, for the product stewardship initiative.

The member will know that we recently announced our intention to expand the electronic recycling program to include things like cell phones and BlackBerrys, which are fairly ubiquitous around this building and get exchanged frequently, and also to develop an industry-led product stewardship program for products containing lead and mercury.

There's $207,000 to reduce permitting and licensing backlogs, again to improve enforcement, with two FTEs allocated there. Then there are a number of initiatives that we're funding that are related to improved reductions in air emissions, including helping fund the Green Fleets B.C. program. I think that's a partnership with the Fraser Basin Council, if I'm not mistaken. We provide some funding for them.

We're working to develop a provincial anti-idling program, and that's being funded out of these additional dollars. As well, we're funding the wood stove change-out program, which we're working on, particularly in rural communities and in partnership with a number of municipalities.

S. Simpson: I was trying to add it up. I'm not sure I got it all — the total number of FTEs that that whole package puts together, please.

Hon. B. Penner: Ten FTEs. And I was remiss. I did not mention $357,000 for negotiated salary increases under this particular heading in the ministry for environmental protection.

S. Simpson: I want to move a little bit down to the issue of FTEs and staffing levels and get a little bit of information about some particular staffing levels. I'll start with conservation officers.

Could the minister tell us how many conservation officers we have in British Columbia today — how many FTEs there are, and then, how many it is in a total number; we know that number changes because of seasonal efforts — what that number looks like and whether we're adding FTEs or other COs in this budget?

Hon. B. Penner: I suspect that we'll have to try to answer this in a couple of pieces, because I'm getting these numbers fed to me in different ways. The long and short of it is that I'm advised that we have 140 FTEs in the current budget, if I'm not mistaken, for conservation officers, and someone will tug on my pant leg if I'm incorrect.

This will allow for five new year-round conservation officer positions, which we announced maybe six weeks ago.

Last week we also announced regionally that we were able to find additional resources in the ministry to fund an additional year-round position in the Fernie area in southeastern B.C., so there'll be six additional year-round positions.

Well, I'll sit down. We're trying to find how that number would compare to last year. There is some difference, again, between FTEs for year-round versus seasonal, because some of the positions are seasonal.

This year it's our expectation that we won't have as many seasonals as we had previously, but we'll have more that are year-round. Partly, I understand, that's a reflection of the labour market and the ability to recruit and our ability to retain people to come back another year when they're seasonals.

S. Simpson: I'll be sure, when I have questions about things I'm not sure of…. I will be asking the Chair to confirm those matters for me as well.

Another category of staff that I know has…. It becomes an increasingly important area, in my view, as we deal with matters of climate change or of biodiversity. That's our science staff. Could the minister tell us how many biologists of different ilks, professional biologists, we have working, through MOE currently, with the government? Has that changed at all in this budget?

Hon. B. Penner: For fiscal 2008-2009 we're hoping to recruit an additional 21 positions for biologists. I was just getting a quick verbal briefing on how some of the postings have gone so far. Apparently, we are attracting considerable interest from applicants across the country. That's encouraging, as I was asking what our likelihood of success is in filling all 21 new positions, given the labour market today and how people have other options. Apparently, we are getting good response to our postings.

Last year we had 267 positions for biologists, and this year we're projecting 288.

S. Simpson: What about in the area of the other sciences — science technical officers, who play the other key scientific role, I believe, within the ministry?

Hon. B. Penner: Apparently, we don't have a comparative number for last year, but for this year, in terms of science officers, we have a total showing of 122. To give the member some flavour for the types of positions, I see a number of agrologists, engineers, foresters, geologists, others and….

Hon. B. Penner: Evidently, I was reading from the wrong category. Maybe I'll just get clarification before I continue with my answer.

Carrying on, design professional engineers are also considered licensed scientific officers. In addition, we have another category, which totals 387 science and technical officers. I don't have a breakdown of what all those positions are specifically, what their titles are, like I did for the other category.

S. Simpson: With the science officers, I'm not looking necessarily for a breakdown. Does the minister have a sense of whether that number, the 387, has grown from what it was last year? Or is it to grow? Is it changing with this budget?

Hon. B. Penner: We expect that the numbers have gone up. We don't have an exact breakdown here of how much they've gone up, but there has been additional hiring taking place.

S. Simpson: With the conservation officers…. When I look through…. I'm drawing a bit of a blank today. I'm sure I'll get it right, though. The minister will enlighten me. When I look through the core business areas…. The COs show up in which of the core business areas?

Hon. B. Penner: They should show up under the compliance and enforcement division of the Ministry of Environment. If the member is looking at the same page that I have in my hand, it should be the fourth item down, under "Core business area," under "Compliance."

S. Simpson: Under "Compliance," I have…. It's the fifth one down — "Environmental protection" and then "Compliance."

If it is under compliance, can the minister tell me why we're adding six FTEs in compliance yet, when I look at the increase, it goes from 152 to 153 in terms of FTE increases in that area? So we're out a few. Is there something else happening around compliance where those numbers fall off?

Hon. B. Penner: In terms of approved FTEs, there's an increase of one, but I'm advised that there were five last year that we did not fill — five authorized FTE positions. So this year we are filling those, and in addition, there's an extra one that we expect to fill as well.

S. Simpson: I think that in terms of some of the numbers, just some of the general numbers here, that probably is good by me.

I was going to move the discussion over to issues that relate to the section on the climate secretariat and climate change, so I don't know if you want to change some folks.

My first question in relation to this…. I know we've had this discussion before, and it was about a year ago or so, maybe a little less. I'm wondering, because maybe it's better clarified now…. We have a situation, as I understand it, where the climate secretariat, when I read through the service plan, is situated within the Office of the Premier, but it's within the budget of the Ministry of Environment.

My question to the minister is, first of all: is that accurate? If so, how do the reporting relationships work for the secretariat in relation to the Premier's office or in relation to his office?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. We did canvass this at some length last year. You'll note from the budget documents that the climate action secretariat is funded through the Ministry of Environment, but it's administratively located within the Premier's office, because the climate change initiatives do cut across all ministries of government.

One of the primary roles of the climate action secretariat is to support the climate action committee of cabinet, which is a cabinet committee that meets quite regularly and has a fairly demanding schedule. The climate action secretariat, among its other duties, serves as a support to that committee of cabinet.

S. Simpson: I just wanted to clarify that this is the right place and time to be discussing the service plan of the secretariat and the objectives in the service plan. I'm getting a nod from the minister here, so we'll just move on and accept that as the case. I was a little unsure whether it was here or in the Premier's estimates next week. But this is good.

I know that there have been some changes in the staffing of the secretariat that we've heard about. One of those changes was Louise Comeau, who was the senior staff person responsible for community engagement for a number of those aspects and outreach. I believe that Ms. Comeau was let go. Could the minister tell us whether that position has been filled?

Hon. B. Penner: I understand that some recruitment activities are underway, including advertising and posting of a position or maybe more than one position, I believe, with the climate action secretariat. Some interviews have been conducted, but I don't believe that the hiring process is complete.

S. Simpson: One of the reasons I raise that particular position is because, obviously, as the minister will know, the question of how we talk to British Columbians about this issue of climate change is a priority for me.

I believe that it's the third bullet under the climate action secretariat listing for the "Purpose of the Secretariat" in the service plan. It says that it will "establish engagement processes with first nations, municipalities, other governments, industries, environmental organizations and the scientific community to facilitate their input into the planning process."

Could the minister tell us how that's going and provide some detail as to how that's going to play out over the next period of time?

Hon. B. Penner: In short, I'm told that the consultation process is going well. To give the member some flavour for this, the climate action secretariat has held meetings with the faith community. I personally attended a symposium with youth in Vancouver at the Wosk Centre, with about 150 young people from across British Columbia. The Premier and I had a chance to engage with young people there for a day-long session.

There have been sectoral symposiums across different parts of the province focusing on agriculture, forestry, mining, and the oil and gas sector. In addition, the climate action secretariat has ongoing working groups in the following areas: agriculture, cement, the electricity sector, the forest sector, manufacturing, mining, and the oil and gas sector.

In addition, the climate action secretariat accepts invitations to come speak and make presentations to various groups or individuals. At last count, they've done so on at least 450 occasions, perhaps more. I'm told that no reasonable offer will be refused in terms of invitations to come and speak.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the answer, but what I'm looking for is something more than that. What the

service plan doesn't say is that the secretariat will respond favourably to people who ask them to come and explain what they're doing. It says it will establish engagement processes, and the first three groups that are identified are first nations, municipalities and other governments, none of which were on the minister's list that he just outlined.

Maybe what the minister could do is tell us what those engagement processes are that are going to be aimed at first nations, municipalities and other governments.

Hon. B. Penner: I appreciate the member for catching that — my omission to point out that the climate action secretariat has scheduled meetings with the First Nations Leadership Council where they discuss a variety of issues, including opportunities for economic development for first nations related to addressing climate change concerns.

Municipalities. There's been an ongoing dialogue with the UBCM since last fall, and I understand that those discussions are ongoing. As one example, just last week I believe that the climate action secretariat was invited and made presentations to the NCMA conference in Prince George. In addition, there's one full-time position within the climate action secretariat dealing with intergovernmental relations to engage other levels of government. We frequently do that vis-à-vis the federal government but also other provinces and our partners in the western climate initiative.

Oh, and I forgot for the second time here to mention that the climate action secretariat supports the Climate Action Team, which consists of 20 or so individuals representing academia, first nations, environmental groups, industry and others.

That Climate Action Team has been meeting regularly since late last year, and they're working on putting out a report by the end of July, if I'm not mistaken.

S. Simpson: I understand that there is the meeting, as the minister says, with the first nations leadership. Are there any meetings planned, in particular with the local governments who have expressed concern in relation to the carbon tax?

Hon. B. Penner: We are, through the climate action secretariat, in the process of arranging meetings with all seven local government organizations that submitted resolutions pertaining to the revenue-neutral carbon tax for the NCMA meeting.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us if there are any particular criteria that the secretariat is looking to make a priority when these engagement processes that are identified in the service plan come into play? Just to elaborate on that, are there any criteria about who needs to be contacted and how that engagement will work?

We know that community engagement is an art more than a science, an art unto itself. Usually, when significant engagement processes are put in place, there are sets of criteria about who gets engaged, how they should be engaged and how you deal with the information that they give you in terms of making sure that it's reflected in your work.

That doesn't necessarily mean you adopt it all and you do what is suggested to you, but you do want to make sure that you reflect that in your work so that those people who take the time to engage with the secretariat or with officials from the government have some satisfaction that they at least were heard. It doesn't mean that it necessarily changes decisions that are made, but at least they're heard.

Is there any set of criteria developed around how that engagement will work so that there's some satisfaction that it's going to be a successful engagement process?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that there are no preconditions set in terms of meetings. In fact, an invitation has been extended through the UBCM as well as through the NCMA for communities that would like to learn more about our climate action initiatives and how they can benefit from the revenue-neutral carbon tax by shifting taxes away from things that we don't want to tax as much, such as income or investment, while imposing a cost on polluting the atmosphere.

We're happy to meet any time with people who have concerns, ideas or suggestions about that.

S. Simpson: Maybe just a clarification about the purpose of the meetings. My sense of the minister's answer, and I'm sure that he'll correct me if I've misread this, is that the purpose of these meetings is primarily to allow the government to go out, to explain to people what the government is doing, to provide information about the government and its programs related to climate change and to answer questions about what it's doing.

So it is an information meeting or information process in contrast to a process where the government has objectives, has some programs in place — though certainly not fully fleshed out yet, we know — and is out talking about how those programs work or don't work, how they might be changed, where new initiatives might come from. So one is a consultation before the deal is done or completed, and the other is a public information process, which is important, to go out and explain to people what you're doing.

Would it be correct to say that the emphasis of these meetings, the largest part of these meetings, is about information dissemination on the efforts of the climate action secretariat and the cabinet committee and government policy, versus a discussion about what might or might not be a good idea? Maybe the meetings are different with different groups, and maybe the minister could explain that.

Hon. B. Penner: The dialogue is a two-way street. As I said, I think, in my previous answer, we look for

suggestions, concerns and ideas when we meet with these different groups. Initially, many of the discussions were pretty high-level, because in the throne speech last year we articulated our interest in a cap-and-trade system. We indicated our support for the notion of California tailpipe emission standards and requiring carbon sequestration if someone were to build a coal-fired plant in B.C. and get that approved through a regulatory regime. Those are all fairly high-level.

Now, we've introduced some legislation that sets some framework for further regulations to be developed in more specific detail. As we canvassed, I think, a little bit yesterday during committee stage debate on Bill 31, I think it might have been — about the greenhouse gas emissions reduction act — the various regulatory development processes within different ministries still take place.

We discussed yesterday about reduction of greenhouse gases from landfills. I was informed yesterday that the day before, the Ministry of Environment had issued a consultation paper. Pardon me, it's officially called an intentions paper, but for practical purposes, it's a consultation paper, where the ministry indicates the direction it wants to go and has some specific ideas. It says: "Please get back to us" — in this case, by September 15 — "with your thoughts, concerns or suggestions about how things could be made differently."

So the climate action secretariat has engaged initially in some pretty high-level discussions seeking input and giving some comments about what we mean by cap-and-trade. For many people, what they want to ask is: what does that really mean? What does that concept entail? It's a fairly new concept here in Canada.

So we've engaged in those kinds of discussions. Now, with some more detail coming out, we're answering some more detailed questions and providing some more detailed information and engaging these groups and individuals for their ideas and continuing to work forward.

But it does not displace what happens in terms of the regular regulatory development process in ministries, such as …. I gave the example about the intentions paper for landfill gases. I'm sure — in the Energy and Mines Ministry, the Ministry of Forests and others — as they develop new policies to accomplish various objectives within their ministry jurisdiction, that they'll follow their established processes as well.

S. Simpson: I just have one more question that relates to this issue, and then we'll move to the next issue.

Is there any intention, in the list that's provided in the service plan and the other organizations that the minister has mentioned…. There was no discussion there, or I missed it, in terms of any public forums or opportunities for the general public to engage in a discussion either with the secretariat or with the minister or senior officials — for the general public, who may not necessarily be linked to a local government or a first nations or any of the leadership bodies that get mentioned here.

Is there going to be or is there any contemplation of opportunities for the general public, through forums organized by the secretariat, to be able to talk to people in government about this issue?

Hon. B. Penner: We don't have any town hall meetings scheduled, which is what the member may be referring to, but it's important to note that these various groups that have contacted us or that we've been speaking to are comprised of British Columbians. Whether it's groups like the B.C. Wildlife Federation or other associations that get formed by groups of individuals who are interested in various ideas or topics, they are comprised of regular British Columbians — people that live and work here.

In addition, I know that my office receives correspondence, either by e-mail or letter or sometimes by telephone, where people have specific ideas or suggestions. We're always open to that. We respond as quickly as we can and are always grateful to receive suggestions from the public.

In the era of the Internet and the fact that e-mail is now fairly ubiquitous, the volume of correspondence is pretty significant. People are not very shy or hesitant about sharing their thoughts or concerns when they have them. So we are certainly available.

I know the climate action secretariat receives correspondence themselves directly and engages in dialogue with people that way, as does my office. I suspect the member's constituency office, as well, is probably on the receiving end of quite a few e-mails, with people expressing their particular views around climate change and what we should or perhaps should not be doing about it.

S. Simpson: I wouldn't disagree with any of the comments that the minister makes. What I would note, though, is that part of the frustration — and this may change as the meetings…. The minister has said that the secretariat is planning to meet with all of the local governments and local associations who have expressed concern. Municipal associations have expressed concern about the fuel tax.

What we know is — certainly, some of it from direct discussion but often from media reports, for what they are…. We have mayors and councillors in those communities saying that they don't have enough information. They don't know what's going on. They just know they're at the end of this, and they have concerns that, rightly or wrongly, they should have.

So the concern that I have is that at some point the public, who are in those municipalities…. If that's the message that we're hearing, then that is also probably the message that mayors and councillors are delivering to their constituents. "We don't know. We know it's coming. We know what we see. We know what gets reported in the media or gets introduced in the Legislature, but we don't know really what the program looks like."

The climate change plan is yet to come. I see that in the service plan it does say that it will come, but it's not here yet. So that's the reason that I think that some kind

The other thing about this, just in terms of a practical, positive point of view…. I know that in communities…. I've visited a number of communities where the people in those communities are very active around this issue, are very engaged and concerned about this issue, and are looking at how they do things at a very local and neighbourhood level. They are trying to do things. It's not easy, because it's not easy to bring your neighbours together around things that require lots of action, necessarily. But I know that those efforts are being made.

In a positive sense, it may be that those are the kind of people, as much as anything, who are going to show up at a forum that might be held and say: "What do we do? How do we do things? What is the government telling us to help facilitate our being able to take some of that individual responsibility?" That is a very big cornerstone, I know, of the government's initiative — individual and personal responsibility.

Those folks need some help. They certainly need some help, because we're increasingly…. This is no surprise. There is a lot of money, potentially, to be made out of the climate change initiative, some of it very legitimate — for hard work and for providing important services. Some of it is a little more suspect, potentially, as people come up with schemes to make money out of this.

I know that the government would want to provide advice to individuals in communities to ensure, if they were looking at availing themselves of some of those things, that they went to the credible folks who would deliver real services or real opportunities that help them reduce their emissions, rather than to some of the folks who may be more suspect. So I think that there really is some room to do something at a community forum level to allow people their own voices.

That's not a question. That's just a bit of a chat here. I'm sure the minister will respond to it, if he feels so inclined.

I want to move down to another item on the list of the secretariat, which is to lead and coordinate the carbon-neutral public sector initiative. I just want to confirm that it's, I assume, in terms of the government's carbon-neutral position, which I believe is to be 2010, and then for local governments and others, it's 2012, I believe. Is that correct? Is that what's being led and coordinated?

Hon. B. Penner: To respond to the member's comment earlier about fuel tax, I just want to correct the record. I know that the member is consistently using that terminology, which I think is misleading.

It's quite different than previous taxes on fuel that have been imposed at the federal, provincial or local level, which are only measured in terms of volume of the fuel sold. What's quite different about the carbon tax, which is revenue-neutral, is that it's imposed according to the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent that's generated by the combustion of the particular fuel source. So it's quite unlike any other fuel tax that has been imposed previously.

It is a carbon tax, which most academics and environmental groups insist is going to be necessary if we're going to make a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions and actually place a price on pollution that goes into the atmosphere instead of using the atmosphere as a free garbage dump.

That's a phrase that has been coined by Prof. Mark Jaccard. I know he has written many articles and books on this topic. He says that any government or politician is being less than honest if they're going to pretend to voters that they can make significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions without actually putting a price on carbon. The revenue-neutral carbon tax is designed to do just that.

For more carbon-intense fuels, the tax is going to be higher — for example, for coal. But for natural gas, it'll be substantially less. The reason for that is that it provides an incentive for industry and a signal to individuals that the price of using more carbon-intense fuels will go up over time because of the impact that those more carbon-intense fuels have on the atmosphere. We're trying to shift individual behaviour, corporate behaviour and government behaviour towards less carbon-intense fuels or, at least, less carbon-intense emissions.

If you can find ways to capture those carbon emissions from the fuels, then we don't have as much concern about that. But for the immediate future, for most of those fuels and most of the ways that they get combusted, that carbon is not being captured currently. So we're sending a price signal with the revenue-neutral carbon tax. As I mentioned earlier, that allows us to shift taxes.

I can remember the first time I actually heard about that idea. It was from a former NDP Environment Minister, Joan Sawicki, during a debate during private members' statements. It was then on Fridays that that took place. Things have changed a little bit in terms of the legislative calendar. Those used to take place on Friday. I remember her having a discussion with me. She started talking about the notion of the need to start shifting our taxes. Tax less of the things that we want, such as income and investment, and tax more of the things we don't want — for example, pollution.

That's exactly the principal behind the revenue-neutral carbon tax, and that's why our government is pursing that — because we are serious about attempting to drive down our emissions and meeting our legally mandated requirement of a 33 percent reduction by the year 2020. Part of that initiative includes attaining revenue-neutral status for the public sector by the year 2010. So this is an interim step toward our overall goal, but we felt it was important for government to lead by example. That's why the date is 2010 for the public sector to achieve this status.

The climate action secretariat, along with the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, is leading the initiative across government to help government ministries devise policies and initiatives within their various

jurisdictions, to help them attain carbon-neutral status. Our first priority is to reduce emissions wherever possible and, where there are emissions that simply can't be offset — at least in the near term — then to offset those emissions through credible and verifiable offsets. The climate action secretariat is playing a role in that, but so is the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services, which has responsibility for coordination of government programs.

S. Simpson: I'll discuss some of Mr. Jaccard's work in a few minutes. Carbon-neutral, though, is the issue that I'm interested in at the moment, and I'm glad the minister got to that part of the discussion.

If I recollect the policy correctly, the provincial government is to be carbon-neutral by 2010. Is it the expectation that the government will actually achieve carbon neutrality or that it will be buying a significant amount of offsets?

And if so, what's the expectation today — not very far from 2010 — over how much will be an actual reduction in emissions and how much will be a purchase of offsets for carbon neutrality in 2010?

Hon. B. Penner: Just casting our minds back to only a few short months ago — although it seems like a long time ago — back in November we were debating Bill 44, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Targets Act. That act does set out a number of requirements pertaining to carbon neutrality for the public sector.

I've got a helpful little spreadsheet here. In terms of 2007 requirements that are imposed under the act, it indicates that we must determine the GHG emissions specifically related to travel. The reporting-out date of that, I believe, is June 2008, when we have to add up those numbers. The statement of relevant emission offsets applied by the provincial government has to also be completed.

We've already said that we will be assessing a price of $25 per tonne in terms of greenhouse gas emissions generated by government travel, and we're going to be establishing the Pacific carbon trust. It will actually be under the Ministry of Finance. It will be the entity that purchases the offsets on behalf of other government ministries, and they will be making sure that those offsets are credible and verifiable.

Other actions then required as you go forward in time will be actions and progress reports on greenhouse gas emissions and reporting on that by June 2009, and plans for further reductions also. All these that I'm about to mention must be reported by June '09: plans for further reductions; a determination, if the GHG emissions are specifically related to travel, of what those are; and again, a statement of relevant emission offsets. Some of these are continuing, but by next year all of these different factors, five of them, must be reported on what looks like an annual basis.

S. Simpson: Just to go back to the question: have the ministry and the secretariat made a determination, on carbon neutrality for the provincial government, of how much of that will come through an actual reduction in emissions and how much of it will come through the purchase of offsets?

Hon. B. Penner: We don't know the precise number yet. That still has to be determined as we tally up the various emissions from the different ministries and from their different forms of activities, whether it's business-related travel or other forms of emissions, I would imagine, related to office space heating, cooling, etc.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that that number might not be clearly defined yet as to what's achievable. In terms of its own objective — looking at 33 percent reduction in real emissions by 2020 — does the government have a target that it's looking to achieve in terms of real emissions reductions versus offset purchases?

Hon. B. Penner: There are no specific reduction targets set yet for 2010. Is the member asking about the 2020 target and how much of the 33 percent reduction overall for the economy is anticipated to come from offsets versus reductions? Is that the nature of the member's question?

S. Simpson: I hadn't gotten to that question yet, but it's coming. I'm going to move on a little bit, then, because I understand, and it's fair enough, that this is a work in progress, that the secretariat and the government have not yet determined what that balance will look like in terms of the final 2010 number, and that's fine. It's not unreasonable that that number wouldn't be totally identified yet as to what are actual emission reductions and what are offsets.

I want to get back to the carbon-neutrality question, because we don't have a lot of time for estimates this year. So I want to just move on to the broader carbon-neutrality question. Now, I believe that for more junior levels of government and others, there's a 2012 carbon-neutrality date for those bodies to become carbon-neutral by 2012. That's accurate.

Could the minister tell us who's captured by that 2012 date in terms of carbon neutrality among local levels of government, school boards, whoever. Who gets captured by the 2012 date?

Hon. B. Penner: Just to draw a distinction between the 2010 requirement under Bill 44 that we passed last session, in November, which makes it mandatory for government operations to attain carbon neutrality, versus the voluntary commitment by local governments to attain carbon-neutral status by 2012. The B.C. climate action charter that I think more than 100 local governments have now signed on to…. Out of about 160 governments in B.C. at the local level, more than 100 now have voluntarily signed up to attain that status.

That's a voluntarily agreement that commits local governments — I guess municipalities and regional districts — to working with the province to make their operations carbon-neutral by 2012.

S. Simpson: Is that carbon neutrality…? Other than local governments…. Understanding that it's voluntary in nature, does that hold for school boards and other bodies that are some form of local government or local jurisdiction? Does it for school boards? How does it hold for health authorities and those kinds of organizations?

Hon. B. Penner: The B.C. climate action charter is only a relationship between the province, the UBCM and various signatory local governments. It does not involve school districts, as far as I'm aware. I don't believe that they are part of the B.C. climate action charter. I stand to be corrected on that, but I believe that the B.C. climate action charter was originally an idea that was worked out between the province and the UBCM executive. It has been offered up to various local governments and now, at last count, we've got 106 local governments who have become signatories, and I understand others have expressed interest in joining.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: other than being the right thing to do to deal with reducing or offsetting their emissions to the greatest degree possible by 2012, what is the province putting on the table in terms of assistance or resources or supports to assist local governments that want to meet the 2012 carbon-neutral objective? Are there incentives or resources? What information is made available by the province to assist those governments that want to try to achieve the 2012 voluntary objectives?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that the climate action secretariat has been providing advice to local governments that seek it in terms of attaining carbon-neutrality status by 2012 and remains willing and able to do so for others that may be interested in receiving that input.

In addition, there has been an offer extended through the UBCM for the provincial government to provide for the cost of the first year of local governments registering with The Climate Registry. That's an organization that was founded in California, but it's expanded now, and the B.C. government has indicated that we will be joining that registry as well. So we have extended an offer to local governments through the UBCM that we will cover the first year of their costs of registering with The Climate Registry.

I have to thank my colleague the Minister of Community Services here, because it's through her ministry that $1 million is being made available to local governments to assist them with their efforts to reduce their carbon footprint.

S. Simpson: In terms of a program, we're not seeing anything at this point. This obviously wouldn't come under the Ministry of Environment, but just a clarification here. In terms of programs around potential for infrastructure — issues of retrofit, issues to improve the efficiencies for local government — related specifically to this…. At this point there isn't such a program in place. I understand that there could be in the future, but there's not a program in place today — I don't believe; could the minister confirm that? — to support efficiencies by local government on their own facilities.

Hon. B. Penner: As I was about to say before we were interrupted by our colleagues in the big House for a vote, it's important to note that elected representatives of local government didn't wait for dollars to be put on the table before committing to the B.C. climate action charter.

In some ways you could say that the local governments were ahead of us here at the Legislature, because they voluntarily agreed to make commitments towards reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and obtaining carbon-neutral status even before we brought Bill 44 before the Legislature, which made it mandatory for provincial government operations to attain carbon-neutral status.

I want to commend the municipal leaders who had that vision and took the responsibility upon themselves to make that commitment. We're certainly pleased and happy to continue to work with them as they work towards their objective.

S. Simpson: I'm going to switch gears here a little bit in relation to this. The minister will know, of course, that back last year the secretariat let a number of bids. One of those was around some focus groups and that. I know that some of that information is up on websites now, and we've seen some of the response. I believe it was to the focus group information from Harris/Decima polling. So we've seen some of that.

The other bid that was let at that time was to do, I believe, some economic modelling looking at the impacts of some of the initiatives that the government was contemplating and looking at a number of issues around measurements. I believe that work went to Mr. Jaccard and his firm, which he operates when he's not teaching and writing books.

Could the minister tell us whether that work has been completed around the modelling by Mr. Jaccard?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm told that the work is almost complete. There are a couple more details still to be assessed. We've recently asked Dr. Jaccard to take another look at the recent changes in oil prices to see if

that would affect any of the projections or modelling that had been undertaken to date. As you'll know, the world price of oil has taken a further dramatic swing in the last 60 days or so.

Also, there were some details in the budget, particularly the carbon tax, which we couldn't make public until the budget was actually introduced. Dr. Jaccard had that. I think that work is pretty much completed. Now we're having one more look at the effects of the recent upswing in oil prices, which was higher than I think most people had projected in the last 60 days.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us if that contract is pretty much completed? Is that the only contract that Mr. Jaccard holds with the government on climate change?

Hon. B. Penner: The only other thing that I am aware of is that he has been retained to support the climate action team in some of the technical questions that they have as they're working to identify additional policy initiatives that the government could undertake to try and close the gap between the policies that have already been announced and that are implemented by government, and what will be required to get us to our 33 percent reduction target by the year 2020.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us what the value of those contracts is?

Hon. B. Penner: With respect to the work…. I think that the company he's formed is called Jaccard and Associates. For the work that's been done in terms of modelling the various policies that have been announced to date and the various macroeconomic impacts of things like the world price of oil and what that will do to carbon emissions, that contract is somewhere in the range of $200,000. For the work that he's doing to support the Climate Action Team, we're just checking on that number. We think that it may be in the order of $25,000, but that's work to support the Climate Action Team.

Of course, with the work that's being done, the economic modelling that Mr. Jaccard is working on right now for the government, I see that the government has posted — at least partly, if not entirely — certainly a portion of the results of the Harris/Decima work that was done. Is it the intention of the government to make public the economic modelling work that Mr. Jaccard is doing?

S. Simpson: So considering that that work is getting close to being completed — I believe that the minister said it's getting close to wrapping up — when can we reasonably expect that information to be posted up on, presumably, the secretariat's website?

Hon. B. Penner: I think in the next few months and certainly, I would hope, before the end of the summer.

S. Simpson: I had an opportunity to have this discussion a bit with Mr. Whitmarsh, when he provided a briefing for me back a while ago on some of the work of the secretariat, and I appreciated that opportunity. At that time we were talking about numbers that….

For a period of time there was a set of numbers floating around with government that had been reported in the media at least a couple of times. What they did was they presented a set of numbers that showed how the government was going to get reductions in sectors. I believe that they had identified, somewhere in this set of numbers, 24 megatons or so — about two-thirds of the way there to the overall number, or something like that.

I know that in my discussions in the briefing it was explained to me that those numbers were preliminary. They were not numbers that were necessarily being relied on long term for the work that was being done. They got out there somehow, but they weren't numbers that the secretariat was depending on.

Part of what Mr. Jaccard would be doing, I believe, was to try to get firmer numbers by sectors as to what emission reductions would be. Is that part of the work that he's doing, and is that part of the work that will be released?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised that what Jaccard and Associates has developed is considered to be the leading model for estimating greenhouse gas emissions and the effects of various measures in terms of curbing the use of fossil fuels, or at least curbing the emissions from fossil fuels. Despite that, it apparently doesn't break down too cleanly by individual sector. It's more of a comprehensive economy model that his organization operates. So we're looking forward to those results.

I can provide some clarification to my previous answer. In terms of the work that Dr. Jaccard has been retained to do to support the Climate Action Team, the contract is up to but not exceeding $24,500. So there is an expectation that, in fact, he may come in under that amount, because it's only as required by the Climate Action Team — but in any event, not to exceed $24,500.

S. Simpson: So what we know, then, is that in terms of his work around the climate initiatives for the government, Mr. Jaccard will be paid somewhere between $200,000 and $225,000 — somewhere in the middle there. That's the total amount of pay he'll get for all the work he is doing for the government, which is what I think we got with the other number.

Getting back to the minister's answer here about reductions by sectors. As we know, and I'm sure the minister will be reminded, there was that information that came out which identified emission reductions by sector. I know that there was a PowerPoint flying around at one point with the information. I don't think it's been out there lately.

What I think I hear the minister saying is that now there's been some attention paid to that and that Jaccard and Associates has been working on that and has been modelling for how to get to reductions overall. They've not yet been able to land on a sectoral model for measuring emissions and emission reduction possibilities.

So we're going to deal with a global number on the 33 percent, and we should dismiss all of that that we heard in the previous PowerPoint. We should just dismiss that or set that aside and now work with what, presumably, we'll get from Mr. Jaccard sometime in the coming weeks or months. Would that be accurate?

Hon. B. Penner: Two things are different, although not completely unrelated. What the Jaccard and Associates model does is look at a fully integrated approach to the economy — that different sectors are interrelated and can have effects on one another. What his results will do is give us an idea about what the cumulative effect of our various policies, implemented and yet to be implemented, will achieve in terms of overall reductions for the economy.

Within the Ministry of Environment we continue to look for where we think we can get additional reductions. I would expect, if the member is referring to a pie chart or something showing how much of the percentage of emissions is coming from agriculture versus transportation and so on, that we will continue to update that as we get further information and as more ideas are developed on where we can hope to achieve additional greenhouse gas emission reductions for different sectors.

S. Simpson: Actually, just to clarify for the minister, the information that I'm referring to was information that suggested what the emission reductions would be by sector. It identified a number of sectors — transportation, energy, other sectors — and said: here's how much these will be reduced by. This was information that, for some short period of time at least, was being used. I'm just trying to confirm that, in fact, that information is no longer being used, that it has been set aside, presumably, as not being accurate information or information that the government is prepared to rely on as it increasingly does more work on this.

With the work that is being done…. Let me ask a question that relates to a piece of legislation, as an example of this situation — a piece of legislation that we passed yesterday around the greenhouse gas vehicle emission standards, which I believe we got through and passed yesterday.

That piece of legislation, when I read the media around that…. It suggested that the reduction that would come from that would be about 600,000 tonnes. That's what would be accomplished by that piece of legislation and the tailpipe emissions in British Columbia. It put a number of 600,000 tonnes for emission reductions.

The question I would have is: if we don't have information that's firm on this, where does the government get the information to be able to put out a release that says this will reduce emissions by X amount of tonnage — in this case, 600,000 tonnes? I just want to know where that information comes from when the government takes those positions or makes those claims in relation to actions it's taking.

Hon. B. Penner: It would not be correct to say that the information that the member refers to has been discarded or is not used anymore. We continue to use that as reference, and we hope to have that updated in the future as we gather more information. What is ultimately important, though, is that we see an overall reduction of 33 percent by 2020 in order to meet our legal commitments that were contained in Bill 44 that was passed last fall.

The interaction of different policies and different sectors of the economy responding to those individual policies is extremely complex. In fact, it's been described as "PhD complex," which is why the ministry and the government have retained Jaccard and Associates to do this type of macroeconomic analysis. It's not something that's easily done on the back of an envelope if you want to have some kind of an overall sense of what will happen to the economy when you introduce various policies around carbon pricing, for example.

In terms of the projection of avoiding 600,000 tonnes per year of greenhouse gas emissions by adopting stricter tailpipe emission standards, we borrowed from an analysis conducted by the California Air Resources Board. They've been working on this issue since about 2004. I suspect they've spent millions of dollars.

What we were able to do is adopt some of that information and analysis about fleet types, etc. Then staff working for the Ministry of Environment applied some of that information to the types of vehicles and the size of the population that we have here in British Columbia and extrapolated a number of 600,000 GHGs that they expect will be avoided by the year 2016 on an annual basis through the adoption of the stricter California tailpipe emission standards. Those — the member is correct — passed the Legislature yesterday, much to my delight.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that answer — that the government is looking at the work that has been done elsewhere — because what we do know is that there has been extensive work done in other jurisdictions, more so than here in some instances, and we certainly know that we're playing a bit of catch-up here.

The Chair: With that, Member, we will take a brief recess until following the vote. Committee A is recessed.

S. Simpson: I have just a couple of more questions that relate to the secretariat. Then we'll move over to some biodiversity issues for a bit of time, and then some other members will be coming in to ask some regional-based and local-based questions.

I've got a couple of more questions. One relates to just looking for a bit of confirmation about where we're at right now in regard to the cap-and-trade and the WCI process. There had been some indication…. I know that Mr. Jaccard had been quoted in the newspaper. Clearly, he's not just an interested individual but a paid adviser to the government. He was quoted — I can't remember the context of the quote — as saying that it was possible that British Columbia would be not stepping out but stepping back as an active partner in the WCI discussion for now, to see where it all played out over the next period of time.

I believe that was in the context of some speculation about what the federal government in the United States might be doing post–presidential elections, about legislation that's in the Congress in the U.S. and about whether that created some uncertainty about where this is all going to land once you get, potentially, a national program of some sort from the United States. I believe Mr. Jaccard had made that comment.

I just wonder if the minister could enlighten us as to whether it's still full speed ahead as a full partner in the WCI or whether we are re-evaluating our relationship to the WCI to some different place.

Hon. B. Penner: It's true that Dr. Jaccard provided certain professional services to us through a contract. It was actually through a company, Jaccard and Associates, so it was not just him. In some cases, it may not be him personally; it may be people working for him.

But in this particular instance, with respect to the comments the member makes reference to, he was not speaking for government. In the context of those remarks, we remain fully engaged in working towards an agreement with the western climate initiative partners. In fact, we had staff attending in Salt Lake City yesterday for another one in a series of meetings that have been taking place. So we remain committed to the WCI process and are continuing our best efforts to work collaboratively with a number of jurisdictions.

The number of jurisdictions recently increased. In the last couple of weeks the province of Quebec has announced that they have also joined the western climate initiative. The province of Ontario has observer status and is watching closely. I don't know if they intend to seek membership, but they're certainly watching closely.

S. Simpson: We now have a little better idea of where the WCI is going. We've seen the draft recommendations that were being discussed this week by the folks in Salt Lake City. Those draft recommendations, while they're not totally clear, certainly do paint a much more complete picture of some of the things that the partners to the WCI are considering in their deliberations.

So I'd like to know when…. My question is not: when is the government going to take a definitive position? Of course, we won't see final recommendations for at least a couple more months from the WCI folks as discussion goes on. And then, presumably, the government will need to take some time after there's a final set of recommendations to determine its response to those.

But can we expect the government to make some comment sometime soon about some of the key questions that are raised in those recommendations? I think, for example, of the question of auction versus allocation, the question of scope, the question of thresholds. I don't expect detail but, say, those three questions, which are three core questions as to the success or the model that gets adopted…. When might we expect the government to have something to say about the general recommendations that are being discussed in Salt Lake City?

Hon. B. Penner: The purpose for the draft recommendations that were released yesterday at Salt Lake City is to stimulate additional comment and feedback. All the members of the WCI, including the province of British Columbia, are interested in hearing what people have to say about that.

I was just shown a list of the participants. I haven't tallied this up exactly, but something in the order of 350 different groups or individuals participated in the Salt Lake City meeting, either in person or through a less carbon-intense forum — what's known as a webinar. I think that means through some form of video teleconferencing.

We are eager to hear what people have to say about the proposed recommendations. Once we have a chance to hear what people have to say, we'll have more to say about the government's reaction to those comments.

S. Simpson: I know we are hearing comments back and have been talking to people who are in Salt Lake City or people who certainly are very actively interested in Salt Lake City and what's occurring there. We've been having some discussions, and ongoing discussions, with some of those participants. I expect that we're certainly going to see those responses relatively soon, particularly from some of the environmental stakeholders that are there but also, presumably, from some of the other groups.

In terms of the government making some comment…. If we're hearing from those organizations or from groups that are actively observing or participating in Salt Lake City, when might we expect to hear from the government around these issues?

The reason I ask that question is, of course, because we have the cap-and-trade legislation, which will be finished in some way, in some fashion, this session, and a lot of the uncertainty around that legislation is the fact that so much of it is by regulation. It's not substantive. It's enabling.

Certainly, some indications from the government as to what direction the government prefers to go on the

recommendations would probably provide a lot of important information for people who are concerned about how cap-and-trade might be structured. When might we expect the government to make some comment on this — assuming that the organizations that are there are going to have something to say relatively soon?

Hon. B. Penner: We don't want to unduly fetter the responses or the comments that we're going to be receiving and that we want to receive from a variety of stakeholders, whether it's the environmental groups the member mentioned or industry, who will have to learn to work within whatever new regime gets put in place.

As the member was suggesting, I think about two votes ago, we are interested in a consultative process. That means the government can't get out too far ahead in terms of being prescriptive about what we think this ultimate regime will look like.

I understand the interest on the part of some sectors for absolute certainty. On the other hand, we also want to give those sectors or those groups and representative organizations an opportunity to state their position for the record and for government to take those positions into account and also convey them then to our WCI partners as we work collaboratively to structure the cap-and-trade system.

S. Simpson: I'll wait until the government decides it has something to say about this.

One last question or two related to the climate action secretariat. It comes back to one of the points in the purpose of the secretariat and relates in many ways back to the discussion around community engagement. It's to establish and support the citizens conservation council, which I believe, based on the document, is intended to be up this year.

Could the minister give us an update on what the status of that council is, how people will be selected to participate or sit on it and what that makeup might look like?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. One of the things we're working on is establishing the citizens conservation council, which is something that we have made a commitment to do as government. The objective is to consult and engage the public, through using various tools and information campaigns and involving members of the public in this process.

I expect we'll have more to say about this in the next couple of months, but I think that you can expect to see a clear effort at regional representation or involvement with people through the citizens conservation council, so that people from all parts of British Columbia can have their voice heard through this new organization.

S. Simpson: I'll have one more question around that. Certainly, I got that the message from the minister is: "We don't have too much to say about it right now." I understand that.

When I think about the conservation…. Without talking about who is on it, because I know that's a determination still to be made, could the minister tell us what the role of the council is? Who does it advise? I assume it's an advisory body and not a decision-making body.

What is the role of the council, who does it advise, and will its deliberations or activities be public in nature?

Hon. B. Penner: My expectation is that the citizens conservation council will be subject to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act. It will be comprised of members of the public. The council will be formed to support British Columbia's mitigation efforts, similar to how the Climate Action Team is going to be advising government, hopefully by the end of the summer, with a report containing suggestions for additional policy measures, to close the gap in terms of the reductions we need to make in our greenhouse gas emissions to achieve a 33 percent reduction by 2020.

My hope for the conservation council is that it will advise government on additional ways that we can engage members of the public to undertake initiatives or actions on their part to assist us in reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well.

S. Simpson: The minister in his discussion of that and the Climate Action Team brings to mind one more question. He's reminded me of it here a little bit.

The Climate Action Team, as the minister says, is expected to report out with recommendations sometime at the end of July, or August. I believe at the end of July was the original date, but sometime in the summer to report out with recommendations around interim targets for 2012 and 2016, plus program recommendations to be able to achieve those targets and, presumably, to move us well on our way to the 2020 objective.

The last time that I asked the minister about — I had an opportunity; it might have been last year — how those recommendations would be made public…. I believe that the minister said at the time that all of the recommendations of the Climate Action Team, once they were made, would be made public, would be put up on the website for the ministry or the secretariat. People would be provided….

I asked about consultation. He talked about the standard environmental assessment consultation process that's 45 days on the website to take comments. Then, obviously, all of that information is taken for what it is, and sometime by the end of the year the government would make a determination about those recommendations from the Climate Action Team.

Is it still the intention…? Is that still the process that we're looking at — that the recommendations of the Climate Action Team will be made public, will be put up on the website and that the public will have the opportunity, at a minimum, to be able to make comments about those recommendations through the website?

S. Simpson: I was going to move on now to some discussions around some biodiversity issues. I thank Mr. Whitmarsh for his time.

Just some general questions related to biodiversity issues, species issues and that. We don't have an awful lot of time here. We just have a short period of time, so I'll just touch on a couple of issues.

When I go back and look at the minister's accountability statement, he goes on for a paragraph or so in the statement talking about eco-certification of commercial fisheries and issues related to the world-class management of the commercial fishery to meet market demands, etc. — looking for opportunities to cooperate on these with the U.S. jurisdictions and others in universities. Could the minister tell us a little bit about what that looks like and what funding or resources will be provided to be able to do that work around eco-certification of commercial fisheries?

Hon. B. Penner: British Columbia is committed to working with our industry partners to obtain third-party eco-certification, as the member was alluding to, in terms of the sustainable management of our commercial fisheries and seafood products.

British Columbia leads Canada in the goal of third-party certification of our fisheries as being sustainable. The Marine Stewardship Council, or MSC, certification is recognized worldwide and is the certification system of choice by major retailers in the United States — for example, Wal-Mart — in Europe by a company known as Sainsbury's and, as well, in Japan by a store I haven't had a chance to visit called Aeon.

The Chinese processing sector has also begun to demand MSC certification of products that are re-exported to Europe. In other words, they process them, package them and send them off.

Our salmon, hake, halibut and dogfish fisheries are in the full assessment of the MSC certification process. Through funding and technical assistance by the ministry, five more B.C. fisheries are in the preassessment phase, and several more will enter the process over the next several months.

We anticipate that certification of salmon — including sockeye, pink and chum — hake and halibut will be in place within the next year.

We are working with the federal government on this initiative. I've had conversations with the federal Fisheries Minister, Loyola Hearn. He's been, I think, very encouraging and very grateful for B.C.'s pursuit of this endeavour. Certainly, he thinks anything that we're doing in this regard is helping his objective, too, as minister responsible for fisheries at the federal level, in promoting Canada's fishery products worldwide.

S. Simpson: Is it the intention of the government to use eco-certification processes for the aquaculture industry as well?

Hon. B. Penner: The Minister of Environment doesn't have lead responsibility for promoting fish products from the aquaculture sector — my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Lands would have that function, I believe — but we are involved in promoting wild fish in British Columbia. That's why we've gotten involved with this MSC designation.

S. Simpson: I understand that the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has primary responsibility. Does that mean that if…? Since it is the government's intention — not just the Minister of Environment…. The minister is acting on behalf of the government on the eco-certification for commercial fisheries and for seafood products. Can I assume that the Minister of Agriculture, also as part of the government's position around eco-certification, would also be dealing with eco-certification for the aquaculture sector? If so, does the Ministry of Environment have any role in that as the primary ministry around matters involving ecology?

Hon. B. Penner: To be candid, I'm not entirely sure nor are my staff who are with me right here immediately aware what role MSC may or may not play with respect to products from aquaculture operations. They may or may not get involved in those types of certification processes or products from those types of facilities. I don't know the answer.

S. Simpson: I accept that. I'm going to move a little bit off the fishery and talk a little bit about species and wildlife at this point.

We've had a piece of legislation, the species protection act — I don't remember the bill number — that we dealt with in the Legislature. That piece of legislation was partly, at least, a result of the Wildlife Act review that the minister put in place last year. That review was fairly broad. It dealt with a wide range of things. It certainly had some priority areas, but it dealt with a wide range of issues.

There was some speculation that there may be more than one phase to the response to the review, so my question for the minister is: should we expect further legislation as a result of the review? Or is the piece of legislation that we've dealt with substantively the result of the consultation?

Hon. B. Penner: The member is correct. We did get a wide range of comments and suggestions in response to the Wildlife Act review that we undertook last summer. In some ways the response was oversubscribed. We got more responses than we really anticipated, and as I said, they were pretty broad.

As we worked to try to formulate those suggestions into potential legislative response, we encountered some concerns expressed from different quarters about some of those ideas, particularly as they would pertain to first nations interests. We certainly heard from the leadership council indicating that they felt that more time and consideration of issues as they pertain to first nations would be required for some of the broader-

The direction I gave back to ministry staff was to see if we could focus on areas where there was broad agreement and bring that forward as a perhaps smaller legislative package than I had initially envisioned. In large measure, that's what is before the House right now awaiting, I believe, committee stage debate. Nevertheless, I think the amendments contained within the bill are significant ones, and we've discussed them already in second reading. I look forward to debating those at committee stage debate in the near future.

In short, it does things like increasing fines for people killing endangered species and giving us the authority to regulate certain foreign species that could be harmful to the public. It gives park ranger officers additional enforcement authority under the Wildlife Act. So there are a number of, I think, important measures that had broad support, broad agreement and that I felt we could move forward with at this time. There are other ideas that were put forward that will likely require further policy analysis and further consultation with a variety of stakeholders.

S. Simpson: I would agree with the minister. I think that the legislation…. I've heard there are some differences about some of the aspects that relate to hunting, but for most of the other aspects of the legislation, I think, there is fairly broad support. Certainly, the comments that I have heard have had more to do with what's not in it than what is in it in terms of discussion that people have had with me.

This will certainly come as no surprise to the minister, but much of the discussion that I have had has related to progress that people are hoping the government will make around species-at-risk matters. We know, of course, that in the review there was discussion around regulatory options within the review package itself. It did talk about some of that and what those options might look like, and that was good.

We also know that the minister's colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has done work on that, first in relation to the mountain caribou recovery plan. I know he had subsequent discussions with people that I know and some of the conservation organizations about what something more comprehensive might look like. I know that was a live discussion for a while. I'm sure that the minister was part of that discussion, since there's a significant crossover of responsibility as it relates to these matters between who's responsible for the dirt and who's responsible for the animals. That is a question.

So the question that I would have for the minister is: knowing that there certainly was a live discussion around bringing something new forward — different, more substantive; whatever adjectives or whatever terms you want to put on it — in relation to the notion of species at risk and impacts of habitat, could the minister tell us whether, in fact, those discussions are ongoing now as to how we begin to get at these questions around species and find some improvement for species?

Hon. B. Penner: For the last period of time our efforts have been focused on implementing what's referred to as the conservation framework. I think the member referred to that yesterday or the day before in his second reading comments. It's something that we've been working on which will help the province meet the species protection requirements of the federal Species at Risk Act and the provincial commitment to species at risk under the accord for the protection of species at risk, which was signed by the provinces, territories and the federal government back in 1996.

The three goals of the conservation framework are (1) to contribute to global efforts for species and ecosystems conservation, (2) to prevent species and ecosystems from becoming at risk and (3) to maintain the full diversity of native species and ecosystems in British Columbia.

This policy has been approved and endorsed by cabinet. The member is correct. There is a coordinated effort between the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands and particularly the species-at-risk coordination office, as well as the Ministry of Environment, for implementing this new framework for assessing where the government should place its priorities and how to get the most accomplished in terms of protecting the species that have the most value.

We believe that this new framework will result in a more effective response and, hopefully, will prevent species from becoming endangered in the first place by identifying in advance that there are threats, what those threats are and what the measures are to reduce those threats.

Another way to characterize it is that it's an effort to become proactive rather than reactive — rather than waiting for species to be considered to be endangered before engaging various levers and machinations within government, trying instead to anticipate where things are heading with respect to population numbers for various species.

I would disagree with the member's characterization the other day, which I think I heard him make during second reading debate on that other piece of legislation. He said, essentially, that it means we would wash our hands of certain species if we think that they have significant populations elsewhere, outside of B.C.

That's a pretty significant oversimplification. It would be one factor out of several factors that would be looked at in terms of their population numbers in B.C. versus elsewhere and whether we have a globally significant representation or not. That's just one factor. There are others.

Biologist types that I have been speaking to over the last couple of months as they've been exploring this new framework are actually quite enthusiastic about it as being a thoughtful, science-based approach that will,

hopefully, lead to more proactive actions rather than reactive actions, which all too often come along when it's too late to turn things around.

S. Simpson: The minister raises a question for me that I'm pleased to answer. I was going to ask him about the question of global significance and the policy of global significance that the minister has outlined. It's a policy that, in simple terms, says that if there are significant populations of a given species in other jurisdictions around the world or in other jurisdictions that you're considering, then you use those as part of the way to rationalize decisions you make around species, in British Columbia in this instance.

Now, what the minister said — and I think it's fair comment — is that global significance is one of a number of factors that need to be considered. Could the minister tell us what the other factors are that need to be considered?

The Chair: Committee A will stand recessed until after the vote in the House.

Hon. B. Penner: I'll just quickly state this for the record. In addition to considering the global effects and what our efforts would do to contribute to species and ecosystem conservation on a global basis, we would also consider what needs to be done to prevent species and ecosystems from being at risk and what is required to maintain the diversity of native species and ecosystems. So the global significance — what is required for prevention and what is required to maintain diversity.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to rise and participate in the budget estimates debate for the Ministry of Environment. I have a number of questions that I'd like to pose to the minister.

I have been in consultation with his staff on one of those issues, but before I get to that one, I'd like to ask the minister if he could update this committee on the status of the winter ungulate ranges that were to be protected with the deletion of private lands from tree farm licence 25 and tree farm licence 19.

The minister will recall that last January the Minister of Forests allowed Western Forest Products to delete private lands from the tree farm licences. One of the conditions was the protection of winter ranges, and I'm wondering if the minister could update me on the status of that protection.

Hon. B. Penner: We're just attempting to track down some detailed information related to these two tree farm licences — 25 and 19, I think the member refers to. It's our expectation, at this level anyway, that the ungulate winter range is still in place or in effect. I haven't heard anything to the contrary, but my staff are just busy confirming that.

Just to clarify a comment or answer something more detailed that arose earlier in response to a question from the member for Vancouver-Hastings. He was asking questions around fish products from aquaculture operations and whether they might be eligible for eco-certification. It's my understanding that the eco-certification process that we were talking about applies only to wild fish.

J. Horgan: While the minister is seeking some information on the TFLs and the wintering ranges…. These are Roosevelt elk as well as deer that are involved. The minister will know — we were talking about species at risk — that certainly the Roosevelt elk are in short supply on Vancouver Island, and these ranges are very important.

I know from reviewing documents through freedom of information that ministry staff were very concerned that the removal of the lands…. Were there not an agreement in place between the ministry — or government as an agent for the ministry or vice versa — and Western Forest Products, those winter ranges could be in jeopardy, should the lands change hands.

Now, the minister will know, as I tell him, that Western Forest Products has put much of the lands in tree farm licence 25 on the real estate market, and they have a contract to sell. That's really the issue for those who are beavering away back at the ministry. I'm concerned that the lands for sale may have an impact on those ungulate ranges.

I'll move on while the minister and his staff are reviewing that. I'll bring up another area in my constituency, again involving a forest company, TimberWest. I have written to the minister, and many others have written to the minister, about a large stand of old-growth Douglas fir on the banks of the Koksilah River just outside of the protected area, Koksilah park.

TimberWest has expressed an interest in preserving this area. They have imposed a moratorium on their own lands, with the hope that the ministry or government would see fit to purchase these lands. This is a very intensely debated issue in my constituency. I'm wondering if the minister could update this committee on where the negotiations are with TimberWest with respect to the old-growth stand of firs near the Koksilah River.

Hon. B. Penner: I'd like to introduce Mr. Charles Horn, who has just wandered into the Douglas Fir Room to join us. I first met Charles when he and I worked together as legislative interns, lo, many years ago — 1989, I think it was, back when we both had hair. [Laughter.]

Hon. B. Penner: The Koksilah big trees, as they're referred to on this list, are identified as a potential opportunity for acquisition by the Ministry of Environment for the Vancouver Island region.

We had some discussion about different opportunities for land acquisition on Vancouver Island earlier this morning. Two different MLAs were jousting over which should be the top priority from the Island. The member from Port Alberni and the member for North Island had, I think, a difference of opinion about which constituency should come first. I'll add the member to the list as well, the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca, because I've just counted up…. I think that on our ministry list we've identified up to 40 potential acquisition sites on Vancouver Island, so there are some competing opportunities here.

The ministry does do an analysis in terms of a number of different things: whether the potential acquisition would help preserve a particularly unique ecosystem type; whether there are recreational opportunities that could be afforded to the public by the public acquisition of such lands; and whether there's a significant degree of public support, as evidenced by various partner groups — The Land Conservancy, Nature Trust and others — expressing interest in moving ahead with acquisitions.

I don't have a definitive answer for the member at this point, but it is on the ministry's radar for potential acquisition.

J. Horgan: Well, I think everyone will agree that these trees are far more important than anything that could be found in Alberni or North Island, and certainly, my constituents in Malahat–Juan de Fuca would like to see a speedy resolution to this issue.

We have, in the case of TimberWest, a willing seller. They don't want to remove the trees — that's a good thing — but access to them for…. The public benefit is restricted because they're on private lands.

The other advantage, of course — and the minister will know this — is that we have two small provincial parks in the region. By adding in the grove of big trees — and they are very, very big trees for south Vancouver Island…. How they managed to survive is quite a mystery, in fact, to many of the fallers in the area. But when the last group of fallers were sent out to bring them down, they said: "Forget it. We're not cutting those."

It's an important stand. There are advantages to linking existing parks at Burnt Bridge and at Koksilah as well as the Kinsol Trestle, which the minister may well be aware of for its heritage values, and also integrating into the Trans Canada Trail.

Tremendous opportunities. I know that the minister's staff are well aware of them. I raise them on behalf of my constituents, and I urge him to disregard the overtures of the members from Alberni and North Island and focus on the important areas in my constituency.

The other issue that I want to raise…. I know that I have other members who want to raise issues here. I've been in contact with senior officials in the ministry — they've been very helpful — about what is characterized in my constituency as orange goo, which is emanating from what used to be a pristine spring at the base of Skirt Mountain, just outside of Florence Lake.

This goo has been emanating from the ground since 2007. There has been correspondence with the minister. My constituents advise me that they haven't had a satisfactory response. I'll leave that as an open question, but….

J. Horgan: No, no. I know that I'm colour-blind and don't appreciate the colours involved in this, but it's quite something.

These apparently are not colours normally found in this part of nature, and my constituents are quite concerned. They've brought forward these issues to the ministry.

There has been an analysis of the water in the area — high levels of arsenic, high levels of mercury. Ministry staff assured me — and I want to have it on record today — that the public safety is not in jeopardy at this time.

I open it for the minister. I see that his staff is now joining him. Can the minister assure me and my constituents that the orange goo emanating from the base of Bear Mountain, or Skirt Mountain, right at the mouth of a creek that goes into Florence Lake is not harming any species or humans?

Hon. B. Penner: I understand the ministry had some staff attend the site yesterday. The stuff, whatever it is, was not running. It's essentially dried up and is hardened. There was some visible red stain left behind, not inconsistent, potentially, with iron oxide, which is naturally occurring. That's not to say that this stuff is, but iron oxide does occur naturally, and the colours we saw yesterday would not be inconsistent with that.

I do understand that the member's constituents have provided some samples for analysis some time

ago. It's the ministry's intention that when it gets wet again and if this thing starts to run again, we'll endeavour to go back to the site and take some additional samples and do some additional monitoring to try and determine the source and exactly what is there.

It is true that some level of arsenic and mercury is naturally occurring in nature — that's where it comes from — but just exactly whether or not this is occurring naturally, is of a native source or has been deposited there by some other endeavour is not clear.

J. Horgan: I appreciate that arsenic, mercury, phosphorus, iron and the various other substances that were found in the analysis are naturally occurring, but certainly, the levels were quite high. I know, in discussions with staff, that they obviously want to know where the samples were taken. Was there sediment in the samples? These are all valid questions.

I appreciate that staff are working on this diligently, but residents in the area have concern — the minister can look at the photos; he doesn't really need to see them — that this was a pristine valley. They used to drink…. On treks they would fill their bottles out of this creek, and now it doesn't even look like water or anything resembling water. It dries up faster than it has in the past, since the development at Bear Mountain began some five years ago, but it's only in the past two years that this goo has appeared.

There were some significant frog species that were eradicated as a result of this. There was a biologist in Nanaimo who was given a bagful of the dead frogs. She has since retired. Laura Friis, I believe, was her name. I don't know, as I look over, if that's familiar to staff.

There is genuine concern in my community. I'm confident that the ministry staff are working on this. I just wanted to ensure for the record that when my constituents tune into these riveting discussions on your estimates, they have every confidence that the minister and the ministry are doing everything they can to ensure that public health is being protected.

Species in the area, particularly deer…. We've had one family that has been on a bit of a deer watch over the past number of years, seeing a huge reduction in the number of healthy animals and taking many with tumours to the ARC SPCA site in Metchosin, also in my constituency.

That data has not been passed on to the ministry, that I'm aware of, but I'm certainly…. When we've finished with these discussions, I'll be taking up more detailed discussions with staff, if that meets with the deputy and the minister's approval.

With that, I look forward to the information on the ungulate ranges in the Western Forest Products lands, and I'll give the floor to my colleague from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

M. Sather: I want to ask the minister a question around the greater sandhill crane in Pitt Meadows. We've talked back and forth and written back and forth about that issue and about trying to improve their habitat. There are only a dozen of them left there.

I'm wondering if the minister could update me on what's happening with regard to that. I assume there was no burn this spring. If the minister could just tell me what's happening there with the cranes.

Hon. B. Penner: I do remember our discussion about this issue last year, and I don't know off the top of my head if a burn took place this spring. I kind of doubt, given the weather we had, whether it would have been terribly successful, since we had a very wet and fairly cold spring. You have to have the right type of climatic conditions for a burn to be successful.

My staff are endeavouring to try to get information to address your specific question, but looking at the time, it's possible that the support staff back at the shop may have departed for home. What I can offer to the member is to have staff follow up with him directly to provide him with the information in terms of the status of that project for the sandhill crane. I'll also ask them to update me, because I, too, would like to find out what the status is of that particular project.

I'd also like to thank the Chair and, through him, Kate Lloyd for getting the air circulation reactivated. Let's hope it continues for the next 20 minutes.

G. Robertson: I have a question for the minister specifically about toxics and the regulation of toxics in B.C. As the minister is aware, I have introduced private member's bills to regulate toxics in B.C., both last year and this. They were recently ruled out of order by the Speaker, as they were to cost money. A cost incurred to government, which renders them useless at this point.

I'm curious if the minister or anyone in his government is actively working on right-to-know or toxics reduction legislation to bring forward here in the Legislature.

Hon. B. Penner: I know the member and I have been riffing on this issue for a little while. It came up in question period. The member will be heartened to know that it was also taken up this morning by one of his colleagues. I don't know whom exactly, but somebody else was asking some very similar questions — I think the member from Alberni.

So we covered this to some extent this morning, but as the member knows, and as I think as I indicated in question period some time ago, the ministry does have regulations in place currently: the hazardous waste regulation, for example; contaminated sites regulation; as well as the Pesticide Control Act.

We have tried to initiate efforts to encourage people to look for alternative products, particularly around cosmetic fertilizers and the like. The provincial government has been working with the federal government, and we've expressed to them our interest in some further initiatives on their part, because I think we would do better to have a Canadian–wide response.

However, in the interim I have asked my ministry staff to examine the two bills that you introduced, compare them to legislation that's been introduced in Ontario and Quebec, and open up lines of communication with officials in Ontario and Quebec, particularly Ontario, to see what they have in mind.

I understand they've recently introduced legislation that's largely enabling, leaving a lot of detail to come later. I'm interested to know what kind of detail they have in mind and to see if there's some kind of collaboration we can engage in. Because I do think that if we have more than one jurisdiction approaching this, we're likely to have better success in terms of a positive outcome.

G. Robertson: That's very encouraging to hear that the minister and staff have work in progress, looking at what other provinces have already initiated. I'll just restate support, from this side of the House, for action on that front. We need it urgently, given the impacts we're seeing in terms of cancer rates and learning and developmental disabilities.

One specific…. Again, it is an initiative that Alberta has moved on, and that is biomonitoring. I'm curious if the ministry has any work in progress to initiate a biomonitoring program to understand what toxic threats are emerging in B.C.'s population, and then to use that data to look at banning toxic substances that are accumulating in B.C.'s population.

Hon. B. Penner: I wonder if the member could just provide a bit more detail about the term biomonitoring. It's not immediately familiar to me. Is that the type of testing that an individual might undertake to determine what substances may or may not be accumulating in their body, or does it refer to monitoring of the environment more broadly?

G. Robertson: It is testing of a broad base of population — typically, thousands of people — for toxins and, thereby, being able to understand what toxins are accumulating, where in the province, and how they are being absorbed into the population, into people. So it's a combination of understanding what's accumulating in people and where it's happening in the environment. It's an important tool for managing toxins and the regulation that should be in place to manage them.

Hon. B. Penner: I'm not immediately familiar with any undertaking led by the Ministry of Environment in that regard. It's possible that the Ministry of Health is contemplating or is undertaking that type of work. I believe that my colleague the Minister of Health is back tomorrow and may, in fact, be debating his budget estimates sometime tomorrow. So it may be an opportunity to take it up with him. If I see him, I'll try to remember to raise it with him as well.

M. Sather: I know that the member for Vancouver-Fairview had this testing done. I heard about the results, and I'm definitely not going there. I'm a lot older than him, and I probably have a lot more toxins.

I wanted to ask the minister about Blue Mountain area in Maple Ridge and water quality. This is an issue that I brought up quite often in the House. Residents have concern about the aquifers in Blue Mountain–Kanaka Creek area. Recently the community was pleased to have a tour of the area, because they've been doing a lot of well monitoring themselves.

There's now apparently a regional hydrologist in the Surrey office, and she came out to visit the monitoring group members' homes and check the wells and gave advice. She took GPS of the wells to match up with the depth data they're sending to the ministry, and she's hoping it will help to understand the structure of the Whonnock–Kanaka Creek aquifer.

The problem is that apparently the ministry had applied, if that's the right word, for a grant to do this important monitoring but weren't successful in obtaining it. Instead, $20,000 went to the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, for a study of the trails in the area. The group would really like to get the scientific study that's required to designate where the aquifer is, because that's a really important part of protecting the water, particularly in the aquifer.

So I wonder if the minister could give me any information about that money that is apparently not forthcoming. What is the prognosis, then, for the Blue Mountain–Kanaka Creek aquifer in terms of the ministry being involved? Apparently, the hydrologist wanted to be involved. Can the minister give me some information on what the prognosis is for getting that study done?

Hon. B. Penner: I'm advised by the director of our water stewardship division that fairly recently the ministry did locate a groundwater hydrologist to the Surrey office, which has responsibility for the Fraser Valley region, including Maple Ridge. We are interested in doing work to characterize the groundwater aquifers in the area. So we can try to follow up and see some more.

I don't know any more detail in terms of the particular grant application that the member is referring to. I do know that aquifers come in different shapes and forms. To some measure, it's dependent upon the rock formations and the underlying formations and whether there's argillite or other forms of rock or subterranean surfaces that can help shape the flow of water.

That was a discussion we had this morning, again, with the member from Alberni. His concern is around karst systems and where water goes and where it comes out when it's underground. That is some work that the ministry is undertaking with this position that's now at the Surrey office.

G. Robertson: A question for the minister about False Creek and the cleanup in False Creek, which I understand the federal government is playing the lead role in. Are the minister and the B.C. government actively engaged in any of the work that's being done towards cleaning up False Creek? If so, what are the details of that and the anticipated timing of having False Creek back to being a healthy ecosystem?

Hon. B. Penner: Perhaps we'll endeavour to get some information and report back tomorrow morning. I understand our estimates debate is scheduled to resume tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. We'll check on that.

I note that it is salt water. The name False Creek is probably a misnomer. It indicates that the first explorers — I think it was Captain Vancouver — wrongly assumed that the channel he was going up was fresh water and was going to lead him somewhere. In fact, it terminated and hence the name False Creek.

Nevertheless, I'll endeavour to have staff check on this by ten o'clock tomorrow morning.

Hon. B. Penner: I think we're getting a strong hint from Mr. Chair, and since he did oblige us in getting some air circulation restored to this room, I will now take the hint and move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.

58.2.1	(1)	If the actions of the Minister or of the Lieutenant Governor in Council result in a mandatory reduction or waiver of development cost charges under section 58.2, the Minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council must reimburse to the Corporation half the value of the development cost charges that were waived or reduced as a result of their actions.
	(2)	The amount of compensation provided by the Minister or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and set out in subsection (1) must be provided out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or out of a special account that is set up for this purpose.]


	YEAS — 36

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Chong	Christensen	Richmond
Bell	Krueger	van Dongen
Les	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Cantelon	Hagen	Oppal
de Jong	Taylor	Bond
Penner	Neufeld	Hogg
Sultan	Bennett	Lekstrom
Mayencourt	Polak	Hawes
Yap	Bloy	MacKay
Black	McIntyre	Rustad

	NAYS — 25

Hammell	S. Simpson	Fleming
Farnworth	Kwan	Ralston
Brar	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Fraser	Wyse
Sather	Gentner	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Robertson
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Coons
	Routley


	YEAS — 25

S. Simpson	Fleming	Farnworth
Kwan	Ralston	Brar
Thorne	Simons	Puchmayr
Fraser	Wyse	Sather
Horgan	Gentner	Dix
Trevena	Bains	Karagianis
Evans	Krog	Robertson
Chudnovsky	Chouhan	Coons
	Routley

	NAYS — 38

Falcon	Reid	Coell
Chong	Christensen	Richmond
Bell	Krueger	van Dongen
Les	Roddick	Hayer
Lee	Jarvis	Nuraney
Whittred	Horning	Cantelon
Hagen	Oppal	de Jong
Taylor	Bond	Penner
Neufeld	Hogg	Sultan
Bennett	Lekstrom	Mayencourt
Polak	Hawes	Yap
Bloy	MacKay	Black
McIntyre		Rustad