H0429pm 11

H0429pm 11

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

4th Session, 37th Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY (HANSARD) Tuesday, April 29, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Volume 14, Number 11 THE HONOURABLE CLAUDE RICHMOND, SPEAKER ISSN 0709-1281

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Honourable Iona Campagnolo 4TH SESSION, 37TH PARLIAMENT SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Claude Richmond EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council................................................................................. .........................Hon. Gordon Campbell Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations.............................................................................. ..................... Hon.

Greg Halsey-Brandt Deputy Premier and Minister of Education ....................................................................................... ..................................Hon. Christy Clark Minister of Advanced Education................................................................................................. ...........................................Hon. Shirley Bond Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.................................................................................... ..............................Hon.

John van Dongen Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations.............................................................. .................... Hon. Geoff Plant Minister of Children and Family Development.................................................................................... ..............................Hon. Gordon Hogg Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.............................................................................. .................................Hon.

Linda Reid Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services......................................................................... .................. Hon. George Abbott Minister of State for Community Charter........................................................................................ .................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Minister of State for Women's Equality ......................................................................................... .................................... Hon.

Lynn Stephens Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Minister of State for Deregulation ............................................................................................. ............................................ Hon. Kevin Falcon Minister of Energy and Mines................................................................................................... ....................................... Hon.

Richard Neufeld Minister of Finance ............................................................................................................ ....................................................... Hon. Gary Collins Minister of Forests ............................................................................................................ .................................................. Hon. Michael de Jong Minister of Health Planning .................................................................................................... ............................................ Hon.

Sindi Hawkins Minister of Health Services.................................................................................................... ................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Minister of State for Mental Health ............................................................................................ ...................................Hon. Gulzar S. Cheema Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care ............................................................................. Hon.

Katherine Whittred Minister of Human Resources.................................................................................................... ............................................Hon. Murray Coell Minister of Management Services................................................................................................ .........................................Hon. Sandy Santori Minister of Provincial Revenue................................................................................................. ................................................Hon.

Bill Barisoff Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ................................................................................ ..................................Hon. Rich Coleman Minister of Skills Development and Labour...................................................................................... .............................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Minister of Sustainable Resource Management.................................................................................... ..................................Hon.

Stan Hagen Minister of Transportation..................................................................................................... .................................................... Hon. Judith Reid Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection..................................................................................... ....................................Hon. Joyce Murray LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................. ..............................................................

John Weisbeck Leader of the Opposition ....................................................................................................... ...........................................................Joy MacPhail Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ........................................................................................... .............................................. Harold Long Clerk of the Legislative Assembly .............................................................................................. .........................................E.

George MacMinn Clerk Assistant ................................................................................................................ ................................................................... Robert Vaive Clerk Assistant and Law Clerk .................................................................................................. ........................................................ Ian D. Izard Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees........................................................................................ ............................................Craig H.

James Clerk Assistant/Committee Clerk................................................................................................ ............................................ Kate Ryan-Lloyd Sergeant-at-Arms ............................................................................................................... .........................................................A.A. Humphreys Director, Hansard Services ..................................................................................................... ........................................

Anthony Dambrauskas Legislative Librarian.......................................................................................................... ............................................................. Joan A. Barton Legislative Comptroller ........................................................................................................ .................................................................Peter Bray Published by British Columbia Hansard Services, and printed under the authority of the Speaker by the Queen's Printer, Victoria.

Rates: single issue, $2.85; per calendar year, mailed daily, $298. GST extra. Agent: Crown Publications Inc., 521 Fort St., Victoria, B.C. V8W 1E7. Telephone: (250) 386-4636. Fax: 386-0221. www.leg.bc.ca/hansard In addition to printed transcripts, Hansard Services publishes transcripts on the Internet and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Party Standings: Liberal 75; New Democratic 2; Independent Liberal 2. ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Abbott, Hon. George (L) ....................................................................... Shuswap Anderson, Val J. (L) .............................................................Vancouver-Langara Barisoff, Hon. Bill (L)............................................. Penticton–Okanagan Valley Bell, Pat (L).........................................................................Prince George North Belsey, Bill (L).................................................................................

North Coast Bennett, Bill (L) ........................................................................... East Kootenay Bhullar, Tony (Ind. L) ................................................................. Surrey-Newton Bloy, Harry (L).................................................................................. Burquitlam Bond, Hon. Shirley (L).........................................Prince George–Mount Robson Bray, Jeff (L)......................................................................Victoria–Beacon H ill Brenzinger, Elayne (L) ...............................................................

Surrey-Whalley Brice, Susan (L) ............................................................................Saanich South Bruce, Hon. Graham P. (L)................................................ Cowichan-Ladysmith Campbell, Hon. Gordon (L)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Cheema, Hon. Gulzar S. (L) ..........................................Surrey–Panorama Ridge Chong, Ida (L)................................................................ Oak Bay–Gordon Head Christensen, Tom (L) .............................................................

Okanagan-Vernon Chutter, Dave (L) ........................................................................... Yale-L illooet Clark, Hon. Christy (L) ..................................................Port Moody–Westwood Cobb, Walt (L) ............................................................................. Cariboo South Coell, Hon. Murray (L) ........................................ Saanich North and the Islands Coleman, Hon. Rich (L) .............................................. Fort Langley–Aldergrove Collins, Hon.

Gary (L).........................................................Vancouver-Fairview de Jong, Hon. Michael (L)....................................... Abbotsford–Mount Lehman Falcon, Hon. Kevin (L) .......................................................... Surrey-Cloverdale Hagen, Hon. Stan (L) ................................................................... Comox Valley Halsey-Brandt, Hon. Greg (L) ..................................................Richmond Centre Hamilton, Arnie (L)............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin Hansen, Hon.

Colin (L) .....................................................Vancouver-Quilchena Harris, Roger (L)......................................................................................Skeena Hawes, Randy (L) ............................................................ Maple Ridge–Mission Hawkins, Hon. Sindi (L).......................................................... Kelowna-Mission Hayer, Dave S. (L) ................................................................... Surrey-Tynehead Hogg, Hon. Gordon (L) ........................................................

Surrey–White Rock Hunter, Mike (L) ...................................................................................Nanaimo Jarvis, Daniel (L)...................................................... North Vancouver–Seymour Johnston, Ken (L)............................................................ Vancouver-Fraserview Kerr, Brian J. (L).............................................................. Malahat–Juan de Fuca Krueger, Kevin (L).................................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Kwan, Jenny Wai Ching (NDP) ...............................Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Lee, Richard T. (L).......................................................................Burnaby North Lekstrom, Blair (L)................................................................. Peace River South Les, John (L) .......................................................................... Ch illiwack-Sumas Locke, Brenda (L) ...........................................................

Surrey–Green Timbers Long, Harold (L) ...................................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast MacKay, Dennis (L)....................................................... Bulkley Valley–Stikine McMahon, Wendy (L).............................................Columbia River–Revelstoke MacPhail, Joy (NDP) ..........................................................

Vancouver-Hastings Manhas, Karn (L) .............................................Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain Masi, Reni (L) ...................................................................................Delta North Mayencourt, Lorne (L) ..........................................................Vancouver-Burrard Murray, Hon. Joyce (L) ........................................................... New Westminster Nebbeling, Hon. Ted (L) .......................................... West Vancouver–Garibaldi Nettleton, Paul (Ind. L)..................................................Prince George–Omineca Neufeld, Hon.

Richard (L)...................................................... Peace River North Nijjar, Rob (L)...................................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Nuraney, John (L) ...............................................................Burnaby-W illingdon Orr, Sheila (L) ...........................................................................Victoria-Hillside Penner, Barry (L)....................................................................... Ch illiwack-Kent Plant, Hon. Geoff (L) ......................................................... Richmond-Steveston Reid, Hon.

Judith (L)............................................................Nanaimo-Parksv ille Reid, Hon. Linda (L) ................................................................... Richmond East Richmond, Hon. Claude (L) ................................................................ Kamloops Roddick, Valerie (L)..........................................................................Delta South Sahota, Patty (L).....................................................................Burnaby-Edmonds Santori, Hon. Sandy (L)..............................................West Kootenay–Boundary Stephens, Hon.

Lynn (L) ........................................................................ Langley Stewart, Ken (L)...................................................... Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Stewart, Richard (L) ...................................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Suffredine, Blair F. (L) ................................................................Nelson-Creston Sultan, Ralph (L)....................................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Thorpe, Hon.

Rick (L) ..........................................................Okanagan-Westside Trumper, Gillian (L)................................................................Alberni-Qualicum van Dongen, Hon. John (L) ................................................Abbotsford-Clayburn Visser, Rod (L).................................................................................North Island Weisbeck, John (L).........................................................Kelowna–Lake Country Whittred, Hon.

Katherine (L) ...................................North Vancouver–Lonsdale Wilson, John (L)........................................................................... Cariboo North Wong, Patrick (L)............................................................Vancouver-Kensington LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Clayburn....................................................... Hon. John van Dongen Abbotsford–Mount Lehman ..............................................Hon.

Michael de Jong Alberni-Qualicum.......................................................................G illian Trumper Bulkley Valley–Stikine ..............................................................Dennis MacKay Burnaby North..............................................................................Richard T. Lee Burnaby-Edmonds............................................................................Patty Sahota Burnaby-Willingdon......................................................................

John Nuraney Burquitlam ........................................................................................ Harry Bloy Cariboo North ..................................................................................John Wilson Cariboo South .................................................................................... Walt Cobb Chilliwack-Kent ............................................................................. Barry Penner Chilliwack-Sumas .................................................................................

John Les Columbia River–Revelstoke....................................................Wendy McMahon Comox Valley .......................................................................... Hon. Stan Hagen Coquitlam-Maillardville .............................................................Richard Stewart Cowichan-Ladysmith .......................................................Hon. Graham P. Bruce Delta North.......................................................................................... Reni Masi Delta South................................................................................

Valerie Roddick East Kootenay .................................................................................. Bill Bennett Esquimalt-Metchosin...................................................................Arnie Hamilton Fort Langley–Aldergrove ..................................................... Hon. Rich Coleman Kamloops ....................................................................... Hon. Claude Richmond Kamloops–North Thompson ........................................................Kevin Krueger Kelowna–Lake Country...............................................................

John Weisbeck Kelowna-Mission ................................................................ Hon. Sindi Hawkins Langley ............................................................................... Hon. Lynn Stephens Malahat–Juan de Fuca .....................................................................Brian J. Kerr Maple Ridge–Mission ................................................................... Randy Hawes Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows .............................................................Ken Stewart Nanaimo..........................................................................................

Mike Hunter Nanaimo-Parksville ...................................................................Hon. Judith Reid Nelson-Creston.......................................................................Blair F. Suffredine New Westminster ..................................................................Hon. Joyce Murray North Coast ........................................................................................Bill Belsey North Island........................................................................................Rod Visser North Vancouver–Lonsdale.......................................... Hon.

Katherine Wh ittred North Vancouver–Seymour .............................................................Daniel Jarvis Oak Bay–Gordon Head .......................................................................Ida Chong Okanagan-Vernon .................................................................... Tom Christensen Okanagan-Westside.................................................................Hon. Rick Thorpe Peace River North .............................................................Hon. Richard Neufeld Peace River South .......................................................................

Blair Lekstrom Penticton–Okanagan Valley ....................................................Hon. Bill Barisoff Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain.................................................... Karn Manhas Port Moody–Westwood......................................................... Hon. Christy Clark Powell River–Sunshine Coast.......................................................... Harold Long Prince George North................................................................................Pat Bell Prince George–Mount Robson................................................Hon.

Shirley Bond Prince George–Omineca................................................................Paul Nettleton Richmond Centre......................................................... Hon. Greg Halsey-Brandt Richmond East .......................................................................... Hon. Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston ................................................................ Hon. Geoff Plant Saanich North and the Islands ............................................... Hon. Murray Coell Saanich South...................................................................................

Susan Brice Shuswap .............................................................................. Hon. George Abbott Skeena.............................................................................................Roger Harris Surrey-Cloverdale ................................................................. Hon. Kevin Falcon Surrey–Green Timbers .................................................................. Brenda Locke Surrey-Newton ............................................................................... Tony Bhullar Surrey–Panorama Ridge................................................. Hon.

Gulzar S. Cheema Surrey-Tynehead .......................................................................... Dave S. Hayer Surrey-Whalley ...................................................................... Elayne Brenzinger Surrey–White Rock ...............................................................Hon. Gordon Hogg Vancouver-Burrard................................................................. Lorne Mayencourt Vancouver-Fairview............................................................... Hon.

Gary Co llins Vancouver-Fraserview ...................................................................Ken Johnston Vancouver-Hastings .......................................................................Joy MacPhail Vancouver-Kensington...................................................................Patrick Wong Vancouver-Kingsway..........................................................................Rob Nijjar Vancouver-Langara....................................................................Val J.

Anderson Vancouver–Mount Pleasant............................................Jenny Wai Ching Kwan Vancouver–Point Grey ................................................... Hon. Gordon Campbell Vancouver-Quilchena............................................................ Hon. Colin Hansen Victoria–Beacon Hill.............................................................................Jeff Bray Victoria-Hillside.................................................................................. Sheila Orr West Kootenay–Boundary.................................................... Hon.

Sandy Santori West Vancouver–Capilano ..............................................................Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Garibaldi ................................................. Hon. Ted Nebbeling Yale-Lillooet .................................................................................. Dave Chutter

CONTENTS Tuesday, April 29, 2003 Afternoon Sitting Routine Proceedings Page Introductions by Members....................................................................................................... ............................................... 6323 Statements (Standing Order 25B).............................................................................................................................. .............. 6323 Greenspace conservation in urban areas S. Brice All-terrain vehicles B. Bennett Anniversary of discovery of DNA K.

Manhas Oral Questions................................................................................................................. ......................................................... 6324 Fair Pharmacare registration J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Northern medical school community action group P. Bell Hon. C. Hansen Rural Communities Summit P. Nettleton Hon. G. Plant Hon. G. Collins Death of Frank Joseph Paul T. Bhullar Hon. R. Coleman Fair Pharmacare registration J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Legislation on collective agreements B. Belsey Hon. G.

Bruce Petitions ...................................................................................................................... ............................................................... 6327 J. MacPhail Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 6328 Community Charter (Bill 14) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. T.

Nebbeling Committee of Supply ............................................................................................................ ................................................... 6335 Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. S. Bond Second Reading of Bills ........................................................................................................ ................................................... 6342 Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 27) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail P. Bell Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 29) Hon. M. de Jong

6323 TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 The House met at 2:03 p.m. Introductions by Members Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: Today in the members' gallery I would like to acknowledge some special visi- tors from Hungary. Please join me in welcoming His Excellency Dénes Tomaj, the newly appointed Ambas- sador of Hungary to Canada, and his wife, Ildikó Tomaj. They are accompanied by André Molnar, the honorary consul general of Hungary at Vancouver. This is the ambassador's first official visit to British Columbia, and I'm pleased he has travelled here to discover the many opportunities of our beautiful prov- ince.

Would the House please make them feel wel- come. Hon. G. Collins: O n b e hal f o f t he P re m i e r, I w ant to make some introductions today. It is now 58 years since the Nazi concentration camps were liberated throughout Europe, the after- math of an incomprehensible time in world history.

Approximately six million people, including 1.5 million c h i l d r e n , d i e d i n t h o s e i n t e r n m e n t c a m p s o r i n t h e i r towns, villages, cities, farms and forests. [1405] Today I am pleased to stand up in this House to re- cognize Holocaust Memorial Day and to recognize the many survivors who are here with us in the galleries today and many others who are also survivors — their friends and their families. How can any of us actually understand what these people went through or what they go through each and every day of their lives? The memories, the nightmares, the losses and the sadness?

We cannot begin to. What we can do is commend them, praise them, welcome and respect their stories. Yom HaShoah, or Holocaust Memorial Day, is a day set aside to remember. Its observances are evolving around the world, and it's a day to deepen our under- standing about the tragedy of those times. Many Jewish communities are hosting ceremonies today for commu- nal reflection and prayer. Attendance at those events is increasing yearly as more and more survivors are com- ing out and sharing in the memorials and telling their stories and helping with the healing process.

The terrible shadow of the holocaust is a constant companion to sur- vivors, their families and their friends. It's also a terrible shadow on the family and friends of those who did not survive the terrible horror of those days. Once again I want to welcome our special guests in the galleries today and commend the Canadian Jewish Congress — particularly Robbie Waisman, a survivor and president of the Vancouver Holocaust Society; and vice- president Rita Akselrod, also a survivor — for their lead- ership and help in making this memorial day happen. D.

MacKay: In the gallery this afternoon, visiting from the city of Terrace, is my good friend and cam- paign manager, Derek Curtis. I would ask the House to please make him welcome. R. Stewart: Visiting us today from Coquitlam are two members of la Société d'éducation Gareau, which is effectively the parents advisory committee for l'École de Pionniers de Maillardville. Would the House please welcome Carole Helter and Lucie Poulin. Hon. C.

Clark: On behalf of my colleague from Surrey-Tynehead, I would like to make very welcome today the students of Pacific Academy in Surrey, who are joining us to learn a little bit about how the legisla- tive process works. I hope when members see them in the hallway, they'll give them a big welcome. H. Long: I'm very proud today to rise in this House and announce the birth of my fourteenth grandchild to my daughter, Kathleen, and her husband, Al. Hayley Ann Marie Zaalberg was born on April 22 at 8:21 p.m. here in Victoria. As I said, it's my fourteenth grand- child, and I'm really proud of it.

I would like to ask this House to join with me in welcoming her to British Co- lumbia and to the world. I wish her the best. Hon. L. Reid: On behalf of my hon. colleague the member for Surrey–White Rock, I'm pleased to present to this House individuals in the gallery from the White Rock Rotary Club, John Morfitt and Don Boyce, and visiting the White Rock Rotary Club from the Argen- tine Rotary Club are Luis Busso, Eugenia Ossana, Pablo Naldini, Alejandro Fara and Maria Francioni. In addition, a third introduction.

Students from the Jewish Day School i n the rid i ng of Richmond East are in the precincts today, and I would ask the House to please make them very welcome. Statements (Standing Order 25

B) GREENSPACE CONSERVATION IN URBAN AREAS S. Brice: Recently I attended the opening ceremo- nies of the Horticulture Centre of the Pacific's new c o n s e r v a t i o n p a r k t r a i l s i n m y r i d i n g o f S a a n i c h South. The development of these trails was funded by the province. This project replicates the spirit of early visionaries who made a conscious effort to protect green space in the cities at the turn of century.

Those early nineteenth-century planners had the foresight to imagine the future and to treasure parks within urban centres. [1410] When Sir James Douglas set aside 103 acres in 1858 for Beacon Hill Park or Vancouver city council made a proposal to the federal government in 1886 to create Stanley Park, they saw well beyond their own man- dates, their careers and even beyond the generation of their grandchildren. So, too, does our government

6324 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 support initiatives like the conservation park that look beyond the present and towards the future of B.C. and the generations to come. This project seeks to ecologically rehabilitate and preserve 70 percent of the site. The plan strikes a bal- ance between conservation and recreation through a carefully planned trail and viewing station system. The exciting component of the horticultural centre plan is the decision to use 20 percent of the land base for income-generating activities.

The plan includes agroforestry in a manner that sustains the environment and also generates enough income to maintain the park in the years ahead. Projects such as these look well into the future and anticipate a province that will grow and flourish. Like our nineteenth-century predecessors, our government looks beyond our own legislated mandate. In the pro- tection of green space, we look forward and plan for the next generation of B.C. citizens who will benefit from these peaceful places when urban development spreads into today's suburbs.

I am proud to be part of a government that sees beyond the immediate horizon and proud to welcome projects such as the conserva- tion park and its new trails to Saanich South. ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLES B. Bennett: Today I'm offering a brief argument in favour of registration and licensing of all-terrain vehi- cles. Many British Columbians use an ATV to get a little further into the mountains to do their sightseeing, their hunting and fishing and camping and berry pick- ing, and more and more of our aging tourists want to view our beautiful province from an ATV.

I support this type of tourism, and I support this type of recrea- tion by taxpaying British Columbians. Used respect- fully, the ATV is a wonderful amenity for thousands of British Columbians. I do want to make it clear here today that registra- tion must be not used to unnecessarily restrict ATV use, but there are some good public policy reasons for registering and licensing ATVs:

(1) ATV riders wear helmets and visors. The very few who destroy rangeland and commercial crops can- not be identified without a licence plate.

(2) The collection of sales tax at the mandatory point of registration would allow government to collect tax not only on every out-of-province ATV purchase but on every in-province ATV transfer.

(3) Registration would allow ATV dealers to verify ownership on trade-ins and would help protect ATV owners against theft.

(4) Identification of the few renegade ATV users would allow us to protect our dwindling natural grass- lands in B.C., where many of B.C.'s endangered species of flora and fauna exist.

(5) Registering and licensing ATVs could facilitate the collection of a user fee that could then be targeted through the B.C. ATV Association to trail development, trail maintenance and education. Conservationists, environmentalists, the agricul- tural industry, regional districts across B.C. and the provincial ATV association all want ATVs registered and licensed. For all of the above reasons, I suggest that the province should work with ATV owners to register and license their ATVs. ANNIVERSARY OF DISCOVERY OF DNA K. Manhas: I rise today to mark an important occasion whose significance is growing day by day.

I'd like to join Genome British Columbia and organizations from around the world in celebrating the fiftieth anniversary of the discovery of DNA and the double helix structure. Fifty years ago the phrase double helix entered our vocabulary and expanded our horizons. The discovery of DNA by James Watson and Frances Crick was hailed as a watershed in the history of science. It is doubtful that anyone could have predicted the transformation it would unleash on biology, on medicine and on our understanding of life itself.

Fewer still would have predicted that it would give rise to a whole new branch of science: biotechnology. Today every child learns about the twisting ladder of DNA. Open the newspa- per almost any day, and you're sure to read about the important breakthroughs in DNA research. The late Dr. Michael Smith, a UBC professor and Nobel laureate, was a key figure in the advance of gene research, and gene research in B.C. today is at the fore- front of the world. Recently the Michael Smith Genome Sciences Centre was the first lab in the world to crack the genetic code for the virus thought to cause SARS.

With this genetic blueprint in hand, researchers are working around the clock on a diagnostic test for the disease. This will speed up diagnosis and save lives. In the five decades since the discovery of the dou- ble helix, science has made enormous strides and gained incredible insights.

Today scientists building on the foundation laid by Watson and Crick are close to knowing how immunity to infectious diseases works, how we can grow hardier and more productive crops, how we can make forests resistant to new diseases and even how we can tap into new clean energy sources. [1415] Fifty years is short in the sweep of time, but we have travelled a long way in the last half-century in our knowledge about the genetic workings of our world.

As we look forward to what might be in store in the n e x t 5 0 y e a r s , w e wo u l d d o we l l t o r e m e m b e r t h at i t a l l began with the discovery of the double helix, a twisting staircase that has led us upward in our understanding of life and to greater heights of what is possible in our world. Mr. Speaker: That concludes members' statements. Oral Questions FAIR PHARMACARE REGISTRATION J. MacPhail: In trying to calm fears about the botched Pharmacare registration system, the Minister

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6325 o f H e a l t h S e r v i c e s i s o n l y c r e a t i n g m o r e c o n f u s i o n . I f you listen to the minister, you would think that the confusion is all part of a deliberate misinformation campaign. But the only misinformation is coming di- rectly out of this minister's mouth. He spent more than a million on an advertising campaign that told British Columbians his new scheme starts on May 1 and if people want benefits, they should register immediately.

Then, with only two weeks left until the deadline, he quietly puts out a release that says: "Oops, there is no deadline." And now he wonders why lines are jammed and people are confused. Can the minister explain why his more-than-a- million-dollar advertising campaign extolling the vir- tues of cutting benefits to seniors never bothered to tell those same people that in fact there is no deadline for registration? Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the advertising cam- paign that was undertaken has been very effective.

As I mentioned yesterday, about 440,000 B.C. families have benefited from financial assistance under plans A and E on the old Pharmacare plan. Already, to date we have about 900,000 B.C. families registered. Our analy- sis shows that those individuals who will be able to benefit from the new Fair Pharmacare program from day one on May 1 are, by and large, already registered and signed up. We're certainly going to take every ef- fort to make sure those few remaining families that will get benefits effective on May 1 are entitled to their benefits, even if that means paying them retroactively. Mr.

Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a supplementary question. J. MacPhail: It's always interesting how this minister has fun with math. I guess everybody is flooding…. All those that aren't registered are flooding all of our offices…. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Order, please. Hon. members, let us hear the questions and the an- swers, please. Please continue. J. MacPhail: They must be calling to all of our of- fices. But British Columbians shouldn't need a decoder ring to figure out what the minister's intent is.

Yesterday, in response to my question about the two-stage registration process, the minister insisted that as soon as a person makes contact via phone or Internet, they are registered and have nothing to worry about. That is not true. According to the information from the minister's own website this morning…. Here's what that website says: "If a person fails to return their consent form within 30 days, they lose their Pharmacare coverage." That was this morning from the very website this min- ister refers everyone to. That directly contradicts what the minister said yesterday.

Will the minister now confirm, as a result of what he told the House yesterday, that the 30-day rule for returning their consent form is now null and void? Would he like to flip-flop again, and is he going to change the information he's providing British Colum- bians on his website? Or do British Columbians have to start reading Hansard to keep track of these ever- changing rules? Hon. C. Hansen: I can remember that when we first announced the Fair Pharmacare program, I offered the Leader of the Opposition a full briefing on it.

I think that if she had taken me up on that at the time, she would not be as confused as she seems to be as this process has unfolded. [1420] What I said yesterday was that the moment an in- dividual registers their family, either via telephone on the 1-800 number or via the website, they are entitled to benefits automatically and instantly, and that the second phase of that process is the consent form. That is exactly what I said yesterday.

The second phase is that they do sign the consent form, which allows us to verify the information that the individual has provided either via the telephone lines or on the website. They are eligible for benefits from the day they are regis- tered, whether that's via telephone or via website. Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further supplementary. J. MacPhail: Well, despite what the minister tries to tell people, his story changes daily — absolutely daily. First of all, there is a deadline; then there isn't.

You must return your consent form or get cut off, according to his website, or it turns out, as the minister says, a consent form is just a formality. Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. J. MacPhail: If you don't register, you lose your benefits. Then yesterday the minister says that you'll be reimbursed for everything you may have overpaid at the end of the year. Clearly, the minister has some work to do to get his story straight and get it through to the public.

Can the minister tell us if British Columbians will have to apply to Pharmacare to get reimbursed at the end of the year, or will he be sending those cheques out automatically? Will he agree to clear up the confusion that he's created, that his website has created? Will he delay implementation of his income-testing scheme until June 1 and use that time that is so much needed b y hi m , whi c h s o m any s ay , t o c l e ar u p a l l t he c o nf u - sion around eligibility and registration and how it's all supposed to work? Hon. C.

Hansen: First of all, everything that I have said on this file has been 100 percent consistent, and I

6326 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 challenge that member to show me any evidence of anything I have said that is not consistent. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: Her understanding of this particu- lar file has clearly taken some flip-flops, which could have been avoided if she had taken the briefing in the first place. To answer her first specific question: yes, the reim- bursement will be automatic. They will not have to apply for that. To answer her second question: no, we will not delay the implementation of Fair Pharmacare, and I'll tell that member why.

It's because 280,000 British Co- lumbia families are in fact going to get more financial assistance under the new program. Interjection. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Hon. C. Hansen: Young, low-income families today who are facing deductibles of $800 a year are going to see more financial assistance, so that the costs of phar- macy bills to them and their young families are going to come down. That is going to bring more fairness to low-income seniors and to low-income British Colum- bians. No, we will not delay bringing fairness to those British Columbians. NORTHERN MEDICAL SCHOOL COMMUNITY ACTION GROUP P.

Bell: Certainly, improving health care is a huge issue for myself and, I know, for the member for Prince George–Mount Robson and, in fact, for all of my north- ern caucus colleagues. I know the minister has taken a number of very positive steps lately to help us improve our health care indicators in the north, and some of the improvements are really exciting. One of the measures that he announced fairly re- cently was the establishment of a committee or a work- ing group that was going to look at the regional needs and establish specific strategies for improvement.

Can t h e M i n i s t e r o f H e a l t h S e r v i c e s g i v e u s a n u p d a t e o n the status of the committee, when the membership will be announced and when it will start meeting? Hon. C. Hansen: This is a great news story that's unfolding across the northern part of British Columbia — the expansion of the medical school to Prince George, which will become operational in September of next year, with 24 medical students being located at UNBC. It is great news not just for Prince George but for all northern communities.

I'm pleased to advise the member that the northern medical school community action group will be, in fact, formalized this afternoon. I'm very pleased that the mayor of Prince George, Colin Kinsley, has agreed to chair that group. We're going to make sure that there is good local input not just from Prince George but from all of the communities of the north to make sure that that northern medical school is up and operational and starts to meet the needs of northern communities as soon as possible. Thanks very much. [1425] RURAL COMMUNITIES SUMMIT P.

Nettleton: Through the process of elimination, I have a question for the Attorney General, please. I would like to draw the minister's attention, if I may, to an upcoming conference, the Rural Communities Summit, to be held June 19 to 21 of this year in Clear- water, British Columbia. The guest of honour is the Hon. Iona Campagnolo, the keynote speaker is David Baxter of the Urban Futures Institute, and the opening speaker is Chief Nathan Matthew of the North Thomp- son Indian band.

The agenda includes bridging gaps between native and non-native business and labour, the sharing of natural resources and beginning a dia- logue around rural capabilities. The intended audience is rural communities of 10,000 and under. My question is: is this conference something that the government is encouraging caucus members to attend? Hon. G. Plant: If the member wants to give me a copy of the information he's referring to, I'll be happy to look at it and see if there's an answer I can give him. Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George– Omineca has a supplementary.

Hon. member, I would ask if you could just speak up a little. We're having trouble hearing you. P. Nettleton: For the information of the minister and this House. With respect to this conference, per- haps the minister or someone on the government side can explain to me the purpose of an internal e-mail from the office of the party Whip, Kevin Krueger, to government caucus members, which reads: "Kevin Krueger has requested members do not register for the Rural Communities Summit. If you have any ques- tions, please call me directly." Comment, please. Hon. G.

Collins: I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the reason for that e-mail is that there is a different registration form that's been di- rected towards MLAs. That's why members were ad- vised not to double-register for the conference. But I expect there'll be a good attendance by members from, hopefully, both sides of the House. DEATH OF FRANK JOSEPH PAUL T. Bhullar: It was approximately one year ago that I stood in this chamber and asked the Solicitor General about a homeless person who died under mysterious circumstances while in the custody of the police —

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6327 namely, Frank Joseph Paul. Can the Solicitor General please advise this House if the case of the deceased, Frank Joseph Paul, has been reopened? Hon. R. Coleman: This member brought this to my attention yesterday, and not to my knowledge has the case been reopened. We had a coroner's inquiry with regard to the case, and also a report to Crown counsel was dealt with. There were two members of the police department who were disciplined over the incident. Since that time, there have been a number of recom- mendations that came out of the coroner's inquiry.

Those have been added to the risk assessment audits for police departments by the director of police ser- vices, and now when we audit police departments, we audit including those recommendations that came out of that particular report. FAIR PHARMACARE REGISTRATION J. MacPhail: Well, today is the day for e-mail ex- changes. In an e-mail exchange this morning, here's how one British Columbian responds to the suggestion that people can register for Pharmacare on line: "This sounds like a great idea until you try to get the data entered on line. The system is so jammed up that the website cannot handle the traffic.

I tried for an hour and a half this morning to enter one form. Calling or faxing is no better." Now, the author of that e-mail is a Janet Kluston, the constituency assistant to the Minister of Early Childhood Development. To the Minister of Health Services: how can he expect ordinary British Columbi- ans to have any patience with this botched registration process when even Liberal staffers say the system is a mess? This government says I'm a fearmonger. So is Ms. Kluston just fearmongering in a deliberate attempt to spread misinformation to make the minister look bad? And if so, what's he going to do about that?

Interjections. Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let us hear the answer. Hon. C. Hansen: Clearly, over the weekend the system did have some challenges because there were an enormous number of people that were trying to get access to the system. They have expanded the capacity, both in terms of the Web servers and in terms of the ability to field telephone registrations. We can register 800 people an hour on the telephone system, and 700 people at a time can register using the on-line registra- tion system. [1430] I've had some great feedback.

In fact, I had great feedback just earlier today from an individual who used the on-line registration system and said it was fabulous. Certainly, some individuals may need to try again if they're trying at a particularly high-volume time of the day. But as we get into the evenings, it's open till 10 o'clock at night. Late afternoon is usually the better time to try. LEGISLATION ON COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS B. Belsey: I have a publicly written question submit- t e d b y t h e P r i n c e R u p e r t D i s t r i c t T e a c h e r s U n i o n . T h e question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour.

Now that the Geneva-based International La- bour Organization has concluded that six laws enacted by the Legislative Assembly violated international cove- nants, will the government repeal Bill 18, Skills Devel- opment and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, and repeal legislation that imposed settlements, forced an end to job action and altered contracts? Hon. G. Bruce: In reading the report by the ILO, it said a number of things. I think it's probably important that we deal with them in an individual sense, actually.

In regard to education, the ILO had said education ought not to be an essential service except for minimal service. However, in my meeting just recently with the BCTF and other people within the education profes- sion, the impact that teachers have on young people and the necessity for good education for our young people…. Clearly, in those discussions I think anyone would understand the necessity for it to be an essential element in our society.

When they talked about an independent committee looking at the collective agreement process for bargaining for the BCTF.… I've already met and begun a process with the BCTF, the Principals and Vice-Principals As- sociation, the school teachers association to see whether or not there is a different process that could be utilized so that we could reach negotiated settlements. Clearly, regardless of political party in this prov- ince….

In fact, if you go across this country, if you go throughout North America — indeed almost around the world — this particular element of our society has had a very difficult time in finding a way to negotiate a collective agreement. I'm hopeful that with the interest that's already been expressed by the parties I've spoken with, we might be the first in the areas to come up with a process that would find that the teachers and the government could come to a negotiated settlement.

Finally, and more importantly in all of this which came out from the ILO, this government in British Co- lumbia made it very, very clear in regard to education and in regard to health care. We have said that our first priority in all we do in these two fields would be to put patients first and to put students first. That, indeed, is what we have done. [End of question period.] Petitions J. MacPhail: I rise to table a third petition, signed by 3,876 people. They're calling upon the government to rescind all cuts to Pharmacare, make public all hear-

6328 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 ings related to the broader review of Pharmacare and ensure that seniors are included in the process. Orders of the Day Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading continued debate on the Community Charter. Mr. Speaker: The House will recess for five min- utes. The House recessed from 2:34 p.m. to 2:45 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Second Reading of Bills COMMUNITY CHARTER (continued) J. MacPhail: I was in Committee A debating the es- timates of the Minister of Advanced Education this morning.

I did have a chance, though, to go on line to review the debate from this morning. My comments are reflective not only of what it is that the opposition wants to say but what was debated this morning as well. By the way, Mr. Speaker, seeing as how I've referred to Hansard, I want to take the opportunity to congratu- late you and your office on what I think is a world-class Hansard system now. The fact that I can go on line at noon is truly wonderful. Congratulations to you and to Hansard Services.

In addressing the Community Charter legislation, let me begin by saying that virtually everyone is in favour of empowering municipalities. It's almost motherhood — parenthood. However, once we get beyond that, this legislation does cause the opposition some concern. Let's call this legislation what it is. This was a pet project promised by the Premier many years ago. However, it continues to be, as many have said to the government — not in this chamber, but to the govern- ment — that the community charter is a double-edged sword for local governments.

After promising a new community charter within the government's first 90 days in office, here we are — two years after the gov- ernment was elected — examining the Community Charter today. This is what the government has come up with. Some may say: "Who cares about another broken promise by this government? There are so many." There are riches out there of broken promises. What is significant is not only that the government broke its promise but also what they've now offered to commu- nities, to local governments and to citizens. This Com- munity Charter does not in any way do what was promised.

While we've had to wait two years, even now the Community Charter that we're debating today falls far short of the promises that were made by the Liberal MLAs and by the Premier himself, year after year, to local governments. The end result of the direction charted by this gov- ernment with this Community Charter is downloading to local councils and to regional districts without the power to raise revenue. That's all we know so far. This legislation has little to say on the issue of local taxing powers. It's no secret.

They can't yell over there that I'm fearmongering, because the minister himself has admit- ted to this. He seems to think that's just fine. Well, I don't. Its absence creates a huge hole in what anybody could possibly say is good news by the tabling of this Community Charter. The Community Charter recognizes the municipal need for adequate powers and discretion to meet exist- ing and future community need. Good.

It commits that before new responsibilities are assigned to a municipal- ity, there must be provision for resources required to fulfil the responsibility. [1450] Again, that raises far more questions than are an- swered by this legislation. How is that possibly to be achieved by local communities as they assume new responsibilities, when there is actually no discussion whatsoever on revenue raising or resource gathering for local governments? This Community Charter — no question about it — is a move toward an American style of municipal gov- ernance, and with that move, it carries an inherent fi- nancial risk.

Now, the Community Charter will no doubt change the way that municipalities operate. There are challenges in that provincial standards may not be met and that there is an ability for local govern- ments to opt out of provincial standards that have been a stalwart of this province for years. I have heard from all around the province real concerns about that, be- cause many local governments believe that it will lead or could lead to regional balkanization. This is a government that claims to stand up every day and care deeply about the interior, the north and the Island. It's what they call the heartlands.

And don't forget the "s," because, as I'm told, there's more than one heartland. It's an American-style word, and it now deals with an American-style piece of legislation, the Community Charter. There's no doubt that a 90-day pledge turning into a two-year charade is very suspect, and it's suspect given that this charter is really substantively a repack- aging of amendments to the Local Government Act by the previous government over several years. There was a lot of work — a lot of work — done by the previous government to change, top to bottom, the Local Gov- ernment Act.

It was done in a methodical, consultative, inclusive way, and I have heard from many at the local government level saying: "Well, what's new with this Community Charter?" We were promised something new, and the substance of the Community Charter merely reflects all of the hard work done by local gov- ernments, the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the previous government. Everything that was promised for change is absent from this Community Charter. Maybe that's because the changes made in an inclu- sive, consultative, open, transparent way to the Local

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6329 Government Act throughout the 1990s met the needs of local governments. Maybe what this Community Char- ter, then, is all about is having to meet the dire needs of this Liberal provincial government as they sink ever further into a fiscal morass and need to download ser- vices onto local and regional governments. I would say, given the absence of any substance around the ability to raise revenue, that this charter is in large part a glorified housekeeping bill trumpeting the gains in autonomy that were really achieved by local govern- ment in the 1990s.

However, the charter is now unveiled in the new era of relentless and reckless downloading. Communi- ties are seeing fewer provincial services and govern- ment functions in their locale and locales across the province. Again, Mr. Speaker, it's not just me that hears this tale of real woe of relentless downloading. As part of the legislative committee to do prebudget consulta- tions in the fall, ten Liberal MLAs and I heard that all around the province from local government officials — that downloading was relentless and reckless.

The government, in its desire to cut red tape, has missed the mark — it missed the mark completely — and in this legislation, they've cut the red seal for trade apprenticeship. They're not dealing with red tape at the local government level. Instead, they're doing things like silly regulation changes, cutting the red seal for trade apprenticeship. That is where one can get trained and certified as a journeyperson, and the red seal is given. You're recognized all across Canada for your journeyperson's seal. [1455] This government cut that. They haven't cut any red tape in the Community Charter.

They've done nothing about the leaky-condo disaster, either through this or any other action this government has taken. In fact, the secret government caucus committee examining the leaky-condo crisis in this province has yet to report out. I'm sure they have yet to report out, because this gov- ernment won't do anything about it even after the gov- ernment caucus committee is forced to admit to the crisis. I would submit that this charter could further exacerbate municipal liability for inspections and c l a i m s f r o m s h o d d y w o r k m a n s h i p .

I n h a r m i n g t h e apprenticeship program and doing nothing about leaky condos, combined with the introduction of this charter, municipalities are at greater risk for greater liability when shoddy workmanship occurs in the con- struction industry. There is confusion resulting from the phased intro- duction of the charter. The government freely admits that it's a two-step process. Now, we didn't hear any- thing about that in the New Era document. We didn't hear anything while these MLAs were out campaign- ing on the election trail.

We certainly didn't hear any- thing about that in the first 90 days, when this promise was supposed to be delivered. But now we're told it's a two-step process. Well, that's confusing. I would submit that the public deserves to know what future community charter legislation will contain. I examined it very carefully in the debate and could find none of the information about what the next shoe to drop will be. Many suspect that the regional districts will be adversely affected in the autumn legislation.

Regional growth strategies, regional utilities, regional parks and environmental services, including a whole host of downloaded inspection work, may be jeopardized by the legislation in the autumn. Yet here we are passing the Community Charter, not knowing at all what the next shoe to drop will mean for local governments. Of course, there was a lack of representation from both labour representatives and business representatives in putting together this legislation. Now, usually this government just shuts out labour organizations — work- ing people's representatives.

This government loves to shut out working people's representatives, but they also shut out business representatives in this consultation as well, which is a new low for this government. There's no doubt that there is going to be a downloading onto municipalities regardless of what the Liberal position was when they were in opposition. When they were in opposition and even now, they say every day that there will be no downloading onto mu- nicipalities.

But again, as is always the case with this Liberal government — whether they're telling how Pharmacare isn't going to be what it's going to be or whether we're talking about the Community Charter — you have to read very care fully between every syl- lable of every word — not just between the lines, but between every syllable of what this Liberal government promises now, of what their shifting promises are. Of course, in opposition the Liberals said there would be no downloading.

Then the next step was, as soon as they got into government: "Well, if we get out of the business of providing services, that isn't downloading; that's just getting out of the business of services." If it's a service required and necessary for the well-being of the community, this Liberal government abandons that service but then claims it's not downloading. [1500] The Community Charter shifts from broad corpo- rate powers to natural person powers. I will be discuss- ing that much more at committee stage — the implica- tions for that shift.

The charter allows municipalities to offer any service by almost any means they want. But as I've already stated, it paves the way for the province to abandon services, leaving it up to increasingly cash- strapped local governments to decide if they want to fill that void.

Just like the Minister of Education takes no responsibility for her cuts to school boards — and in fact goes and pokes her finger in the eye of school board trustees, saying, "You've got all the tools avail- able to provide educational services," and refuses to acknowledge that she's severely tied their hands be- hind their back by her cuts in funding — the same thing has happened in this Community Charter. The government says: "Oh no, we're not downloading. We're abandoning you, and it's up to you to pick up the slack." Who's going to get all the heat from the local citi- zens?

It's going to be the local governments now.

6330 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 They're going to have to explain why services are no longer provided. It won't be these Liberal MLAs stand- ing up to the local citizens who will be outraged. It'll be the local government councillors and regional reps. The purpose of the charter is not what it may seem: a simple response to municipal politicians seeking the ability to enact local legislation without constantly get- ting approval from Victoria. That would be a good outcome of the legislation. If that is what this legisla- tion were to actually do, good.

But in fact, the charter will establish far greater local empowerment to such a degree that local councils will be able to make local decisions that are beyond even the provincial govern- ment's jurisdiction. This is a major concession by the provincial government that reflects the intent of the government to place municipal governments beyond the reach of a provincial government. While there may be some who applaud that, that comes at the expense of provincial oversight, and the implications are pro- found.

What the charter does is allow local government to pass local legislation that is suitable for its own exclu- sive interests. For people such as developers, they can pass local laws without any check by a provincial gov- ernment, especially in the area of property develop- ment. That's what this legislation does. In fact, I would put it that the charter actually intends to set up a de- veloper's paradise once provincial governments have ceded this power to the municipal governments. In no way do I place any of the blame for this on local gov- ernments.

It is the provincial government that is doing this, and where local governments are strapped for cash because of the downloading and the cutting of the provincial government, they may be forced into the balkanization and creation of a developer's paradise. Furthermore, under existing legislation we have municipalities like Surrey charging pharmacies a $10,000 fee if they want to dispense methadone. Just a few weeks ago the Surrey city council passed a bylaw allowing the RCMP access to the private files of methadone users.

Now, thank gosh, common sense prevailed among some city councillors at Surrey city council, and that proposed bylaw has been put on hold. But this Community Charter would further allow rogue municipalities like Surrey to not do their fair share in addressing social and health problems in a region. It would allow rogue municipalities to opt out. We are far too integrated a province to allow that to happen.

The province needs to maintain control over important services such as the provision of health care, but with this Community Charter that rogue munici- pality of Surrey would be able to get away completely with its bylaw opting out of good health care. [1505] We as a province need to balance the notion of community control and decision-making with a broader understanding of the public good. I never hear this government talking about the broader public good — ever. I never hear this government talking about citizenship. I never hear this government talk about civil society — ever.

All they talk about is cutting, tell- ing people they have to pay more, helping business to do whatever it wants at the expense of the greater good. Never, never have I heard one MLA on that side or this side talk about the greater public good. This Community Charter will carry on with an undermin- ing of the public good — not an enhancement but an undermining. It may undermine progressive and inno- vative measures in communities by allowing the bal- kanization of municipal controls. For example, with the Community Charter, a com- munity can now pass a bylaw making needle exchange illegal.

That could be a direct result of this Community Charter, and that is a dangerous direction to be going in. Certainly, in the lower mainland right through to the Fraser Valley, there may be legal borders between municipalities, amongst communities. That may be true. There are legal borders in the lower Island, but there are not social borders. There are not health care borders. People live in an inclusive, integrated com- munity. They shop together; they pray together; they educate their kids together. Businesses draw upon communities across boundaries.

Yet this government, rather than integrating the greater good and the social responsibility, is heading in a very dangerous direction that allows a rogue municipality to opt out of its re- sponsibility. Yet I do admit that the prime motivation for this latest Community Charter has not changed, and that was to render impotent the provincial government's overseeing of local legislation pertaining to develop- ment which, through cooperation of local councils, will give a green light to unrestrained development.

This government, as I say, not caring about a civil society or the greater good, does care about development, does care that their developer friends get a green light and have all of the restraint removed from them as they proceed to pave the province. Projects that previously would have required ap- proval through a referendum could simply be ap- proved by a city council after being put forward by the mayor and staff — gone. Community input — gone.

On the issue of downloading, when the province abandoned air emission checks for vehicles to go through AirCare stations, it told local governments to pay for it themselves. They're already downloading, and this is one example where this Liberal government, at the provincial level, says: "Oh, we're not download- ing. We're getting out of the business of AirCare and air emission checks." However, one of the highest pri- orities of the citizens of communities is clean air qual- ity.

The citizens don't want to abandon control over air emissions, so local governments are left to pick up the program that has been abandoned and that is de- manded and that is needed for quality of life. I fear that this is only the first of many areas which will be dropped off at the doorstep of municipalities. This Community Charter will transfer title to most roads and parks in municipal boundaries to the mu- nicipalities. It will provide limited power to munici- palities to prohibit certain defined business activity. However, that's equal to current powers. There's noth-

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6331 ing new there. It prohibits assistance to business, but there are some exceptions, which will need to be ex- plored at the committee stage. [1510] The charter now provides to local governments expropriation powers which have broad implications. The Liberals said that they wouldn't do that, but now they're doing it. The Liberals now say that if they don't assign responsibility to a municipality but instead walk away from it, they don't have to provide the resources.

Over and over again, just think about all of those provincial services throughout our communities that could be abandoned by this government. And there will be no ability for any compensation to the local government for picking up those much-needed re- sources.

The Minister of Finance and the minister responsi- ble for the Community Charter have said to local gov- ernment: "We're going to give you the tools and the authority you need to be more autonomous." Then they step up to the tax trough and devour everything in sight — the provincial government — with gas tax eaten up by the province, sales tax increase going to the province, property tax increases going to the province. The province is going to take 2.5 percent more for school taxes just this year — just this year. It will be the second year in a row that they've increased school taxes.

This provincial government has off-loaded — or uploaded, I should say — the costs for many employee benefits such as MSP premiums. The extended health benefits of employers are going to skyrocket because of the changes to Pharmacare, the cuts to Pharmacare. Employees' drug costs aren't going to change. This government hasn't done one thing to control drug costs. What they have done, though, is off-loaded the costs onto either the individual — the poor, sick and elderly — or the employer. That's what municipalities are facing because of this government.

Municipalities are worried to death about the up- loading of employee benefit costs by this government. Of course, all of these taxes filter down to the local ratepayer and right onto our property tax bills. As the then Liberal opposition party liked to say: "You know, there's only one taxpayer." And now what is it? This provincial government wants to be the only one to tax that taxpayer. They want to take all the money for themselves at the expense of services at the local level.

Furthermore, the differences between assigned re- sponsibilities and responsibilities that become the bur- den of local governments because of the provincial government ceasing to act in those areas are not ad- dressed in the legislation at all, and there's good reason for that. It's because the government didn't want to confront another broken promise. Key areas such as health care, child care, social housing, social services, environmental protection and court services could be off-loaded to the community. In fact, I think you will see, Mr.

Speaker, that in many areas of the province local communities are already having to pick up those services because the provincial government has aban- doned them. Either the local taxpayer is forced to take on the burden, or local governments will simply refuse to provide the services. The group that is then harmed by that is the citizen, the British Columbian who needed that service. However, if local governments do wish to provide services, the provincial government hopes the new charter will encourage municipalities to turn to the private sector rather than the public sector.

The provin- cial government can't make private-public partnerships work. They're abandoning attempted private-public partnerships every month, but they want the local gov- ernment to make that model work. Yet just last year residents in the lower mainland defeated a greater Vancouver regional district plan for a public-private partnership around water usage. It's because the citi- zens didn't want that.

They didn't want a private- public partnership in our water facilities. [1515] I would hope that communities can still have the power to effect change in their communities, but I want to ensure, through debate, that the provincial govern- ment doesn't handcuff communities when they want to keep resources in public hands. Since the province won't be providing any new resources of their own, it will be likely that the municipalities will come up with new ways to tax citizens. Some municipalities may relish that, and others may be forced to do that.

Regulations and borrowing powers related to con- current jurisdictions, I submit, will be important in assessing the effectiveness of the charter. It is still left to be discovered what those regulations and borrowing powers will be. Even organizations like the provincial chamber of commerce and other business organizations have raised concerns about this very issue. In fact, John Win- ter, the president of the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, said: "We see it" — the Community Charter — "as fraught with potential dangers.

In our view, if they're going to expand those powers of municipal govern- ment, commensurate levels of accountability should be provided, and they're not." Ooh, is that John Winter of the chamber of commerce fearmongering, spreading misinformation, or is he telling the truth? Even the government's friends at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation put out a press release saying: "Want to Pay a Municipal GST?" That was the title of their news release.

Funnily enough, when I was re- viewing the debate that occurred this morning, I didn't hear any Liberal MLA raise those concerns on behalf of their friends at the Canadian Taxpayers Federation or at the chamber of commerce. Maybe it slipped their minds, or maybe they're going to get up when I sit down and raise those concerns. I see many here who work hand in glove every day with their chamber of commerce — and good on them — so I would assume that they'd stand up and raise those concerns.

Business continues to object that the Premier's stated goal of "empowering local government" will mean more downloading, more taxes, more regulations and greater barriers to investment. The B.C. Chamber

6332 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 of Commerce said that the charter was a disappoint- ment after it was tabled last month in this Legislature. Even Liberal insiders at the B.C. Business Council say that this will add taxes and regulation. B.C.

Busi- ness Council president Jerry Lampert, for whom I have a great deal of respect, said: "Here they go again in B.C., where they make it difficult for B.C. to operate." We're hearing now that business groups are working behind the scenes to lobby for amendments — interest- ing — moves that would ease the ability of the prov- ince to download and handcuff the ability of munici- palities to raise revenues. Ooh, I wonder if that Minister for Deregulation — that oh so important Minister for Deregulation — has signed off on those proposed amendments. I wonder.

I'm sure we'll discover all of that when either the Min- ister for Deregulation speaks or we have a debate about how much red tape is imposed — or is asked to be imposed — by the business community. I even hear that there's going to be some Liberal MLAs who want to work on behalf of their business friends to propose amendments to the Community Charter so that this province can download even more onto municipalities and not allow them to raise revenues. Well, I believe that small business should be espe- cially concerned about this Community Charter, and they are.

There is a great deal of disagreement regard- ing the

interpretation of the charter. You wouldn't know it from the debate this morning, but there is out there in the community. There are many — not me, because I'm not a lawyer, but there are many — who are well versed in municipal law, who are predicting that this Community Charter will result in expensive and time-consuming litigation. Gee, won't that be in- teresting? [1520] The Community Charter may weaken public over- sight, and it may leave municipalities open to lobbying by private interests to a greater degree than we pres- ently see. Generally,

whereas government has claimed that it's providing vast new powers, those powers seem largely focused in two areas: allowing the municipali- ties to provide unlimited services — and of course, that's necessary because this government needs to pave the way for downloading — and secondly, providing a broad and greater power to privatize services, and that's where the change from corporate power to natu- ral person power comes in. Giving municipalities natu- ral person powers gives them greater ability to privat- ize services.

I know, for those of us who are lay people, that this is a concept that doesn't come to us naturally, because we're not trained in that area, but I will be ex- ploring that at length in committee stage. The issue, of course, on that matter is further con- fused by the fact that the government at some point could make access to infrastructure grants for things like water projects subject to the use of a public-private partnership.

The government could now use what has worked extremely well, a three-level government infra- structure program — federal, provincial and municipal — as a political stick to beat the poor dog at the mu- nicipal level to force them into public-private partner- ships. That's what this legislation now enables the pro- vincial government to do. There will be changes to the borrowing authority which will make it subject to municipalities' revenues rather than just their assets. It may allow private access to the municipal finance authority and the use of their approved public funds through the municipalities.

There will be a change from a 5 percent threshold to a 10 percent threshold of citizenry on counterpeti- tion provisions, making it more difficult for citizens to raise issues of concern. Let me explain that. Under the Local Government Act, changes brought in through consultation in the 1990s, if 5 percent of the eligible voters at the local level sign a counterpetition to have an action of local government reviewed and reconsid- ered, then it must be reconsidered. This government has raised the bar so that now 10 percent of the local electorate must sign a counterpetition in order to have reconsideration.

How does that deliver on the promise of this gov- ernment for greater openness, greater transparency and greater accountability? By making it harder for local citizens to have local government actions re- viewed? Exemptions such as property tax exemptions for industrial properties could start a race to the bottom amongst municipalities — municipalities that are strapped for cash because of downloading by this gov- ernment, who are strapped for cash because businesses are fleeing their areas because of the economic downturn in this province, mills closing, mines shutting.

Munici- palities may have to seek desperate measures to get businesses to their areas. There is the ability under this Community Charter to allow for property tax exemp- tions now — special economic zones, some people call them — so that industrial properties could be put into a special economic zone and not have to pay property tax. Given the dire straits of our economy right now…. It was just released today that in 2002, we were at the bottom of economic growth. That's not me fearmonger- ing; that was Statistics Canada. They'll probably be accused of spreading disinformation by this govern- ment.

There's British Columbia hanging around down at the bottom in terms of economic growth for 2002. [1525] The areas particularly harmed by slow economic growth are those in the rural and remote northern communities and coastal communities. They may be desperate to create special economic zones and exempt industrial properties so that companies will come and settle there. But that's a race to the bottom. That means others have to pick up the slack in that community, or it means services don't get delivered.

Either way, this legislation permits that, and that's a step backward in the well-being of all in the community. [J. Weisbeck in the chair.] There are presently no new revenue sources to pay for new responsibilities, so this will open the door to

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6333 road tolls, fuel taxes, local entertainment taxes, resort taxes, parking stall taxes and an increase in fees. There's the potential for all of that now. But I guess we have to wait to see, as the next shoe to drop comes in, just how far this government is going to permit local governments to raise money from those revenue sources. Municipalities are rightfully looking for a more stable and broadly based revenue source, like a portion of the retail sales tax or the gas tax. Yet there's nothing from this government on that.

Nothing on revenue- sharing from this government — for gaming, for in- stance. The previous government did. Nothing on revenue-sharing from highway fines or speeding fines. The previous government did. On both those counts this government, then in opposition, said: "Oh, the previous government didn't go far enough in revenue- sharing." Well, as we see, this government has done nothing because they are so desperate for the revenues and the cash themselves. The municipal charter does require the provincial government to consult with the Union of B.C. Munici- palities over changes to the Community Charter.

And some may say: "Good." But now that lets them off the hook for having to discuss changes directly with the municipalities. So while municipal governments, I'm sure, support the Union of B.C. Municipalities, consult- ing only with that provincial body is far less inclusive than a consultation that would require the government to talk directly with the municipalities themselves. I would submit that that takes away the ability of local governments to be creative in dealing with specific issues that affect their region.

Local governments may have a solution to a problem that has arisen out of the Community Charter, but if this government refuses to talk with them at the local or regional level, then that creative solution will be long gone. Another aspect of the Community Charter is that the provincial government or corporations could invoke the confidentiality clause so that the Union of B.C. Munici- palities may not be able to confer with affected munici- palities. Wouldn't that be interesting?

The only body the g o v e r n m e n t i s r e q u i r e d t o c o n s u l t w i t h m a y b e p r e - cluded from further consulting with its own members because of restrictions put on it by this government. And yes, I repeat: the municipalities — local governments — will have no broad-based revenue source. [1530] Municipal governments took the time and effort to respond to the legislation, and yet there has been little response from the provincial government. Certainly, local government concerns that have been reflected publicly have not been represented by their Liberal MLAs — yet.

Maybe I'll be hearing the debate, but their local concerns have not been reflected. The legislation has largely failed in providing autonomy to munici- palities. Rather, it has increased municipalities' finan- cial risk. The provincial government is going to achieve by regulation some of the most contentious agenda items around the Community Charter, items like removing democracy requirements for approvals and changing the borrowing formula for the Municipal Finance Au- thority. Those are going to be done by regulation, which puts those changes beyond debate in this cham- ber.

The provincial government may encourage privati- zation by attaching conditions to infrastructure grants, as I've already said. Of course, to repeat, there is no definition of downloading in this act. Even though the government promised that before new responsibilities are assigned to municipalities, there must be resources to fulfil the responsibilities, we see that that is not true with this legislation. All that is ensured is that consul- tation must occur between the province and the Union of B.C. Municipalities before those changes can occur. That's all.

Now, there are good parts to this legislation, good parts that recognize the important role municipalities play in the development of the province. However, many pieces of this legislation have not been thought through. There will be major implications and legal issues as we proceed. In many areas this legislation abandons provincial oversight, a provincial oversight that existed as an added layer of protection under the previous legislation, now leaving municipalities, espe- cially small ones, vulnerable to the lobbying efforts of well-connected developers.

It is the position of the opposition that we proceed with extreme caution on this legislation and look closely at the provisions that cause the most alarm. Otherwise this is a dangerous direction to move in. This legislation tabled today, two years after it was supposed to be tabled, is a sad story about off-loading costs to municipalities in order to pay for the govern- ment's reckless tax cuts for the wealthy — reckless tax cuts that haven't done a thing for stimulating the econ- omy of this province. We will be living with the impli- cations of this legislation for as long as this government is in power.

Interjection. J. MacPhail: It's interesting that the Minister of La- bour says that the tax cuts have somehow stimulated the economy. I can hardly wait for him to stand up and give that evidence, particularly in his own community. He somehow claims that in fact there are two million people working in this province, and yet those two million people are earning less than they did two years ago. So more people are working for less, and that min- ister likes to say that's good news. How is it good news t h a t m o r e p e o p l e h a v e t o w o r k l o n g e r a n d g e t p a i d less?

The statistic he forgets to give is what the provin- cial payroll is. The provincial payroll has declined in t h i s p r o v i n c e b y 2 p e r c e n t , s o w e h a v e m o r e p e o p l e working for less. As a matter of fact, it was at the Un- ion of B.C. Municipalities that one local councillor stood up and said, when the Premier tried…. Interjections.

6334 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 J. MacPhail: I know that there's a time limit. Don't worry. The government's own heckling will not inter- fere with us reaching the time limit on this. It was interesting that when the Premier stood up and gave that statistic at the Union of B.C. Municipalities about the number of jobs in the province now, one local councillor said: "Yeah, and my son has five of those jobs, because that's what he needs to earn a living." [1535] Your statistics are absolute balderdash. More people hav e to wo rk l o ng e r, and t he y g e t p ai d le s s .

T hat 's what this government says is good economy. No wonder we're in such dire straits in this province. Sawmills closing, pulp mills shut down, mines shut down, the technology indus- try in the dumps, farming in dire straits — all over this province this government is in dire straits, and now we have municipalities in dire straits because of this. We will be living with this legislation as long as this government is in power, so let us ensure as legislators that on the front end, as this legislation is passed…actually stand up.

Every single Liberal MLA has a vested interest in this legislation, because every single Liberal MLA has at least one local government who will be affected by this legislation. No one can opt out — no one.

It's important at the front end now that we think through the implications — we build in those safeguards for our communities and our neighbourhoods — so that we can thrive democrati- cally and not be held to ransom by developers or allow corporations access and control to public resources like our water system and so that we do not allow progressive and innovative health measures to be written off because they've been abandoned by the provincial government and they've been closed down by a subsequent municipal decree. I know that many, many share these concerns.

The minister has been flooded with responses such as this, and it's time now that the government, as they move forward on this pet project of the Premier, actually spend some time, make corrections and get it right. Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate, Minister of State for Community Charter. Hon. T. Nebbeling: I will be brief in my closing remarks, but I hope the member who just spoke will feel a lot better after we have gone through committee. I think many of the issues that have created concern for her are more perception than real fact.

During commit- tee, no doubt, we will be able to give the clarification she needs to indeed feel like many, many British Co- lumbians do when it comes to the Community Charter. The Community Charter has been created by the communities at large. It has been created by the elected officials from all the towns and villages throughout British Columbia; it has been created by citizens throughout British Columbia. Labour has been in- volved; business has been involved. We truly can say that this has been a B.C. community initiative and that the community aspect has been a driving force.

We wanted to make sure, in creating this charter, that we were going to have the involvement of all Brit- ish Columbians, because it is all British Columbians that will, at the end of the day, live with the charter as the new guidelines for how local governments will indeed speak up for their communities on be- half of their communities, focused on what is needed in their communities.

It's something that today, with the existing local government, is very difficult to achieve due to the red tape and all the other pieces of legislation that have been nothing else but barri- ers for local governments to achieve community ob- jectives that were driven by the community mem- bers. The Community Charter we have created over these past two years carefully melds the needs of each and every one of these British Columbians that have been participating.

The innovative and empowering legislation was designed to allow communities to be flexible to meet challenges and to make the most of their opportunities in this growing economy. We be- lieve we have met this call through the modernized P3 rules, the creation of revenue sources that will be in- troduced in the fall session and the reduction of cum- bersome red tape.

By recognizing from the outset that local govern- ments are key partners in creating better government, we are leading towards the creation of prosperous and sustainable communities — something from which each citizen in each corner of this beautiful province will benefit. I move second reading of Bill 14. Second reading of Bill 14 approved on the follow- ing division: [1540-1545] YEAS — 37 Falcon Coell L. Reid Hawkins Whittred Hansen Bruce Wilson Hagen Plant Clark de Jong Nebbeling Jarvis Orr Harris Belsey Bell Chutter Mayencourt Trumper R. Stewart Christensen Bray Les Locke Bhullar Wong MacKay Cobb K.

Stewart Sultan Hamilton Kerr Manhas Hunter Masi NAYS — 1 MacPhail Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for committee at the next sit- ting of the House after today.

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6335 Bill 14, Community Charter, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for con- sideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. G. Bruce: I call Committee of Supply, the es- timates debate for the Ministry of Advanced Educa- tion. Committee of Supply The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Weisbeck in the chair. The committee met at 3:49 p.m. The Chair: We will take a five-minute recess. The committee recessed from 3:49 p.m. to 3:55 p.m. [J.

Weisbeck in the chair.] ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION (continued) On vote 9: ministry operations, $1,899,007,000 (con- tinued). J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister would join me in asking someone to report to us on the cultural event that will be occurring as she and I are in here, which after 5 o'clock is the hockey game. I'm just wondering if there are any angels out there, if they could at some point get a message in to us. It will be in the latter time of our debate. Is the minister willing to join me in that request? Hon. S.

Bond: I'd be absolutely delighted to join with the Leader of the Opposition. I'm sure we can find an angel listening in my office, if not in hers. Yes, that is something we can do together. Thank you. Interjection. J. MacPhail: It doesn't start until 5 o'clock. It can't be 2-1. Interjections. J. MacPhail: Oh, you mean the last game. Oh, okay. We ended the discussion around the interest debt servicing. I'm wondering whether the minister has had a chance to examine that. I'm interested in the aspect of d e b t s e r v i c i n g .

W e k n o w t h a t f r o m t h e ' 0 2 - 0 3 b u d g e t , while debt service costs and amortization of prepaid capital advances were budgeted at $239.1 million, those costs came in under budget to approximately $218 mil- lion. It has also been noted that one contingency fund of the minister will be reduced permanently by $9 mil- lion, and that is to reallocate money away from debt- servicing costs for this year. I'm interested in the trends, in how it all works. There is a reduction in debt- servicing costs, blue book to blue book, of about $3 million as I see it, and then we've lost the contingency fund.

Interest rates are going up. Hon. S. Bond: I just want to clarify that the pru- dence provision is found in the EIO subvote, not in the debt service portion. I just want to be able to explain to the Leader of the Opposition the variance. The $10.3 million came from lower than expected interest costs and cash flow. Other costs such as banking charges, brokerage fees and those kinds of things were $0.5 mil- lion, and in the sinking fund the variance was $10.3 million — for a total of $21.1 million. [1600] J.

MacPhail: Where I'm going on these questions is that I'm trying to get reassurance that these changes of moving money…. The minister admits, and is to be credited for this, that there is no new money but that there's a moving around of money. I'm trying to get some assurance that the moving around of the money is actually a permanent move to the colleges and insti- tutes and universities, and that there is enough in the budget elsewhere to ensure against that money being drawn back, because, of course, the money is reduced. The overall budget for institutes…. Sorry, what's the exact name of it?

The Educational Institutions and Or- ganizations subvote or line is being reduced this year, and it will be further reduced by about $22 million next year. If indeed those reductions, which will go ahead, are then exacerbated if it turns out this money given to the colleges and the universities is only one-time funding, that leads to instability. Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I can only reassure the Leader of the Opposition that in '03-04, certainly, those dollars are coming from base funding, and they will continue.

In fact, we've indicated that we have a prudence provi- sion in place to meet potential challenges, and we know what those are. Those are interest rates and stu- dent grant demand, but we do have the prudence pro- v i s i o n i n p l a c e . T h e b e n e f i t s t h a t w e r e s e n t t o i n s t i t u - tions in '03-04 are coming out of base funding and will continue to be out of base funding. J. MacPhail: What are the debt-servicing cost esti- mates for '03-04 and '04-05? Based on what forecast? Hon. S.

Bond: The debt-servicing cost assumptions in fiscal '03-04 are $142.3 million; in fiscal '04-05, $145.3 million. The assumption based on an assumed rate of 6 percent, and we can double-check. We think it's a flat 6 percent, again, that we're assuming in '04-05. We would be happy to confirm that and get back to you — but 6 percent in '03-04. J. MacPhail: W i t h t h e c h a n g e o f i n d i v i d u a l m i n i s - tries being responsible for their own capital and debt

6336 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 servicing, do individual ministries do their own fore- casting, or is it done by the Ministry of Finance? Hon. S. Bond: Yes, we as a ministry do the cash flow. The provincial treasury does the assumptions around interest rate, and they also manage the sinking fund. [1605] J. MacPhail: I'm going to jump around a bit in the order of my questioning here, just because some of the questions have already been answered. In order to maintain the flow, I want to move from…. I told the minister I was going to go through all of page 30. I want to move first….

We may have time to do this in the time available. I want to go to what that additional funding provides and what the reaction to that has been. On March 17 and 18 the minister released two press releases announcing the new funding. Just reading from the press release, it says that $12 million will be allocated to create some 3,154 new post-secondary spaces. Then there was also the one-time grant of $10 million, $8 million of which is unconditional and $2 million of which will go towards implementing the new industry training model. I'm going to deal with ITAC and the new industry training model later.

In terms of permanent money — base money, core money — for the institutions, is it $12 million or is it $22 mil- lion? Interjection. Hon. S. Bond: Yeah, go ahead if you want. J. MacPhail: Sorry. The only confusion I have around this…. We did agree earlier that it was $21- point-something million. I went back and read the news release, and on that one-time grant of $10 million, it said $8 million of it is unconditional. It wasn't clear if that was a one-time grant for one year or whether it was continuous flow. Hon. S. Bond: No, that $10 million is one time for the one year.

It was, as you know, garnered out of the '02-03 budget as savings. We transferred that immedi- ately upon knowing we had those dollars. The uncon- ditional part was that they could choose to use it to the best advantage which the institution found. That is not ongoing money. That is one time. J. MacPhail: So the $21.7 million is what the col- leges and universities have to create 3,154 new post- secondary spaces? Hon. S. Bond: The institutions now have block funding. The additional dollars that will be added to the base provide them with the entire envelope they have to create those seats.

This was added to their en- tire block funding, and that's the entire amount they have to create the new seats. J. MacPhail: All right. Let's explore some of that, then. I have been participating in discussions about how much it costs to fund a single space, and the me- dia are interested in this as well. How does the new government determine what it costs per institution, per faculty, per discipline, per space? [1610] Hon. S.

Bond: Institutions are now provided with block funding, and in the budget letters that we send to them, we have separated out and have excellent cost estimates around particular types of seats in particular. Those would include medical and health care profes- sionals and computer science, and those we have funded to a very specific cost amount. Other than that, we work with institutions, and we use the historical knowledge and database that we have, and we work to create a block-funding amount. We separate out the seats that have specific assess- ments of cost, and those are funded specifically.

For the rest, we work with institutions and create the block- funding amount. J. MacPhail: I did the calculation on the $21.7 mil- lion and divided it by 3,154 spaces. I know that's not the way it's done, but it's about $6,400 per space. I can't figure out any other way that an institution could cal- culate how much money they're given other than by taking the portion of that 21 million bucks they got and how many seats they have to create new and dividing the number of seats into the amount of money they got. That's the marginal rate of funding, let's say. How did the government determine that?

Was it by institution? Was each institution allocated a portion of the 3,154 spaces, and how did it break down? Hon. S. Bond: I certainly do have the list of in- creases institution by institution, but I think the ques- tion is more about the process for allocating those seats. The first thing we do is work with institutions to look at the capacity that they have and their ability to deliver new FTEs. In particular, we are looking for the specific needs that we have set as a high priority for government, including medical seats, training for nurses and doubling the opportunity, etc.

What we do is work at where we can best fit those seats, and then we look at the capacity of institutions individually and their ability to deliver the increases that are expected. [1615] J. MacPhail: Let's take one case, then, because as I was doing my research, Okanagan University College came up with quite a bit of media around it. The minis- ter made the announcement on March 17 and 18, and I think…. Gosh, let me just read what it says here. This is from a report on March 19, so it was in response to the minister's announcements of March 17 and 18. "More means less at Okanagan University College.

Post-secondary institutions will receive one-time funding of $10 million, the provincial government announced

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6337 Tuesday. That funding is in addition to a $12 million boost to operating budgets for '03-04 announced Monday. But spokespeople at the Penticton campus of Okanagan University College point out the province is providing less money on a per-student basis than it did last year, possibly resulting in a tuition hike further on. "'It will take time to work out how the money will be spent,' said Ken Burt, Okanagan University College's assistant vice-principal in charge of finance and analysis. 'We haven't worked through the details,' he said Tuesday.

Burt did say OUC's share of the $10 million will be $545,000. 'It's one-time in nature, so we can't hire people with it,' he said. 'It tends to get used for capital: buying lab equipment and library books. We have five libraries we operate.'" He's talking about a $12 million fund. Has that been corrected? Do the institutions now know, between the colleges and the universities, that they're getting $22 million — $21.7 million? Hon. S. Bond: In terms of the $12 million…. One more time, I just want to make that clear for the record.

The $12 million we announced was the lift that ex- ceeded what institutions got in the previous year; $21 million is the amount that exceeds what they expected to get. In other words, they expected to actually receive fewer funds. In fact, we were able to work very hard and give them more than they got last year. In terms of the per-student grant, as I've said, we are now using block funding. Certainly, if you do straight math and divide the number of students, you can look at the student FTE costs, but we have given institutions the ability to add students to sections. That is one of the tools.

We've given them a number of things. The y also loo k at external revenue. In fact, the $12 million was clarified, and hopefully, it's much clearer today. J. MacPhail: I thank the minister for that, because I now understand it. Post-secondary institutions will receive $12 million more than they did last year, but it's $21 million more than they thought they were going to receive. The reduction is wiped out, and they're getting $12 million more. All right. That's universities and col- leges.

Everybody's nodding yes. [1620] For that $12 million in new money, then, there will be a requirement to add 3,154 new spaces. One really has to divide to understand the marginal rate of fund- ing, and I'm using that kind of like the income tax term. As you add things at the end, you pay more income tax if you earn more money. The marginal rate of funding is $12 million divided by 3,154, which is an average increase in funding per space of $3,805. All right. I've got that. That's just average, which doesn't mean any- thing in terms of individual institutions.

But I do have it clear now — 12 million bucks and 3,154 new spaces. Can we work it through what happened at Okanagan University College? What's happened with them now? Let's use their budget as an example. In '02- 03, how much funding did they get? How many spaces did they provide? In '03-04, how much funding did they get, and how many spaces did they provide? Hon. S. Bond: The first pieces of information are to do with Okanagan University College's budget. Their budget in 2002-03 was $45,395,851. In 2003-04 it is $45,434,098. Their FTE targets in 2002 were 6,480. In 2003-04 they are 6,604. J.

MacPhail: They have to provide 124 more spaces, as I see it. I don't have my calculator. I'm getting one. There it is. They're getting…. What's the lift? Can somebody better than me do that? Is it 30, 40 million bucks? Something's wrong with my calculator. It can't be me. I get a marginal increase of $314 per seat. That can't be right. [1625] Hon. S. Bond: As I explained, we don't fund by seat.

When we looked at the capacity of Okanagan University College and compared them to university colleges around the province, we believe they have the capacity to increase very capably the number of seats that are included here. In fact, what we said was that we block-fund. We have given institutions the kinds of tools they need to be flexible about class size, and we expect them to deliver that number of FTEs. We think they have the capacity to do that with the block fund- ing they've been provided with. J. MacPhail: Yikes, my calculator was right. The marginal rate of funding these extra seats is $314.

Then let's just work through the Okanagan University Col- lege's budget. Believe you me, I don't want anybody to write in and correct the record. Nobody asked me. The college didn't ask me to do this, but there's been a lot of media around this. Let's just use them as an example. And the next example I'm going to use is Vancouver Community Col- lege, because we talked about them a lot last year. Somehow with Okanagan University College, after '02-03, the government came to the conclusion that they have capacity enough that they only need an extra $314 per seat for 124 seats. How did those calculations go?

How was that determined? Hon. S. Bond: As I mentioned, as we looked at the FTE utilization for universities and university colleges around the province…. In fact, when we looked at Okanagan University College, their utilization rate in 2001-02 was 89 percent. When you look at the other university colleges around the province, they're run- ning at 102, 98, 105 and 102 percent. So when we looked at efficiency and the utilization rates of FTEs in the province, we considered that as we looked at the FTE assumptions we could make about Okanagan University College. J.

MacPhail: Did they have the lowest utilization in the province?

6338 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES T UESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 Hon. S. Bond: Y e s , t h e y d o — of the university colleges. If you look at universities, their utilization rate is even more impressive. Universities range from 107 percent to 112 percent. The lowest in terms of utili- zation is the Okanagan University College at 89 per- cent, significantly below — as a matter of fact, almost 10 percent below — the other university colleges. J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, we'll see what Okanagan University College says about that. Let's look at a uni- versity, then.

The University of Northern British Co- lumbia — i f w e c o u l d g o t h r o u g h t h e s a m e e x e r c i s e : '02-03, grants, students. [1630] Hon. S. Bond: All right. The FTE growth assump- tions for the University of Northern British Columbia. In '02-03 the student FTEs were 2,618; in 2003-04 they're 2,811. So that we don't have to use a calculator, either one of us, the change in FTEs is 193. In terms of the dollars that were provided, the budget in 2002-03 for UNBC was $31,465,172, and in 2003-04 it is $33,019,630, for an increase of $1,544,458. [G. Trumper in the chair.] J.

MacPhail: There's about $8,000 per seat extra. Is that correct? What makes them…? It's interesting to determine between those two institutions — the extra funding. Hon. S. Bond: The difference there would be, again, as I pointed out, that we do separate out spe- cific types of seats. As we know, the University of Northern British Columbia will be accepting medical school students. They also have a certain percentage of Doubling the Opportunity, which deals with electrical engineering–computer science graduates.

The difference in the allocation reflects the different nature and the type of seats that are assigned to those institutions. J. MacPhail: What capacity does UNBC operate at? Hon. S. Bond: In 2001-02 UNBC operated at 112.6 percent, having increased their capacity steadily. There was a slight drop in 2000-01 as was fairly consistent, actually, across the sector. There was a slight utilization drop in a number of institutions, but right now UNBC is running at 112.6 percent. J. MacPhail: So the explanation that applied for OUC doesn't work for UNBC because they're at overcapacity.

They get 8,000 bucks per seat, but the explanation is that those seats are, I gather, more expensive to provide. How many of these 193 are new medical…? Are they physician training seats? Maybe the minister could go through the actual breakdown of the 193 and how much it is to provide those seats to the university. How much does it cost the university to provide those seats? Hon. S. Bond: We'll be happy to provide…. We don't have it with us in terms of the specific breakdown of those. There are a significant number of Doubling the Opportunity, or the computer science and engineering.

I should point out that obviously the medical school intake begins in 2004, so this is startup in terms of how we move the program forward. I should point out — I k n o w t h e c o m m e n t i n t e r m s o f utilization rates — that in fact we're going to incent. Institutions that use money well and efficiently and provide seats…. Obviously, that's an important component in how you look at who best utilizes those dollars. So they have an excellent utilization rate, they have a new medical school program, and they also took a number of seats related to Doubling the Opportunity.

We'll provide the specifics when we're able to get that information for the Leader of the Opposition. [1635] J. MacPhail: I was up in Prince George just a couple of weeks ago, and I met with a group of university stu- dents who said that their tuitions now have been hiked so high that they're, I think, the highest in undergradu- ate areas. They're the highest in British Columbia — UNBC — in undergraduate…. So I was just wondering how, if there is…. That's why I'm particularly inter- ested in UNBC, but I'll have to wait to get that informa- tion from the minister.

Speaking of enrolment targets, which are what the minister was just talking about, based on the fall 2002 enrolments, did all institutions meet their assigned enrolment targets? Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the complete data on which to make that conclusion yet. We will receive that at the end of June. Universities have certainly contin- ued to overproduce, and as we've looked across the sector, we have managed to meet the system-wide tar- get across the institutions. We simply don't have the specific institution-by-institution breakdown until the end of June. J. MacPhail: Why is it taking so long?

I mean, this is from fall 2002. Hon. S. Bond: It's actually an annualized academic year, so it starts in September of '02 and ends in June of '03. That's why it's taking so long. We're not there yet. J. MacPhail: The minister seems to think that the system-wide target is met, so what happens? Is it kind of like your ministerial accountability budget in that if the whole system meets it, there are no penalties? If it's an incentive program, are there any penalties for not meeting the targets? Hon. S. Bond: We don't use the punitive approach.

As you could see in the example we gave of Okanagan University College, we do ask institutions to begin to provide us with a plan to see them reach what we be- lieve to be an appropriate utilization rate, and certainly one that's comparable with the rest of the institutions in the province.

TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2003 B RITISH COLUMBIA DEBATES 6339 J. MacPhail: The reason I want to examine this a tiny bit is because the minister has said there will be an incentive program. If the marginal rate of funding new spaces isn't enough to actually fund those spaces, and the universities and colleges have to take from re- sources across the broad institution, does the incentive program encourage them to fund the new spaces first perhaps at the expense of the other spaces? How does the incentive program work? Hon. S.

Bond: I think the initial discussion about an incentive program came when we talked about the accountability framework and whether or not, in es- sence, there would be a punitive approach if people didn't meet their targets and their accountability stan- dards. In fact, there isn't an official incentive program in place. As we move to the point in the ministry where we're adding new dollars, that would be one of the things we would look at as people worked toward their accountability contract.

We don't use the word "contract"; we use "budget letters" and "accountability letter." We're simply saying, in this case, that institu- tions that use public dollars effectively and provide maximum numbers of student seats…. We recognize that, and we are encouraging other institutions to work to a better utilization rate for their FTEs. [1640] J. MacPhail: But an incentive system implies that there's an incentive. Is it a moral incentive or…? Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there are no explicit incen- tives. I think perhaps the way it was described might be the most effective.

We've found that institutions actually work very hard to meet their targets for one particular reason: they put students first, and they know that access is important. We've given them a number of other tools that they can use. We expect them to be efficient. In fact, we've found the success to be excellent. We look forward in June to not only meet- ing the system target, but the majority of institutions will have met their FTE targets. J. MacPhail: Let's look at one more example. I have two more examples that I wish to look at with the minis- ter. Both are in the lower mainland.

One is Douglas Col- lege, and one is Vancouver Community College. Let's start with Vancouver Community College, because we spent quite a bit of time on this institution last year. If I could have the same stats for Vancouver Com- munity College. Hon. S. Bond: All right. VCC, I think, was the ques- tion from the Leader of the Opposition. In 2002-03 their operating budget was $43,521,550. That increased in 2003-04 to $44,374,700, for an increase of $853,150. Their FTE targets were — let me just get the right pen- cil line — 6,948 in 2002-03, and their FTE targets in 2003-04 are 6,990, for an increase of 42. J.

MacPhail: So how does that work? That's $20,000 per seat. Hon. S. Bond: If I might just be permitted to intro- d u c e t h e n e w e s t s t a f f p e r s o n t h a t ' s j o i n e d m e . I t ' s A r - lene Paton, and Arlene is the director of public institu- tions in my ministry. [1645] I want to point out — and actually, this should be good news for the Leader of the Opposition — that one of the things we tried very hard was to recognize the unique nature and situations and capacity of institu- tions. In looking back, when Vancouver Community College expressed extreme co

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	H0429pm 11
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	H0429pm 11
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	f5e91680b06ed41a145f824c6be0ab066b062acb

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).