2008 Legislative Session: Fourth Session, 38th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008

Morning Sitting

Volume 33, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Second Reading of Bills

Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act (Bill 32)

Hon. C. Hansen

C. Wyse

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued)

C. Trevena

Hon. L. Reid

N. Simons

[ Page 12321 ]

TUESDAY, MAY 13, 2008

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Thorpe: In this House I call Bill 32, Trade,

Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act, for second reading,

and in Committee A, I call continued debate of the Ministry of Children and

Family Development.

Second Reading of Bills

TRADE, INVESTMENT AND

LABOUR MOBILITY AGREEMENT

IMPLEMENTATION ACT

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the Trade, Investment and

Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act be read a second time.

British Columbia and Alberta have taken a major step to further

strengthen the economy in western Canada by entering into the Trade, Investment

and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta or, as we

have come to know it, TILMA.

[1005]

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

First of all, I just wanted to talk a little bit about the need

for an agreement of this nature. When you look at the European Union, where

among independent sovereign nations…. They have been able to break down the

economic barriers between these various countries, including things like full

labour mobility among the 15 core nations of the European Union. I know they're

working to eliminate the barriers to labour mobility in all 27 of the countries

that make up the European Union today.

Yet in Canada there have been various efforts over the decades to

try to break down not our international barriers to economic activity but the

barriers between our provinces and territories within Canada. I think the most

significant progress made in that regard was the negotiation of the agreement on

internal trade, which was negotiated in the early 1990s and actually resulted in

the signing of an agreement in 1994. That agreement came into effect in 1995.

But the agreement on internal trade was really quite limited in

terms of how far it went and how effective it was at, in fact, breaking down the

barriers to economic activity within Canada. It did make some progress, and I

think there's been lots of discussion over the following decade to try to make

further progress on the agreement on internal trade.

There has been, in fact, very little progress achieved in that

regard. We still find that there are significant barriers for labour mobility

from province to province. I'm aware of a young lady from British Columbia who

is a licensed practical nurse, who was moving to Ontario for other reasons but

wanted to continue with her career in Ontario, only to find that when she got

there….

She had been told previously that it would take about three weeks

to have her LPN credentials recognized in Ontario, but when she actually started

to apply for that process, it became very lengthy. In fact, it was months and

months and months. So here is a very valuable nurse who we need — every province

of course needs nurses — and yet that nurse could not practise in Ontario

because of the bureaucracy and the lack of ability to have the credentials

recognized from one province to the other.

TILMA will make progress in breaking down those barriers, at least

between British Columbia and Alberta, and will show other provinces how it can

be done. We believe that this agreement is in fact showing the rest of Canada

the way in breaking down some of these barriers to interprovincial economic

activity within Canada.

Bill 32 will ensure that the province can meet its obligations

under TILMA by providing the necessary statutory authority to fully exercise its

rights and obligations. Bill 32 also ensures that monetary awards that may

potentially be awarded under the agreement are in fact enforceable. This is one

of the biggest weaknesses in the agreement on internal trade. There really is no

significant dispute settlement mechanism within the agreement on internal trade.

Again, there's been lots of talk about strengthening the AIT in

that regard, but there has been very little action to actually make progress on

that. So having the ability to enforce awards is absolutely essential in

ensuring the effectiveness of a dispute resolution process under TILMA.

Finally, Bill 32 amends 14 statutes that have been identified with

provisions that create obstacles to trade, investment and labour mobility

between the two provinces. The bill also reflects a cross-government review of

all provincial statutes confirming compliance with the province's

non-discrimination obligation under the agreement.

On a national level the TILMA has prompted us to adjust our way of

thinking about interprovincial trade and commit to the elimination of

protectionist barriers that still exist between provinces in Canada. We have

created a blueprint for all provinces to follow, and we are being recognized

nationally and internationally for this progressive effort.

We have taken bold steps with TILMA to show consumers, workers and

businesses that the two governments are serious about dealing with these

barriers. By breaking down the barriers to labour mobility, people are free to

live and work where they desire, and have the ability to pursue their career

aspirations.

In fact, by April 1, 2009, there will be full labour mobility for

all occupations between British Columbia and Alberta. If a person is entitled to

practise a profession in one province, they will be entitled to practise that

profession in the other province.

[ Page 12322 ]

It still means that they will have to register with the

appropriate licensing body in the other jurisdiction, but they will not have to

go back to school or take additional courses and that type of thing in order to

be qualified for that profession. There's been a lot of work done by the various

licensing bodies and professional associations to ensure that they are in a

position to ensure mutual recognition of credentials from the other

jurisdiction.

[1010]

The amendments in Bill 32 that seek to primarily address the

issues around labour mobility are as follows. There are amendments to the

Architects Act, which eliminate the requirement to have two years of work

experience in the other jurisdiction before being eligible to register as an

architect in British Columbia.

Secondly, there are amendments to the Notaries Act, which

eliminate the notarial districts and a quantitative restriction on the number of

notaries eligible to practise in British Columbia.

With the recent downturn in the U.S. economy, we know that

remaining competitive in the global economy is more important than ever, and our

economic competitiveness as a province depends on agreements like TILMA. We have

heard from many people that they are concerned about the mounting red tape at

all levels of government, and the cost to business and individuals of complying

with regulations rivals the cost of taxation. They are both key competitiveness

factors.

Then we have other amendments in Bill 32 that seek primarily to

address barriers to trade. There are amendments to the Business Corporations Act

to eliminate the duplicative registration and reporting requirements for

extraprovincial companies from a designated province. In other words, where the

company is registered in British Columbia, they will be deemed to be registered

in Alberta and vice versa.

There are changes to the Partnership Act to eliminate the

duplicative registration or reporting requirements for extraprovincial limited

partnerships and limited liability partnerships from a designated province — in

this case, Alberta. But we're structuring this in a way that we will be able to

get other provinces included in this framework in the future.

There are amendments to the Cooperative Association Act which

eliminate, again, the duplicative registration and reporting requirements for

extraprovincial cooperative associations from a designated province.

There are changes to the Accountants (Management) Act to eliminate

the requirement that certified management accounting firms operating in British

Columbia must have a partner who is a resident of British Columbia. Next we will

amend the Credit Union Incorporation Act to enable B.C. credit unions to

amalgamate with or sell their assets to or buy assets from extraprovincial

credit unions from, again, designated jurisdictions.

There are amendments to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act to

eliminate the requirement that a person must be a resident of British Columbia

to obtain a liquor licence or special occasion licence in this province.

There are amendments to the Land Title Act to eliminate the

requirement that an agent registering a land title document on behalf of an

applicant must be a resident of British Columbia. There are amendments to the

Transportation Act which eliminate and replace a reference that limits the

province's obligations to send notices to an organization's last known British

Columbia address by expanding it to any last known address.

TILMA is just one part of a bigger vision for the province. It

works in conjunction with the Asia-Pacific initiative, the Gateway and others,

with a goal to bring economic prosperity to British Columbians. B.C. and Alberta

have a huge opportunity to attract investment with this agreement in place, and

that's for two reasons.

First of all, internal trade barriers will be removed, and no

other Canadian jurisdiction has such an agreement in place. That's going to give

British Columbia and Alberta a very significant competitive international

advantage.

The amendments to this bill, which primarily seek to address

barriers to investments, are as follows: changes to the Employee Investment Act

to eliminate the requirement that a corporation registered under the act

establish and maintain a place of business in British Columbia; changes to the

Small Business Venture Capital Act to eliminate a requirement that a corporation

registered under the act establish and maintain a place of business in British

Columbia and to eliminate a prohibition on these corporations for maintaining an

establishment outside of the province.

There are changes to the Community Care and Assisted Living Act to

eliminate the requirement that a community care facility that is a corporation

must have a director who is a permanent resident of British Columbia.

Before I wrap up, I just want to address some of the things that

TILMA is not. If you go on some of the websites that have been generated and are

trying to stir up opposition to TILMA, there is a lot of quite blatant

misinformation on many of those websites. For example, I have seen claims that

somehow TILMA is going to restrict a municipality's ability to govern the size

of billboards. Well, that is absolutely not true and not factual.

[1015]

There are others who say that it will be the demise of our

agricultural land reserve in British Columbia, and that is absolutely not true.

TILMA would not have that effect at all.

As I've gone through some of those websites, I've been surprised

at the degree to which some organizations have tried to stir up opposition by

spreading blatant misinformation about this particular agreement. I would urge

anybody that is doing a study of TILMA and wants information about TILMA to go

into the website that we have built as part of the Ministry of Economic

Development website.

There is a series of things that we have posted there. In fact,

we've tried to shy on the side of putting too much information on that website

as opposed to too little. As we have drafted letters to the editor and other

open letters, for example, we have tried to post them. As we have given

substantive responses about TILMA to organizations, again, we've tried to post

those. We've put in there a series of fact sheets about

[ Page 12323 ]

TILMA as it affects various sectors. I strongly urge anyone who would like to

be accurately informed about TILMA to avail themselves of the material there on

the website.

Just in closing, I would like to say that Canada must remain

internationally competitive. We must ensure that there is a level playing field

and ensure that our exporters and investors have competitive access to

international markets. Agreements like TILMA will ensure that a strong economy

will be there for the future of our province, for our children and for our

families.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my privilege to finally stand up here

in the Legislature and be provided with the opportunity to respond to Bill 32,

which is the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement Implementation Act.

I wish to emphasize that our debate today is on the implementation

act. In actual fact, it is not on the agreement itself. That agreement itself

was signed after discussions had taken place in private by the governments of

British Columbia and Alberta. It was discussed privately and announced after it

had been signed. That in actual fact has aspects that come into play about the

agreement itself.

Let's look at the implementation portion of this particular act

itself — what it was based upon and the need for it. It's based upon a report by

the Conference Board of Canada announcing that it would add $4.8 billion and

78,000 jobs.

Now, those claims have been discredited by many economists. In

actual fact, when we look at the jobs that were referred to here, the Conference

Board left industries in their report that are excluded under the agreement

itself.

The ministry only allowed two groups to actually bid on the

development of the study, the Conference Board of Canada and MMK Consulting. MMK

withdrew.

Now, how do we know this information I'm going to talk about? Was

it posted? No. It was obtained through freedom-of-information documentation. In

that documentation it was discovered that $50,000 was the size of the contract

and that the Conference Board had 38 days in order to develop the rationale for

the need for this implementation act.

[1020]

It surveyed 24 organizations, 11 from government and 13 from

industry. We received four responses from industry, and we received six from the

various government agencies here in British Columbia. But it didn't include the

Ministry of Finance, and it did not include the Ministry of Forests, two very

significant ministries to be excluded in developing the report that leads to the

need for this particular act to be in front of us.

When we look at two of the ministries that did respond, the

Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum…. I

would like to refer to their responses to the survey. From the Ministry of

Transportation, it includes these three comments: "Trade is currently fairly

open between the provinces, and I'm not sure there would be significant gains

from a further reduction in barriers. However, coverage to every provincial

measure might prove problematic. There are many reasons for differences, some

legitimate and some more political in nature."

The third point the Ministry of Transportation makes is: "From the

perspective of transportation, there are certain legitimate reasons for

differences — for example, geography, climate and safety." That's from one of

the six ministries that replied.

From the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, their

response included: "Unless otherwise addressed, some of the challenges described

in the answers below appear to outweigh the anticipated specific regional and

sectoral benefits. Also, it appears the agreement does not recognize that the

growth or management of the provincial economy is a legitimate objective."

From those comments we have the need for this implementation act.

Now let's look at a couple of ministries of the six that did respond.

The ministry of state for intergovernmental relations. This

particular ministry responded enthusiastically to every question. It even

assumed that the northeast and the Kootenays will benefit as much from TILMA as

regions that do not share a border with Alberta.

Finally, we have the Ministry of Agriculture, which responded

enthusiastically to all the questions. That, of course, is the ministry that, we

recognize, receives amongst the lowest support of any of the provincial

governments for its particular industry anywhere in Canada. So that in actual

fact may explain their enthusiasm for contributing to a report that leads to the

need for the particular act we are talking about today.

The government went with the sole-source contract with low costs

and less than six weeks to complete the project — in other words, quick and

dirty. It led to conclusions that were easily discredited, an agreement that

turned over the right to govern to a three-person panel. That's the backdrop for

the particular piece of legislation we have in front of us.

We have the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement, based

on this particular study, being introduced here — the implementation act for it.

It was not debated. It was never discussed with the public. There was no public

debate leading to possible improvements or possibly to outright rejection, as in

Saskatchewan — this by the government that claims to be open, accountable and

transparent.

TILMA took effect long before this bill to implement the act was

put in front of us last month. In actual fact, it has been in effect since April

1, 2007.

[1025]

As I go through the discussion on the need for the implementation

of this act, I will draw attention to why there is limited support for TILMA

anywhere in Canada. In spite of what has been said, it has been rejected as an

entire document right across all of Canada.

There are references to portions in the area of labour mobility,

but when we look at the document in entirety — which includes trade, investment

and labour mobility — it does not obtain favourable response in Canada. Here

within British Columbia, without being consulted, organizations that are also

encompassed under TILMA and affected by this implementation act — such as the

[ Page 12324 ]

Union of B.C. Municipalities and B.C. School Trustees Association — likewise

have rejected TILMA as it stands.

TILMA has far-reaching implications for business, local

governments, labour, professional certification standards and communities across

British Columbia. Once TILMA became known across the province and across Canada,

once it had a chance to be reviewed and studied, other provinces moved right

away from TILMA.

Let's put it in the context of possibly why this occurred. It's in

the context of this particular quote from Alberta's then Minister of

International and Intergovernmental Relations, Mr. Mar, who told the Richmond

Chamber of Commerce in June 2006 that the TILMA dispute process is "everything

Canadian business asked for."

Since when did Canadian business represent all the interests of

British Columbians? Since when is it only the interests of Canadian business

that are stood up for in this House? Since when did Canadian business obtain

such a direct inside road to how things are going to unfold between two

provinces? Since when did Canadian business obtain the ability to override the

government policies of this Legislature, local governments and school boards?

We have in front of us the implementation that allows TILMA to be

put into place within that particular environment. It allows individuals and

corporations to challenge decisions that are made to a three-person panel. There

is no dispute about that.

The implementation ensures that the clubs will be there. It passes

on the ability for those to happen, and the agreement itself insists — it

mandates — that the province of British Columbia adhere to that set of

circumstances. It guarantees that that is what will occur — everything Canadian

business asked for. This implementation act also provides for expansion of this

beyond the two parties, the signatures of British Columbia and Alberta.

Let's review the reception of this particular agreement. Let's

have a look at it. Let's look at the record.

[1030]

August 2007, TILMA rejected by the first ministers meeting at

Moncton. They backed Manitoba's idea of a national strategy. There was talk

about the need for mobility but not the implementation of this act — that they

did not. They did not support the broadness of the agreement nor the

implementation. It has been rejected by Manitoba as the chosen method to remove

internal trade between the provinces, as the minister referred to in his

statement. The agreement on internal trade has successfully stepped in

immediately and removed challenges to internal trade barriers between the

provinces.

Saskatchewan's Premier, newly elected Mr. Wall of the conservative

government, told the Regina Leader-Post on April 16, 2008 — that's this

year — that his Saskatchewan Party government still has concerns about the trade

pact, citing outstanding issues such as TILMA's impact on trade incentives and

on Crown corporations. Mr. Wall also said: "TILMA has been presented as a

take-it-or-leave-it agreement, and under these circumstances, we will not take

it."

In anything that I have read, I have not heard Mr. Wall being

accused of being someone who is a scaremonger, as someone who would

intentionally mislead the people of Canada or the people of Saskatchewan.

As a matter of fact, as recently as May 10, in discussions with

the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce, it is reported that while the Saskatchewan

chamber backed away from a resolution that used the acronym TILMA…. TILMA has

become a word that scares people away from cooperation. There has been a chance

to look at TILMA and the effect that it does have. I will be speaking shortly

upon the actual agreement itself and pointing out the concerns that TILMA brings

to many governments, local and otherwise.

Returning to Mr. Wall in Saskatchewan. The chamber backed away

from the resolution that used the acronym TILMA to describe the internal trade

agreement between B.C. and Alberta. The delegates did urge Saskatchewan to

review the subagreements between the two westerly provinces and request observer

status, as Alberta and B.C. continue to work out the details of the internal

trade agreement.

Interviewed following his speech Friday, Mr. Wall took this

opportunity to make sure there was no ambiguity on his government's response to

the invitation to join this implementation of TILMA. Mr. Wall says that he has

had an invitation from his counterparts in B.C. and Alberta to join talks but

explains that Saskatchewan remains concerned about the effects that TILMA would

have on the province's Crown sector and its municipalities — subjects that

aren't up for negotiations. That's true.

Here in British Columbia they were not up for negotiations. They

were not up for debate. They were not up for input. They were simply put into

place. Shame.

[1035]

Now, I quote from Mr. Wall: "It was in our platform and it remains

our position that we want to move toward greater western cooperation. There are

other vehicles for that kind of enhanced economic cooperation, such as labour

mobility, and we're going to press those ones." So if there is any ambiguity

about how Saskatchewan feels on this item, I believe Mr. Wall has removed any of

those concerns.

Let's continue moving across the country. In the recent Ontario

election the Conservative Party stated that it was in favour of having Ontario

join TILMA and, therefore, would be in support of the implementation act that is

in front of us. But that same party also issued entirely contradictory

agricultural protection policies that would not be allowed underneath TILMA, and

Mr. McGuinty's Liberals have not shown any enthusiasm in joining.

The new Stelmach government made its equally technical TILMA

implementation bill the centrepiece legislation of its current spring session,

which commentators found rather laughable. Also, Mr. Stelmach's claims of

bringing the Wall government on board are likely what prompted Mr. Brad Wall's

April 15 and May 10 statements of rejecting TILMA.

There is a quick review of the receptiveness of TILMA as it stands

across all of Canada: rejected, rejected, rejected, after it had a chance to be

reviewed.

I would like to return to British Columbia and talk about the need

for this particular bill as it has encompassed local governments and trustees

and their response

[ Page 12325 ]

for the need for this particular bill. I wish to start off with the B.C.

School Trustees Association TILMA resolution in the spring of 2007 at their

annual general meeting.

The BCSTA called upon the provincial government to hold public

hearings on the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. The BCSTA

called upon the provincial government to exempt school districts completely from

the provisions of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. From

their perspective, there is no need for this particular bill to be applied to

them.

Their rationale, which I would like to share with all British

Columbians, is simple, straightforward, practical. It is what people in the

streets back home understand, not the agreement like TILMA, which has been

devised here in Victoria and implemented without discussion.

From the BCSTA perspective, TILMA is a comprehensive trade

agreement signed by the B.C. and Alberta governments in April 2006 without

publicity or prior public consultation. The TILMA commits the signing partners

to eliminating any measures that restrict or impair investment, and the word

"measures" is a very important term. Measures, legally, is a very broad term. It

picks up almost everything, including the garbage in the kitchen. It is a very

broad term.

Now back to the BCSTA. School boards are covered by TILMA as of

April 1, 2007, because they are forbidden to do anything inconsistent with its

provisions. Many educational policies and administrative decisions, such as the

province's healthy schools initiative or ethical purchasing policies put in

place by individual boards, can impact investments and, therefore, are placed in

jeopardy by the provisions of TILMA.

[1040]

That is from the B.C. School Trustees Association. That is their

point of view. That is their reason for not being in support of Bill 32, the

implementation of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement — the

implementation of that particular bill.

Let's move to the other local level of government covered by the

Union of B.C. Municipalities and how they have responded to the need for this

particular bill. On September 26, 2007, this is the decision that was made at

their annual general meeting here at the coast where people from all over

British Columbia — from the smallest hamlet in northern British Columbia to the

biggest communities…. In something that I have never witnessed, with one

dissenting vote from hundreds of delegates all across the province, this was the

position that was taken by the representatives of all the local governments that

likewise are covered by this implementation act. They are covered underneath

TILMA.

"…the Union of B.C. Municipalities review the Trade,

Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement between British Columbia and Alberta

and enter into discussions with the provincial government and local governments

with the intent of either making changes to the agreement to more specifically

address local government concerns, exempt local governments from the agreement

or request that the province withdraw from the agreement altogether."

The last one — "request that the province withdraw from the agreement

altogether" — is quite something coming from the local governments across

British Columbia.

There was an amendment to remove that phrase, an amendment that

failed. Twelve councillors spoke to the amendment with nine speaking in

opposition of making any changes to the amendment. When that part was done at

their meeting, they sat as an entity — one dissenting vote. To me, that very

clearly makes the point about no need to be moving on the implementation of an

agreement that is not before us and cannot be amended. That speaks loudly on why

this particular bill must be defeated.

Let's now look at it in the terms of overall mismanagement that

has been demonstrated here over the last couple of years around this particular

aspect of the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement. As I started off,

I pointed out that the actual report that TILMA is based upon showed that it was

done quick and dirty, done hastily from very limited input. It has been in

effect since April 1, 2007. This is now May of 2008, and we're finally getting

to look at the implementation of the bill. But it has been in effect for more

than a year.

In actual fact, the government last spring introduced Bill 17,

which was to deal with the implementation of this particular act, but they

withdrew it.

[1045]

We now have Bill 32 with no support outside of Alberta and British

Columbia, anywhere in Canada — and, within the province itself, strong

opposition, not from organizations that are misleading the province but from

organizations that have been elected, as we have been, across this great

province of ours. It has been rejected by locally elected trustees. It has been

rejected by locally elected government officials. I will be stating, shortly,

why the implementation of this bill should not proceed from their point of view.

It is a bill of overkill. It is a bill whose objectives, if they

are as presented, could have been achieved figuratively with a one-ounce

ball-peen hammer, not the five-pound sledgehammer that this represents. It is

overkill. It is

an act that goes way beyond what is necessary.

It removes the right of this province and local government to

govern. It allows the policies of governments to be challenged by a three-person

panel. There are people that would believe that government has fettered away its

rights to look after the interests of the people that they are elected to look

after.

Having laid the backdrop for not supporting the implementation

bill, let's have a look at, in actual fact, what does happen underneath TILMA.

TILMA commits the B.C. and Alberta governments to ensure that its measures do

not restrict or impair trade, investment and labour mobility between the

provinces. It prohibits any business subsidies that distort investment, and its

labour mobility provision erases differing standards for regulating professions.

TILMA, as I have mentioned, is extremely broad. It assumes that

everything is covered by it except those areas designated specifically as

excluded. There is the difference. If it's not mentioned in TILMA, it is covered

by TILMA.

[ Page 12326 ]

Interjection.

C. Wyse: I am the designated speaker. Thank you.

When we have a look at that aspect of it…. Because I distracted

myself, I'm going to repeat where my thought was. If it's not covered in TILMA,

specifically mentioned, it is included underneath TILMA.

These will be the first two provinces ever that believe they have

the ability to read the future and know what is going to happen tomorrow or the

following year in any of those areas. But if it's not included in the agreement,

it is covered by TILMA. That's quite a powerful piece of legislation — the

implementation of the agreement of TILMA.

Also, TILMA includes the requirement that any new measure must be

least restrictive possible — puts a chill on any innovation governments may want

to do.

For example, let's have a look at climate change policy. It puts

chills on it.

[1050]

Local governments do not have the huge resources of a provincial

secretariat to ensure that what they're looking at is not encompassed underneath

TILMA. It puts a chill, basically, on everything local government may want to

try. I will come back to that a little later.

But let's return to the province of Saskatchewan — Saskatchewan

has had a chance to actually study and have a look at TILMA — and have a look at

their response from the aspect of trade and its effect upon its local

governments. It has reported.

It's encouraging to see that Saskatchewan's 12 largest cities —

with the exception of Regina, which is doing its own thing — have tapped the

estimable resources of the Saskatoon-based Estey Centre for Law and Economics in

International Trade to analyze TILMA. I don't believe that Estey is an

organization that is attempting to scare people, as had been alluded to earlier,

but they do have, from their expertise, these comments. They recommend ways to

incorporate the needs of municipalities before this province signs on to it or

any other future interprovincial economic deal.

In fact, it goes on to state: "This comprehensive and cogent

analysis will provide a nationally useful tool, with B.C. and Alberta inviting

others to join or emulate their agreement." This is from Saskatchewan. They are

throwing out a caution and warning for the rest of Canada to use this

well-thought-out, well-balanced analysis of the agreement.

As the report A Space for Cities in Trade Agreements makes

clear, an economic agreement such as the TILMA, struck between the governments

at the provincial level, does not adequately reflect the concerns and realities

that confront cities. The Estey Centre senior associate and university

international trade economist Mr. Bill Kerr states that senior governments tend

to think of cities as mini-versions of themselves rather than as entities whose

operations and law-making can have huge ramifications for investment decisions

made by local, national and international companies within their boundaries — a

goal that all in this House strive for.

But as we see, there is concern that TILMA in actual fact will not

assist that particular goal. "While the senior governments may consider

municipalities no more than creatures of the province, how the cities operate

their interests in maintaining unique identities and meeting local needs has a

great bearing on the economic success of the province and country." Mr. Kerr

proposes that startling thought.

Relating directly to TILMA, Mr. Kerr notes that it's unusual in

terms of a comprehensive trade pact in that it is a negative list agreement.

What negative list means is that, unlike such positive list agreements as NAFTA

that set out specific items of economic activities to which the agreed-upon

rules apply, the TILMA rules apply to everything that's not specifically

excluded from what's listed.

So when we come back to the bill that is in front of us…. The

implementation of an agreement that covers items that we have no idea what

they're covering questions the soundness of the reason for this particular bill

that is in front of us.

[1055]

Now, the report that I referred to, A Space for Cities in Trade

Agreements …. "In effect, this prevents governments from intervening in

future activities that may not have existed or been deemed worthy of

intervention when the list of exemptions was agreed. For example, a negative

agreement signed in the 1970s would not have included the regulation of cell

phone towers as an exemption."

It also goes on to point out the reasons for not supporting Bill

32. I quote again…. As many municipalities in Alberta and B.C. are discovering

belatedly, these issues they should have raised at the outset instead of having

concerns arise after the fact — as we are going to carry on with Bill 32. "The

signatory provinces…have unequivocally stated that it is not their intention or

TILMA's to control cities or…interfere with their ability to manage their

jurisdictions."

The Kerr report notes: "However, verbal guarantees tend to be as

enduring as the current government's term in power." I wish to repeat that.

"However, verbal guarantees tend to be as enduring as the current government's

term in power." The text of the agreement is what endures. That comes from an

international trade expert.

In my judgment, the advice is well worth heeding, and the

Saskatchewan conservative government heeded that advice. But here we are in the

House talking about the implementation of TILMA, a bill that should not be

supported.

I wish to return closer to home. I want to return to British

Columbia and talk about some reasons for not supporting the implementation of

TILMA and not supporting Bill 32. Again, from the report that the Union of B.C.

Municipalities received from their lawyer Mr. Lidstone, an individual who, in my

mind, is not alarmist and is not misleading….

An organization, the Union of B.C. Municipalities, which I have

nothing but the highest regard for, as the other side of the bench, I'm sure, do

also…. I'm sure that, though they walk by them and they ignore them — their

intentions and their wishes — they do not go as far as to suggest that they

would be intentionally

[ Page 12327 ]

misleading the people of British Columbia on why Bill 32 should not pass.

I don't think anybody would go that far. I would be as bold as to

suggest that people who want to get a countering, informed balance to what my

colleague on the side opposite suggested may want to go and have a look at some

reports that likewise have been posted by the Union of B.C. Municipalities on

this very same topic and then determine whether that is alarmist, whether that

is intentionally misleading, whether that is any other type of motive.

[1100]

I'm not here to try and shoot messengers, as others may or may

not. I'm here to develop a reasoned, thought-out, rational aspect for not

passing Bill 32, not to implement a poorly conceived and thought-out trade

agreement between two provinces, done quietly, announced with some fanfare, and

not saleable anywhere else in the country and not saleable within communities

here in British Columbia at the local government levels.

I prefer to use a reasoned, rational outlook and approach to

convince members on the other side that they have put their foot in the cow-pie.

They should take it out, shake their foot off and recognize the errors of their

ways and defeat Bill 32, the implementation act.

But I digressed. I wish to return to the message, the reasoned

approach that has been developed by the UBCM — by their lawyer, from their

report.

[K. Whittred in the chair.]

UBCM's legal analysis raises the following concerns for the Union

of B.C. Municipalities and local governments. They have general concerns. They

raise the concerns of the vagueness of the TILMA language. They raise the

ambiguities in the agreement. They raise the lack of precedent. They raise the

chilling effect on local governments. They raise the retooling of local

government measures to satisfy TILMA in case of breach of TILMA. None of those,

to me, sound anything but serious.

They have specific concerns, also raised within their report. They

include the procurement threshold being too low, a minor point contained in the

overall general concerns. As I go on, I will have a look at the investment

aspect of it later, but it is a specific concern that is raised.

"The language on subsidies in TILMA needs to be revised," Mr.

Lidstone says. He goes on to state that these subsidies may result in banning

assistance that local government now provides. He mentions heritage and local

improvements, which are the result of the two-year Community Charter process.

That's the lawyer for the Union of B.C. Municipalities raising those concerns —

concerns that should have Bill 32 minimally tabled, defeated.

He goes on to also point out that the reconciliation requirement

for standards and regulations could be contrary to local policy. Mr. Lidstone

states some examples. He states in his presentation to Metro Vancouver, formerly

the GVRD: "Meth labs, grow ops, secondhand goods and massage parlours."

He raises the concerns about Bill 32, its implementation — how

local governments lose the ability to respond to local needs and issues that

come up in their communities. I'm going to repeat that. They lose their ability

to respond to the local needs that come up within their communities. Is that not

what local government is put in place for? Is that not what they're there for?

[1105]

Now, let's have a look at some of the details of how TILMA

provisions do apply to local government. The municipal polities could be

challenged, and municipalities could be forced to pay up to a $5 million

monetary penalty in any of these circumstances.

I will move through the discussions and point out where this

conclusion is made and the contradictory statements that have been made by the

other side.

If local government creates obstacles to investment by restricting

or impairing it. That's under

article 3. Investments are defined as financial

assets or the establishment, acquisition or expansion of an enterprise, such as

the establishment or expansion of a company's real estate investments.

If the local government does not mutually recognize Alberta

municipal regulations, under

article 5.1, under mutual recognition, developers

could choose which regulations they want to abide by, those of Alberta

municipalities or B.C. local governments. B.C. local governments' protection of

such items as scenic views, rental housing, pesticide restrictions and green

building standards are all regulations not reconciled with those of Alberta

municipalities. They are not reconciled. They fall under it. If it's not named

in the agreement, it's covered by the agreement.

If local government ever introduces new regulations that restrict

or impair investment —

article 5.3. Stricter pesticide laws, green building

standards or noise bylaws all could be challenged under TILMA as impairing

investments by increasing an enterprise's costs — again, not excluded, covered.

If local government does not notify and take the views of the

Alberta government into consideration when it introduces new bylaws covered by

TILMA. That's

article 7.2 — more reasons not to be supporting Bill 32.

If the local government provides a business subsidy —

article 12 —

including tax waivers or infrastructure charge deductions for any activity. Let

me step back. Thank you for your patience with me. I distract easily when my

mind is involved in the complexity of an agreement that lays down such an effect

upon all British Columbians.

Backing up to where I was, if the local government provides a

business subsidy, under

article 12, including tax waivers or infrastructure

charge deductions for any activity not exempted…. For example, subsidies for

heritage conservation are not exempted by TILMA.

I believe, Madam Speaker, that there's a member of the Legislature

here who would like to make an introduction. If that is agreeable with you, we

could allow that to happen, and then I would like to reserve my right to stand

up and continue speaking.

[ Page 12328 ]

D. Thorne: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

Introductions by Members

D. Thorne: Today visiting in the House are 26 grade 5

students from Parkland School in my riding. Parkland Elementary School is the

school my own children attended. It's a wonderful, wonderful school. As the

saying in this House goes, I think it's one of the very best schools in British

Columbia.

I'm very proud to represent these students. I'm going to meet with

them in a few minutes, when they're finished in the House, and we're going to

talk about lots of interesting things. They're going to have lots of good

questions, I'm sure. I'd ask the House to please make them very welcome.

Debate Continued

C. Wyse: Under

article 14, we have the procurement

restrictions that come into play. I have mentioned earlier that in the broader

scheme of things, this is a minor point. It is still of concern, albeit minor.

[1110]

British Columbians must be very careful that they do not take any

changes here to any numbers to make TILMA more in agreement with the agreement

in internal trade because, in actual fact, the numbers here underneath

procurement, underneath

article 14, have very, very low sums of money for

procurement.

A timing aspect is another reason not to be supporting this

particular Bill 32. All of the above provisions could be used to challenge local

government after April 2009 if the municipalities are not exempted from TILMA.

As well, any bylaw local government amends or renews before then can be

challenged immediately if it becomes less consistent with TILMA.

Now, defences against TILMA. Let's have a look at it, against the

challenges. Remember the advice that we received earlier from Saskatchewan. It's

the words of the agreement, not any other words that govern, not any other words

that say what is going to occur. It is the agreement, and it includes Bill 32.

TILMA covers everything local government does unless it explicitly

is exempted under

part 5. In addition, none of the following local government

objectives are defined by TILMA as legitimate underneath the

definitions of part

Taking into account the opinions of residents. Let me repeat that:

taking into account the opinions of residents. That seems to mirror this

government, who takes everything into cabinet, away from this House, away from

debate, and makes the decisions. Local government has a habit, a long tradition

of listening to its electorate, listening to its residents, but that's no longer

part of the defence.

Avoiding potential negative impacts on neighbourhoods. No longer

in the defence. Not covered underneath TILMA — another reason for not voting for

Bill 32.

Preservation of rental accommodations, ethical purchasing,

heritage properties or industrial lands. Again, not covered, not included and

open for challenge.

So none of these objectives could be used to defend local

government bylaws or subsidies that violate the agreement underneath

article 6.

And even if a bylaw could be defended by an objective, recognizing TILMA as

legitimate, local governments would be obligated to pursue this objective in a

way that is the least restrictive to business as defined by the dispute panel —

as defined by the dispute panel. Notice, no longer by government, by a dispute

panel. Three people, chosen arbitrarily.

[1115]

Where, pray tell, has democracy gone? It has fallen off the table

— a reason to be defeating Bill 32. We should be ashamed that we are debating

the lack of democracy. We should be hanging our heads in shame that I should be

standing here needing to make these points, here in the provincial Legislature

of British Columbia.

Under TILMA, local government policies could be challenged before

a trade tribunal appointed by the respective provincial governments. Only the

provincial governments, as parties, are allowed to defend measures before a

TILMA tribunal, which means that whether and how municipal policies are defended

is up to the province.

The B.C. Liberal government, in my judgment and possibly others,

is unlikely to put up a defence if the TILMA challenge is against a local

government measure that blocks the kind of development it favours and might

rather just force the municipality to comply. Don't agree? Dead in the water,

regardless of what that community wants, because they do not have the right to

be at the table with a tribunal to defend their legislation that has been put

into place.

I am hanging my head lower and lower as I go through the debate on

this particular bill, Bill 32, a bill for implementing this agreement, a bill

that must be defeated.

There's no question that the province would force local

governments to comply. They are obligated to do so under

article 2.2. They are

obligated by the agreement that they have signed with Alberta to do that. They

do not have a choice. They must force them to comply. I quote: "Each party is

responsible for compliance with this agreement by its government entities." If

they did not secure compliance, that itself would be cause for a successful

challenge under the agreement.

Now, on the question of whether local government would have to pay

any monetary awards up to $5 million, that alarmed Mr. Lidstone, who provided

the legal analysis for UBCM that deals with that question extensively. As I

promised earlier, I would return to that point of paying the fine. Mr. Lidstone

provided the legal analysis for UBCM that deals with this question extensively.

The Lidstone opinion notes the contradiction between what the B.C.

Liberal government says in its public

[ Page 12329 ]

information on TILMA — remember that website that you're encouraged to go and

see to get an impartial analysis of things? — and how the province answers this

query that he asked. That's the lawyer on behalf of UBCM regarding the who-pays

question.

In its public information — for example, the Ministry of Economic

Development backgrounder, "Fact, Not Fiction, on TILMA…." Check that out on the

website, "Fact, Not Fiction." Look at it in isolation, by itself. The B.C.

Liberal government tries to rebut the criticism that TILMA allows business to

challenge municipal bylaws and claim damages, even from small communities, by

stating that municipalities are not required to defend their own measures or pay

monetary awards.

Yet in its response to Mr. Lidstone, on behalf of UBCM, the

province's answer to the who-pays question was instead this: "It is impossible

to answer the question definitively. The course of action that the province

would take in any dispute proceeding involving municipalities would depend on

the particular circumstances of the dispute." I'm hoping that that quote

likewise will be found on the same government webpage so that both sides of the

answer to this question are available to the public at large.

[1120]

Madam Speaker, I think we're beginning to develop quite a flavour

for why Bill 32 should not be passed. It implements this agreement.

In case I may have wandered around the particular point from local

government, I'd like to encapsulate those points that I've made over the last

few minutes on behalf of local government. The municipal lawyer on their behalf

notes that bylaws and civic practices that have been upheld through court

decisions over the years may now fail to comply with TILMA and trigger

challenges. So where local government has established where they are legally,

from past practices, it has turned into quicksand for them, not only for the

local government but, more importantly, for the people for whom they govern.

They have the right to expect that they would have been involved

in something as profound, something as far-reaching, something that moves

expected democracy off the table. That is indeed not too much of an expectation,

and the fact that we're here in May 2008, before there's been an opportunity to

discuss this particular aspect in this House, is in my judgment shameful,

shameful, shameful.

Even if the province is liable for penalties, Mr. Lidstone says

that fear of challenges arising under TILMA may put a chill on decision-making

by city councils. Here we have had a whole rash of legislation in front of us to

deal with major issues of the environment. Greenwashing is what they become when

you put them up against TILMA and the effect that TILMA may well have upon the

legislation. With what one hand is talking about enabling to do, Bill 32 is

clipping it off at the knees. It is leaving it incapacitated and not able to be

moved forward.

Mr. Lidstone said, "Municipalities we know to be very conservative

and careful," and added: "It may lead to the scenario of the tail wagging the

dog." Lidstone said that some areas where cities may find themselves constrained

by TILMA include — and let's go back over them — policies of buying from local

firms; ethical purchasing requirements, such as boycotts of companies linked to

slave labour; subsidies to businesses, potentially including the provision of

land below market value to achieve goals like revitalization or affordable

housing development.

He goes on to state about that minor issue of those procurements:

"Do not be misled by moving a couple of numbers around in a document as compared

to the overall profound effect that there exists underneath TILMA."

Now, let's move on to an item that is of utmost importance, and

that is the effect that climate is having upon the environment. It's something,

I guess, similar to TILMA. The other side has had an epiphany and has recognized

that things need to be done around this item.

[1125]

But when we look at TILMA and its effect, potentially, on

achieving those necessary goals to deal with the climate, you will again see why

there are concerns about Bill 32, the implementation of TILMA, and why Bill 32

should not be passed.

Now, again, I don't recall finding these sources on the government

website, and it does not surprise me that they're not on the government website.

We would expect that from the government website there would be a very narrow

interpretation of an agreement that has not been open to public scrutiny. But

when it was open to public scrutiny…. There are a couple of environmentally

connected organizations that I want to refer to. I will leave it up to the

people of British Columbia to determine whether, in actual fact, these

organizations are attempting to mislead you with concerns around TILMA. I will

leave it up to you to make your own judgment.

A very long time ago, when I was knee-high to something, I was

taught to try and listen to the message. Don't shoot messengers. In actual fact,

what you are being told, regardless of who may be delivering it, may have merit

and may have insights that you have not thought of. But arrogant people — and I

guess you could protract that to arrogant governments — say: "If it's not on my

website, it's not worthy of consideration." That's narrow. That doesn't allow

for openness. It doesn't allow for solid, encompassing government that governs

for all of British Columbians — not, as has been reported, everything that the

business community asks for.

Since when does government become arrogant enough that they govern

only for one segment of our communities? Since when?

Interjection.

C. Wyse: My colleague across the way has suggested that it

started in 2000. Was it 2001? But it may have started….

Interjection.

C. Wyse: My colleague has his opportunity to make his

point, and I encourage him to get up and make his point. I just hope that his

government will provide the

[ Page 12330 ]

opportunity to do such, that this bill will not be yanked and that it will be

provided with the ample opportunity required to debate it.

Returning to what the University of Victoria Environmental Law

Centre makes of TILMA's effect upon implementation of other acts that are in

front of this House this year, a reason for not voting for Bill 32. So from the

University of Victoria Environmental Law Society, the legal analysis has

identified key areas of concern for local governments seeking to implement

measures to address environmental issues, and these concerns include the level

of government that some estimates place as responsible for 70 percent of the

greenhouse gases that are produced.

We have another bill that is in front of us that is meant to

empower local government to do such, to implement. But here, when we move on the

next day to Bill 32, lo and behold, we find that there are legal opinions, legal

analyses, from organizations that, in my mind, are not alarmists and that raise

these concerns.

[1130]

Let's have a look at some of them, as the implementation of this

bill affects local government and the environment. The sweeping nature of TILMA

itself has prohibitions against measures that impact trade, investment and

labour mobility. The potential application of these prohibitions to key

environmental measures because of the limited TILMA exemptions for environmental

measures…. Remember: not stated, not included in TILMA, you're covered by TILMA.

A government arrogant enough to think that they knew in 2007 all the issues that

would come into play to deal with the environment and deal with the issues

around greenhouse gases, for example — that's only one aspect that is not

covered specifically underneath TILMA.

The onerous burden faced when seeking to justify a local

government measure challenged by business. Where do the small communities obtain

these resources? For that matter, where do the larger municipalities obtain

those resources? This is not like Victoria, where we're talking about budgets

with billions of dollars. We're talking about local government that has

primarily one source of revenue, that of property tax — the one pocket that is

available to local government to come up with their revenue.

This government has consistently been putting their hand into that

same pocket so that the last time a local government went in there to see

whether there were resources available to look after their local government

needs, they found lint, and lint only. The province had picked their pockets for

such things as transit and other items of that nature.

Now, with Bill 32, we are expecting them to take on this onerous

challenge of ensuring that everything that they do is not in contravention of

TILMA.

Finally, the University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre

Society points out the concern of the unsatisfactory dispute resolution process.

It is noted that "much of the language in the agreement is undefined or

ambiguous. As a result, a full understanding of TILMA's impact awaits future

panel, court rulings and amendments by the parties. However, current wording of

the agreement clearly raises concerns for local governments that want to protect

the environment."

As we move through other legislation in front of this House, we'll

be required to do such underneath Bill 27, an item that possibly the government

overlooked — the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing — as they

continue to beat up on democracy, ignore it, put things into the hands of the

cabinet and carry on.

The University of Victoria Environmental Law Centre goes on and

points out about the cumbersomeness and the difficult, if not impossible, aspect

of dealing with TILMA at the local government level.

"A municipality seeking to implement measures to protect

the environment will need to establish both that their objective is legitimate

and that less restrictive means to achieve the same ends are insufficient — a

complicated and expensive hurdle to overcome. Instead of simply taking an action

to protect the environment, the municipality will have to establish that it

fully considered a whole constellation of alternative actions that might have

addressed the problem with less impact on trade, investment and labour mobility,

and that the chosen course was not more restrictive than necessary. Over time,

this could act as a powerful deterrent against local government implementation

of environmental protection measures."

[1135]

As a matter of a fact, we're seeing signs as early as now that

there is a chilling effect that is taking place.

Now, if that one august body in my judgment, not an alarmist

group…. I haven't heard a lot of people point to the University of Victoria

Environmental Law Society and accuse them of being some alarmist group. Then

let's have a look at what the Sierra Legal Defence Fund, now Ecojustice, has to

say about TILMA and the environment.

At this time I don't wish to start at the local government level.

I want to share with the province of British Columbia, with all of those people

at home listening to this debate and with all members here in the House who are

giving me their undivided attention on Bill 32, and the need for it not passing,

not proceeding….

At the provincial level, from Ecojustice, the former Sierra Legal

Defence Fund: "Although the aim of the agreement is to turn Alberta and B.C.

into an economic powerhouse, a legal analysis of TILMA by Sierra Legal reveals

it could seriously threaten the province's endangered species and jeopardize

potential initiatives to reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions."

I don't think I'm going to find that on the government website. I

don't. But for other people listening to this particular debate and

conversation, I've attempted to identify specifically where this reference has

come from. It is available to the public. They are not required to go through

freedom-of-information requests, as others have been, to get the background on

the TILMA document.

It took eight, almost two full hands of digits, to get the

information to put together how TILMA research was found — that was shocking; it

was shocking to me to find out how quick and dirty it was done — to look at Bill

32, again moving things off into cabinet, again

[ Page 12331 ]

gutting democracy, removing democracy at the local government level and

putting challenges to it.

But let's go back and again have a look at Ecojustice, the Sierra

group, on local government and the environment and see where they are standing.

"TILMA includes some broad exemptions related to the environment, such as

measures relating to water; the promotion of renewable and alternative energy;

the conservation of forests, fish and wildlife; and the management of hazardous

and waste materials." I've listed the exemptions. But as we have discussed here,

they are not mentioned as included under TILMA.

So let's go back and have a look at some of the items that are not

listed under TILMA and therefore are included under TILMA. I go on. "However,

these exemptions do not appear to include measures related to a number of other

critical environmental issues, such as the reduction of greenhouse gases."

[1140]

The reduction of greenhouse gases. All that greenwashing that we

have been sitting through, and lo and behold, we have hidden in the woodpile a

piece of legislation that, according to this group, is challengeable under

TILMA.

Besides greenhouse gases, protection of endangered plants in some

of the most endangered ecosystems in the country…. Then they list some examples,

such as B.C. Garry oak, grassland and wetland ecosystems. Finally, also not

included, therefore covered by TILMA, is the reduction of air pollution. I hope

we are going to have lots of time for debate.

So on climate change and global warming. I mentioned at the start

of my discussion that I would be coming back to this issue that is so important

and requires our attention. I wish to put it into context, not from me but from

Sir Nicholas Stern and his view on the importance of this issue. Then I'm going

to return to how Ecojustice matches up TILMA to that particular statement by Mr.

Stern.

"Global warming is one of if not the key challenge of the 21st

century," as recently noted by Mr. Stern. "Our actions over the coming few

decades could create risks of major disruption to economic and social activity

later in this century and in the next on a scale similar to those associated

with the great wars and the economic depression of the first half of the 20th

century, and it will be difficult or impossible to reverse these changes."

Mr. Stern goes on to note further: "Climate change presents a

unique challenge for economics. It is the greatest and widest-ranging market

failure ever seen. In essence, we have treated the atmosphere as a dumping site

with minimal limitations or cost requirements."

Now back to Ecojustice and their comment after that statement.

"Will TILMA make it more difficult for Alberta and B.C. to address this failure?

The answer appears to be yes." Further, this group goes on: "A range of other

environmental measures identified by Sierra Legal as being potentially subject

to challenge under TILMA are" — and there are five of them — "urban land use

planning, agricultural land reserve, mandatory eco-labelling, soil contamination

and limitation on the use of Crown land."

These are the opinions of Ecojustice. I'm sure the minister will

consult his website, and he will have his opinion.

I have put up the opinions of other groups that have an entirely

different opinion. They may not have their heads buried in the sand as the other

side does.

Once more, I believe we have a colleague who would like to make an

introduction, so I would like to provide the opportunity to do that and reserve

my right to carry on with my discussion.

D. MacKay: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Deputy Speaker: Proceed, Member.

Introductions by Members

D. MacKay: Today in the chamber we've got 11 students

representing grades 6 to 9 from the community of Atlin. For those of you that

don't know, Atlin is located up in the northwestern part of our province. These

young students have travelled 2,650 kilometres to be with us today, and they are

here with the principal Chris Stacey and their teacher ?sa Berg. I would ask the

chamber to please make them feel welcome.

[1145]

Debate Continued

C. Wyse: I did start off with acknowledging some aspects

here underneath TILMA where there has been some support found, and that's in the

area of labour mobility. However, it's worth reminding everyone in this House

and all those people watching that when the entire package of the Trade,

Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement had been examined, it had been rejected

everywhere else but where it had been signed originally — by B.C. and Alberta.

I wish to have a look at labour mobility through the eyes of

another organization and how they look upon TILMA as being the vehicle by which

to achieve greater labour mobility. That group was the Canadian Institute of

Chartered Accountants.

In my judgment, I have chosen highly reputable organizations in

developing my argument, organizations that are not likely in their practice to

go off without having spent time to develop a reasoned response. If members on

the other side believe that the sources I've used to develop my case are of such

an ilk, they will have the opportunity to challenge their opinions. They will

have ample opportunity to tell local government "uh-uh." They will have ample

opportunity to tell all of Canada and the other levels of government "uh-uh."

They will have ample opportunity to make their point.

Let's go back and have a look at what the Canadian Institute of

Chartered Accountants has to say about TILMA and labour mobility: "In our

striving for the ideal of a domestic free market open to unrestricted

competition, it is critically important to remember that not all standards and

regulations are inherently bad. Nor are they necessarily anti-competitive,

particularly where

[ Page 12332 ]

the standards and regulations are present for the specific purposes of

protecting the public."

What a novel idea, protecting the public. Wow. That I would be

forced to stand up in this House and point out that there is more than looking

after the interests of just the business community that is the responsibility of

the 79 of us…. Wow. But even the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants has

recognized that.

Chartered accountants endorse labour mobility. In fact, years ago

we harmonized our accreditation process to ensure that CAs can freely move

across Canada and work in all provinces. Then they go on: "Although we support

the merits of trying to enhance labour mobility, we bring to your attention the

important need to recognize that provisions such as

article 13.1 of TILMA could

lead inevitably to the risk" — the risk — "that standards of qualifications for

professionals are reduced to the lowest level prevailing in the country." That

is from the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

"As professional standards of regulation of professions are not

uniform to begin with, this provision essentially makes the lowest of the

standards that may exist in Canada acceptable as the base of qualifications —

essentially a race to the bottom, if you will."

The chartered accountants: "We do not believe that this is

consistent with the obligations of legislators and government nor of the

professions themselves to ensure that the public is protected" — not my words,

but the words of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants.

[1150]

They go on:

"We have expressed a concern here that although we are

highly supportive of the elimination of barriers to trade domestically and,

frankly, internationally to that extent, in reading the language in the TILMA

document we find that it is not in the public interest. Our concern is that this

is not of the public interest and does not protect the public.

"What can we do? What can the senators or

government do? It properly begins with the recognition that it is fundamentally

the principles that are important and not the rules instructing any type of

agreement. A fundamental principle must be recognition of the importance of

maintaining the protection of the public and not being open to a situation that

would be conducive to reducing the level of standards that are necessary to

recognize professionals. That is the interest of the public."

Madam Speaker, even when we are in the area of…. My

apologies, Mr. Speaker. I don't know how you managed to sneak in on me. It must

be getting close to lunchtime. However, it's very, very good to see you, as it

always is. I hope that helps cover and recover.

I would like to come back and remind people here of one of the

areas where we began. That's the quote from Mr. Mar. Alberta's former minister,

in 2006, made this statement to the Richmond Chamber of Commerce with regards to

the TILMA dispute process: "It is everything Canadian business asked for."

Heather Douglas, president of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, is

also quoted. She praised the Alberta government's role in negotiating TILMA,

saying: "It acted on our suggestions." This is the president of the Calgary

Chamber of Commerce. Paraphrasing the old saying about General Motors, Miss

Douglas promoted TILMA on the basis that what's good for Alberta will be good

for the country. As I demonstrated earlier, the rest of the country, including

many local governments here in B.C., disagrees with that point.

I ask: who looked out for B.C. and its citizens when the Premier

signed this deal? It raises the need for Bill 32 to be defeated. The government

has signed away the rights of B.C. to govern itself. The government has turned

over the province to the

interpretation of a three-person panel. That is quite

clear.

With that, I would move adjournment and reserve my right to

re-enter debate.

C. Wyse moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. R. Thorpe moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 this

afternoon.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); H. Bloy in the

chair.

The committee met at 10:07 a.m.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $1,306,920,000 (continued).

C. Trevena: To the minister: we have limited time, so we'll

get straight to it.

I wanted first off to start on, literally, the budget allocation

for child care. In the resource

summary

section of the estimates, we have under

the 2007-2008 estimates a sum of $421.865 million. For 2008-2009 it goes up to

$466.338 million, and there is a footnote that says that figure includes the

federal funding of $33

[ Page 12333 ]

million. Does the '07-08 figure include that $33 million?

Hon. L. Reid: Yes.

C. Trevena: Is it possible to give a breakdown of what

those figures are going to be spent on? In the plan it just says it basically

all together, but in previous plans we've had early childhood development, child

care and support for special needs separated out. I wonder if it would be

possible to separate those out.

Hon. L. Reid: The breakdown, as requested for '07-08: for

subsidy, $4.91 million; for CCOF, $6.37 million; for CCRR, $6 million; major

capital, $12.5 million; minor capital, $700,000; ECE bursaries, $500,000; CC

operations and administration, $1.2 million; ECD staffing, $500,000; and

MCFD-supported child development, $440,000; which gives you the total of $33.12

million.

C. Trevena: I've got to apologize. We've gone straight into

this, and I haven't given the minister the opportunity to introduce her staff. I

don't know if she'd like to right now or as we proceed.

What I was wondering, just to get the question in while we are

moving ahead quite quickly…. The $466 million estimate that we have of the

breakdown there. In previous years we've had early childhood development, child

care and support for special needs. I just wanted to get the breakdown of those

figures.

[1010]

Hon. L. Reid: While my staff is pulling that together, I'm

pleased to introduce Lesley du Toit, deputy minister for the Ministry of

Children and Family Development. Alan Markwart is with us, and directly behind,

our financial officer, Sarf Ahmed.

We'll come back to you momentarily. If you have other questions,

what we'll do is keep a running tally of your questions that require some

compilation. Please go ahead and pose the next question.

C. Trevena: I would like the breakdown for all the years,

if that would be possible. But what I wondered also is that we do have the $33

million of federal funding that has gone into child care. Obviously, $12.5

million has gone into capital funding and the recent announcement of the various

child care spaces. I just wondered where the other $20.5 million has gone to.

Hon. L. Reid: The list I just read for the member opposite

included the $12½ million for major capital. That was the list that totalled the

$33.12 million.

C. Trevena: Okay. That explains it. Thank you very much,

Minister.

Going on to the $12.5 million capital funding, I wonder if the

minister could just explain a little to me how the moneys were allocated. I know

there have been a number of announcements over the last few weeks and months

about child care spaces. I was wondering how it was decided that those places

would get that spending.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to spend a few minutes on the

process. You will know, probably, that in 2005 there was about $14½ million that

went to child care capital construction across British Columbia, and a very

similar adjudication process was underway. Probably ten or 12 different souls

across ministries came to adjudicate the actual application. It's a request for

proposal. This round, more than 250 applications came in for $12½ million. Our

sense, in terms of quality of the proposal: no question. But we also attempt to

put dollars regionally across British Columbia to look at how it is we can have

some equity as we go forward.

You're probably aware of most of the announcements that have gone

forward. Certainly, you will know that it's been a passion to have co-located

integrated service. So we've tended to look at how we can support hubs across

British Columbia, how we can have families seek services at a single location

during the course of their day, as opposed to…. We're both familiar with the

scenario where a mom has two or three youngsters of different ages and may go to

two or three different places — the mom or dad — on the way to work or school in

the morning.

The ways we can in fact create better kindnesses around the

provision of this service when those opportunities present themselves…. We

should absolutely seize those opportunities. We have attempted to do that, both

in the 2005 capital round and in this capital round.

You will know that we've also had direction from the Premier in

terms of better utilization of public space. You will know that in the last

round we were successful in relocating a child care program into the former

Squamish courthouse — glorious program. I would absolutely encourage you to

visit. It's a great, great hub now for downtown Squamish. It's the central,

focal point of view for downtown Squamish.

The same undertaking in terms of child care going into classrooms

across British Columbia…. You will know, given the difficulties in terms of

hiring contractors today, that they're busy working on a whole array of products

and provisions in British Columbia. Any time we can go to a renovation, that's

usually three to six or seven months from the day you make that decision to the

day you occupy that premise. It's a glorious return on investment for British

Columbia taxpayers and for families that get into those spaces that much more

quickly.

A new ground-up build in British Columbia — two to three years

today. So if we want the spaces open and available that much more readily for

families, certainly that type of approach is working for us. You will know that

in this round we funded lots of classroom conversions to child care space, and I

think it's going to be a remarkable kindness to families in that they can

actually have their neighbourhood school as the hub.

[ Page 12334 ]

My eventual dream as we go through this process, as more

StrongStarts come on, is that StrongStart centres, located adjacent to child

care centres, located adjacent to kindergarten classrooms, have that primary

wing as preparation for youngsters who will at some point be in grade 1, grade 2

and moving through the elementary system. It in no way precludes child care

going into secondary schools. We have lots of young-parent programs in secondary

schools that have child care attached. So that kind of work is underway as well.

The majority of the announcements will be complete by the end of

May. So $12½ million will be in the field by the end of May. For many of those

centres, many of them have said that they will be operational, particularly in

the school space, come September. So a very, very effective turnaround.

[1015]

C. Trevena: I wonder if the minister could explain — she

said there was sort of a board adjudicating — who was on that board and what the

criteria were for the grants for that capital funding?

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly we had the representative from each

of the five regions. So we would have the five regional reps. We had

representatives from the child care policy branch and representatives from the

Ministry of Health in terms of licensing. So in this particular round of

capital, there were 12 individuals who came together to adjudicate those 254

applications.

C. Trevena: What were the criteria used for saying…? The

minister had said, obviously, that she wants to get a breadth across the

province, and I can quite understand that. I know that in my own constituency

you recently announced child care spaces in Tahsis, but I just wondered what

other criteria the minister and the team adjudicating were using.

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly, there were a number of different

criteria that were employed in terms of evaluating the criteria. It was a

proposal process, so people actually made application based on a number of

different criteria.

Space sufficiency. If they're going into a school, was there

sufficient space to accommodate a child care provider should they be successful?

Definitely looked at categories of social need and, frankly, looked at the

inventory of existing child care space in the region. Early childhood

development indicator scores were folded in.

Feasibility — whether or not there was a business plan to deliver

the program and whether or not there was community support for the provision of

child care in that area, in that region. So there were probably six broad

categories and a number of different facets of each of those categories explored

in some detail. The adjudicators brought their experience and their knowledge of

how child care delivery happened in other parts of the province to bear in terms

of ranking each of those applications.

C. Trevena: The minister mentioned that there were 250

applications. Sorry, I might have missed how many were successful out of that

Hon. L. Reid: While they're looking for that breakdown, I

will give you the response to the question you posed earlier.

You asked for a provisional breakdown for early childhood

development, child care, supportive child development and special needs. Child

care in '08-09, $290 million; ECD, $23 million; special needs, $153 million —

equalling $466 million. In '07-08, the year previous, $288 million for child

care, $23 for early childhood development, and $144 million for special needs —

equalling $455 million.

[1020]

C. Trevena: And the subsequent years, if you're looking for

'09-10 and '10-11. Do we have those yet?

Thank you, Minister. We are rushing through this, and I thank the

minister because there are a lot of issues that we want to cover in literally a

short time.

One of the questions, again, on the capital funding: I wondered if

there were applications from, say, the private sector, not the family child care

operators but any private sector operators, any businesses that are running as

child care. Obviously, we have the family child care operators that are up and

running. I know some have applied, because they've come to me and wondered about

the application process. I'm sure they've come to the minister as well.

I wondered if there were any other private sector applicants

outside that range of the usually established private sector within child care.

Hon. L. Reid: We'll just be sort of one pace. We are on a

number of successful applications. So 114 projects in 60 B.C. communities are

receiving major child care funding; 68 are group child care centres, and 43 are

family child care centres.

You will be aware, I know, of the work we've done with B.C.

Housing in terms of siting child care developments adjacent to where people

live. Again, I think it's wholly appropriate that people have the opportunity

not to have to worry about transporting all the bits and pieces that go along

with caring for children if they do not indeed have transportation

opportunities.

We've done three in the last round and three in this round in

terms of child care adjacent to B.C. Housing projects. Some 38 of these projects

will locate in vacant space in schools and public buildings, and ten of these

projects will create or expand neighbourhood hubs.

What I can do while I'm on my feet is give you the breakdown by

region. The Fraser region, 28 projects for the number of 697 new spaces created.

In the Interior, 33 projects for 504 spaces. In the north, 13 projects for 206

spaces. In Vancouver coastal, 23 projects for 511 spaces. On Vancouver Island,

17 projects for 311 spaces. So again, across British Columbia, 114 projects and

2,229 child care spaces created.

[ Page 12335 ]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister.

I wonder if the minister could…. There were 250 applicants; 114

were successful. Will the applicants who were not successful get the chance to

apply in a second round, or is this it? Is there going to be further funding

available?

Hon. L. Reid: The dramatic lift in child care space will

absolutely have a drawdown on the number of dollars available for subsidy and

for CCOF, so we're not certain yet what the next round might look like. We will

know more once these spaces are operational, in terms of how much dollar is

drawn down on subsidy and CCOF.

CCOF can be predicted, but subsidy is a little more uncertain.

Certainly, there's been intense drawdown on it today. I welcome that. I think

there are opportunities for those most vulnerable to actually have places in

child care, and we will just gauge that better over the next three to six months

as we go forward.

In terms of your question about independent child care operators,

there were 18 recipients, for the creation of 633 child care spaces.

[1025]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. The 18

recipients, the independent…. We have 43 family operators that have received it,

18 independent. I wondered if the minister could explain what "independent" is.

I'm wondering whether it's sort of a small business, a large business…. What are

we looking at when we're saying "independent"?

When we're talking about child care, it's easy to look at the

family child care, the group child care. There are one or two small business

child care models. In a house where somebody is running a small business that's

child care…. I'll ask whether that is independent or whether we're talking about

something really a bit bigger — company child care.

Hon. L. Reid: I know the question has been whether or not

British Columbia will be home to large, corporate child care. The answer to that

is no. We have small, independent operators today, and there has been no

interest in having anything else come to British Columbia, and it simply does

not exist today in British Columbia.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that answer.

The minister said that we're in all five regions — 28 in the

Fraser, 33 in the Interior, 13 in the north, 23 in the coast and 17 on the

Island. We obviously know some of those locations with the announcements that

have come out recently. Is it possible for the minister — through her staff,

through you, Chair — to say where all these spaces are going to be so we know

the different communities where the spaces are going to be?

Hon. L. Reid: The member posed the question in terms of

'09-10 and '10-11. Child care in '09-10, 291; ECD, 23; children and youth with

special needs, 160. That's a total of 474. In '10-11, 293 for child care, 23 for

early childhood development and 162 for children and youth with special needs,

for a total of 478.

I'm certainly happy to give the member a flavour of where we've

made the announcements to date and to reiterate that all the announcements will

probably be done in the next two to three weeks. The full $12½ million will be

accounted for in terms of the northern region. Treehouse Early Learning and

Telkwa have gone forward. Family YM/YWCA of Prince George has gone forward. The

hub has gone; the dollars have gone into Prince George. There are additional

announcements still to be made for the north.

The Interior region. We have Kamloops and Clearwater that have

gone forward. Westbank, Kelowna, Vernon and Salmon Arm have gone forward, and

there are still two additional announcements to be made.

In the Fraser Valley, Global Montessori has gone forward. The

village of Anmore has gone forward, and Delta has gone forward.

On Vancouver Island. Comox and Ladysmith have gone forward.

Victoria — CFB Esquimalt — was the one we did most recently. Victoria again —

Sooke and Victoria.

Vancouver coastal. We've had Halfmoon Bay go forward, Mount

Pleasant Community Centre Association, Trafalgar Out-of-School Care Society and

the district of West Vancouver. There are, on those last two, a number of

announcements still to go forward on behalf of each.

[1030]

C. Trevena: I'd just like a bit of clarification from the

minister on that list. For instance, on the Island, as I say, I know that in my

community there was the announcement about Tahsis. So we are talking about the

same list here. It's the same announcements for child care spaces. I know, for

instance, that we had Vernon. There was one in Tahsis at the rec centre. We've

had Vernon, Kamloops, Clearwater, Sunshine Coast. These are the ones that were

all announced quite recently. So we are talking about the same round of

announcements.

Hon. L. Reid: Yes.

C. Trevena: Okay, then I'll move on.

I actually have a couple of other requests. Rather than asking all

my colleagues to come in and bombard the minister with lots of questions as

well, because of limited time, I have a couple of requests for a bit more

detailed information.

I know that my colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds has actually written

to the minister about child care spaces in Burnaby and the grant applications,

and whether any child care capital funding is going to Burnaby in this latest

round and whether any hub capital funding was allocated to Burnaby and, if so,

where in Burnaby.

[ Page 12336 ]

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

that the announcement will be this week.

C. Trevena: I hope the member will be satisfied, and if

he's not, he'll come and ask the minister for further detail.

My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has specific questions about

capital funding for Harbour View. Harbour View is, at present, in a portable and

has understood that capital funding has gone to other portables in Vancouver —

Kitsilano Montessori, Learning Tree day care and Gingerbread House. Kiwassa

Neighbourhood House was wondering whether they were also going to be getting

some capital funding.

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly this issue has had some good

discussion and probably will continue to have some good discussion as we go

forward. The ownership of the other portables that the member mentions has not

been in question. The ownership of this particular portable is in question.

The province continued to pay the building occupancy costs for the

others, not for this one. In fact, it has paid out probably close to $500,000 in

capital allocation. That dollar has been matched by the city of Vancouver. We

certainly have ongoing discussion, but I'm not sure there is resolution beyond

the allocation of the $500,000.

[1035]

C. Trevena: I'm sure the member will come back to you and

ask a few more questions on that.

Obviously, we don't want to pre-empt the announcements as they

come, and we eagerly await, like the applicants do, the announcements. Would it

be possible that beyond those announcement press releases, we could get in

writing a list of all the successful applications, the 114 out of the 250 that

are successful?

Hon. L. Reid: I will personally deliver the press releases

to you.

C. Trevena: That's pretty kind of the minister. Thank you

very much.

I just wanted to explore a little bit more about the spaces. I've

got two areas that I want to look at. One is the B.C. Housing partnership. What

investment is the ministry putting into the partnership with B.C. Housing?

Financially and, obviously, philosophically there's a big investment in it. But

what is the financial investment, and how will that be ongoing? What sort of

partnership are you talking about?

Hon. L. Reid: The capital allocation, as you know, is $2.5

million. What will be ongoing will be what any child care centre would be able

to access, which is the CCOF, child care operating funding, and the subsidy

costs, should they have children who would qualify for subsidy.

C. Trevena: The creation of spaces in school buildings.

Again, this is a question that has been raised to me as I've gone to different

schools and, literally, seen certain areas where there is a StrongStart and a

preschool in the same building, or there's a StrongStart and a child care in the

same building.

Everyone says how wonderful it works, and they love the fact that

there's a StrongStart and a kindergarten in the same building. But there is the

issue of child care centres. People have to pay for them. Even if you are on

subsidy, there is still the gap there. People have to pay something,

whereas if

the parents can access StrongStarts, they're there with them. They don't have to

pay.

Is the minister addressing in any way, with her colleagues around

the table, how to really integrate the system so that parents do see it as

seamless? Can we get to that stage, maybe, where a not-for-profit is able to

operate in a school system without that differentiation of paying and not

paying?

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite will know that we

continue to have an array of discussion. The member opposite will know that the

early learning agency is debating all the questions that pertain to how and if

we program for full-day kindergarten in the province, how we look at programming

for three-year-olds and how we look at programming for four-year-olds. Will that

issue come up? Undoubtedly, it will come up.

In terms of whether or not it is seen to be seamless today, what

families have said they're looking for is the convenience of a single drop-off

and pickup point for their children. The fact that they pay today for

out-of-school care doesn't seem to deter them from simply wanting each school to

have out-of-school care so that, indeed, there is some ease of access.

Are there a number of different models employed across British

Columbia today? Absolutely there are. Will we continue to work that discussion

forward? Yes, we will.

In terms of the number of schools today that offer child care,

there are some districts doing some outstanding things. Central Okanagan,

Abbotsford, the Kootenays — they're just folding those youngsters in,

acknowledging that they share the same child.

That's the part that speaks to me, when we as a government went on

to the Ready, Set, Learn piece. How you acquaint a three-year-old with his first

exposure to a school classroom? How you make him feel welcome? How you introduce

him or her to the school librarian? How you make them welcome in a place is the

gift of centralized programming for me — that they don't have disruption in

their day, that they don't have significant attachment issues.

We have youngsters today, the member will know, who go to three or

four different places in the course of a day. None of that should be what we

accept as we go forward. We should always be attempting to streamline the

process from the perspective of being that youngster — having some continuity

and some sense of attachment in their life.

My priority is how we have the day available in a similar location

and, hopefully, with caregivers that are

[ Page 12337 ]

known to the child, because a sense of attachment is huge.

[1040]

You may be aware that Norma Mickelson, who was the chancellor at

the University of Victoria…. She and I, some years back, shared a speaking

platform where she talked about how the quality of the graduate student that she

was able to move through graduate programming was pretty much determined by the

time that little person was six.

Is this critical in terms of how we structure a day for a

youngster? It's critical to me. I have a four-year-old, and I have an

eight-year-old. It's critical to me that there's some sense of continuity as we

go forward — what I want for my children and what I want for school districts,

for public buildings across the province and for communities to embrace.

Can we make it seamless, community by community? I believe we can.

C. Trevena: That's something that I think will be very

welcome to families as well as to providers — if we can have it seamless and

make sure there is an ease there. It's so that we don't have all that constant

transition for both the parents and the children — with the parents going, as

the minister mentioned, to drop off and pick up and the whole mess they're

facing, as well as the children who are being moved about the place.

On the spaces that have been created under the $12.5 million, the

minister has stated that it's basically 2,200 spaces we're talking about here. I

wondered if she could explain how she is translating the money that's going into

capital into the number of spaces available.

Hon. L. Reid: In terms of the member's question, it is

probably a question of weighting how you arrive at a particular cost for a

particular space. You will know that when the early learning and child care

agreement was operational across the country, they were pretty much driving to a

cost deliverable of $10,000 per space created. But the reality is that that only

works in urban centres. The cost of building a space in Tahsis, as an example,

is going to be extremely different than what it is building it in Vancouver.

Do we have to take into account all the variables across the

province in terms of construction time, seasonal build and soil quality? All of

those aspects, frankly, drive up costs. We had projects that have been very

expensive, yes. Have we had projects that are inexpensive? Yes. Sometimes it's

just about whether or not a contractor was available in terms of beginning the

project as soon as the dollar was in the field.

There is absolutely a variation. Nationally it was $10,000. It's

probably sitting closer to $15,000 to $18,000 today for space creation. Will

that number continue to rise? I believe it will, based on availability of

contract, based on the pace of an economy. When things are going well in a

province — as I believe things are going well in British Columbia today — it's

tougher to find folks to build small projects, and typically, child care centres

are smaller projects.

In terms of our regional breakdown, if you were to think of this

in terms of where the majority of children reside by percentage, the Fraser

region has the largest number of youngsters and, frankly, has the largest number

of spaces being created, based at about 38 percent of the child population in

the province — close to 700 spaces. The Interior has 500 spaces, roughly; the

north, 206 spaces; Vancouver coastal, 511 spaces; and Vancouver Island, 311

spaces.

It's not to the nth degree in terms of reflecting population, but

it's pretty close. It's a pretty decent accommodation in terms of where the

children reside, in terms of how we've attempted to site the spaces. But is the

cost per space identical from the north to Vancouver? No.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that explanation. One

of the things about spaces and space creation is that it's all very well having

the physical space there, but you've got to have the staff who are going to run

it. You can say, "We've got 15 spaces," but if you don't have the two or three

staff people there to keep the spaces open, it's academic, I believe.

I wondered whether the minister, through her staff, has noted the

number of licensed ECEs in the province at the moment.

[1045]

Hon. L. Reid: This year we will license an additional 800

early childhood educators, for a total of 10,500 ECEs across British Columbia.

Has the annual lift increased over time? It absolutely has. There were years

where it was 300 or 350 early childhood educators coming onto the registry. In

the past number of years 800 and 900 were not unusual — and leading in that.

I can tell you that May is a glorious month to be travelling the

province. I attend and see many graduates of the early childhood education

programs. Frankly, many are employed before they leave the program, which is

wonderful news for any new graduate in any program.

C. Trevena: I wondered if the minister has figures or the

percentage of the ECEs on the register — the 10,500 — who are actually working

in early childhood education at the moment.

Hon. L. Reid: No, we don't have that.

C. Trevena: Is that a figure that the ministry would have?

Or is it just that you've got the numbers totally, but there is no way of

tracking how many are actually working?

Hon. L. Reid: I share the member's curiosity. The reality

is that many of them don't have regular contact with the registry. It's

something…. They send in their cheque. Am I opposed to surveying them at some

future point in terms of understanding where they all are? I, too, would be

interested in that information.

[ Page 12338 ]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. I think it might

be worthwhile if there is the possibility of looking at that, because the

minister says that after graduation, people are finding jobs very quickly or

already have jobs.

What I'm hearing — as I'm sure the minister is as well — is the

real need, the difficulty that people are having in finding early childhood

educators. If you go onto a notice board and see the applications there or look

in the newspaper, there are a lot of early childhood educator spaces, jobs

available.

I also am aware of places such as…. I know that it has now changed

a little in Kamloops, but there they had their wonderful new building but

weren't able to open because they couldn't find the staff to run it.

When we're talking about spaces, I think we really have to be very

careful that we're not just talking about the money that's going to the physical

space but that we are ensuring that we do have the staff, the early childhood

educators, who are able to work in that space.

I wondered if the minister could tell me. We have, now this year,

the extra 900 early childhood educators coming on line, and most of them…. As I

say, it's not surprising they have found work already. Are these ECEs ones who

have done their full year? Or are they ones…? I know that now you can get your

ECE without actually doing the full year. You can do some of it distance

learning and so on as sort of more compressed courses. I wonder if the minister

is aware of the different levels there.

Hon. L. Reid: The member touched on a number of points in

terms of graduation and the availability of ECEs. There are some great

initiatives underway in the province. I can tell you that in the 2005 capital

round, there were dollars that went into the Splats'in First Nation. They were

building a gorgeous child care centre.

They knew they would need staff 18 months out, so basically, they

brought the training program to their community. They found a professor to come

and teach the course. We provided the dollars for that level of initiative,

because I think that's fabulous. They had 16 students start the program and 16

students graduate the program. They hired eight of them and freed up the other

eight to be employed in the surrounding areas. I welcome that.

The reality is that anyone who is building a child care centre

today knows that there are dollars on deposit at the Vancity Foundation for that

level of professional development because, frankly, that's where we want to have

programs operational so that families who might have…. A person in their midst

who would wish to take the programming isn't travelling a long distance to take

the course. They know they can find the course close to home.

You certainly have enough time, knowing what the building cycle

is, to accomplish that level of educated student, that level of graduation. So

in terms of where they go, how they're made available to the system, many

students today — and probably predominantly — are still in the one-year program.

We have lots of classes that graduate the full two-year program.

[1050]

We certainly have ongoing professional development opportunities

in the new regulation so that they continue to enhance their skills as they go

forward. I'm not hearing that there is a lack of the best-educated early

childhood educators there. The majority of folks complete at least the full

year, if not the second year.

C. Trevena: The minister mentioned in her answer that there

are dollars from Vancity for professional development. Are there also dollars

from the ministry for professional development?

I know that one of the things people are saying is that under the

new licensing it's great to have the extra requirement to do the professional

development and extra training and improvement in people's skills. It is a

matter of cost and a matter of money to do that, as well as a matter of time. So

I wondered…. Money from Vancity — where else is money available?

Hon. L. Reid: The dollars I referenced, Member…. That is

provincial dollar that's on deposit at the Vancity Foundation. It's $4.5

million. There are certainly communities and individual early childhood

educators today who are writing proposals to access that dollar and, indeed,

taking training programs back to their communities.

In terms of other dollars available, there are dollars available

for the regional professional development that we do through the child care

resource and referral. We have five regional professional development

coordinators today.

There are the quality improvement funds — the $40 million. Some

$20 million went out in the first year, $10 million this year and $10 million in

February '09. We encourage centres to use that for professional development as

well, should they so desire.

There are three different funding sources for ongoing professional

development. But the $4.5 million on deposit at the Vancity Foundation was put

on deposit by the province of British Columbia. Again, I would encourage folks

to apply for that dollar. I would much rather see that dollar in the field

producing enhanced levels of expertise for engagement with young children than

generating interest sitting in a fund.

The province continues to operate bursaries and to do tuition

reimbursement. We've created the incentive grant to bring back people who may

have left to have children or to do something else in early childhood education.

There are probably four or five different irons in the fire in terms of ensuring

that someone who has a genuine interest in becoming an early childhood educator

has some resources and supports to do that or that someone who is a qualified

early childhood educator has some opportunity to return to the sector with some

enhanced funding.

C. Trevena: The minister has opened up a great field of

questions for me, which I was about to move on to. She reminds me of the $40

million that went

[ Page 12339 ]

through the B.C. Council for Families for distribution — $20 million, $10

million and $10 million. Vancity is by application; B.C. Council for Families,

I'm assuming, is by application. Obviously it's the CCRRs in discussion with

child care operators.

What oversight is the ministry giving these bodies in their

distribution of funds, and what are the guidelines for that distribution?

Hon. L. Reid: Let me just respond to the B.C. Council for

Families piece. The first $20 million went directly from government, and it was

done to the CCOF recipients in the province. So it wasn't an application

process. It was a direct award.

The same process was engaged in by the B.C. Council for the $10

million that they directed this year. It's a direct award if you're a CCOF

recipient in the province of British Columbia — i.e., the province provided you

with operating dollars. That dollar continued to flow in that quality

enhancement grant.

I understand that we're using the same process in February '09. If

you're a CCOF recipient, those dollars will continue to flow.

C. Trevena: But the $4.5 million in provincial dollars that

have been handed to Vancity to gain some interest there is on an RFP basis or a

proposal basis. The people have to apply. They have to have some proposal about

how they want to spend that and some project they want to spend it on, rather

than being distributed for a specific targeted project.

[1055]

Hon. L. Reid: I believe it is a proposal process, but I do

believe it's posted on their website. For anyone interested in securing any of

that dollar, simply go to the Vancity Foundation and pull down "Child Care."

C. Trevena: The minister also cites another couple of

projects that have been launched in the last year about, I believe, trying to

attract people and retain people.

I just wanted to ask the minister: in the student loan assistance,

how much money is available for the ECE student loan assistance program?

Hon. L. Reid: In terms of the ECE loan assistance program,

$440,000 in 2008-09. We have the opportunity to lift it to $880,000 next year

should we continue to require that same level of graduates, going forward.

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

applied for this.

Hon. L. Reid: Most folks won't be applying until they

graduate, which is this month. So I think I'll be able to give you a clearer

sense of that once our application process moves through — probably by

September.

C. Trevena: I'm wondering if the minister could provide the

information when the ministry has it. It would be very helpful.

What are the criteria for getting the assistance?

Hon. L. Reid: The ECE loan assistance program will provide

up to $2,500 towards the outstanding B.C. student loan of new graduates who work

as early childhood educators in the licensed child care sector. Graduates from

2007-08 will be eligible to have their B.C. student loan debt reduced by up to

$1,250 after each of their first and second years of employment in licensed

child care, reducing the average B.C. student loan debt for ECEs by as much as

38 percent, close to 40 percent.

Loan reduction payments will be prorated for part-time regular

employees, with the first ones expected to begin in June of '08. That may help

you.

C. Trevena: This is available to any person who has gone

through an ECE program, the one or two-year program? It's open to any recent

graduate?

Hon. L. Reid: That's correct. As long as they're employed

in a licensed child care centre.

C. Trevena: Just one other figure. I wondered if the

minister has any estimate or any figure on the cost of managing this program.

Hon. L. Reid: The program costs are actually managed

through the Ministry of Advanced Education.

[1100]

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I understand — this is an

aside; it's not specifically on this — that there are some ECE courses that….

With the cuts in the budget for the Ministry of Advanced Education, a number of

ECE courses are having to close. I wondered if the minister has any concerns

about that or is working at all with the Minister of Advanced Education to

ensure that we can keep getting ECEs trained.

Hon. L. Reid: The decision to offer a course at any college

or university, frankly, is typically driven by enrolment. As more jobs come

available, as more construction happens in the child care sector, I do believe

you'll continue to see that course offered across British Columbia.

It certainly hasn't been an enormous difficulty for individuals

interested in taking the course because many more communities are tailoring it

to where their students live — i.e., the Splats'in example earlier. A number of

different communities have done that. They've brought someone from the college

into their community to deliver the course work.

In terms of maintaining a level of graduates, the level of

graduates in British Columbia is actually going up last year and this year, so I

think we're fine on that score.

C. Trevena: I think the minister is looking at the

different ways of providing the course not necessarily through the college

environment. I don't have note of

[ Page 12340 ]

which ones, but I believe a couple of the ECE courses through the colleges

have had to close because of cuts. Just going back to — noting that we don't

have so much more time — some of the issues that the minister raised a couple of

answers ago. She mentioned the wage subsidy for people returning. This has been

on offer now for a few months, and it's $500,000 or up to $5,000 each. It was

going to be for a hundred people. I wonder if the minister could say how many

people have actually applied for this.

Hon. L. Reid: I would be absolutely charmed if we got 20 or

30 applications as we go through the process. In the province of Alberta I think

they had 57 applications at the end of their second year, but 50 additional

bodies into areas of the province that have not been able to secure one — for a

whole array of reasons — may be helpful, and I believe we're at 20 today.

C. Trevena: Twenty out of a potential 100, when this has

been ongoing for many months. What is the minister doing to either encourage

people to apply for it, to make people aware of it or, perhaps, to tailor the

program so it makes it more attractive?

We have many, many ECEs. We have 10,000 registered ECEs in B.C.,

and they're not all working in child care. We do have an issue of wait-lists in

a number of places and a number of places where, obviously, we are trying to

build child care spaces. I wondered how the ministry is going to try and

encourage 80 more people to take this subsidy.

Hon. L. Reid: By having the conversation. That's probably a

very good place to start. In terms of the program being relatively new, it takes

a good year for it to become part of the understanding, if you will, around how

folks can access the service. We'll be measuring success at the end of the

second year, very similar to how they looked at it in Alberta, so I believe

we're on track. I believe we will meet that goal easily as we go forward. Should

folks not require that incentive to come back, that's actually good news for the

sector as well. I think this is a win-win.

[J. Nuraney in the chair.]

If someone is contemplating whether or not they come back….

The folks who contemplate a little longer than others are those who have small

children of their own. They're pondering whether or not, at the end of their

second year of the absence from the sector — and frankly, from any profession —

whether or not they will return to work. If this allows us to entice some folks

to come back, it's fabulous. If they don't require this program, it's equally

fabulous.

C. Trevena: Is this money ongoing indefinitely until it's

all taken up, or is it going to be a fixed program, as the minister said, that

will be reviewed at the end of the second year? Is there just this one pot of

money that will be ongoing two, three, four years? I just wondered if the

minister could clarify a little bit about this.

[1105]

Hon. L. Reid: If we had sufficient interest expressed, we

would certainly extend our existing deadlines. The reality is that we're

piloting both of them to see if they give us the desired result. If it turns out

that neither program is required and we continue to see a lift of 800, 900 new

registrants every year on the ECE registry, we would be charmed by that outcome

as well.

These are facilitators, if you will, to see if people require some

extra enticement to come back. If it turns out they're coming back in record

numbers without these programs, again, fabulous — either way.

C. Trevena: If it's a pilot project, how long is it going

to run for?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, I think we're probably better able to

answer these questions in September, once folks have had an opportunity to make

application. But again, as I stated earlier, we're more than happy to extend the

deadlines should we get sufficient interest. If indeed we see the programs

working, we'll take them forward.

C. Trevena: I guess I'm a little confused. So these

programs have started up. We haven't got a set date for ending them. They are

pilot programs. They're going to be evaluated in September. But they might be

dropped if they're not successful at the end of September. Is this correct? I

just wanted a bit of clarification. Maybe I'm mishearing this.

Hon. L. Reid: I think that I can put on the record again

that the loan reduction payments will be prorated, part-time and regular

employees with first payments expected in June of '08. The member opposite will

know that — because the second program is the incentive program, to get the

folks to come back — you must complete the two full years of employment to

achieve the full value.

So who begins the program…. Absolutely, we will see them through

that process. As we have indicated, it's $1,250 at the end of each year of

employment. Absolutely, we are going to meet that obligation. Again, we will

probably have more and better information for you in September. By then we will

know, frankly, the interest and the appetite for the program.

C. Trevena: Again, if I might put in a bid to get that

information in September from her staff about how many people have actually

applied.

But I would like also to raise with the minister at this point

that, having talked to a number of ECEs in the field who have been working for

many years and have had children and have come back to work or have continued to

work while their children were young, they have felt somewhat insulted by this

idea of the money to attract people back to the field. They say: "Well, we've

been here, and we've been doing it all

[ Page 12341 ]

along, and we've got no more money. So why should these people who are going

off now have the opportunity to get that bit of extra money?" I wondered what

the minister's response to that would be.

Hon. L. Reid: I appreciate the question, because I think it

allows us to have a discussion about how we characterize the sector. I think the

majority of folks — frankly, all the folks — that have come to me first asking

for programs such as that…. What they wanted was a colleague. They wanted

someone to join them in the delivery and the provision of child care.

The fact that they asked for incentives, asked for strategies that

would encourage more people to come back to the sector and the fact that we've

delivered on that…. I haven't found someone who has been anything other than

delighted with the program.

[1110]

Do I understand the sentiment that the member expresses in terms

of the prodigal son, if you will? What about the folks who continue to deliver

the service day in, day out? For the first time ever, we have programs where we

actually acknowledge long service in the child care sector, which speaks to me.

We began the Legacy Awards this past spring, where we believe we

found all of the child care centres — and I'll apologize in advance if we've

missed one — in the province who have delivered child care for in excess of 40

years. We did some wonderful recognition for them in terms of understanding how

challenging it is to deliver service — to operate any entity, any venture — for

40 years. That's a significant contribution to the province, to families and to

the life and livelihood of youngsters.

We are engaging now in child care, early childhood educator and

family child care provider recognition, as well, that will come to fruition at

the end of this month as part of the Child Care Month celebration.

I agree with you. I do believe there are opportunities to

celebrate, which I'm taking as minister responsible, because I do believe that

they perform an amazing service and are, frankly, often overlooked. I certainly

want to change that as minister, but I also want to change that as government —

that, indeed, these are services that are essential. Child care allows us to

share parenting with individuals who are part and parcel of our lives and the

lives of our yo