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)

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 34, Number 3

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order

25 B )

Actions of Burmese government

Fraser

Rocky Mountain Rangers Cadet

Corps

Rustad

Challenges of autism

Routley

Pacific NorthWest Economic Region

conference in Vancouver

McIntyre

Tzu Chi Foundation

Chouhan

Contributions of seniors

D. Hayer

Oral Questions

B.C. Lottery Corporation

management of casino transactions

L. Krog

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Gentner

Ralston

Investigation into death in Maple

Ridge

Farnworth

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Education funding

G. Coons

Hon. S.

Bond

C. Wyse

Cubberley

Child care spaces in B.C.

Trevena

Hon. L.

Reid

Homelessness

Chudnovsky

Hon. M.

de Jong

Regulation of new home pre-sale

agreements

Thorne

Hon. C.

Taylor

Committee of the Whole House

Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking

When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)

L. Krog

Hon. J.

van Dongen

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

Motor Vehicle (Banning Smoking

When Children Present) Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 36)

Committee of the Whole House

Local Government (Green

Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

C. Wyse

Hon. I.

Chong

Reporting of Bills

Local Government (Green

Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

Third Reading of Bills

Local Government (Green

Communities) Statutes Amendment Act, 2008 (Bill 27)

Committee of the Whole House

University Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 34)

Ralston

Hon. M.

Coell

Fleming

Report and Third Reading of

Bills

University Amendment Act, 2008

(Bill 34)

Committee of the Whole House

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment

Act, 2008 (Bill 33)

L. Krog

Hon. W.

Oppal

Hon. M.

Coell

Hon. C.

Taylor

Hon. M.

de Jong

Karagianis

Hon. K.

Falcon

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of

Environment and Minister Responsible for Water Stewardship and

Sustainable Communities (continued)

Simpson

Hon. B.

Penner

Horgan

Sather

Robertson

[ Page 12733 ]

THURSDAY, MAY 22, 2008

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Introductions by Members

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

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

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

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

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

[1335]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statements

(Standing Order 25

B) ACTIONS OF BURMESE GOVERNMENT

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12734 ]

they deserve them in their own homeland, not in a far-off country.

We must push the world to do more. We must do more. This madness must end.

[1340]

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RANGERS CADET CORPS

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHALLENGES OF AUTISM

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

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

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

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

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

PACIFIC NORTHWEST ECONOMIC REGION

CONFERENCE IN VANCOUVER

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

[1345]

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

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

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

[ Page 12735 ]

TZU CHI FOUNDATION

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

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

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

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

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

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SENIORS

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

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

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

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

[1350]

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

Hon. P. Bell: I seek leave to do an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

Introductions by Members

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

R. Chouhan: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

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

Oral Questions

B.C. LOTTERY CORPORATION

MANAGEMENT OF CASINO TRANSACTIONS

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12736 ]

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: Well, hon. Speaker, I don't know how we're going to talk about…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a further supplemental.

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

[1355]

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

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

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

G. Gentner: By law, under

section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act….

Section 75 of the act makes it an offence to knowingly fail to report. By law — under

section 86.2 of the Gaming Control Act, which requires BCLC to notify the gaming policy and enforcement branch — the provincial government is supposed to report all of these incidents to the federal regulator. But the Liberal government did not. In 2003 B.C. casino workers found 49 suspicious financial transactions, but the B.C. lotteries commission only reported nine of those to the federal government.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

[ Page 12737 ]

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

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

[1400]

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

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

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

INVESTIGATION INTO

DEATH IN MAPLE RIDGE

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION FUNDING

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

[1405]

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

[ Page 12738 ]

G. Coons: …of what is actually happening on the ground level.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, take your seat.

Members.

Continue, Minister.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Continue, Minister.

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

[1410]

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member has a supplemental.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Just take your seat, Member. We're not continuing.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

The member for Saanich South has the floor.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[ Page 12739 ]

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat for a second. I can't hear you.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

[1415]

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

CHILD CARE SPACES IN B.C.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

When the community has asked for the deliverables, we have in fact responded.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

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

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

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

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

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

HOMELESSNESS

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

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

[ Page 12740 ]

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

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

[1420]

REGULATION OF NEW HOME

PRE-SALE AGREEMENTS

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

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

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

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

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

He has now sent out a letter. It's completely presold — 100 percent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue, Minister.

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

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

[End of question period.]

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber committee stage debate on Bill 36 and in

Section A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, continued discussion on the estimates of the Ministry of Environment.

[1425]

Committee of the Whole House

MOTOR VEHICLE (BANNING SMOKING

WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 36; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:27 p.m.

section 1.

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

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

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

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

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

[1430]

[ Page 12741 ]

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

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

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

With respect to subsection (4), it says: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations exempting any person or class of persons from the requirements of this

section and prescribing conditions for those exemptions." I'm just wondering what that

section is contemplating in terms of exemptions.

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

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

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

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

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

[1435]

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

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

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

Section 2 approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:37 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

MOTOR VEHICLE (BANNING SMOKING

WHEN CHILDREN PRESENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

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

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

Committee of the Whole House

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(GREEN COMMUNITIES)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 27; S. Hammell in the chair.

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

[ Page 12742 ]

section 1.

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

section does to the act?

[1440]

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

The purpose of

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

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

Sections 1 and 2 approved.

section 3.

C. Wyse: To the minister: I would ask her explanation of what

section 3 does to development cost charges for the Greater Vancouver sewerage and drainage district.

Hon. I. Chong: This

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

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

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

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

The amendment would be:

[ 3.1 The following

section is added to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act:

Minister must compensate the Corporation for charges waived or reduced

58.2.1

(1) If the actions of the Minister or of the Lieutenant Governor in Council result in a mandatory reduction or waiver of development cost charges under

section 58.2, the Minister or Lieutenant Governor in Council must reimburse to the Corporation half the value of the development cost charges that were waived or reduced as a result of their actions.

(2) The amount of compensation provided by the Minister or by the Lieutenant Governor in Council and set out in subsection (1) must be provided out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or out of a special account that is set up for this purpose.]

On the amendment.

C. Wyse: Speaking in favour of this particular amendment….

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

section 3 (continued) .

C. Wyse: Then on the intent of the motion. The motion is very laudable, and the

section is such, but it does put the financial burden upon the local government to fund that particular item. The minister could consider the amendment herself. I don't know the rules that well.

[1445]

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

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

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

The purpose of this

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

[ Page 12743 ]

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

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

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

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

Sections 3 and 4 approved.

section 5.

C. Wyse: On

section 5, I would ask the minister for the rationale for this particular

section being inserted.

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

The purpose of inserting that part of the

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

[1450]

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

My question to the minister is whether her staff has given any consideration to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement and its possible effect on this

section and other sections contained in this particular bill.

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

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

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

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

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to make sure that this is clear for the record for future readers of Hansard.

Article 6 of the agreement clearly states that the government can pursue what are called legitimate objectives under TILMA.

A legitimate objective is defined in

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

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

C. Wyse: The particular

section that is referred to under TILMA has three parts to it — one, two and three — and TILMA is very specific. All three parts of that

section must be reached. It's not one or two or three; it's all three parts. There's quite a battery of legal people who have the exact opposite opinion. I again thank the minister for her time.

Hon. I. Chong: Regarding

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

Sections 5 to 13 inclusive approved.

section 14.

[1455]

[ Page 12744 ]

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

section 14?

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of this

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

Sections 14 and 15 approved.

section 16.

C. Wyse: I have some questions on

section 16. Would my

interpretation of

section 16 be accurate in that the need for a public hearing is removed? If my

interpretation is correct, then it becomes permissive when a public hearing is in actual fact held.

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

Hon. I. Chong: This

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1500]

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

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

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

Sections 16 and 17 approved on division.

section 18.

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

section 18 does work in actual fact.

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of this

section is to in fact authorize regional district boards to make minor amendments to a regional growth strategy using either a customized minor amendment process that the regional district designs or a statutory default minor amendment process.

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

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

section 20.

C. Wyse: On

section 20. The official community plan now must include the targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the area covered by the plan. This

part is very specific.

[1505]

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

[ Page 12745 ]

Hon. I. Chong: This

section is not unlike that one in

section 14 where municipalities and regional districts are to include targets, policies and actions for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in their official community plans. In this particular case, for municipalities the deadline date will be May 31, 2010.

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

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

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

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

What I hear from local government representatives is that there are concerns about coming up with the costs to look after such items that are being mandated here in Victoria. While we're on

section 20, the minister likewise has recognized, I think, a point that I made under

section 14. This

section here now sets actual targets mandated for local governments to find for greenhouse gas reductions within their plans.

There are, increasingly, legal

interpretations about the ability of local governments to be able to achieve this particular section. So I also wish it to be on record that under TILMA, there are increasing numbers of informed individuals who are concerned about whether this particular

section likewise will be achievable under agreements that have been signed by the cabinet.

Once more, I'm seeking assurances of the minister of her particular position on this

section as it stands with regards to the Trade, Investment and Labour Mobility Agreement signed by this government, which came into effect April 1, 2007.

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

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

This requirement and this

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

[1510]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12746 ]

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

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

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

C. Wyse: It appears to me that the minister is not willing to commit to defend local governments if they're challenged under this particular

section of this act, as compared to the agreement that the province has signed. So unless I hear differently, there has been no commitment given by the minister, and I accept her answer.

Section 20 approved.

section 21.

Hon. I. Chong: I move the amendment to

section 21 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

SECTION 21, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the text shown as underlined:

Section 905.1 (8) is repealed and the following substituted:

(8) Subsection (7) does not apply to a development permit for land designated under

section 919.1 (1) (

a) to (

c) and (

h) to (j)

[designation of development permit areas], unless if the development permit is approved by the inspector.]

On the amendment.

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

[1515]

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Chair, I hope that provides some clarity to the member.

Amendment approved.

Section 21 as amended approved.

Sections 22 to 26 inclusive approved.

section 27.

C. Wyse: On

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

Hon. I. Chong: The purpose of this

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

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

C. Wyse: I appreciate the answer from the minister.

[ Page 12747 ]

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

section 27.

[1520]

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, this

section was a permissive

section allowing local governments to look at waiving or reducing development cost charges for those eligible developments — as I've indicated, primarily those three areas.

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

Section 27 approved.

section 28.

C. Wyse: I would ask the minister how this particular

section is different from past practices.

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

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

Sections 28 to 30 inclusive approved.

section 31.

C. Wyse: On

section 31. Again, if I understand this correctly — and I will leave it to the minister to correct any misinterpretation I may have — now this

section would require a fund that…. Normally, an incorporated area, if they had the appropriate bylaw to collect funds for future acquisitions of school sites that may be needed down the road….

If I understand

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

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

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

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

[1525]

Sections 31 to 35 inclusive approved.

section 36.

C. Wyse: The question I have on

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

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that's correct.

Sections 36 to 44 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(GREEN COMMUNITIES)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

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

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read as reported?

Hon. I. Chong: With leave, now, Mr. Speaker.

Leave granted.

[ Page 12748 ]

Third Reading of Bills

LOCAL GOVERNMENT

(GREEN COMMUNITIES)

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

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

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

[1530]

Committee of the Whole House

UNIVERSITY AMENDMENT ACT, 2008

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; K. Whittred in the chair.

The committee met at 3:31 p.m.

section 1.

B. Ralston: The first question I have is a relatively straightforward one. I'm not sure just where in the act one finds the mechanism by which the names of the institutions are changed. Does that flow from

section 1(c), " by repealing the definition of 'university' …"? Or is it somewhere else in the act?

Hon. M. Coell: I draw the member's attention to

section 71. It's amended, and it will be the regulatory powers after that.

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

section 15, than here? Perhaps the Chair can guide me on that.

The Chair: In response to the member's question,

section 15 would be the most appropriate place to address those questions.

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

Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.

section 4.

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister about this

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

[1535]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The University Presidents Council of British Columbia is pleased with today's tabling of amendments to the University Act that will see the improved appointment process for the university chancellor. 'We welcome the amendments introduced in the Legislature today,' said Don Avison, president of the council.

"The current process for UBC, SFU, UVic and UNBC is out of step with other universities across Canada, including Royal Roads and Thompson Rivers University. These changes will not impact any current chancellor elections that are underway, but they are pleased with the future process and believe it is much improved.

"The involvement of faculty and alumni, through the senate and through the alumni association, is very

[ Page 12749 ]

important and will help identify the best possible candidates for the position. The chancellor is a member of both the board of governors and the senate and confers all degrees."

It goes on to say:

"Today's legislative amendments will also change the Thompson Rivers Act so that the university council will now be formally recognized as a senate, therefore reflecting the current practices of the university."

For two years we had the University Presidents Council lobby us for this change. In essence, we're reacting to that. In looking at some of the other universities…. I agree with the member that there is a variety across the province. Some of the ones we looked at were McGill, who were appointed in the same fashion as we're suggesting, and Concordia. York University is appointed by the board with concurrence of the senate. There are a number of different options across, including the government appointing someone, which we didn't agree with.

[1540]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1545]

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

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

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

[ Page 12750 ]

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

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

section 4 and the other sections here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1550]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12751 ]

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

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

[1555]

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

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

section of the bill?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1600]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12752 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1605]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sections 4 to 8 inclusive approved on the following division:

[1610]

YEAS — 36

Falcon

Reid

Coell

Chong

Christensen

Richmond

Bell

Krueger

van Dongen

Les

Roddick

Hayer

Lee

Jarvis

Nuraney

Cantelon

Hagen

Oppal

de Jong

Taylor

Bond

Penner

Neufeld

Hogg

Sultan

Bennett

Lekstrom

Mayencourt

Polak

Hawes

Yap

Bloy

MacKay

Black

McIntyre

Rustad

NAYS — 25

Hammell

S. Simpson

Fleming

Farnworth

Kwan

Ralston

Brar

Thorne

Simons

Puchmayr

Fraser

Wyse

Sather

Gentner

Dix

Trevena

Bains

Karagianis

Evans

Krog

Robertson

Chudnovsky

Chouhan

Coons

Routley

section 9.

[1615]

[ Page 12753 ]

R. Fleming: I wanted to ask the minister some questions about the implications of

section 9 and specifically whether there are exclusions around the senate composition regulations that this seeks to put in place for the special purpose teaching universities as they're defined.

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

Hon. M. Coell: The new universities senate structure is modelled after Thompson Rivers University, which I think has been very successful. This

section sort of states that there will be no changes to the senates at the other universities other than the new ones that are being created, which would use the Thompson Rivers University model.

R. Fleming: Just further on that, if the minister could assure me whether the senate and the composition of the existing universities then…. This

section and the ones that follow — what impact will it have on the various groups and the entitlements they have to a formula or a percentage of representation on the senate?

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

R. Fleming: Actually, this is probably a

section 10 question. So maybe we'll just proceed there.

[1620]

Section 9 approved.

section 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to just read a

section from the letter and then ask the minister whether he's responded formally in writing or whether he would care to put his opinion on the record here today. The

section of the letter I want to read here is the one that really comes to the heart of the request they are making of him as minister. It reads as follows:

"The pending legislation" — referring to Bill 34 — "provides that the new universities in the province will have academic senates composed of four students rather than a number of students equal to the number of administrators. This is a significant reduction in democratic student representation on senates and a proportional increase in administrator representation. The principle of a democratic, academic senate is to protect academic integrity at public institutions through ensuring strong representation of students, faculty and staff. The proposed senate structure of the University Amendment Act directly undermines this principle."

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

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

[1625]

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

[ Page 12754 ]

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

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

I wanted to ask him where the very specific numbers of students — the limits, the constraints in this

section of the bill as to how many elected voices students can enjoy at these new special purpose teaching universities…. How was the number of four arrived at, and why was representation of academics therefore diminished in the senate structure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1630]

R. Fleming: I would like to move an amendment to subsection 35.2(2)(

h) of

section 10 that refers to the number of students elected by the students to read as follows:

Section 10:

(

a) by striking

section 35 (2) (

h) and adding the following text:

35 (2) (

h) a number of students, equal to the number of senate members provided for in paragraphs (

a) to (f), elected from the students who are members of an undergraduate student society or a graduate student society in a manner that ensures that at least one student from each faculty is elected;]

On the amendment.

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

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

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

[S. Hammell in the chair.]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 12755 ]

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

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

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

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

[1635]

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

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

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

Hon. M. Coell: That's why there are four students on this board.

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

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

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

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

R. Fleming: I just want to also ask the minister on this

section of the bill for a response to a conc