2003 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 37th 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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 13, Number 5

CONTENTS

Routine

Proceedings

Page

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28)

Hon. M. de Jong

Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29)

Hon. M. de Jong

Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27)

Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25 b )

2010 Olympic Winter Games benefits to B.C.

E. Brenzinger

High school graduation

B. Suffredine

University of Victoria Vikes women's basketball team

I. Chong

Oral Questions

Rent increases and consumer price index adjustment

J. MacPhail

Hon. R. Coleman

Amalgamation and integration of police services

I. Chong

Hon. R. Coleman

Streamside protection regulations

R. Hawes

Hon. J. Murray

Physical education in high school curriculum

S. Brice

Hon. C. Clark

Tulsequah Chief mine and Alaska–B.C. relationship

D. MacKay

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt

Public information on severe acute respiratory syndrome

J. MacPhail

Hon. S. Hawkins

Biotechnology industry in B.C.

P. Sahota

Hon. R. Thorpe

Tabling Documents

Brilliant power plant expansion project,

major capital project plan

Committee of the Whole House

Supply Act (No. 1), 2003 (Bill 26)

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Supply Act (No. 1), 2003 (Bill 26)

Committee of the Whole House

Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18) (continued)

J. MacPhail

Hon. J. Reid

J. Bray

Reporting of Bills

Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18)

Third Reading of Bills

Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18)

Second Reading of Bills

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22)

Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development

(continued)

Hon. G. Hogg

J. MacPhail

Hon. L. Reid

[ Page 5639 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 26, 2003

The House

met at 2:04 p.m.

Prayers.

[1405]

Introductions by Members

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from

Greece. Petros Tatoulis is a member of the Greek parliament who is visiting

Vancouver and Victoria from Athens, and he is taking this opportunity to learn

about our system of government. He is accompanied by Eleni Lianidou, the

well-known Consul of Greece at Vancouver; her husband, Konstantinos; and George

Bonis from the Vancouver Hellenic community. Will the House please give them a

very warm welcome.

W. Cobb:

In the gallery today is a friend of mine and a community leader, His Worship

Mayor Rick Gibson from Williams Lake. I ask the House to please make him

welcome.

Visser: Today in the gallery is Dr. George Hoberg from the University of

British Columbia, the head of forest resources management within the department

of forestry. I've got to know Dr. Hoberg over the last year, or year and a half,

and have found him to contribute greatly to the discussions of politics and

forestry in British Columbia. I'd like the House to please make him welcome.

Hon. G.

Bruce: It's not often I get a chance to rise and introduce a few people to

the House, so today I thought I'd take a moment and introduce to you a dynamic

group of women that are here today with my wife, Anneke. These are the movers

and shakers of our community in that great Cowichan Valley up the way. With my

wife today are Maureen Wince, Norma Williams, Denise McKinlay, Noreen Butt, Lois

Cartledge, Liz Hoole, Joan Bronson, Judy Hill, Charlene Swanson, Sylvia Espey,

Betty James, Sheila Hobbs and Rosalind Leroy. Would the House please make them

very, very welcome.

Mayencourt: Today in the gallery we have Dan Eisner with the Alzheimer's

Society of B.C. Elaine Wright is also with that group. Lynn Jackson, Larry

Redoscky and Barbara Lindsay are all here to visit with MLAs and talk about the

issues facing people living with Alzheimer's disease. Would the House please

make them welcome.

Bennett: Last night in Cranbrook the Kootenay ICE and the Kamloops Blazers

played the longest playoff hockey game in the history of the western hockey

league. They played for 136 minutes and 56 seconds, setting the record. The

Kootenay ICE prevailed by a score of 2 to 1.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

FORESTRY REVITALIZATION ACT

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Forestry Revitalization Act.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 28 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I'm very pleased today to introduce Bill 28, the Forestry

Revitalization Act. This legislation is a critically important step in enacting

this government's forestry revitalization plan. The plan is a comprehensive one,

designed to reinvigorate B.C.'s world-class forest sector so that it can

continue to provide its many benefits to the people of this province. As part of

the B.C. heartlands economic strategy, the forestry revitalization plan will

open up opportunities for new participants in both forest management and wood

processing, communities, first nations, woodlot owners and entrepreneurs,

thereby creating a more diversified and innovative forest sector that is better

able to provide employment and wealth.

[1410]

The bill

I'm now introducing is intended to achieve two essential goals. First, it will

allow us to open up new opportunities for British Columbians. Second, it will

enable us to introduce a more sensible timber pricing system. This act delivers

directly on two of our new-era promises: (1) to increase access to Crown lands

and resources to create jobs, and (2) to create a truly market-based timber

pricing system. Through this act the government will reallocate harvest rights

held by the largest tenure holders to new players and, through an auction, to

anyone prepared to pay market rates. About half the tenure reallocated will go

to new entrants, including first nations, woodlots and community forests. The

other 50 percent to be reallocated will be sold at a competitive price via

sealed bid at public auction in B.C.

These are

necessary steps. They are difficult steps, but they are necessary to revitalize

our forest sector. We are doing so in a way that's fair, open and accountable.

That's why the act also seeks to mitigate the impacts of a reallocation of

tenure. Two hundred million dollars has been set aside with respect to

compensation for companies whose harvesting rights are impacted and a further

$75 million for a trust fund to mitigate the effects on workers, to be

administered by a trust board. This bill will contribute to a revitalized B.C.

forest sector, and everyone in this House understands that that is still the

engine that drives B.C.'s economy.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

[ Page 5640 ]

Bill 28

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FOREST (REVITALIZATION)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. M. de

Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 29 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: It is equally my honour today to introduce Bill 29. This

legislation is also part of the forestry revitalization plan and part of our

government's heartlands economic strategy for forest communities.

Today's

bill will repeal and replace several sections of the Forest Act, and is designed

to ensure that British Columbians get the most from their publicly owned forest

resource. With this bill, the government will change cut control requirements.

These changes include the removal of minimum cut control requirements that can

force licensees to log public forests at a loss. It doesn't make economic sense

or environmental sense for forest companies to log when there's no market for

the product they produce.

In addition

to removing the requirement to harvest even at a loss, the changes to cut

control are designed to increase management flexibility. Increased management

flexibility is not, however, created at the expense of good forest management.

The bill

will also repeal appurtenancy and timber-processing requirements that force

licensees to process timber at specific sawmills — or at sawmills they own or

operate — even if other B.C. operators might be able to put the timber to

better or higher-valued use. Removing those provisions will allow us to follow

through genuinely on the desire that I trust we all have to maximize the value

for every stick of timber we harvest within British Columbia.

The bill

will repeal and replace the requirement that licensees must have written consent

from the Minister of Forests before tenures can be subdivided or transferred. It

will allow those licences to be more freely subdividable. Tenure holders will be

able to transfer licences without penalties and without going through the

unnecessary, burdensome task of getting approval and will, for the first time,

have another option in accessing fibre besides going to the Crown.

I move that

the bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting

of the House after today.

[1415]

Bill 29

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FORESTS STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon.

M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. M.

de Jong: I move that Bill 27 be introduced and read a first time now.

Motion

approved.

Hon. M.

de Jong: Again, my pleasure to introduce Bill 27. This legislation fulfils

the government's new-era commitment to make the Ministry of Forests small

business forest enterprise program more effective and to put it on a sound

commercial footing. The bill establishes the legal authority for the new B.C.

timber sales organization. In addition to formally changing the name of the

program, these amendments will also establish the position of the timber sales

manager and provide the manager with the appropriate authorities to carry out

his or her duties and functions respecting B.C. timber sales agreements and

program administration.

This bill

also is an essential part of the government's forestry revitalization plan, and

as such, it is an important element of the government's goal to reinvigorate

B.C.'s number one industry: forestry.

I move that

the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill 27

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Weisbeck: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Weisbeck: In the gallery are 28 grade 8 students from Rutland Middle School,

and they are accompanied by Ms. S. Neilson. Would the House please make them

welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25 b )

2010 OLYMPIC WINTER GAMES

BENEFITS TO B.C.

Brenzinger: Recently, I came across a write-up in our local paper on a

Whalley businessman. It's a story about a man who's always brainstorming and

thinking up new ways to take advantage of opportunities. Les Victor is a

tradesman by day and a toy-maker by night. He is always coming up with new

ideas. His latest

[ Page 5641 ]

creation is a Mukluk Buck, a deer in a moccasin that he believes is a natural

for Vancouver's Olympic mascot.

It reminded

me that we have people, not just in Surrey-Whalley but in communities across

this province, who are eager to take advantage of the opportunities the 2010

Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games have to offer. We are limited only by our

imaginations.

Each

community has its strengths, and we need to look at ways to unite those

strengths to make Surrey a winning team for 2010 and beyond. We need to work to

get the message out that hosting the Olympics in Vancouver-Whistler will bring

many benefits to Surrey-Whalley and to communities across this province.

Certainly,

Vancouver and Whistler will be the global spotlight, but Surrey-Whalley and the

rest of the province have a chance to shine. With the world's attention on B.C.,

it will be time to showcase all this province has to offer. During the Salt Lake

City games, a Surrey sign company had a very lucrative print contract. Maybe Les

Victor's idea for the Mukluk Buck mascot will also make the world stage.

We need to

find these opportunities. Our businesses, our communities and our entrepreneurs

like Les, it's our chance to shine. Now is the time to come together, support

the Olympic bid and make plans that will benefit Surrey well into the future.

After all, it's a game we are all in together, and we should be all on the

winning team.

HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION

Suffredine: We in this House all know the importance of a good education.

Today I have five success stories to share from schools in my riding of young

people in the Kootenays who know the importance of getting a good education.

[1420]

The 2002

Fraser Institute report card on B.C.'s secondary schools shows, in comparing

2002 to 1996, that Salmo Secondary School had a 100 percent graduate rate. Now,

that's remarkable, considering that in 1996 that school had a rate of 72.2

percent. J.V. Humphries in Kaslo had a 100 percent graduate rate as well, with a

graduation rate in 1996 of 95.5 percent. L.V. Rogers in Nelson had 98.9 percent,

compared to 93.6 percent. Prince Charles Secondary in Creston, 99.2 compared to

87.8 percent. Nakusp Secondary had a 92 percent graduation rate in 2002,

compared to 77.4 percent. Congratulations to those students and their teachers.

Graduating

from high school is a major milestone in an individual's life. Graduates have a

far better chance to obtain long-term, stable employment to support a secure,

healthy family. We must continue to look for ways to give every single student

in our education system the opportunity to graduate with meaningful skills. As

Will Rogers once said: "Find a job you like, and you'll never work a day in

your life."

This

government intends to change requirements so students can take relevant courses

that interest them, so they will want to graduate and obtain fulfilling,

successful careers. To students entering the stretch this year to final exams, I

say: graduation isn't easy, but persevere. It takes commitment and hard work,

but the doors that will be opened to you will be far greater when you achieve

this goal.

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA VIKES

WOMEN'S BASKETBALL TEAM

Chong: I am pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to one of the

pride and joys of my riding of Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the University of Victoria

Vikes women's basketball team. On March 10, in front of a capacity crowd, this

team of talented young ladies fought their way through a field of tough

competition to win the Canadian inter-university sport championship held at

McMaster University in Hamilton.

Seeded

sixth going into the competition, the Vikes beat the No. 4 seeded University of

Winnipeg Wesmen 60-to-51 in the final game, thereby claiming their first

championship since the 1999-2000 season. Clearly, this kind of success does not

happen overnight. UVic Vikes former head coach, Kathy Shields, did a fantastic

job over the years before she passed the torch over to the new head coach, Brian

Cheng, a couple of years ago.

Ms.

Shields, famous in Victoria for her coaching abilities, groomed Cheng for the

job over several successful seasons. When he officially took over the reins for

the 2001-02 season, we all knew that it wouldn't take long before success would

be had. The combination of gifted players and a talented coach has proved to be

a winning one, and the Vikes are lucky to have had one great coach replaced by

another.

The proud

team returned home to a boisterous reception at the Victoria Airport, where

Victorians showed just how supportive we are of our local athletes. For

tournament MVP Lindsay Anderson, it was a particularly sweet victory as she was

playing her final season with the Vikes.

It is no

secret that Victoria produces athletes of Olympic calibre in many areas of

sport. Although our temperate climate generally leads athletes to choose summer

Olympic sports, winning the Olympic 2010 bid will inspire all athletes to

achieve their very best. In Athens in 2004 we will witness talented young

athletes, such as Lindsay Anderson, strive to do better than ever before as

friends and family cheer her on. But I also look forward to 2010 when I am

confident that we are going to have the opportunity to watch athletes come

together from all over the world to show their potential and personal best in

Vancouver and Whistler.

Oral Questions

RENT INCREASES AND

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX ADJUSTMENT

MacPhail: The member for Vancouver-Burrard is running around promising

renters in his constituency that rent increases will not include a consumer

price index adjustment. To the minister responsible: is his colleague the member

for Vancouver-Burrard correct

[ Page 5642 ]

that rent increases won't include a consumer price index adjustment?

Hon. R.

Coleman: At this point in time we're in the process of drafting the

regulation in consultation with the public. We have not made a final decision on

the CPI in addition to the rent, and we'll be moving forward in our

consultation. The member for Vancouver-Burrard was incorrect in quoting the fact

that it was a 3 to 4 percent increase that was anticipated as we said in our

press release when we did the act, as the member knows, in our debates. We are

moving forward in consultation. The member has certainly brought back the

concerns of his community. We're taking those into consideration as we deal with

the regulations.

Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question.

[1425]

MacPhail: That's interesting, because on March 12, 2003, the minister wrote

this to the city of Vancouver: "Bill 70 replaces the existing rent review

system with a simpler formula to calculate rent increases. These increases will

be set by regulation…"

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

MacPhail: "…and will be limited to a small annual increase typically

in the range of 3 to 4 percent, plus a consumer price index adjustment."

It's signed by the Solicitor General just days ago. So that's the law. That's

what was debated. That's what this minister put over his signature. Perhaps the

minister could explain to this House why, now, he's somehow saying something

different. Is he trying to cover the butt of the member for Vancouver-Burrard?

Hon. R.

Coleman: What I wrote in the letter was what I had quoted in the debates.

The question had come from Vancouver as to basically what had been said. As I

told the member in the debates in the Legislature and as I've said all the way

through, including talking to members of Vancouver city council, we are going to

listen to the consultation process before we make a final decision.

Regulation,

as the member knows, will go before cabinet, and I'm not prepared at this point

in time to tell you where that consultation and drafting is, because that's

confidential. I can tell you, as I've told everybody, that this will be fair,

and it will reinvigorate the rental housing industry in the province. I'm

confident the plain-language rewrite in this act is the right way to go, and I

believe that when we are finished with our consultation, we will come up with

formulas that will satisfy both sides of the public.

Mr.

Speaker: Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary.

MacPhail: Once again, we see a new definition of plain language by this

government. On March 12 plain language was that it will be limited to a small

annual increase typically in the range of 3 to 4 percent, plus a consumer price

index adjustment. That was plain language on March 12. Then we had the member

for Vancouver-Burrard, who voted for the law, going around to his own

constituents, saying: "Oh, don't worry, you'll be exempt from the

law."

For the

record, will the minister now tell the House: is the member for

Vancouver-Burrard correct when he says, "Don't worry, you won't have to pay

a consumer price index adjustment," or is the minister himself correct when

he wrote on March 12 to the largest city in the province? Which is it?

Hon. R.

Coleman: Like I said last fall when we passed this legislation, we would go

out for consultation. So we've been in consultation with the Tenants Rights

Action Coalition and in consultation with the industry as we moved forward with

the formula.

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order.

Hon. R.

Coleman: In debates with the member, I clearly outlined that we would

discuss that formula as we went through to the development of regulation…

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Let us hear the answer, please.

Hon. R.

Coleman: …and that is exactly what we're doing.

AMALGAMATION AND INTEGRATION

OF POLICE SERVICES

Chong: Recently, there has been much talk throughout my riding that the

government is planning to amalgamate the Oak Bay police department into a larger

greater Victoria police department. There has also been talk that Oak Bay police

services are to be integrated. This is causing much confusion and concern. Many

of my constituents want to know what is meant by the term "police

integration." Will the Solicitor General clarify once and for all, for my

constituents and others, the difference between police amalgamation and police

integration?

Interjections.

Chong: We'll wait for the answer.

Hon. R.

Coleman: Amalgamation is usually when one or more police forces come

together under one command structure, one administration and one uniform.

Integration is when you take the operation of various police forces and

integrate them outside of

[ Page 5643 ]

patrol and community policing, integrating them into joint forces

operations…

Interjection.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. R.

Coleman: …where you deal with things like ident, forensics, homicide

investigation, sexual assault and those types of serious crimes that would be

dealt with. Both options always require a great deal of leadership. We are

presently in discussions with regard to models and policing across the province,

but at the very basis of policing, integration is the minimum, including the

fact that we have to have data communication management integrated, which we're

doing through PRIME and CREST and E-Comm. I'm confident that we are building

models so we won't have silos and borders in policing, and we are working on

various models in policing in regions across the province so we can build strong

policing in the future of British Columbia.

[1430]

STREAMSIDE PROTECTION REGULATIONS

Hawes: In the dying days of the NDP government, they implemented a

non-scientific, prescriptive streamside protection regulation that robbed

thousands of British Columbians of the use of their property. That regulation,

in fact, is so nonsensical that you could build an oil refinery 31 metres from a

creek, but you couldn't build a picket fence 29 metres from that same creek.

Interjections.

Mr.

Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Hawes: In our New Era document the government committed to

implementing a new streamside protection regulation that was based on science.

It's sustainable and principled and will actually benefit the environment. To

the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: can she tell us when she will be

prepared to deliver on this promise?

Hon. J.

Murray: I agree with the member opposite that protecting streams and fish

habitat is an important objective. Yes, the regulation brought in just before

the election was a clumsy attempt at meeting those challenges. It led to

confusion, it led to uncertainty, and it led to problems.

We've been

working to address this problem. We've been working to create a science-based,

results-based approach that will actually improve and protect the condition of

streams and fish habitat. I'm very pleased with the progress that we're making

in partnership with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on this issue, and I

hope to have more to say in the coming few months.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION IN

HIGH SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Brice: My question is to the Minister of Education. The minister will recall

that last year I suggested that the government make physical education mandatory

for all students in the province. The minister responded at that time by saying

that all grad requirements were under review, and the fact that physical

education would be considered in that review. Would the minister advise when the

results of that review might become available?

Hon. C.

Clark: Yes, we expect to be in a position to announce the results of that

review in the coming month or so — certainly this spring. We've wrapped up a

very long, involved, extensive consultation on all of the matters that we've

proposed. We had great input from teachers, administrators, school districts and

from parents and students themselves.

This

particular proposal attracted a lot of interest amongst students, in particular.

It attracted a lot of interest from parents and from school districts who were

concerned about, perhaps, the costs. Our goal in this is to make sure that kids

who graduate from high school go into the rest of their lives with a love of

physical activity. Our goal isn't necessarily to teach them a sport or to get

them to run around the field a couple of times every day. We are looking at

everything that we heard. We'll make the decisions based on all the input we

had, and I certainly appreciate the input that we had from this particular

member on what is a very, very important topic.

TULSEQUAH CHIEF MINE AND

ALASKA–B.C. RELATIONSHIP

MacKay: My question is to the Minister of State for Intergovernmental

Relations. The project approval certificate granted to Redfern Resources for the

Tulsequah Chief mine near Atlin, British Columbia, offers a tremendous

opportunity for my constituency and all of northwestern B.C. The construction

phase alone for this mine is expected to create 300 jobs, with 260 jobs to come

once the mine is in operation. This economic activity is critical to my

constituency, but it's dependent on the cooperation of our Alaskan neighbours.

What steps, if any, has the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations

taken to ease Alaska's concerns surrounding this project?

Hon. G.

Halsey-Brandt: As the member is aware, Alaska has historically been very

negative on the Tulsequah Chief mine project and has repeatedly called for

review of this project by the International Joint Commission. However, over the

past 22 months we've been working very hard to repair our relationships with

Alaska.

[1435]

I'm happy

to report that by engaging Alaskan and U.S. federal representatives on the mine

committee and in related review processes, the Alaskans are no longer

[ Page 5644 ]

interested in referring the Tulsequah Chief project to the International

Joint Commission. I think this speaks volumes to the open and cooperative

relationship that our government has been building with the state of Alaska.

Just a few

weeks ago I met with Alaska's Lieutenant-Governor, the economic development

commissioner and other Alaskan officials on this issue. At these meetings the

Alaskans expressed support for the Tulsequah Chief mine project and indicated

that they were looking forward to continuing good relations with the province of

British Columbia.

PUBLIC INFORMATION ON

SEVERE ACUTE RESPIRATORY SYNDROME

MacPhail: I wish to do a little bit of public service right now to the

Minister of Health Planning. There's increasing concern about SARS, particularly

as people move between Pacific Rim countries. Ontario is taking steps, but in my

view, to the credit of the B.C. Centre for Disease Control, Ontario is merely

catching up to what B.C. has already done. But the problem is going to increase.

One aspect,

though, is that all of the work that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control is

doing is not linked, as far as I can tell at this time, to the government

information website or telephone line. I'm wondering whether the minister can

inform us of her plans to actually ease the path by which people can obtain

information about SARS and if the minister could use this time to inform the

public about what action is being taken, particularly around airport entry.

Hon. S.

Hawkins: Very important question. SARS is severe acute respiratory syndrome.

We have 19 cases in Canada, 18 of which are in Ontario and one suspected case

here. I can tell you that our provincial health officer, our B.C. Centre for

Disease Control, public health officials, health authorities, physicians and

labs — everyone — are on high surveillance, very vigilant in making sure

that we are identifying cases.

Health

Canada, as well, has sent out a travel advisory saying not to travel now to

countries that have been affected: China, Hong Kong, Asian countries and some

countries in Europe where we know the pathogen, the disease, is showing up.

Health Canada as of yesterday has put officers into airports. One of them is in

Vancouver Airport giving travellers an advisory on what to look for as far as

symptoms and what to do — to report to a doctor or a hospital or a physician.

Certainly, the symptoms are shortness of breath, high fevers, difficulty

breathing. Our public health officials are screening cases.

You're

absolutely right, member. Perhaps there needs to be more information on the

website. I'll ask the provincial health officer for ways to get that information

out. I thank you for that question.

BIOTECHNOLOGY INDUSTRY IN B.C.

Sahota: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and

Enterprise. I understand the minister recently met with members of the B.C.

biotech and biotechnology community. The growth of this industry is especially

important to the city of Burnaby, as it is home to a large portion of the

province's biotech firms. Can the minister provide my constituents with an

update on the outcome of this meeting?

Hon. R.

Thorpe: Yes, I met last week with senior members of the British Columbia

biotech sector on ongoing discussions on how we can grow and work together so

the biotech sector is a global leader right here in British Columbia.

Since June

of last year, our government has committed over $900 million to advanced

education and research which is going to drive the development of the biotech

sector in British Columbia. This was a new-era commitment we made to British

Columbians, a new-era commitment we're keeping to British Columbians. Under the

leadership of the Premier, we are working with the biotech sector to bring the

very best and brightest back to British Columbia and to retain the very best and

brightest here in British Columbia.

The

industry has provided me with a document called Getting There, and

working together in partnership, our government will be moving forward with the

biotech sector to grow that industry in British Columbia, to create investment

in British Columbia and to have more jobs here in British Columbia.

[End

of question period.]

[1440]

Tabling Documents

Hon. R.

Neufeld: I wish to submit the major capital project plan for the Brilliant

expansion project, pursuant to

section 14 of the Budget Transparency and

Accountability Act.

Orders of the Day

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 26.

Committee of the Whole House

SUPPLY ACT (No. 1), 2003

The House

in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 26; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 2:41 p.m.

Sections 1

to 3 inclusive approved.

Preamble

approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. G.

Collins: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without

amendment.

[ Page 5645 ]

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 2:42 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

Bill

26, Supply Act (No. 1), 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third

time and passed.

Hon. G.

Collins: I call committee stage debate on Bill 18.

[1445-1450]

Committee of the Whole House

COASTAL FERRY ACT

(continued)

The

House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; J. Weisbeck in the

chair.

The

committee met at 2:53 p.m.

The

Chair: Members, we're going to recess the House just for five minutes to

allow the Leader of the Opposition to finish her media scrum. We'll recess until

3 o'clock.

The

committee recessed from 2:53 p.m. to 2:55 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Sections 42

and 43 approved.

section

MacPhail: This is the

section that is entitled "No discontinuance

without authorization." That's a way of saying that if a ferry operator is

going to shut down a route, they have to have the authorization of the

commissioner.

What

legislative requirement is there for public consultation around the elimination

of ferry services?

Hon. J.

Reid: It's subsection (5) that talks about the public hearing, and

subsection (4) that gives the authorization for a public hearing.

MacPhail: But it's up to the commissioner. It's permissive. Public hearings

are not mandatory.

I'm sorry.

I apologize. I can't remember exactly what the minister's answer for this was.

Is this commission modelled after the Public Utilities Commission? Okay. In the

Public Utilities Commission, hearings are mandatory. Why are public hearings

only permissive here?

Hon. J.

Reid: We looked at different models with commissions and how they worked.

One of the concerns is that public hearings can be very time-consuming and

costly. We tried to anticipate under what circumstances…. There might be a

circumstance where there might be a bridge where the ferry would no longer be

needed. To have a requirement that they must could, again, be a very redundant

situation. Clearly, the commissioner's role in protecting the public good, we

believe, is laid out. In order to try to have a model that's going to be

cost-effective and relevant, we believe that the language here is a

"may" instead of a "must."

MacPhail: In the circumstances the minister describes, it makes sense not to

hold a public hearing. But is it the minister's understanding that where a route

that exists now — let's say one of the core services — is being

discontinued, a public hearing will be held?

Hon. J.

Reid: Absolutely.

Sections 44

to 49 inclusive approved.

section

[1500]

MacPhail:

Section 50 is how one appeals the decision of a commissioner. One

has to appeal directly to the Court of Appeal on a question of law. Why was this

determined as the route for appeal?

Hon. J.

Reid: We have the full intention that the commissioner is independent and

certainly independent from government. We do anticipate that people could be

unhappy with the commissioner's decisions, including ferry operators. We believe

that the commissioner's decisions need to be able to stand. We want to take the

"political" out of it. We want to make sure that if there is an

appeal, it's based on a question of law.

Sections 50

to 56 inclusive approved.

section 57.

MacPhail: This was a

section that caught my attention. We'll start with the

word "interesting." The commissioner's expenses are to be paid for by

the ferry operators. We have a situation where the commissioner is independent,

as the minister just acknowledged in her previous remarks, yet the expenses are

paid for by the ferry operators. Why?

Hon. J.

Reid: Again, in looking at commissioners — how they're set up, what works,

what doesn't work — this is consistent with the BCUC model. This is one place

where that model does work and does seem applicable. As well, in the

transportation sector this is a model that's commonly used.

MacPhail: How does one then guarantee…? I guess the reason why BCUC

doesn't…. The link with BCUC expenses being paid by, for instance, Hydro is

[ Page 5646 ]

that it is a Crown corporation. It is subject to public scrutiny — the

relationship between those two. The ferry operator is not going to be subject to

public scrutiny at all. We'll get to that in a moment. How does one ensure a

proper relationship, a relationship without interference, when there is no

public scrutiny?

Hon. J.

Reid: I'm not entirely sure that I've got the full context of that question.

The budget of the commissioner will be transparent in that it will be part of

government estimates. With regard to BCUC, it does have authority over

non-government entities as well — that pay for that. Again, I'm not sure if

I'm missing something here in the context of the question.

MacPhail: Maybe I just need more information, then. The commission will be

subject to public scrutiny through estimates — the budget of it — and

subject to FOI?

Hon. J.

Reid: The commissioner is subject to FOI.

Sections 57

to 64 inclusive approved.

section 65.

[1505]

MacPhail:

Section 65 is the first clause of division 7, "Obligations of

Ferry Operators," and it requires the ferry operator to provide to the

commissioner quarterly reports. What requirement is there to make these reports

public?

Hon. J.

Reid: Two parts to this. One is that every decision order that the

commissioner makes is made public, but as well, everything the commissioner

receives is subject to FOI.

Sections 65

to 68 inclusive approved.

section

The

Chair: I believe there's an amendment on

section 69.

Hon. J.

Reid: I move the amendment to

section 69 that's in the possession of the

Clerk.

[SECTION 69, by deleting the proposed

section 69 and

substituting the following:

Additional or alternative service providers

(1) In each performance term of the Coastal Ferry

Services Contract, the ferry operator must, in accordance with the plan

prepared by it under subsection (2) in relation to that performance term, seek

additional or alternative service providers to provide, under contract,

franchise agreement or otherwise, ferry services on the designated ferry

routes serviced by the ferry operator in an effort to reduce the costs of

providing those services on those designated ferry routes.

(2) A ferry operator must, for each performance term,

prepare a plan in which the ferry operator sets out the manner in which it

intends to seek additional or alternative service providers to provide ferry services

on the designated ferry routes serviced by the ferry operator and must provide

that plan to the commissioner,

(

a) in the case of a plan prepared in relation to the first performance

term, within 12 months after the effective date of the Coastal Ferry Services

Contract, and

(

b) for each subsequent performance term, on or before the beginning of

that performance term.

(3) If the commissioner considers that a ferry operator has failed to comply

with this section, the commissioner may, in addition to any power the

commissioner may exercise under

section 48, do any or all f the following:

(

a) adjust any productivity factor the commissioner is to establish

under

section 41 (6) to reflect that failure;

(

b) order the ferry operator to prepare and provide to the

commissioner, a plan, in form and content satisfactory to the commissioner,

setting out the manner in which the ferry operator intends, over the period

specified by the commissioner, to seek additional or alternative service

providers to provide ferry services on the designated ferry routes serviced by

the ferry operator;

(

c) order the ferry operator to comply with the plan provided under

paragraph (b).]

Amendment

approved.

section

69 as amended.

J. Bray:

As I discussed yesterday, I had some areas with respect to Bill 18 and how it

will deal with new opportunities for ferry operators and for economic activity

and entrepreneurship. Certainly, the minister was very, very helpful in her

questions.

Just a few

more, Mr. Chair, on

section 69 that I would like to canvass, if I may.

Section

69 talks about additional or alternative service providers. Subsection (1) talks

about how the ferry operator must on an ongoing basis seek additional or

alternative service providers to provide, under contract — franchise agreement

or otherwise — ferry services on the designated ferry routes serviced by the

ferry operator. Clearly, my reading of this would be that this is an opportunity

for entrepreneurs and other business operators to engage in negotiations with

the ferry service operator around the ability to provide services on designated

routes. Is my understanding there correct?

Hon. J.

Reid: There was an amendment to

section 69. The addition to this

section

refers to a plan that is required for every performance term, so that the

commissioner has something to work from to ensure — exactly as the member said

— that competition is indeed fostered, that there is an active pursuit of

alternate delivery in order to get the best service for the most cost-effective

means.

J. Bray:

This

section also talks about additional service. Certainly, any entrepreneurs

who are watching would be interested to just understand that there is the

potential, I would suspect, given especially what the

[ Page 5647 ]

minister has just said, that additional could mean that on some

non-designated routes there may be some form of competition should entrepreneurs

look at different ways of delivering ferry service for different types of

customers, and that there is an obligation under this

section to ensure that the

Ferry Services operating company does deal with any of those proposals in a fair

and open manner, and that is what the intent of 69 is to ensure.

[1510]

I just want

clarification. Is my understanding of

section 69 with respect to that correct

— that the ferry service operator does have an obligation to deal with people

who have proposals in a fair and competitive manner to allow those opportunities

in various coastal communities to occur?

Hon. J.

Reid: The intent here is that the B.C. Ferry Services would be looking at

alternative means of providing service that are commercially viable. So when

we're talking about alternative service providers, for them to seek an

alternative service provider that would actually make their routes not

commercially viable would not be in accordance with what the commissioner has

set out to do and what the intent here is.

I would

like to refer the member back to

section 40(1)(f). This is talking about, again,

the requirement that the commissioner looks at with regard to the proposals that

the Ferry Services has received and how they've handled it to make sure that

they're looking at every efficiency, and they're truly looking for ways of

reducing costs for the benefit of all people in British Columbia. So that's

here. Again, I just want to clarify the member's words. This is to make sure

that the service is commercially viable, and certainly not to foster competition

in the sense that would render the current core service as not commercially

viable.

J. Bray:

I thank the minister for that clarification.

My final

question on

section 69 is with respect to the discussion about alternative and

additional. Certainly, it is anticipated that the ferry service operator may

well be looking to expand opportunities and expand services on non-designated

routes, so that in fact we may get enhanced ferry services throughout the coast.

I just want to sort of make sure that I finish on that. My understanding of

section 69 fosters that and ensures that the ferry services operator has an

obligation to ensure they're dealing with those, so it in fact enhances services

and opportunities for existing routes but also for potentially new routes that

aren't currently in the system. I just want to make sure I understand

section 69

correctly.

[1515]

Hon. J.

Reid: Absolutely. The intent is to provide better service overall to the

people of coastal British Columbia, and that there is a diligent effort to

search for new ways of providing customer service. The more people travelling on

ferries, the better off we're all going to be served and the healthier our

economy. So built into this is the requirement that those opportunities are

diligently pursued and that the commissioner, in fact, has the opportunity to

take a look at that and offer a punishment if that hasn't been the case.

MacPhail: It's interesting — the questions from the member for

Victoria–Beacon Hill. We're not talking about the provision of lattes here;

we're talking about transporting passengers. Or are we talking about both, in

terms of having to provide alternate service?

Hon. J.

Reid: This would be the full range of services.

MacPhail: What's the thinking behind this clause? I mean, I understand what

the minister just said about wanting to expand service. It's an admirable goal,

and it's one that I support completely, but I thought that's why we're creating

the authority. I thought that's why we're doing what we're doing here. What's

this next step all about?

Hon. J.

Reid: Indeed, the intent of this is that B.C. Ferry Services is going to be

responsible for delivering coastal ferry service for British Columbia. They have

many different ways of being able to accomplish that within the contract they're

going to have with government. So that's the intent.

What we've

done here with the legislation, in spelling this out and building it into the

role of the commissioner, is to make sure, indeed, that happens, that the public

good is served, that people have the confidence they're not going to be taken

advantage of in some way and that there's a responsibility back that we are….

This is a large move for the province to send this out to a private sector

company that's governed by the authority. To make sure people have the

confidence that their rates are going to be kept as low as possible, this new

corporation has to look for every means possible in order to achieve that.

I'm sure

the member opposite trusts the good intentions of businesses, but we also

believe it's important to very carefully make sure that that intent is very

clear, because the result at the end of the day is that people on the coast will

receive good services at the lowest cost possible.

MacPhail: This is where the Washington Marine Group will be able to use the

fast ferries and provide a bid on alternative service. That's good news.

But what

happens to the workers who are providing the service that will now be contracted

out?

[1520]

Hon. J.

Reid: In looking at the provision of services, currently, as the member is

well aware, services are contracted out, and workers' rights are protected

through the collective agreement. That doesn't change, going forward. We're

looking at the possibility of other services, but again, the workers' rights are

going to be protected under the collective agreement.

Section 69

as amended approved.

[ Page 5648 ]

section

MacPhail: This is "Offences"; it's the

section that deals with

offences and penalties. It says that

section 5 of the Offence Act does not

apply. Why?

Hon. J.

Reid: It will take me just a moment to get that answer.

MacPhail: I'll try and move on until…. I don't want to pass the clause,

but it's just a technical question anyway.

The

Chair: Member, would you like to stand down that section, then?

MacPhail: Yeah, just for a moment.

Section 70

stood down.

Sections 71

to 73 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 74 exempts the B.C. Ferry Authority from the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I'm going to read into the record

some concerns raised by the office of the information and privacy commissioner

for British Columbia. It encompasses

section 74 but also has some questions

under

section 83 as well.

I'll just

read into the record the concerns, if I may, to get the minister to answer them.

It's dated March 13, to the minister, and it was copied to me by the

commissioner, along with several other people as well. It's his comments on Bill

18, the Coastal Ferry Act.

write to comment on Bill 18. As I understand it, Bill 18, which is to come

into force on April 1, 2003, contemplates the transfer of the assets and

undertaking of the existing B.C. Ferry Corporation to a new company

incorporated under the Company Act, called the operating company. Bill 18

would create the B.C. Ferry Authority and the British Columbia ferries

commissioner.

"As

I understand it, the operating company will not be covered by

the FOI Act, while the Authority and the commissioner are intended to be

covered by the FOI Act.

Section 83 of Bill 18 would amend

schedule 2 of the

FOI Act by removing the existing British Columbia Ferry Corporation from the

ranks of the public bodies covered by the FOI Act. No consequential amendments

are found in Bill 18, however, to add the authority or the commissioner as

public bodies under the FOI Act.

"As

I am aware, that

section 76.1 of the FOI Act authorizes the

minister responsible, the Minister of Management Services, to add public

bodies to

schedule 2 by regulation. In light of the imminent in-force date for

Bill 18, however, it is extremely important, in my view, that the authority

and the commissioner be added as public bodies by consequential amendment

under Bill 18. Nothing in

section 76.1 of the FOI Act prevents this, and the

timing is such that this approach is, I suggest, the appropriate course for

this case."

I'm

going to stop here. This is from the information and privacy commissioner. He

has another point, but I'm going to stop here. The minister has just

acknowledged that the commission and the authority would be subject to FOI,

but as I understand it from this letter, there's no legal reinforcement for

that.

[1525]

Hon. J.

Reid: We certainly take the comments of the office of the freedom of

information and protection of privacy commissioner very seriously. I would just

like to read into the record some four parts in response to the general

questions that have been asked. Indeed, as the member has raised, these are

important questions and deserve answers.

With regard

to the new ferry service being exempt from the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act, this legislation does not apply to independent

companies that are not agents of the Crown. While the new company will not be

subject to the legislation, B.C. Ferry Services will have multiple points of

public accountability, which include an annual general meeting of the authority,

annual public meeting of B.C. Ferry Services, publication of an annual report

with audited financial statements and the Web posting of annual public surveys.

The commissioner will also issue a report annually to the Legislature.

The

freedom-of-information legislation will apply to the coastal ferries services

contract, and records of the B.C. Ferry Corporation prior to conversion to a

company under the Company Act continue to be subject to the Freedom of

Information and Protection of Privacy Act. B.C. Ferry Services will be subject

to private sector privacy legislation in January 2004.

Another

question raised by the letter is about the operating agreements entered into

between the province and the operating company that require the operating

company to make available to the public, on a regular and timely basis, reports

and records relevant to the safety activities and experience of the operating

company. B.C. Ferry Services will continue to circulate reports on safety

incidents to the fleet and to its library, as in the past.

In looking

at the coastal ferry commissioner and the B.C. Ferry Authority and their status,

the coastal ferry commissioner will be added as a public body under the Freedom

of Information Act by regulation of the Minister of Management Services. This

regulation is being processed to be effective April 1, 2003, and no

consequential amendment is needed. The B.C. Ferry Authority will not be a public

body under FOI. The records of the authority will be limited and will largely

relate to the business of the authority board — that is, bylaws, nominations,

appointment processes for the authority, the B.C. Ferry Services board of

directors meeting minutes, etc. All these records will be kept in the head

office of the authority and made available to the public as per

section 17 of

the act.

With regard

to safety and transparency regarding safety issues, the regulation of coastal

ferry safety is a

[ Page 5649 ]

responsibility of the federal government through Transport Canada. Each

vessel is issued a safety certificate on passing inspection. This certificate

must be displayed in a public place on board the vessel pursuant to the Canada

Shipping Act and regulations. In the event of an incident or accident, the

Transportation Safety Board investigates and publishes a report pursuant to the

Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board Act.

That covers

off a lot of different points in the letter. If there are any further questions,

I would be glad to take them.

MacPhail: Just in reverse order, then, the safety record and the activities

of the operating company, which was the next point the FOI commissioner made in

his letter, will not change, then. It is now the responsibility…. As B.C.

Ferries is a provincial Crown corporation, the safety activities are judged and

recorded and reported by the federal government now, and that won't change.

Hon. J.

Reid: That's correct.

MacPhail: The commissioner's other point was: why not make a consequential

amendment now for the commission? But the minister is offering assurances that

the Minister of Management Services is, by regulation, making that change

effective April 1, 2003.

Hon. J.

Reid: Yes, that's correct, for the commissioner.

[1530]

Section 74

approved.

The

Chair: Minister, are you ready with a response to

section 70?

section

Hon. J.

Reid: On

section 70(5), about "section 5 of the Offence Act does not

apply." The offences are spelled out here. The legality around this would

be that every place in the act where it says "must" would be an

offence, and we don't see that that's appropriate. What's technically an offence

is spelled out, but it doesn't mean that every single thing where it says

"must" actually automatically becomes an offence under that

definition.

Section 70

approved.

Sections 75

to 80 inclusive approved.

section

MacPhail:

Section 81 exempts the B.C. Ferry Authority from the Financial

Administration Act. Is it 81? Yes.

Then

section 82 exempts the Ferry Authority from the Financial Information Act. Is it

the minister's understanding that the role provided by publicizing activities

— the role played in both of those pieces of legislation by publicizing

activities — will now be taken over by the commission?

Hon. J.

Reid: The answer is pretty straightforward. I think maybe I was looking for

something more complex.

As it's no

longer a public body, it then no longer gets treated as a public body. For

example, there isn't a role for the auditor general. It moves into requiring its

own auditor. It just announces those changes. It is no longer a public body.

MacPhail: Yes, and I understand that that's why those consequential

amendments…. I actually thought I was doing a soft lob to the minister.

[1535]

The

information that's provided by those acts will now be the jurisdiction of the

commission. In other words, what financial information does and financial

administration does is demonstrate publicly, in a very technical way, how

expenditures have occurred in a certain range, etc., and what information is

available. I assume that the commission now will examine every aspect of

accounting and money flow in terms of reaching its conclusion on an appropriate

price level. In other words, I'm hoping that the commission will play that

transparent role.

Hon. J.

Reid: Very clearly, the commissioner does not take on the role of auditor,

but the financial statements of the B.C. Ferry Services have to be filed with

the commissioner and, therefore, become public at that point.

Sections 81

to 89 inclusive approved.

Title

approved.

Hon. J.

Reid: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with

amendments.

Motion

approved.

The

committee rose at 3:36 p.m.

The House

resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

Bill 18,

Coastal Ferry Act, reported complete with amendments.

Third Reading of Bills

Mr.

Speaker: When shall the bill be considered as read?

Hon. J.

Reid: By leave, now.

[ Page 5650 ]

Leave

granted.

Bill

18, Coastal Ferry Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L.

Reid: I call second reading debate on Bill 22.

Second Reading of Bills

COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL

AND WOMEN'S SERVICES

STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2003

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that Bill 22 be read a second time now.

I'm pleased

to present Bill 22, the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes

Amendment Act, 2003, for second reading here today. This act is part of our

commitment as a ministry to streamlining regulations, cutting red tape and

providing for safe, sustainable and liveable communities. This bill makes

several minor amendments to five different acts: the Heritage Conservation Act;

the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act; the Local Government Act;

the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3); and, finally, the

Vancouver Charter.

First of

all, with respect to the Heritage Trust, I think this is probably the most

substantial change that's contained in this amending bill. With the legislation

we're enacting here — the Heritage Conservation Act amendment — the Heritage

Trust will wind up its operations by the end of fiscal year 2002-03. The core

review process and our fiscal realities indicated that this small Crown

corporation is no longer effective or sustainable. With this amendment, some of

the remaining funds of the trust will go toward the new B.C. heritage legacy

fund.

[1540]

I was

delighted just a couple of days ago to join some of the leading heritage

organizations in the province to sign a memorandum of understanding at Emily

Carr House — a very suitable location for that. We signed an MOU that would

have the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services ministry contributing a

total of $5 million to a new endowment fund for the creation of a new B.C.

heritage legacy fund. That includes a $500,000 contribution from the outgoing

B.C. Heritage Trust towards that $5 million endowment fund.

We believe

and are very confident that this amount will be matched in the months ahead

through the fundraising efforts of the heritage community in British Columbia.

The $5 million is going to be placed with the Vancouver Foundation, and of

course we're looking to see the vigorous efforts of heritage organizations in

the province as they move to build that new non-governmental trust to perhaps a

$10 million or $20 million level.

The two

partners that we have in the new trust are the Heritage Society of B.C., the

largest of the heritage groups in the province, as well as the Land Conservancy

of B.C., again another well-respected conservation organization joining with

certainly a very large, very well-respected heritage group in the Heritage

Society of B.C. Together they will establish a new non-profit entity to direct

the development and stewardship of the B.C. heritage legacy fund. This new body

will be a non-profit, non-governmental entity, like many trusts around the

world. Perhaps the best known of these is the British National Trust, started

back in 1893 with just three members and very small resources. We're hopeful

that we will see the same kind of future in the new heritage trust that we have

created outside of government.

This, we

believe, is the best possible way to conserve and build heritage resources in

British Columbia and to bring on or spur greater public involvement. The

outgoing B.C. Heritage Trust, which this amendment deals with, has not been a

popular recipient of bequests, donations or endowments from individuals,

families or corporations. That's because it's part of government. People don't

generally feel that they need to give more to government directly. I think they

will be far more supportive of the new trust, which we are creating outside of

government.

Prior to

March 31 the Heritage Trust will also be issuing several important grants to

support heritage initiatives among a variety of organizations in the province.

In fact, all existing trust project commitments will be respected, with funding

in place before the trust winds up at the end of the month. We are looking for

great things here, and I think all British Columbians will welcome this change

as a great step forward.

In terms of

the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, the amendments we are

introducing are minor in character. The act will be streamlined with changes to

the advisory council appointments and will be modernized with references to

first nations.

There will

be two amendments to the Local Government Act. One will clarify that local

governments can waive development cost charges for not-for-profit supportive

living developments, which is part of our commitment as a government to

providing new supportive living units — 5,000, in fact — in British

Columbia. This is not a policy change. It's a clarification of something that

many municipalities have already done around the province, which is to assist in

the development of new not-for-profit supportive living developments by waiving

development cost charges. This simply clarifies that that is something they will

be able to do.

[1545]

It will

also remove the requirements for the provincial government appointments to a

board of variance — again, a piece of red tape removed, which I think will be

quite universally welcomed as we move forward. These boards deal with the

individual appeals of local zoning and land use bylaws, and these are, of

course, matters which are local in nature.

This

amendment is consistent with the principles of the community charter. It

preserves an important citizen appeal mechanism at the local level but removes

[ Page 5651 ]

the provincial government's role in that process. This is also seen with

today's amendments to the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act. As with

the Local Government Act, we're responding to local government requests to

address specific local issues, including validating the industrial park

development service provided by the Sunshine Coast regional district since 1989;

enabling affected municipalities to carry out the terms of the court-ordered

arrangement for the sale of Skeena Cellulose to the NWBC Timber and Pulp Ltd.

and finally, under the Local Government Act, helping the Northern Rockies

regional district better meet the governance needs of their community through a

new approach to elections. Of course, we'll be providing greater detail with

respect to this as required at the committee stage of our discussions.

We've also

had requests for changes from Vancouver through the Vancouver Charter. These

amendments mean that, for example, security alarm permit appeals can be heard by

a member of the Vancouver police board rather than by the entire board,

obviously allowing the police board to concentrate on other matters not

requiring the whole board to be there for the consideration of something that

doesn't require the full-board consideration.

As well —

and again, this is a request from the city of Vancouver government — under the

Vancouver Charter business improvement areas can remove graffiti on private as

well as public property in their areas. This will save time, it will save money,

and it will certainly help in maintaining the health, safety and security of the

community of Vancouver.

conclusion, today's amendments reflect our commitment to reducing red tape and

onerous regulation, and are certainly part of our continuing work with other

governments and with communities to improve the day-to-day lives of British

Columbians and, of course, to build through strong communities a stronger

British Columbia.

I urge all

members of this Legislature to lend their support to this important piece of

legislation.

Motion

approved.

Hon. G.

Abbott: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House

to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22,

Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, read a

second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L.

Reid: I call estimates debate, Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Committee of Supply

The House

in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The

committee met at 3:48 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

(continued)

On vote 15:

ministry operations, $1,451,472,000 ( continued ).

The

committee recessed from 3:48 p.m. to 4:04 p.m.

[J.

Weisbeck in the chair.]

Hon. G.

Hogg: If I may comment, the member had asked a question with respect to

adoptions and the number of aboriginal children that were placed with adoptions.

The number as of January 31, 2003 — within that year — was 111, which is 44

percent of the adoptions. The non-aboriginal children placed were 139, which was

55.6 percent of the adoptions.

[1605]

Stewart: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave

granted.

Introductions by Members

Stewart: Today we have with us, from the beautiful town of Maple Ridge,

councillors Jon Harris and Judy Dueck. Accompanying them today, for the

Municipal Finance Authority, are Jake Sorba and Paul Gill. Will the House please

make them welcome.

Debate Continued

MacPhail: That information about adoption is very heartening.

Congratulations to the ministry.

The

minister was explaining why there's a difference between the reduction in the

allegations of abuse by 10 percent versus the investigations of abuse, which

have been reduced by 20 percent. He explained that it was amendments to the

definition of "abuse" under the amendments introduced in the Child,

Family and Community Service Act.

I must say

that concerns have been raised about last fall's amendments to the Child, Family

and Community Service Act. The old guidelines said that any suspected abuse of a

child is to be reported to social workers. But teachers are now worried that

they're not able to report abuse that happens in the form of bullying at the

school. Therefore, they are not able to report any potential abusers other than

parents.

There are

two things that arise. One is the issue of bullying at the school. Secondly, if

the teacher suspects a relative or another party of abuse, there is no avenue to

report that. What has the minister done to address those concerns?

Hon. G.

Hogg: We certainly are aware of the issue and have had discussions with the

Ministry of Educa-

[ Page 5652 ]

tion and the B.C. School Trustees Association. The provincial director of

child protection is in discussions with them currently. We're developing a

protocol to ensure that there is no slippage with respect to that.

I should

point out that the amended legislation ensures that the responsibilities and the

duties do parallel the child protection workers' authority to act. It is

consistent with the practices as they exist in other provinces in Canada.

Certainly, if there are any issues which take place, they can still be reported.

There is a responsibility for the social worker to be satisfied with respect to

those.

The issues

that the member highlighted, those within the bullying in the school yard —

the police are usually involved in those. The police will make decisions about

whether or not they believe that a social worker should be involved in those, in

many instances.

This came

forward as a result of social workers being called, in many cases, to bullying

instances with the police there — then the police being fully involved in the

matter, and the social workers not having any responsibility or involvement. We

were trying to focus the responsibility of the social workers with respect to

issues of abuse and neglect, specifically around the areas where they have a

duty and a responsibility to work under the act, rather than the investigative

part of it — which is in the bullying

section I'm referring to — where the

police have a responsibility. We're trying to make it clearer and more specific

in terms of the response.

[1610]

MacPhail: The minister says that there's a protocol being developed with the

Ministry of Education. What are the time lines of that being completed, and how

will the protocol be distributed to teachers so that they understand the new

guidelines?

Hon. G.

Hogg: It will certainly be completed before the end of the school year. The

B.C. School Trustees Association is a part of it, and the school trustees, so it

will be circulated through them. I assume the BCTF will also be a part of the

circulation of that information. Certainly, the BCSTA is at the table with

respect to this.

MacPhail: I have two more areas of examination in the area of child

protection. The first one is almost some case work. In the fall of 2002 we heard

about a two-year-old child who died while in the care of Shawn Mackinaw of the

Stó:lô nation. He's been charged with second-degree murder. There was an

issue, as I recall, that the agency responsible for child services with the Stó:lô

nation had been contacted about this child, but no significant action had been

taken. What is the investigative role of the ministry in this particular

situation where, I believe, there is a delegated authority?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The director of child protection is still responsible for a full

review and investigation. We did, over the course of the last year, delegate the

role of director of child protection into each of the regions. There are five

directors, one in each region, as well as the provincial director. The director

for the Fraser region is fully responsible for ensuring that the ministry

protocols, the ministry standards and legislation were followed and that

practices and procedures were followed in terms of investigating that. It's the

same investigative process that would take place should the death have occurred

in a non-delegated agency.

MacPhail: What resulted from the investigation? What changes, if any, were

made?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The investigation is not complete as yet. In some instances these

types of investigations can take eight or ten months or more. This one is more

complex inasmuch as there is a criminal investigation that is paralleling it,

and so there has to be some coordination with respect to that.

MacPhail: Will the results of the investigation be made public?

Hon. G.

Hogg: The information that comes out as a result of the investigation will

be confidential information which will be protected under the act. It is common

practice to do a

summary of that, and so a

summary would be provided. Certainly,

if there were anything to be learned out of it in terms of policy or practices,

those would be acted on, and those could be made available if the member is

interested. We could certainly do a severed copy of the report as well — not

knowing, obviously, how much would have to be severed in order to meet the

directions of the act.

MacPhail: I appreciate the offer. My reason for raising this is to ensure

that what is already in place in terms of delegated authority and responsibility

for children by the aboriginal community is working, and that before we move

even beyond what's in place now, we learn from the practice that's existing now.

[1615]

My last

area of questioning, in terms of child protection, is in the area of the safe

care act. When can we expect a safe care act to be introduced?

Hon. G.

Hogg: It should be introduced in '04-05 — is the intent. There is a

discussion paper which is being developed and will be circulated within the

context of this year, and further discussion with respect to it. We would then

be going forward through the traditional RFL, request for legislation, and the

processes which are followed with that, and then have it introduced in '04-05.

MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister…. I understand, Mr. Chair,

that future policy is not a topic for discussion in estimates, but can he say

what the issues are that are causing delay on this?

Of course,

there was a piece of legislation that had been passed by the previous

government. This gov-

[ Page 5653 ]

ernment said the implementation of that legislation was difficult and

therefore repealed it, as far as I can remember, or didn't proclaim it. Then

there was a promise that the bill would be introduced last spring. Then the

introduction was delayed to 2004, and now we hear that it will be '04-05, which

I expect may mean…. With the addition of the '05, it could mean closer to '05

than '04. What is the process that the minister is engaging in to reach an

introduction date, and with whom is he consulting?

Hon. G.

Hogg: As I mentioned, there is a position paper which is being developed and

will be developed over the course of the next few months. That will be posted on

our website. It will be circulated to stakeholders, and the proposed tabling of

legislation will be in the spring of 2004.

MacPhail: I'll look forward to seeing that on the website.

I'm going

to move to special needs. I'm going to begin with children with autism. A group

of 23 parents have filed a lawsuit against the province seeking full funding for

the…. Actually, I can wait if…. Sorry, is this the…? Oh, okay. Is it okay

if I proceed on this? All right.

Twenty-three

parents have filed a lawsuit against the province seeking full funding for

Lovaas therapy for children with autism. They argue that the ministry has not

provided sufficient funding. One-third of the families in the northern region

who need it are receiving some funding, but apparently there are over 100

families in total who need it. So what is the status of the funding for children

with autism?

And I

believe that the Supreme Court of B.C. has recently ruled that…. No, I'm

sorry. I think the original ruling was that the Supreme Court said that funding

for autism programs is a constitutional right, but I understand that the Liberal

government appealed that decision and is now proceeding. What level of court are

they appealing that to?

Hon. L.

Reid: I thank the member for the question, but I can tell you that the

government is not taking issue in terms of the funding of services for autism,

so that is proceeding.

currently have 500 children with autism spectrum disorder, and their families

are receiving early intensive behavioral intervention services. The community

living services authority is committed to the provision of individualized

funding. The ministry and the interim authority are providing an assurance that

funding for early intensive intervention will continue after March 31, 2003.

The interim

early intervention and early intensive behavioral intervention initiatives

receive a combined $13.7 million in funding to provide services for just over

600 children. So in terms of the information you have sought, I believe that

covers it.

MacPhail: Well, what level of appeal is this lawsuit at now? I thought the

government had appealed the…. While the minister distinguishes that it's not

the provision of services, there's some other grounds for appeal then,

because…. Is the government actually taking this to the Supreme Court of

Canada?

Hon. L.

Reid: May I take the opportunity to introduce Robin Syme, executive director

for early childhood development.

The

government is proceeding to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

[1620]

MacPhail: I assume that's the Supreme Court of Canada.

Hon. L.

Reid: Yes.

MacPhail: I thought there was a budget of $37 million for treatment for

children with autism. Is the minister saying it's about $13 million going for

Lovaas therapy? I thought the overall budget for autism spectrum treatment was

$37 million.

Hon. L.

Reid: The entire allotment, $26 million, is spent on services to children

with autism spectrum disorder. The $13.7 million, the figure I quoted earlier in

my comment, is for the early intensive intervention, $9 million for the new

extended autism intervention and $3.2 million for behavioral support programs in

British Columbia.

MacPhail: For those of us who have not examined this issue for a while, in

what category does Lovaas therapy fall?

Hon. L.

Reid: Under the umbrella of applied behavioral analysis, Lovaas is one of

the techniques that's employed.

Certainly,

we know that autism is a very complex disorder, which is indeed why we've gone

to the term autism spectrum disorder. It covers an enormous spectrum of

challenge for children. In terms of families seeking service and seeking to

purchase Lovaas therapy, we do have families today purchasing Lovaas therapy in

British Columbia under the direct funding model. We also have families

purchasing speech and language therapy, occupational therapy, physiotherapy. We

have the entire range.

Lovaas is

not the treatment of choice for every family in British Columbia, and certainly

it's not, frankly, appropriate for every child in British Columbia, based on the

insights that have been provided to us from their physicians and from their

providers. Indeed, it is an opportunity to add yet one more tool to the toolbox

— one more opportunity, one more strategy into the basket — in terms of

providing families a range of choice.

The

Premier's contention certainly was to expand parental choice and opportunity to

seek the very best service and a range of services, if you will, that might

indeed reflect the child's current need. It's an opportu-

[ Page 5654 ]

nity, I think, for us to reflect on a particular therapy that might be

appropriate at a particular time in a child's life may well change a month out

or six months out or a year into that child's program. It requires enormous

flexibility and enormous innovation to continue to adapt those programs to the

ever-changing needs of the children.

MacPhail: How many families have applied for funding to provide treatment

for children with autism? How many have been accepted? How many have been

rejected?

Hon. L.

Reid: I can absolutely tell you, with some pleasure, that we don't currently

have a wait-list for diagnosis in the province. Indeed, the individuals who meet

the eligibility requirements through the Ministry of Health Services and who

have been diagnosed as having autism, requiring this service…. We indeed have

met that need under the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

MacPhail: Parents of children with autism spectrum disorder have recently, I

think, contacted the ministry, though, regarding lack of services for youth with

this disability. They argue that there are no programs in place to deal

specifically with children aged seven to 19. What are the minister's plans for

provision of services for children between the ages of seven and 19?

Hon. L.

Reid: Certainly, it has been an ongoing consideration on behalf of the

people-serving ministries of this government, in terms of how best to craft a

response for children with autism who are seven to 19 years of age. I'm pleased

to tell you that come April 1 — and that's when I indicated earlier in my

remarks, hon. member — that $9 million for new extended autism intervention is

the seven-to-19-year-old program.

[1625]

MacPhail: This group of parents proposed a continuing individualized

intervention treatment program for the minister's consideration. Will this

continuing individualized intervention treatment program be permitted under the

new $9 million? Perhaps the minister could confirm: is that a new $9 million

targeted toward this age group?

Hon. L.

Reid: The $9 million is new money in British Columbia and indeed can be

folded into our individualized funding model.

MacPhail: Under the new community governance model, as the minister has

noted and as we discussed earlier in these estimates, people with disabilities

will receive assistance through the community living authority of B.C., which is

a provincewide authority. What happens to families who do not qualify for

community living services? For instance, in my discussions with parents of

children with disabilities, Asperger syndrome qualifies for, as I understand it,

B.C. disability benefits but not the extra community living services.

Hon. L.

Reid: In fact, the health diagnosis assessment piece remains the same, so

there is no anticipated change to the eligibility requirement.

MacPhail: From my meeting with the parents, it was that they…. Asperger

syndrome — they don't qualify for the extra community living services. What

happens to those people?

Hon. L.

Reid: That's not our information. I would happily follow that up for the

member if she wishes to give me some detail as to exactly which group of

individuals that might be.

MacPhail: Okay. I absolutely will. I just met with them last week.

Actually, I

want to be clear for the minister. People with Asperger syndrome qualify for

B.C. disability benefits but not for the extra community living services, which

means that they're basically on their own. They get the cheque every month that

we've been talking about — I think it's about $800 a month or something —

but they don't qualify for the extra support in the community.

Let me just

go on, then. I'll carry this through. This is everything that I learned, and

it's as up to date as last week, when I met with families with children with

autism. Some community programs are not appropriate for all people with

disabilities, particularly as it comes to people with autism or Asperger

syndrome. For example, some adults with autism have an IQ over 70, but many of

the community programs are for adults with autism who have an IQ of 70 or lower.

The programs are geared, appropriately so, toward lower-functioning individuals,

but they're not appropriate for people with autism or Asperger syndrome who have

an IQ of above 70. This is the issue. How does the ministry intend to address

this issue?

Hon. L.

Reid: If I might seek clarification from the member opposite, when she

referenced in her earlier comment the adult benefit under DB-2, that would be

folks who are over 19 years of age. Our responsibility is, in this case, the

zero-to-19-year-old population, so indeed that would fall under the Ministry of

Human Resources.

MacPhail: Okay. Well, all right. Let me just try to see whether I can make

this clear.

Let me ask

the minister a question. Community living services for children, whether they be

adult children or children under 19…. I understand that the services are

delivered on the basis of an IQ test and that the dividing line is 70. If you

have an IQ of under 70, you get the programs, and if you have an IQ above 70,

you don't — whether you're a child or an adult child. I checked this out with

the families to make sure I wasn't

[ Page 5655 ]

offending anybody. Adult children with autism are adult children with autism.

[1630]

Hon. L.

Reid: At this stage in the discussion, it is the international standard

under the DSM-IV guideline, if you will. The reality is that the guideline isn't

hard and fast at 70. It's supposed to be 70 plus or minus 5. That standard

deviation is supposed to be considered in terms of functional assessment. My

colleague assures me that process is underway in terms of people finding better

ways to approach that.

The member

opposite is correct. It is clearly not in people's best interests to have a

hard-and-fast number in all instances.

MacPhail: That's good news. I'm sure the parents will be happy about that. I

met with one parent, for instance. Her child is just an adult now, 19 or 20, and

with autism. The child is diagnosed autistic and is able to actually attend a

post-secondary education institution, but is every day having to learn how to

take the bus, cannot live independently and yet does not qualify for services

because his IQ is — if I recall correctly — higher than 75 even. It's not

much higher, but it's higher than 75. Because of this arbitrary cut-off point,

as the minister describes it, he is unable to maximize his independence. It

would be a maximization of independence in a way that would actually save the

state money in the long run, because he will be able to get an education and

probably be able to get a job as well, but he needs community living support.

Hon. L.

Reid: The member opposite's comment is well taken. There will be ongoing

challenges around the folks who don't quite meet the existing criteria. Our

challenge is to find community supports. Frankly, a lot of individuals receive

supports from the Canadian Mental Health programs in terms of life skill

development, the handling of money, the telling of time and the transportation

issues. Is it a foolproof system? It's an attempt, I think, by a local community

to come together and recognize that those kinds of ongoing supports may indeed

be required for the lifetime of that individual.

MacPhail: When the minister suggests that this is in transition, how do the

parents get involved in perhaps altering the programs? Will the B.C. community

living authority be mandated to actually address this issue as well?

Hon. G.

Hogg: Yes, we've been in many discussions with the interim board of

community living B.C. around the definitional issues. Certainly, as the member

appropriately points out, there are a number of parents who have concerns around

the hard-and-fast guidelines. We have to have some standards by which we start

to evaluate and provide services.

At this

stage, the best standard is the international standard through the diagnostic

and statistical manual — DSM-IV — of the American Psychiatric Association.

We have had discussions with them. They're well aware that there is needed to be

some flexibility in terms of how….

They have

been having a number of consultations. They've held, I believe, 15 consultations

around the province, which we discussed previously. There have been a number of

submissions from parents about that — about the definition, about the

flexibility. They are looking at ways they can provide the greatest range of

services with the greatest amount of flexibility that they can have.

As I spoke

on this yesterday, we talked about the involvement of parents in terms of being

able to sit on this board. They bring to them their experiences and the

frustrations they've had in terms of their trying to access services from

government over a number of years. The board is very aware of the issues and

concerns there and has had a number of discussions with us around that.

They are

still having further consultations and discussions around how they can find an

operational definition which is allowed to be based on the DSM-IV standard as

well as giving them some flexibility — flexibility that also allows them to

control or have a bar that makes some sense in terms of what the access criteria

to the services are.

They are

still consulting with that. They're still working on that. We expect that there

will be some resolution of that as we get their service plan coming forward to

us in the next few months.

[1635]

MacPhail: One of the issues that the parents made clear to me — parents of

children with autism or Asperger syndrome — is the savant nature of the

disorder and that the combination of doing an IQ test and the savant nature of

the disorder leads to distorted results. For instance, I had several parents

describe to me that their children literally have a photographic memory. Lots of

us claim to, but we don't. These children have the ability to memorize pages at

a glance, and the ability to feed back that information in an IQ test distorts

their real abilities. Also, as I understand it, there's a distortion in the area

of math as well.

Is the

minister of aware of this? Is this the kind of adjustment that will be taken

into account when examining the threshold by which people with this disorder

qualify?

Hon. L.

Reid: We hope to fold in as much of that information as we possibly can. I

will welcome the member sending over any information she would wish us to have

in terms of that ongoing dialogue. She is absolutely correct in terms of the

Asperger syndrome and the savant capabilities of some of these individuals.

We had the

absolute pleasure of meeting the Rain Man when he was in British Columbia. This

was the individual, indeed, that the film was modelled after — an enormous

skill set, a photographic memory for the entire map of the United States of

America, every exit

[ Page 5656 ]

to every city that anyone in the audience asked him. Incredible skill set.

Can he do extremely well at traditional testing? No question. Absolutely no

question. Are there life skills and functioning abilities he needs constant

ongoing care with? No question. Your points are well taken.

MacPhail: The Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health recently had to

close a special needs ward. That's a ward where the children would receive a

variety of rehabilitation services under one roof. The program was eliminated

due to budget cuts. Where have the children who use this facility been relocated

for rehabilitation?

Hon. G.

Hogg: I am assuming the member is referring to the respite care which was at

Queen Alexandra.

MacPhail: Yeah.

The

Chair: Through the Chair, please.

MacPhail: It was a facility for rehabilitation services, as I understand it.

Hon. G.

Hogg: I believe that if there were a closure, it must have been with the

Vancouver Island health authority. The respite that was being run there was

funded by the Vancouver Island health authority at Queen Alexandra. There were

some issues with that, and some funding came to our ministry to take over the

provision of the respite care there, but there wasn't a wing that was under the

care of this ministry.

MacPhail: Okay. And yes, it was funded by the Vancouver Island health

authority. It was closed. Now there are children with special needs out in the

rest of the world. I assume they will now become the responsibility of community

living services. I'm just wondering: has there been any follow-up to say where

these children have ended up? Has there been an uptake by the Ministry of

Children and Family Development, and what funding has been provided through the

MCFD?

[1640]

Hon. G.

Hogg: To the best of my recollection with respect to this item, there was an

extension of some of the children at Queen Alexandra to ensure that the respite

was maintained for them. They, along with a number of parents of other children

who were high-needs children in terms of respite, were meeting with the interim

chief executive officer for the Vancouver Island region. They were putting

together a request for proposals for the development of a more community-based

response to the respite needs of these special needs children, and I would have

to find out the current status of that.

If I may

also just respond briefly to the question the member stated previously with

respect to what happens with some of the special needs adults. I think the

premise that we've developed, and the premise that community living B.C. has

come forward with through the parents and the service provider, is one that

talks about recognizing, as the member brought up, the issues of savants and

photographic memories and things. I think that as a society generally,

hopefully, we start to move to the sensitive appreciation of people and to

citizenship that reflects an ability to recognize people for the gifts they

bring, rather than for some of the deficits they might have. I think that's a

principle that should apply across all of society.

As we're

trying to move some of the developmentally disabled more into full participation

and citizenship in society, I think that same principle should apply. I think a

caring, sensitive, responsive society is one that does start to look at,

recognize and appreciate people for those gifts, rather than having them in some

ways penalized for some of the things which may not be gifts. I think that's an

underpinning or a principle that should reflect the things we do. That's why I

think we should look at the issues of savants and the gifts that so many people

have, which have not traditionally been recognized by mainstream society.

MacPhail: Yes, I couldn't agree more. In many of the cases of the families

that I met, these adult children are making substantial progress up to and

including being accommodated by post-secondary institutions in a way that is

overwhelming. My only point is that the gifts sometimes mask the special needs.

I'm going

to move to early childhood development. We've had a lot of discussion about

what's being paid for out of the early childhood development agreement. I'm

working from the most recent publication of the ministry on early childhood

development activities. It was just released a few weeks ago. It's the '01-02

report. I've gone to the website. I've talked to people in the community about

this issue. I must say that I have not had a chance to discuss the issues of

child care with the Minister of State for Women's Equality, so I am just

focusing my comments on early childhood development.

The report

actually did deal with the early childhood development agreement. The early

childhood development agreement is a federal-provincial-territorial agreement in

which B.C. receives $591 million for early childhood development from the

federal government. It's to be spent on early childhood development and early

learning programs.

The annual

report accounts for $35.7 million in spending. Broken down over five years.…

Let me see. Sorry. I want to make sure my notes here…. I've just got these

scratched out. If you take the $591 million federal-provincial agreement, the

portion for B.C. of the five-year agreement is $58 million per year that flows

from the federal government. But the annual report only accounts for $35.7

million. This is a point of huge interest amongst the community and certainly

amongst us. The question gets asked all the time: where did the money go?

[1645]

What is

happening? Can we not just have a piece of paper or a website that accounts for

everything that's

[ Page 5657 ]

supposed to flow from this federal-provincial agreement? As I calculate it

and as the community calculates it, at a minimum, $22.5 million is unaccounted

for.

Hon. L.

Reid: The agreement is for $291 million over five years. The first year of

the agreement was $39.6 million in the '01-02 year. That is, in fact, the

contents of the book that you were referencing in your remarks. That's the year

we're reporting out on. That's the annual report. For '02-03, $52.8 million is

yet to be expended. That is in this coming fiscal. The year following, $66.1

million. That would be '03-04. In '04-05, it's $66.1 million, and '05-06, it's

$66.6 million, to equal $291.2 million. Indeed, it is our intention to expend

the $291 million over the course of this five-year agreement.

MacPhail: I thought it was cost-shared. I thought the provincial government

had to put in 50 cents on the dollar as well. No?

Hon. L.

Reid: That, indeed, is not reflected in the agreement.

MacPhail: The annual agreement, the five-year agreement, is $291 million?

Then my information is different. How can I confirm that? I couldn't confirm it

from the website. The website actually only accounted for $35.7 million, which

is a lot closer to $39.6 million, but it still is $4 million short.

Hon. L.

Reid: The member will know that this is a five-year agreement, so the

obligation is to expend $291 million over the course of five years. Will there

be fluctuations in any given year? There may well be, but our intention is to

have $291 million as reflected under this partnership — the four tenets of

this partnership — expended year end '05-06.

MacPhail: By the minister's own accounting then, the $35.7 million for

'01-02 is about $3.9 million short in expenditure. That flows through in the

next year? The minister is nodding yes — so $52 million for '02-03. Can the

minister say where that was spent? On what was that spent?

Hon. L.

Reid: I certainly will commit to the member that this information, if it's

not on our website, will be. In terms of the '02-03 spending, the $52.8 million,

it has not currently been all expended because it basically is beginning this

fiscal year, April 1. We will report out on our new initiatives and our new

undertaking as we go forward. Our challenge will be, frankly, to get to almost

$57 million worth of spending because there were programs that didn't come on

line, as you know from your past ministerial experience, on the actual day that

we would have wished. By the end of '03 we will, we believe, have indeed

expended the first two years of the allotment.

MacPhail: So '03 ends in a week or so. It is those estimates that we're

actually…. I mean, we're going into the '03-04 estimates, so theoretically the

information should be available on '02-03. Can the minister just give me some

examples, then, of what was spent in the '02-03 year?

Hon. L.

Reid: I'm happy to provide some examples. In terms of where we've been, the

process is reflective, if you will, over the provincial government and the

federal government's relationship because, indeed, our first report was the

baseline report. Each year we're in fact building on that report.

[1650]

But

certainly we have increased the spending around the Building Blocks programs in

British Columbia, and the member will recall a lay home-visiting program that

indeed looks out for children at risk who are vulnerable and that has someone

visit them on a regular basis. It's a vitally important program, and I believe

we're having great success with that program.

Enhanced

funding this past year and this coming year for family resource programs in

British Columbia. It is vitally important that families have a comfort zone so

that they can be in situations where they'll have mentoring opportunities for

parenting practice, new insights, health and education models passed on to them,

and will learn new things about children's nutrition and vaccines — the early

childhood development indicators of health. All of that is something we trust

our family resource programs are continuing to impart to families on a regular

basis.

We have

Children First learning initiatives across British Columbia. We had three in the

past calendar year: Port Alberni, Prince George and the Hope–Boston Bar

corridor. This year we're bringing on an additional eight learning sites. It's a

fabulous opportunity to craft centres of excellence across British Columbia and

to allow communities to mobilize, to encourage community mobilization, to

suggest that every child in our province deserves the best possible childhood

and to ensure that the programs in place are actually connected, integrated and

coordinated. That's the challenge that the Premier gave me: to create a

cross-government integrated strategy. The learning sites allow communities to

build on what they have as excellence in their communities and to expand.

The infant

development program in the province, led by Dana Brynelson — a first-class

program — allows parents to be supported in terms of seeking services for

their at-risk infants and, frankly, to raise a question if they have a concern

as to whether their child is at risk or whether their child is vulnerable to a

particular learning need that we can in fact address — so ongoing, exceptional

programming.

This

government has taken a great interest, a great passion, to do better by the

aboriginal communities in our province around aboriginal early childhood

development. It is vitally important that we do that. We provide support in 37

communities today, and we are always looking to enhance the number of

communities coming on in terms of better learning and living environments for

very small aboriginal youngsters.

[ Page 5658 ]

The human

early learning partnership through the University of British Columbia with Dr.

Clyde Hertzman. It is vitally important that we actually take the best possible

research, if indeed our objective is to get to best practice, and allow that

information to guide the development of better public policy. It's a glorious

achievement on the part of Clyde Hertzman that he's continuing to provide that

level of expertise to the province. It is our challenge to fold that into our

planning as we go forward so that all of these programs meet the needs of the

most vulnerable children in our communities.

MacPhail: I'm interested to know what changes will be made in the delivery

of programs, given the new regional authority model.

Hon. L.

Reid: These programs and many others under the early childhood development

initiatives are core programs, and that has been communicated to the regions and

to the authorities. We envision that this level of programming will continue.

MacPhail: But they will be regionalized.

Hon. L.

Reid: In fact, the programs are regionalized now in many instances. The only

thing that will change is the governance structure.

MacPhail: I'm interested to know the programs that remain in early childhood

development that are targeted toward the multicultural community.

Hon. L.

Reid: We continue to have the expectation that all of our programming will

have a multicultural component to it and that it will be woven into the kind of

service that's delivered, because we expect that a lot of these programs will

grow up with the community. If they believe there's an interest or need that

must be met around a particular multicultural aspect, they will certainly bring

that information forward.

[1655]

I am happy

to tell you that we have a number of programs in the learning site model. One

specifically will focus on how best to get to best practice in a multicultural

role around a learning site. It is a great opportunity for us to learn some

things about what the community asked for, how we deliver on that and how the

community derives best practice from the sense of multiculturalism.

certainly have learned some very good lessons around how best to integrate that

knowledge with the aboriginal communities. I'm delighted to tell you that I

think we have a really, really fine partnership with the Crabtree-Sheway

co-location, in terms of respecting and having respectful engagement, if you

will, around dealing with aboriginal moms and babes. In fact, we are going to

enhance what we know about the health of that dyad by keeping those two

individuals together.

If we can

build that kind of comfort zone and respect the multicultural teachings — the

aboriginal teachings that go on — to strengthen that partnership, that's

exactly what we should be doing. The Premier's sense of all of this is that if

we strengthen family, we can indeed strengthen community. That, to me, is a very

critical piece — that we honour the relationship that moms and babes have,

whether they be aboriginal, Cantonese or Punjabi, and we find ways to much more

effectively interface with those communities.

MacPhail: There was a new federal-provincial partnership just announced

where the federal government will transfer $935 million to the provinces for

regulated early learning and child care spaces. I think the Minister of Human

Resources Development Canada, Jane Stewart, was actually out here. Can the

minister tell us how much of this money will be coming to early childhood

development here in British Columbia, and does the minister know the division

that will be made between early childhood development and child care in this

province?

Hon. L.

Reid: It was my privilege to meet with Jane Stewart when she was here.

Certainly, her expectation is that those dollars exclusively go to early

learning and care, which she perceives to be the regulated child care program

— which, as you know, was operated under the CAWS ministry.

MacPhail: Yes, I know that. Let me ask a process question then. Has the

minister met with other ministers here in British Columbia first, about how the

B.C. money will be distributed? Could the minister also tell us what portion of

that $935 million flows to British Columbia?

Hon. L.

Reid: I believe it's Jane Stewart's expectation that those dollars will go

exclusively to child care — certainly for regulated care in family and group

care. The discussions that are ongoing among the people-serving ministries of

this government will continue. Has a particular determination been made by MCAWS

in terms of which for family care and which for group care? I don't believe at

this juncture.

MacPhail: All of that money will go to child care, not to early childhood

development? The minister's nodding her head — okay. Well, then I'll save

those questions for the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

Is there

any role that the ministry will then play in this, because of the minister of

state's focus on aboriginal early childhood development? Is there any money that

would be her responsibility, from the federal-provincial agreement? I understand

that there's actually targeted money for aboriginal child care.

[1700]

Hon. L.

Reid: Aboriginal child care would, as well, fall under MCAWS. I trust that

those discussions will

[ Page 5659 ]

indeed figure prominently in the groups of ministers that come together and

that are people-serving ministries of this government. I'm prepared to tell you

that I believe the ministry and the minister responsible for women's equality

will indeed invite some collaboration as we go forward.

MacPhail: Does the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development ever

attend those federal-provincial-territorial meetings? Who does attend those

meetings on behalf of this government?

Hon. L.

Reid: In fact, the Minister of Children and Family Development has attended,

as has the Minister of Human Resources. Most recently, the Minister of State for

Women's Equality attended the meeting in Ottawa with Jane Stewart of HRDC.

Indeed, I believe we have some meetings underway — hopefully this spring —

around aboriginal early childhood development, which I'll be attending.

MacPhail: The last question I have in this area for the expenditure of early

childhood development money that flows from the federal government is: what is

the community consultation that's in place for determination of the expenditure

of this money?

Hon. L.

Reid: I'm pleased to tell the member opposite that we have had much ongoing

dialogue around what the community would wish to see. The learning sites are

probably the best model of how that dialogue flows from the ground up.

Indeed,

what communities have said is vitally important to them. In terms of the four

tenets of the accord, whether it is the pregnancy outreach piece or whether it

is the early learning piece, they have indeed said that this particular aspect

or this particular issue is the most important to my community. We have had

numerous individuals give their feedback on the website — all kinds of

correspondence.

I'm pleased

to tell you that I have had the absolute privilege of chairing a minister's

advisory committee on early childhood development which has been across the

spectrum in terms of seeking insights from a whole array of individuals who have

enormous experience. I think if we were to collectively take the combined

experience of the individuals at that table, we'd have well over a thousand

years of individuals who have given their heart and soul to advancing what they

believe to be the best for the early childhood development of our youngest

learners. I think the opportunities for dialogue are ongoing. Certainly, the

minister's advisory committee meets quarterly and will continue to do so.

We continue

to have all kinds of targeted discussion with a variety of different

stakeholders across the province. In terms of travel, particularly around the

aboriginal early childhood development piece, we have been in upwards of 30

communities that I have attended personally to see exactly what it is they would

wish us to do in terms of crafting respectful engagement, what that looks like

for them, how indeed we can be much more respectful of aboriginal teachings and

aboriginal practice.

The goal

for any community is to have healthy, happy infants. If indeed we can get to

full-weight, full-term infants in the province, aboriginal and non-aboriginal

alike, we will have made a dramatic difference in the demands on the school

system. The research suggests you can reduce the incidence of learning

disabilities dramatically if, indeed, you can get babies at full weight and full

term at birth. That's the research from Children's Hospital and British

Columbia's Women's Hospital, and that's the research that is replicated across

the country.

If we're

going to make decisions today that are about a legacy piece and that are about

indeed providing the safest possible start for these youngsters, we start at the

pre-pregnancy outreach planning piece in British Columbia, and we follow that

through regarding the fetal alcohol syndrome disorder that we are engaged in, as

well as the entire gamut of needs that young learners would demonstrate. Indeed,

individuals have no difficulty in reaching us, in reaching members of this

ministry, in terms of giving us their guidance as to how they would wish us to

proceed. We are absolutely open to that, and I continue to invite that level of

dialogue.

[1705]

MacPhail: Will there be an appointment on the regional authorities that, for

lack of a better term, specializes in or brings in expertise in early childhood

development both at the regional health authority level and at the aboriginal

regional health authority?

Hon. L.

Reid: The interim CEOs have indeed identified an individual in each of the

five regions that will be the targeted ECD person. Our goal is to enhance that,

to expand that, and I intend to meet regularly with the boards as we go forward

in terms of ensuring that this focus is maintained.

I mean, I

think this government has done amazing things in terms of placing such focus on

youngsters zero to six years of age in our province. We're not prepared to lose

that focus as we move into a new governance model. If we enhance that focus, we

can indeed have stronger communities and have individuals that have more choices

and more opportunities. So is it really important that we continue the fine work

that's begun under the guidance of the Premier in terms of placing a real focus,

a real emphasis on very, very young learners? That's absolutely my expectation.

I know my colleagues share that view, because they are regular attenders when

Clyde Hertzman comes to speak to the caucus, when we have opportunities for

advanced learning opportunities, so that indeed every single member of this

Legislature can go forward and suggest how important it is to have incredible

young learners being successful in the province of British Columbia.

Interjections.

MacPhail: There's a stranger in the House, I'll tell you.

[ Page 5660 ]

Will that

also hold true for the aboriginal authorities?

Hon. L.

Reid: Certainly, the aboriginal authorities are not as far along in their

planning in terms of that change to governance. But that is our goal — that

indeed we will have individuals who are vitally concerned with the health and

well-being of aboriginal youngsters; full-weight, full-term infants that have

opportunities. So, indeed, we will trust that the process will unfold in a very

similar vein to the non-aboriginal governance authorities.

[R.

Stewart in the chair.]

MacPhail: . I'm moving to the service plan now for early childhood

development. The minister of state's accountability statement says that she will

increase the number of public-private community partnerships created to promote

early childhood development initiatives to a total of four. Perhaps the minister

could give a status…. Well, first of all, explain what this means, how many

are in place now and what will the four will be.

[1710]

Hon. L.

Reid: We certainly, within this government, have the understanding that

early childhood development is a partnership and that if we're going to have

outcomes that we would desire, we have to involve more people, more individuals,

across the spectrum. Indeed, we do have at least four partnerships underway and

many more to come.

We have the

early childhood development legacy fund at the Vancouver Foundation, which was

an investment on behalf of this government of $5 million, which is a

capacity-building fund. It's an opportunity for communities, agencies and

individuals who are interested in enhancing opportunities for this population

— from pre-conception to six years of age — to make application. We have,

very recently, a donation of $25,000 that's come to that fund from a private

sector partner. We continue to seek that level of support, that level of

funding, because it's vitally important. That is, the fund in perpetuity will

pay out dollars annually and, frankly, will be one of the best legacies we can

leave as a province in terms of looking out for the youngsters that will come

after us.

In terms of

another partnership fund that's been established…. The $10 million community

partnership fund established in concert with the Central Credit Union movement

in British Columbia is coming on-line and is, in fact, a matching fund.

Individuals across this province will see an infusion of $20 million into the

area of early childhood development over the next number of years — $10

million that the province has put on the table and the $10 million that will be

enhanced funding around that. Again, it's a great opportunity for

capacity-building in the community and for individuals to deliver on the things

that they believe to be vitally important, which is the learning of youngsters.

At the end of the day, we're creating opportunities for children to have an

enhanced skill set when they cross the threshold into their first kindergarten

classroom — vitally important.

If you

think about it as a curriculum vitae or a résumé, what is it that we want to

see on the curriculum vitae of every five-year-old in British Columbia? Some

solid communication skills, some solid socialization skills, some ability to

interact, some ability to have some enhanced learning. We want kids to make some

good choices as they go through.

We've had

the opportunity to partner with the Ministry of Advanced Education around a

leadership chair. One of the 20 leadership chairs in British Columbia has been

designated for early childhood development — vitally important. That will see

a private sector partner come to the table in terms of matching that level of

funding.

Indeed,

most recently, in early childhood development, an aboriginal chair which will

see ongoing support for traditional teachings for what aboriginal communities

believe to be important in terms of the durable parenting piece…. It's vitally

important for us that we enhance the parenting piece, the mentoring support

piece and the families. We're going to focus those resources on the aboriginal

community as we go forward.

Four

partnerships there — welcomed partnerships of individuals who want to come

forward and say publicly and proudly to this government that they are in

partnership with us in terms of moving forward on the agenda for early

childhood.

MacPhail: Just to clarify, there's one $5 million fund put out of the budget

of this ministry that is to go toward public-private community partnerships. Can

the minister say how one accesses that fund? Is it matching dollars? Who is the

adjudicator on what partnerships are eligible? How does it work?

Hon. L.

Reid: When Joyce Preston was the children's advocate, her vision was a fund

independent of government. We have actually met that challenge and honoured her

desire that that in fact happen. Individuals who would seek funding from this

particular fund would apply directly to the Vancouver Foundation, and the

adjudication process is through the health committee of the Vancouver

Foundation. They indeed receive a plethora of applications through the course of

the calendar year and would make those disbursements through the course of the

calendar year.

MacPhail: Is the contribution of the provincial government $5 million?

Hon. L.

Reid: My apologies, member.

It is a $5

million investment that the province has made and placed at the Vancouver

Foundation. Those dollars are almost launching-seed-capital kind of dollars, if

you will. They do not require a match on behalf of the community.

Frankly,

there's wondrous community involvement out there, but the fundraising capacity

and fundraising

[ Page 5661 ]

ability are just not there. For us to create a fund that is just about

launching some new ideas, we believe to be vitally important. The Central Credit

Union fund of $10 million will indeed have some matching capacity with it.

MacPhail: Is the B.C. Central Credit Union managing that fund, and do they

do the adjudication and operate the application process?

[1715]

Hon. L.

Reid: The adjudication process for the $10 million community partnership

fund is indeed a partnership with the United Way under the Success by 6

initiative. That process, in terms of how they reach a conclusion as to how they

will disburse those dollars, will be in concert with the United Way and with the

Success by 6 initiative. Indeed, the Central Credit Union, I believe, will have

some ongoing involvement as well.

MacPhail: On page 21 of the service plan, it talks about a $20 million

spending increase in early childhood and family development in '02-03. Could the

minister please break out for me the budgets for '03-04? Well, perhaps she could

just put on the record what the budget is for '02-03, '03-04 and '04-05.

Hon. L.

Reid: The member was correct — in '02-03, an enhancement of $20 million

into early childhood development. Those were the initiatives I listed earlier in

an increase of fun