Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 17 -- Tuesday, August 14, 2001

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1400

Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 18). Hon. G. Bruce
	Introduction and first reading	1405

Oral Questions
	Government action on U.S. decision on Canadian softwood lumber exports	1405
	J. MacPhail
	Skilled labour shortage	1415
	K. Manhas
	Community enterprise grant for Horsefly	1415
	J. MacPhail
	Home care services	1415
	J. Bray
	Programs and services for victims of domestic violence	1420
	V. Anderson
	Transition house funding	1420
	V. Anderson

Proceedings in Section B

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Provincial Revenue estimates. Hon. B. Barisoff
	Vote 39: Ministry operations	1445
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins
	Ministry of Health Planning estimates. Hon. S. Hawkins
	Vote 32: Ministry operations	1540
	Hon. S. Hawkins
	J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members		1625

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Health Planning estimates continued.
	Vote 32: Ministry operations	1625
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Hawkins

Proceedings in Section A

Committe of Supply
	Ministries of Sustainable Resource Management; Water, Land and Air Protection; Forests estimates.
	Vote 53: Environmental boards and Forest Appeals Commission	1425
	Ministry of Energy and Mines estimates. Hon. R. Neufeld
	Vote 25: Ministry operations	1430
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	D. MacKay
	B. Penner
	Vote 26: British Columbia Utilities Comission	1510
	Vote 27: Resource revenue-sharing agreement	1510

J. Weisbeck: I'd like to welcome Sheila Marshall along with her two daughters, a couple of future politicians, Dorothy and Belle, visiting from Kelowna. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Penner: It's a pleasure today for me to introduce a number of constituents visiting here in Victoria. John and Fay Kovacs of Chilliwack are here along with their friends Mr. and Mrs. Haywood. I know they had lunch today courtesy of the member for Chilliwack-Sumas while I was a guest of yours, Mr. Speaker, in the dining room. Would the House please make these people welcome.

G. Trumper: It's my pleasure today to introduce three people from Red Deer, Alberta, who are my greatest fans: my daughter Carolyn Trumper, who is a registered nurse in Red Deer and who was very interested in the contract that has just been settled, and her two daughters and my two granddaughters, Alysha and Melissa Zimmer. Please welcome them.

V. Anderson: I'd ask the House to welcome Clayton Shultz from Vancouver. Clayton is a very important part in my being able to be here. He was the auditor in both the '96 election and the last election — a very important person.

Hon. G. Bruce presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. G. Bruce: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. G. Bruce: This bill, Bill 18, delivers on four of our new-era 90-day commitments: to restore education as an essential service, to restore the secret ballot for union certification, to end mandatory sectorwide bargaining and to restore retirees' pension rights.

Mr. Speaker, this bill puts children first. It will restore education as an essential service under the Labour Code to ensure that no child's right to an education is denied during school strikes and lockouts.

It will also restore British Columbians' democratic right to a secret ballot vote on certification under the Labour Code and ensure that the same rules apply for certification as for decertification.

It will end mandatory sectoral bargaining in the unionized construction sector. Part 4.1 of the Labour Code, which establishes sectoral bargaining provisions for the construction sector, will be repealed.

We will also, with this bill, restore individuals' right to their pensions by repealing the law that allows some pension plans to suspend pension benefits for early retirees who choose to continue working in their previous field of employment.

This bill fulfils a number of commitments we made to British Columbians. It does so in a way that is fair and is balanced. It will help protect the interests of children and pensioners in British Columbia and help to restore democracy in our workplaces. It will provide a much-needed signal that British Columbia's economy is once again on the move.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 18 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. MacPhail: It's becoming clear that the Minister of Forests does not yet have a plan to protect jobs in light of the countervail decision. He is quoted as saying: "The process is rigged, and there's nothing we can do about it." Well, I wonder: if it's rigged, how is it then that the maritime provinces managed to get an exemption from the duty? Perhaps it has less to do with process than with approach. To the Minister of Finance: is he prepared today to consider the option of issuing a provincial bond to cover companies that cannot secure a bond to keep their operations open?

Hon. G. Collins: Just for the information of the member opposite, who served in this capacity previously, the Maritimes have always had an exemption through all of this process because they are private lands. I'm unsure why she's asking the question if she already knows the answer. We are obviously looking at whatever it takes to make sure that our forest sector continues to operate in as undisrupted a way as possible. Government is open to considering many options, and perhaps the federal government may play a role in some of those options as well. We're certainly encouraging them to do that also.

Certainly, we will look at every opportunity, and consider it seriously, to help the forest sector do well in British Columbia, to help fight this unjust ruling by the commerce department in the United States. And

believe you me, government will spare no expense, no energy, no effort to try and make sure that we win this dispute once and for all.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance recognizes that the Maritimes have special circumstances and got an exemption. What we're saying is that this government should be arguing the special circumstances existing here in British Columbia, and to date they have not. I also note he didn't commit to a provincial bond. The process is not rigged; it's political. British Columbia needs to provide political action that will catch the attention of the Americans.

Today the Silvertree Mill in Vancouver is shut down, laying off 124 workers. The future of other operations is in jeopardy. All the minister can say is…. The Minister of Forests has said that he's worried that some companies will be unable to secure bonds to cover the duty, and the Minister of Finance is now saying: "Let the federal government show leadership."

It's time for the government of British Columbia to show leadership. A provincial bond can provide that leadership. It can neutralize the effects of the duty. Why is the Minister of Finance not prepared to assist companies in securing bonds?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm glad the member opposite is paying as much attention to what members behind her say. I wish she'd pay more attention to what I've just said.

This government will take into consideration every opportunity to assist and to help the forest sector of British Columbia weather this storm, to make sure that communities that are affected by it have government help in order to get through that. And we will spare, as I said, no energy, no expense, no effort to make sure that British Columbia wins this dispute once and for all.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: British Columbians don't need to listen to non-answers of the kind that the Minister of Finance just gave. This issue is not a surprise. This issue has been brewing for months and over a year now, when we knew the softwood lumber agreement….

J. MacPhail: When we knew that the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement would not lead to its renewal….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the question.

J. MacPhail: Instead, the Minister of Finance says he's considering all options. Well, what has he been doing? The Minister of Forests says he's developing a formal response. The leadership needs to come now, and it needs to come from the Minister of Finance. He should be working with everybody in his government to make sure that there's a B.C. position that can lead on the national position. Why is it that it is not part of the British Columbia strategy to apply for exemptions with the special circumstances here, like the Maritimes did, and why is it that they won't post a provincial bond to assist the companies in jeopardy?

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, the government is exploring all of those opportunities. The Minister of Forests met with Pierre Pettigrew today to make, in very strong terms, British Columbia's position. That's why he's not with us here today. He's out there meeting with the federal government and demanding a great deal of action from them as well.

There is a role for both levels of government to play in this. Both levels of government will play an active role in this. We will be available, as I said. There will be no expense, no energy and no effort spared to make sure that our forest sector and our forest communities weather this storm and win this dispute once and for all. We will look at all opportunities that are available to us to be of assistance to the industry in British Columbia.

K. Manhas: Labour force surveys estimate that 60 percent of job openings in the next ten years will require workers with technology or intermediate skills training. Many small and medium-sized businesses in my riding and around the province are experiencing shortages of skilled labour. Many businesses are concerned about being able to fill their labour needs in the future. If we increase skilled labour in this province, we can work with the technology industry to capitalize on the tremendous potential for growth and job creation in new sectors like biotechnology, forestry, software development, multimedia, electronics and telecommunications. By doing this, we can attract more investment, high-paying jobs and new, clean businesses to my constituency and around the province.

Could the minister tell us what is being done to address the skilled labour shortage, so we can make B.C. a leader in the knowledge-based economy?

Hon. S. Bond: Obviously the looming shortage in skilled workers is an issue for government, particularly now that businesses around this province have a more competitive tax environment and there is renewed consumer confidence. It is essential that we at least make an attempt to provide them with the skilled workers that they need. So we're currently working with industry, with private and public post-secondary trainers and, in particular, with the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission to develop a thoughtful and strategic plan so that we will be able to address those needs, unlike the kind of situation we're finding in health care at the current moment.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain with a supplementary question.

K. Manhas: The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association recently identified the shortage of skilled workers as the number one concern amongst its members. Rapid growth in technology and high-tech industries is creating a large demand for skilled workers, and at the same time young people in British Columbia are looking for opportunities so they can plan their future right here in this province.

Could the Minister of Advanced Education tell us what she is doing now to ensure that students in British Columbia have access to the training and resources they need to succeed in the high-tech sector and in an increasingly knowledge-based economy?

Hon. S. Bond: I am sure that the member was able to write that question all by himself, unlike others.

Hon. S. Bond: We are concerned about the increasing opportunities for students in terms of access to the high-tech area. We have an aggressive agenda. We intend to double the number of graduates in electrical and computer engineering over the next five years. I am very excited about the model we are developing around the leading-edge endowment fund which is going to create 20 leadership chairs in this province, some of which will focus on technological research. In addition, we want to increase the opportunities for students through on-line learning.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday I asked the Minister of Finance to promise not to cut community transition programs that will help communities ride out the storm effected by the expiry of the softwood lumber agreement. He provided no answer. To the Minister of Finance: the community of Horsefly was told that it would receive from the government a small grant to help it promote tourism. Can the minister explain to the people of Horsefly, who needed a community enterprise grant, why he reneged on that commitment?

J. Bray: My question will be for the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. It's about a very important issue that affects every single community in the province. A report recently released by the Canadian Association of Retired Persons points to a lack of leadership across the country in developing a clear vision and a clear strategy for the provision of home care services. According to the CARP report, not a single province could receive a passing grade on providing a clear vision of how they plan to deliver home care services to patients in the comfort, security and safety of their own homes. My question is: how does the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care intend to address the issue of home care in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Whittred: Today in this province there are 20,000 fewer people receiving home care than there were in 1994. That is because of deliberate policies on the part of the former government to reduce the availability of home care and who could access it. We in British Columbia have decided that British Columbia is going to be a leader in providing this service, and to that end, the Premier has appointed a minister of state specifically to address this issue.

J. Bray: Those losses in home care spaces…. I'm sure many fellow members have heard from their constituents. It's been the number one issue for my constituency office. The effect has been devastating.

One particular problem that the authors of the CARP report pointed to was a lack of funding for home care services. While the report acknowledged some modest increases over the last three years in the province, they were quick to point out — and I quote from the report — that "levels are not sufficient to address the higher-acuity clients and the general increase in utilization." In other words, there are more people requiring services, and the services they require are more in-depth.

My question is: how does the minister intend to address the need for increased funding for home care services in British Columbia?

Hon. K. Whittred: Of those 20,000 people that I talked about in my previous answer, many are today in acute care settings. This is placing an incredible strain on the health care system, and it's one of many stresses that we hear about daily in the acute care system.

In our provincial budget update we have allowed $39 million for additional home support in the next few months. We will deliver on that commitment, which was part of our new-era commitment.

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Each week and each month, many women and children in B.C. are victims of domestic violence. While there are programs in place, there aren't enough for the people of this province, and many are kept on waiting lists.

Can the minister tell us what she is doing to ensure that victims of domestic violence receive the help when they need it — now and not later?

Hon. L. Stephens: The ministry is well aware of the significant problem of wait-lists around the province. The former administration — the previous government — really said one thing and did another as far as programs and services to women and children were concerned. Our new-era commitment is to provide domestic violence legislation.

At the moment, the ministry is undergoing a review to address the issues of wait-lists. This government is committed to providing and improving services for abused women and children around the province.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver-Langara with a supplementary question.

V. Anderson: Again to the minister. Transition houses do provide a safe environment for the women and children of the province when they have the need. But in order to provide the proper services, these transition houses need long-term funding. Can the minister tell us what she is doing to provide this kind of stability for these houses?

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, the ministry is well aware of the funding inequities around the province. As a matter of fact, the government, which was the opposition in the previous sessions, repeatedly asked the ministry to look into these funding inequities. I've since found out that very little has been done, but we are well down the road now to looking at these funding inequities for the transition houses around the province.

We are committed to this review. We are developing a program to look at the inequities and resolve them. This government understands and appreciates the really valuable work that transition house workers do around the province — certainly, the counselling service for abused women and programs for children who witness abuse — and we are committed to improving these services.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning with the Ministry of Energy and Mines for their estimates. In Committee B, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the estimates for the Ministry of Provincial Revenue.

Hon. G. Collins: I would just move that the House recess for about five minutes or so. I understand that the member for Vancouver-Hastings is in the corridor doing some business and will be in shortly.

J. MacPhail: We were exploring the deflation factor, the price deflator, and I was asking the minister whether he anticipates that having any effect on the collection of the social service tax. That's where we left the last time.

There has actually been a price deflator in the province about three times over the course of the last 50 years. I'm wondering if the minister could indicate whether, in the past — and we will get to the background of why this price deflator is in place — a price deflator has led to a reduction in revenues.

J. MacPhail: Again in relation to tax collection, because I know that the minister is responsible for tax collection, the records, the backgrounders, the documents buried in the deep, dark dungeons of these documents which lots of us read…. That's not a negative comment. I actually, in a very sick way, enjoy reading the entire document. The price deflator is based on a reduction in commodity prices. I am going to ask the minister about tax collection, revenue collection, on a per-commodity basis. My initial question is this: what is the range of reduction of commodity prices forecast by commodity, please?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Actually, the material is in with the Minister of Finance's portfolio. I know that the Minister of Finance indicated during his estimates that if anybody wanted to ask any particular questions of him after his estimates were done, he would welcome the opportunity to answer any of those questions.

J. MacPhail: I thank him for that offer, but I want to have the discussion so it's on the record. If the Minister of Finance is suggesting some way we could do that so it's on the record, perhaps he could offer that, and I'd be happy to do that. So are we not going to be able to get the information, then?

J. MacPhail: This is indicating that somehow these questions are inappropriate, because it's his portfolio and not the Minister of Provincial Revenue. However, the reason why I asked for this was so I could relate it to tax collection, which is the minister's responsibility.

Hon. G. Collins: We're very prepared to answer whatever questions we can, given the rules of the House. If there is particular detail about price deflators in the resource sector over the last 100 years in British Columbia, it's pretty obvious that none of us would have that at our fingertips. We would be willing to see if we could find it, but that would certainly take some time. If the member has questions in that line or in that vein, notice would have been beneficial so that members could have done that. If she had wanted a briefing specifically on the issue, we'd certainly be prepared to provide it for her.

I know the minister won't have those at his fingertips now, because (1) it's not in his portfolio, (2) there would be data that would have been accumulated over the last however many decades, and (3) this isn't the place for it. So if the member wants a briefing on that, I'd be prepared to try and set that up with staff from my ministry. I'd be glad to do that in the next little while. If she has specific questions around that, I am prepared — if she wants to write me a letter with those questions — to respond to them.

I'm very happy to do that, and I'll give her my commitment that unlike some previous ministers in this House, I will actually respond to them. If she has any specific questions for the Minister of Revenue that deal with the collection of revenue, then this is the place to ask them, but questions about revenue policy or those tax policies lie within the Ministry of Finance. As I said, I'm perfectly happy to accept those questions and get back to the member.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that from the Minister of Finance. My question was actually a current one. I'd moved on from the history of price deflation over the last couple of decades. My question was on the basket of commodities that make up the price deflator and what that basket of commodities is, so I could then examine the tax collection of each, based on the commodities listed. So that was a current question.

Hon. G. Collins: I would say that falls within my purview as Minister of Finance, and I'd be prepared to answer those questions. If she wants to write those questions, I'd be glad to provide answers for them.

J. MacPhail: It does seem to be interesting to note that the division of responsibilities now leads to obfuscation in answers, which is very unfortunate. This is the Minister of Provincial Revenue. I think the minister is a full minister, not a minister of state. May I ask if that's correct?

J. MacPhail: So I assume that this responsibility is his full purview, and all I'm trying to link is tax collection on a commodity-by-commodity basis. That's all. That's what I'm trying to do. I think the questions are in order.

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, they're not in order, because forecasting revenues falls within the purview of the Ministry of Finance. Collecting the revenues falls within the purview of the Minister of Provincial Revenue. I know there have been big changes to government over the last little while, and I know that not everyone is clear how that is all moved around. But I want to be very clear with the member that revenue policy, revenue forecasting, all of those things fall within the Ministry of Finance, not within the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. The Minister of Provincial Revenue's job is to go out there and try to collect the taxes that are due the people of British Columbia in the most efficient and effective way possible. That is his role.

As far as policies or forecasting or any of those things that lie within the Ministry of Finance, as I said, I am not trying to obfuscate or avoid answering questions. I'll be very prepared to answer any questions that the member wants to give me, and as well, I'll be prepared to provide any briefings we can to answer some of the more detailed questions that she's looking for. But here is not the place, and these questions are out of order to the Minister of Revenue.

J. MacPhail: Well, it is an interesting day in British Columbia. So far the Minister of Finance has answered for the Minister of Management Services, and now he's answering for the full Minister of Provincial Revenue. It does seem unbelievable that British Columbians have all these executive council members, and there's kind of like one guy running government — very interesting.

The Minister of Provincial Revenue…. If there's a provincial-territorial-federal meeting, who would he be meeting with?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If it is with ministers of provincial revenue, then it would fall into my category. If it's with ministers of finance, it would fall into the purview of the Minister of Finance.

J. MacPhail: Just because this is brand-new to British Columbians, what other jurisdictions would have a minister of provincial revenue whose sole responsibility is that?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The federal government has, and I understand the province of Alberta has also.

J. MacPhail: It would be a pretty lonely meeting, I guess, this new category of ministerial responsibility for not much — absolutely not much. Perhaps I could ask a question on that basis, considering that tax collection is the responsibility of the Minister of Provincial Revenue, but there's no policy related to that tax collection. What is the minister's office budget for the Ministry of Provincial Revenue?

J. MacPhail: I'm trying to figure out, and I say this with interest and respect.... The Minister of Provincial Revenue, whose office budget is $382,000 and has no policy…. What policy initiatives is the minister responsible for? What matters of change in the coming months does the minister propose in terms of collecting revenue?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I think I want to make something abundantly clear to the member opposite. The Minister of Provincial Revenue's job is to administer the policy of the other ministries that we mentioned earlier. The Ministry of Provincial Revenue has to look after the finance section, the forestry section and municipal affairs. We're looking at amalgamating some of the MSP programs coming towards the Minister of Provincial Revenue. The culmination of all these things that are coming into an area where we're trying to be more efficient and fair in how we collect the dollars for British Columbia, to make sure we have the money for health care and education….

Something that I think has been lax in the past and what's happened in these first 90 days that I've been involved in this ministry is that I've found there are a number of areas that definitely need to be looked at. We want to create an efficient manner of collecting revenue for this province. If we don't get the revenue in, we won't be able to have the health care and education systems that we hope to have in this province.

J. MacPhail: In fact, I couldn't agree with the minister…. That's exactly what my line of questioning was leading to. The Minister of Finance has predicated any increases in health care and education to economic growth. The predication is based on an economic forecast of 3.8 percent, so it's directly linked. I couldn't agree more with the minister that efficient collection of taxes and proper estimation of taxes collected will help fund our health care and education system, because the government has linked the two. The government hasn't said: "We'll fund education and health on the basis of what's needed." It's based on economic growth.

All I'm trying to do — from this Minister of Provincial Revenue, whose sole responsibility is to collect revenue — is figure out how he anticipates that collection going, given the condition of the economy. Yet I'm being shut down by the Maytag…. Actually, it's not the Maytag repairman; it's the Minister of Finance. I hope that's not going to be the way for the entire executive council — that a question is asked of their responsibilities and the Minister of Finance leaps up, as has been the wont to date. My question is: what does the minister anticipate happening to forestry revenues based on, I assume, a price deflator in the price of lumber?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I think the member opposite doesn't understand that the job of the Provincial Revenue ministry is to administer the policies that have come from…. Whether it's forestry, whether it comes from the Ministry of Finance, Municipal Affairs…. It's not my job to make the policy. It's my job to administer the policy, to make sure that the policies they have put into place, that we collect the revenue from…. You can keep asking the same question and go round and round, but the job of the Provincial Revenue ministry is to administer those policies.

J. MacPhail: I always thought that there was a difference between administration and elected politicians to make policy. Administration of programs is very much the responsibility of the public service, and that minister is surrounded by excellent public servants who can administer and have administered extremely well. I'm trying to get at his role. It's different from public servants. That's all.

Let me try another tack. The softwood lumber agreement has expired, and we are in a situation now where there are some forest companies that are worried about their future and that there will be layoffs and closures. Does the minister…? Before the Minister of Finance gives advice….

The Minister of Provincial Revenue: what will be his administration policies — let's try this tack — if forest companies come to the minister responsible for the collection of provincial revenue and say: "We can't pay"?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I guess my comment to the member opposite is the fact that the job of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, again, is to collect taxes or fees that are owed to government. In so doing, we administer the policy of…. Whether it happens to be the Minister of Forests, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Municipal Affairs or wherever it might lie, our job ultimately is to collect money that's owed to the provincial government.

J. MacPhail: I'm not making these questions up out of the blue sky. I'm not blue-skying it here. I actually went to the website and looked up the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. That website has all of the items about collection of royalties and freehold production taxes, has all the information about collection of stumpage, etc. That's the basis on which I'm asking these questions of the Minister of Provincial Revenue. I'm feeling a little bit at sea here, because somehow, I guess, the website is out of touch with what the minister thinks his job is.

Let me try another aspect, then. In the administration of corporate tax collection…. The government has reduced corporate taxes by a substantial amount. Does the department responsible for the collection of corporate taxes expect to experience layoffs?

Hon. B. Barisoff: No, we don't expect any layoffs. That's simply because those taxes are actually collected by CCRA, the federal government.

J. MacPhail: What impact, if any, will the tax reductions and the elimination…? I thought the government predicted…. Actually, there have been taxes that have been absolutely eliminated in this budget. As I recall, the luxury vehicle tax was eliminated, and I thought there was a prediction that the corporate capital tax, which has been reduced from 0.3 to 0.15, will then be reduced to zero. What, if any, effect will that have on the number of FTEs, the number of people who work in his ministry — both the luxury tax…? I accept that the corporate capital tax is…. Well, is the corporate capital tax collected through the CCRA? Two separate questions there, Mr. Chair.

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, the corporation capital taxes will be eliminated, but we do have a lot of procedures that will have to take place for at least three more years. In that respect, we wouldn't know what the outflow of that would be for at least three years to come. The luxury vehicle tax, as the member opposite knows, wasn't totally eliminated. It starts at $47,000. It went from $32,000 to $47,000, and then it goes to $48,000 to $49,000 for the 8, 9 and 10 percent. That's still there. We've jumped that from $32,000 to $47,000.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister point out to me where the number of FTEs is listed in his vote?

Hon. B. Barisoff: If the member would look at page 177, the figure is 817 FTEs.

J. MacPhail: Well, then, in terms of the minister's admitted responsibilities of greater efficiency, will greater efficiency take place with the same amount of FTEs?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The member opposite knows that we are in the process of looking at a core review process for the new government. We are looking at ways to become more efficient. Once we get the core review process through, we'll know where our efficiencies lie.

J. MacPhail: But I thought that the mandate that the minister has been given is not to develop policy; it's to administer. I was also advised that the Ministry of Provincial Revenue is an amalgamation of other responsibilities that used to be held in other ministries. So I would assume that the core review process would be secondary to the administration efficiencies that are his sole responsibility.

Am I led to believe, then, that the Ministry of Provincial Revenue sits as just an amalgamation of the departments that were elsewhere?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The answer I have for the member opposite is that the ministry is barely over two months old. We are going through the core review program. We are looking at ways to maximize the revenue that comes into the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, so that we can maintain our health care and education.

We can go around this a hundred different ways, but the same answer always comes out. Our job is to administer the policies of other areas of government and to make sure that we maximize the amount of revenue that comes into the province to maintain health care and education.

J. MacPhail: I'm not trying to go around this a hundred different ways. I'm trying to figure out what the minister is responsible for and what the purpose of the ministry existing is for British Columbians. It's a large amount of money that's being expended on just the minister's office. I'm just trying to figure out the value for money that flows from having a separate Minister of Provincial Revenue.

Well, let me try this. The core services review came down a couple of weeks ago, but this letter to the Minister of Provincial Revenue is dated June 25. It's from the Premier, and it says — referring to the Minister of Provincial Revenue — that you will be accountable for integrating major sources of resource revenues. Has that integration led to any cost or staff efficiencies, and can you name them, please?

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, no, it won't decrease. That's simply because we have a number of different information systems that we're dealing with, and we have a number of appeal processes that we're dealing with. The whole idea is to bring back the idea of how we can make the whole system more effective and efficient and get the maximum amount of revenue in for the dollars that we need to run health care and education.

The member opposite is trying to make us believe that the Ministry of Provincial Revenue is not a necessity. This wasn't just dreamed up in the last few weeks, or whatever else. It was something that the Premier, along with staff and a number of other people,

worked on for some time. They realized the importance of having a Ministry of Provincial Revenue so we could have one minister focus on getting money into the provincial revenue department, so we have the money to look after health care and education.

If the member opposite believes that the Ministry of Provincial Revenue isn't value for the dollars, maybe next year in estimates she can ask the same kinds of questions, and we'll be able to show her the impact that it's had, where we have a particular ministry addressing the needs of the taxpayers of British Columbia to make sure that we get the maximum revenue possible.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for that advice. I certainly will take the minister up on it. In the meantime, let me pursue the current situation.

The minister himself gave rise to my questions, because he somehow indicated that the system was left in a mess and, as the government is wont to do, said that the mess they have to clean up is so horrendous that they had to make all of these special circumstances and that, in his particular case, that's why the Ministry of Provincial Revenue exists — because of the mess that was left. He actually said that just a few minutes ago.

What I was asking for was somehow an indication of how the mess is being cleaned up. Is it more cost-efficient? Are there fewer people having to perform tasks as efficiently? Are the expenditures for tax collection reduced? Amalgamation of departments have led to what cost efficiencies or reduction in staff? That's what I was asking for. And the answer I have received is that nothing's changed.

So I put it to the minister that perhaps the reason why he's unable to bring about change is that it was operating extremely effectively before, that the revenue collection of the Ministry of Finance had gone through great change and was at the cutting edge, and that perhaps the creation of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue has more to do with busywork than real policy change.

The other assignment that the Minister of Provincial Revenue received was to maximize revenue collection within principles of fairness and equity. Where would I be able to find those principles of fairness and equity?

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to say that the member opposite was right on one portion of her statement, anyhow. The finances…. The entire government was left in a mess. And we have every ministry involved. If she looks across, there's a number of different ministries that have been formed to deal with the situation that was left by this government — what happened with the past government in the last ten years. If the member opposite thinks the people of British Columbia don't believe that this province was left in that situation, she should undertake to look around her and find out how many members were actually elected from her government.

I think that the Premier of the day, our Premier, has indicated that he wants change; he has created change; he's making change. I think the member opposite is going down a path to find any way she can to discredit some of the things that the new Premier and the present government are doing. We are turning this province around; we are going to make it turn around. In my ministry, with provincial revenue, we are going to create efficiencies. We are going to maximize the revenues. We're going to do the things that, in our estimation and when we look at it, were left in a mess. The member opposite can continue down the same path as long as she wants to go down this path. We are going to turn this province around. It wasn't done overnight to create different ministries for the sake of creating them; it was done to benefit the people of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I'll repeat my question. The assignment is to maximize revenue collection with the principles of fairness and equity. What are the principles of fairness and equity under which the minister will be working?

Hon. B. Barisoff: The principle of fairness is the fact that we are going to make sure that we…. If you just take the word "fairness" in its context and the fact that we are going to collect the revenue that is owed to the government in a fair and efficient manner…. I don't know whether…. There's nothing written other than the word "fairness." I know that the staff…. I haven't got to meet all the staff that we have employed in the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, but I know that they do their jobs extremely well, and they do it in a fair and efficient manner. And that's exactly what we're going to do. We're going to maintain the philosophy that's probably happened in the past, and we want to enhance it to make sure that the whole idea of collecting the revenue that is owed to the province will be done in a fair and efficient manner.

J. MacPhail: Well, I would assume that is one of the three tasks that the minister is given. The Premier, in his letter to the minister, is indicating that there would be change required in order to have taxed revenue collection within principles of fairness and equity. What changes does the minister anticipate having to make to meet that requirement of the Premier?

Hon. B. Barisoff: From my perspective, we brought all the different ministries together into the revenue-collection side of it. We're trying to create a fairness and equity that didn't happen in the past, where some people were charged in different ways, or interest was charged in different ways, or means of collecting the revenue that was owed to the government — whether it happened to be from the Ministry of Forests or from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, or wherever it might have come from, whatever ministry that we're actually starting to take over — to make sure that all British Columbians are treated on a fair and equal basis.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister anticipate putting in place a system that treats everybody the same?

Hon. B. Barisoff: I think that treating people the same, in the words of fairness…. Yes, that's what we're trying to do. We want to treat people in a fair and equitable manner. If that's what she means by the same, that's what's going to happen.

J. MacPhail: The Premier has also asked you and your senior officials to provide him…. Or you are provided, I should say, with the opportunity to bring forward other priority issues that you believe are critical for us to address — "us" being the executive council, I assume. What's on that list of priorities for the Minister of Provincial Revenue?

Hon. B. Barisoff: With the establishment of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, we are looking to bring in other revenue sources from other different ministries, so from that perspective — and a lot of that will go with future policy — I don't think I want to enter into what future policy might be.

J. MacPhail: I was just trying to take the minister's advice to prepare for the next set of estimates and to set the bar or the threshold. That's why I was asking the question, so I could prepare for next year's estimates. But clearly I won't be afforded the opportunity to do that.

I note with interest the situation in Alberta, where there is a Minister of Revenue and a Minister of Finance. The Minister of Revenue in Alberta is responsible for managing and investing financial assets. Is the Minister of Provincial Revenue in British Columbia responsible for that?

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Revenue in Alberta — the only other place where there is one, other than the federal government — manages risk associated with public asset loss. Is the Minister of Provincial Revenue responsible for that in British Columbia?

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Revenue in Alberta regulates Alberta's capital market. Is the Minister of Provincial Revenue in British Columbia responsible for that?

J. MacPhail: I assume that the other task of the Minister of Revenue in Alberta is administering tax and revenue programs, so the Minister of Provincial Revenue in British Columbia has one out of the four duties of the Minister of Revenue in Alberta.

J. MacPhail: A made-in-B.C. solution, where the cabinet — the largest in the history of British Columbia — is such because the duties have been divided into minutiae.

The Minister of Provincial Revenue works how, then? Could I say: what is the working relationship on a regular basis with the Minister of Finance?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It is a regular working relationship. If the member opposite would care to come down, we'd even tour her through our offices that are connecting, down on the first floor. If she wants to come down, we'll give her a tour.

J. MacPhail: I know earlier last week I referred to a logistical situation. I don't mean a logistical situation in this circumstance; I mean a working relationship. Is there a committee of economic ministers? Is there a daily working relationship? Are the officials of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue integrated with the Ministry of Finance officials?

Hon. B. Barisoff: My staff and the Minister of Finance's staff work on a regular basis. I talk to the Minister of Finance on a very regular basis. In fact, we have joint meetings at least a couple of times a week and probably more than that at this stage of the game. So yes, we're in contact on a very regular basis, and staff are in contact on a regular basis.

J. MacPhail: Are there officials of the Ministry of Provincial Revenue that are also officials of the Ministry of Finance?

J. MacPhail: You don't have to name names, but could you name positions and how many, please?

J. MacPhail: The Deputy Minister of Provincial Revenue is also the Deputy Minister of Finance.

Hon. G. Collins: I would like to call the estimates for the Ministry of Health Planning. If we could just recess to the call of the Chair, it would give members a chance to get the documentation and the staff and the minister that we need to proceed.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I have some opening comments. This is a new ministry. It's my pleasure to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Health Planning for the fiscal year 2001-02. Before I begin, I'd like to introduce three officials who are with me here today. Mr. John Tegenfeldt, on my left, is Deputy Minister of Health Planning. To my right is Anne McFarlane. She's the acting Deputy Minister of Health Services. Penny Ballem is special adviser to the minister. I welcome them.

This is the first estimates of this new ministry. The ministry was created because our government felt that there were a lot of pressures on British Columbia's health care system and on the providers and that they needed some help to meet some of those needs and the needs of patients. Our government's vision for British Columbia includes high-quality public health care services that meet all patients' needs where they live and when they need them.

The new ministry is dedicated to making it possible for the health care system and caregivers to achieve their goals for patient care over the longer term. So while the Minister of Health Services devotes his time and full attention to the immediate care of patients, the Ministry of Health Planning is focusing on the development of a long-term plan to sustain the publicly funded health care services that British Columbians value so highly. In developing that plan, we will be guided by input from health care providers, health administrators and all British Columbians from across the province.

Two key components of this government's health plan will be governance and accountability. The Ministry of Health Planning will oversee the establishment of clear provincial health standards. We want to ensure that all citizens in every part of the province are entitled to equitable, reliable, high-quality health services, and performance measures will be built for each of those health standards. We want to ensure that provincial and regional health authorities will meet expectations to provide the required levels of patient care.

In the coming weeks we will take the first steps to simplify the organizational complexity in the province's health system. We want to draw clearer lines of accountability to ensure that British Columbians are receiving the greatest possible value from their investment in health care. More specifically, we will be examining the governance structure in the health system and making recommendations for the alignment of health authorities, including a recommended structure for the Vancouver-Richmond health board.

We will develop an accountability framework for health authority boards and an arm's-length appointment process with identification of clear expectations and performance measures. Our plan will develop new frameworks for funding allocations to ensure that programs are responsive to needs and that health facilities and equipment are properly maintained. When we toured the province on our dialogue on health care, when the Premier toured last fall with some of the members, that was a huge concern. We want to ensure that British Columbia is well positioned to address emerging priorities in health care, which we know are always on the horizon.

People are the heart of British Columbia's health care system, and without adequate numbers of doctors, nurses and other health care providers working in communities where they're needed, our province doesn't have an adequate health care system. This ministry will lead with the development of a long-overdue ten-year health human resources plan, which will be focused on education support and creating fulfilling career opportunities for the increasing number of skilled health professionals that we need on the front lines of patient care in every part of our province. We will be completing and implementing parts of that plan this year.

Our current shortage of health professionals across a number of disciplines requires an aggressive plan. That plan will minimize the use of highly skilled professionals to provide services which could be safely and effectively delivered by a professional with a different, appropriate skill set. This will reduce the costs in the long term and provide more options to address provider shortages.

Certainly, in the coming year the Ministry of Health Planning will initiate plans that will help our province to recruit and retain nurses, doctors and other health professionals. We will be collaborating — and we have been collaborating, working very hard — with the Ministry of Advanced Education to make sure that we have the education seats we need. We've been working with the minister responsible for immigration on a plan to go aggressively for offshore recruitment. We will also be focusing on improving workplace safety for workers, and we will be looking at providing appropriate equipment in the workplace. We will implement human resource programs targeted to improving the accessibility of health services in rural and remote areas of the province.

In addition to good planning, innovation and accountability, we feel British Columbia's health care system needs a restored funding partnership with the federal government. Certainly, earlier this month the provincial Premiers called on Ottawa to restore federal funding for health to 1994 levels — 18 cents of each dollar spent on provinces' health systems. We will be pushing for that. As Minister of Health Planning, I will continue to press the federal government to live up to its responsibility to support health care. This is the public service that all Canadians, and certainly British Columbians, expect their government to provide.

In spite of the pressures on health care, I am happy to see that British Columbians continue to get healthier. We're fortunate in being the healthiest provincial population in Canada. Our life expectancy is 79.5 years — 82.2 years for women and 76.8 years for men. We're living longer. Our infant mortality rate of 3.7 is as low as any in the world. Our smoking rate among adults is the lowest in the country and amongst the

lowest in the world. British Columbians are more physically active than people in other parts of Canada. I think that's something to be proud of.

There are, however, concerns for some population groups who don't enjoy such good health: aboriginal peoples; people living in poverty; and people, certainly, who live in rural areas. The provincial health officer will be advising me and the ministry on how to intensify our efforts to promote wellness and to prevent disease and injuries through programs such as immunization, education, dietary habits and physical activity. Certainly the continued good health of our population depends on these preventative measures and on access to quality health services.

The operating budget for the Ministry of Health Planning for fiscal year 2001-02 is $4.798 million. It's certainly my commitment to the people of British Columbia that these funds will be applied to developing a comprehensive plan for a cost-effective, sustainable, equitable, quality health care system in this province. That plan is long overdue.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the many staff in the various ministries: the Ministry of Health Services, the Ministry of Health Planning, the Ministry of Advanced Education, the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and the others that have worked with us so very hard in the last couple of months to help start initiating some plans. We have begun our task. Everyone is working very hard. I know we have a challenging year ahead. I certainly appreciate all the efforts that everyone is making, and I certainly appreciate the support I receive every day. I look forward to questions the members may have with respect to the creation and the work of this new ministry.

J. MacPhail: Thank you, Mr. Chair, for those opening remarks. I think the minister is surrounded by a group of excellent health professionals. I know them all professionally and some of them personally. She's well served.

Just to confirm, the minister is part of a team that has the Minister of Health Services, the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of State for Long Term Care. I'm going to open with some questions about the integration of various planning processes that are in place with the government before I move to the specifics of the money that the minister is responsible for. In her opening remarks the minister made some reference to the cooperation of working with other ministries. Is there a formal structure in place where there must be planning together? And if so, what?

Hon. S. Hawkins: No, there is no formal structure, but there certainly is an understanding. That emanates right down from the Premier — that the interministerial boundaries must be broken down; that there must be more cooperation between the ministries; that we don't operate in silos; and that a lot of the planning that happens in government happens in cooperation with the members in this House, not only the ministries but the private members as well.

The planning to date has been done with a lot of cooperation. We're learning every day how we can break some of the barriers and work closer together so that when we're working on a plan, we fit the pieces together from different ministries, and we streamline and make things move along a little faster.

J. MacPhail: So there's no cabinet committee for integrating of services. Who calls together the parties that the minister referred to?

Hon. S. Hawkins: There's no cabinet committee that coordinates all this. It is a directive from the Premier that we all work cooperatively and, if we've got a goal, that we all focus on that goal and work towards it. Who quarterbacks that? Well, right now, when it's planning for health care, I guess I'm the quarterback.

What I've been doing is if we have identified a high priority — and certainly one of them is the health human resources strategy; one of the components may very well be the physician strategy or the nursing strategy — we look at which ministries might be involved in helping us. With the health human resources strategy, we identified that Advanced Education was one, because they look at educating and training spaces. We looked at the minister responsible for immigration, because we know there's a provincial nominee program that can help us fast-track the health resource personnel that we need. And we look at Health Services, because they help us identify the kinds of front-line workers we need.

When we've identified the different components of the different ministries that can help us, we set up a game plan to get together. I'm happy to say that we've had wonderful cooperation all the way down the ministerial levels. The Minister of Advanced Education and I have been meeting once a week, if not more often. Certainly the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has lent his support and his staff. It seems to be working on that basis fairly well, because if we identify it as a priority, we make sure that we move things along as fast as we can.

J. MacPhail: The reason I'm interested is because I thought that if this government is giving this such a high priority, and there's a minister carved out specifically for planning, there would be a formalized structure across government. How often has the minister met? On what basis does the minister meet with whom? Is it a weekly planning session?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We're trying to get away from those bureaucratic, committee-building, formalized kinds of structures that would otherwise, I think, hinder progress. So what we've done, as the minister responsible for planning…. Certainly in planning some of the immediate short-term strategies that we think are important to help in this example that I gave, the

nursing or physician shortage, we identify the components of the ministries that we think we need to work with to fast-track and get the planning underway.

I think it's worked out very well. If we had a committee that decided when we should meet and how often, you just get into that bureaucratic stuff that the Premier is trying to get us away from. I think that what we're doing so far is working. We're getting together as often as we think — sometimes a couple of times a day, at least once a week with myself and the Minister of Advanced Education. If she has information for me, we meet in the hallway. It's nothing as formal as getting together and setting up a committee structure and working that way.

In fact, I think we've made better progress by doing it in the informal way and letting people work on their own and then coming together. We have a time that we have set that's once a week, whenever we can arrange that. I think we've made incredible progress in two months, just doing that.

J. MacPhail: I assume that the public will soon find out what the progress is that the minister has made. If there's no formal structure for working together amongst the ministers, is there a deputy ministers' committee for planning?

Hon. S. Hawkins: There is a deputy ministers' meeting on social policy. They meet monthly. There is also a government caucus committee, as the member is aware, that meets and reviews health policy.

The meetings that we've had in two months…. The member is aware that when we formed government two months ago, there were some immediate items that needed to be dealt with. One of them certainly was the shortage of nurses. We had patients who felt they weren't getting the care they needed. We knew we had to move on making sure that we could address some of those immediate concerns.

So that is what we have been doing, as far as our ad hoc meetings and trying to fast-track and brainstorm ways of making sure that we can get some of the health human resources that we need immediately.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand the health care system has faced some substantial crises in the last two months, but this is the minister…. There's a minister specifically for health planning, and I would assume, given her mandate, that her goal is to plan for the long term and not on a day-to-day crisis basis that's resulted in the stuff of the last two months.

I'm trying to get a handle on it. It's interesting that Minister of Health Planning implies, rightfully so, medium- and long-term thinking and therefore implies action that involves future policy. My questions are around the goals of the minister, knowing full well that the policies about planning for health care are still to come. None of them has been announced yet.

I appreciate that there's been no action taken by the government, and that's why I'm exploring in a fairly detailed way the process, the structure, the infrastructure of government that will make planning work. There's no cabinet committee, and there's a monthly deputy ministers' committee. Is there a process for getting regular input from health care professionals on a formal basis?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think — and I'm sorry if I interpret this wrong — what the member is asking is: how are we planning the planning? What's our plan for the planning? And I want to say that we're not going to get caught up in all kinds of bureaucratic "we're going to meet once a week three times a month on a Tuesday afternoon" to decide where we're going to go. I think that if the member looks at the website, she will see the service plan that the Premier has set out for the ministers, and definitely, if she looks under Health Planning, she'll see what the goals are and what key projects the Premier has asked this minister to be accountable for. If she looks in the New Era document, she will see what Health Planning is responsible for.

If the member wants me to refresh her memory, I can read through some of the plans that we are responsible for. Certainly, it is to work with other ministries. With the Ministry of Health Services, my ministry is responsible for developing a hospital facilities plan that identifies each health region's key capital requirements and funding priorities. We will work with the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care to look at an intermediate- and long-term facilities plan that addresses the needs of our aging population and frees up existing acute care beds. We are going to develop a medical machinery and equipment plan. We are going to develop a comprehensive technology plan, as I mentioned before. We are responsible for developing a health human resources plan as well. We are going to establish a rural remote health initiative to ensure that families get the care they need where they live.

These are the kinds of commitments we have made. So as far as the goals, they're open; they're transparent. They're on the web page, and the member can access them. As far as how we're doing it, we are right now in the process of identifying what are the short-term issues that we need to address, what are the medium-term and what are the long-term. We are in the process right now of building our service plans for this year and then looking at what we will need to address in the long term.

She's wondering why I am involved in the day to day. Well, I think that as the Health Planning minister, I need to work fairly closely with the Health Services minister to see the kinds of pressures and challenges that that minister is facing and that the health care system is facing on a day-to-day basis, and then take a step back and look at what's going on and say: "Okay, what do we need to work on right away? What kind of planning relief can we give this minister so that we can start addressing some of the issues that are hitting that ministry day to day?" Then again, the short term, the intermediate and the long term….

You know, I'm not going to get caught up, because I think the easiest way to not plan is to get caught up in some kind of bureaucratic mess where you're going to meet three times a week on a Tuesday or whatever, whatever, whatever. I think what's working right now for us is that we identify a strategy, follow that stream and work to its end. I think we're making a lot of progress doing that — breaking down interministerial boundaries, pulling out the people and resources that we need to work on what we identified as short-term and intermediate goals, and working to resolve them to the end.

J. MacPhail: I'm not trying to capture the minister in some bureaucratic committee structure. I'm trying to find out who she's working with on a regular basis with regular input to do planning. Has the minister got a formalized way or an informal way of input from health care professionals on the front line?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, this government has committed to working with health professionals, to working with front-line workers, to working with patients, to working with all British Columbians to get input. Certainly there is a Health Human Resources Advisory Committee that we will be working with. But I think that in the short term, we have taken advice from….. I certainly meet on a very regular basis with my colleagues in Health Services; in Advanced Ed; in Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; with the deputies and ADMs in those ministries; and with Dr. Ballem.

In eight short weeks I think we have met with a fair number of people. We have met with different organizations. I take their advice into account when we're making decisions towards planning.

J. MacPhail: I've got to back up a step here, Mr. Chair. My apologies. There are two ministers of state that I listed. Does either of those ministers of state come under this minister's vote?

J. MacPhail: Are those — the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care and Minister of State for Mental Health — part of your ad hoc meetings?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Where it involves those two discrete areas of responsibility, yes, they would be. They would be involved in planning around mental health and around continuing care. But they fall, right now, in the Ministry of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: The Health Human Resources Advisory Committee — is that the committee referred to? How long has that committee been in existence, and when did it last meet?

Hon. S. Hawkins: This committee met about two months ago. It has been in existence for 18 months, under the last government. It's composed of about 30 members. They include members from professional associations and unions, administrators, educators. They provide advice to government about health human resource needs, and I understand there's a meeting coming up sometime this fall.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me try to add some other layers of planning processes to find out from the minister how they're all integrated in her responsibility as Minister of Health Planning.

The core services review was established by the Premier, and it is headed up by the caucus member from Delta South, I think.

J. MacPhail: Delta South. Earlier this week the caucus member responsible for core services review listed Health as her highest priority for review. What is her role in relationship to the role of the Minister of Health Planning?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Can I just back up to the last question? I wanted to make sure I gave a full answer to the member. That Health Human Resources Advisory Committee we were discussing, which was established under the previous government, met every two months. So it met about two months ago. The minister under the previous government had never met with the committee. This minister hasn't met with that committee either, but I hope to. There is a meeting coming up this fall. I'll see if I can get to that one, but my understanding is the minister has never been present or has not officially met that committee in the previous government.

The member asked about core services review. Our ministry will be undergoing a review as well. We'll be reviewed just like every other ministry. Basically, the impetus of that core review is looking at what works, what's needed and how it will be provided. I think that's very important information for this ministry and this minister, because I think it's incumbent on me to understand what the needs of the population are, what we're doing out there to address the needs, and what we need to do to provide the best, efficient and sustainable way to make sure that we are addressing patient needs.

J. MacPhail: The reason I'm asking is because I'm examining the letter dated June 25, sent to the Minister of Health Planning from the Premier. On page 7 of his letter to the minister, under "service plans," there is quite an extensive list of matters for which she will be accountable. Then I am looking at the core services review process that the member for Delta South is

heading up. With the member for Delta South listing Health as her highest priority, I am just wondering if we could go through the specifics of where the two overlap.

The core services review process has a few tests involved. Let me just put them on record. It requires the committee — the core services review — to ask questions about what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it and how we will measure our progress. Then there are answers for specific questions listed, such as the public interest test, the affordability test, the effectiveness and role of government test, the efficiency test and the accountability test. That's the core services review process.

Underneath that, in each one of those, there are categories of how the core services review will go about determining that. They are to look at service delivery models. They are asking whether there is a legitimate role for government; is the package of programs affordable; are there alternatives; what are the current measures and reporting mechanisms to account for the program activity or business unit performance. That's the core services review.

Of course there is overlap, as far as I can see it, with the Minister of Health's responsibility as well. For instance, she is to develop an accountability framework for the boards — that would be the community health councils and the regional health boards — and the member responsible for the core services review is to do an accountability test. She is to review the Medical Services Commission structure and recommend new structures as appropriate. The member responsible for the core services review is to look at current organizational and service delivery models to see whether they are the most effective. The Minister of Health Planning is to develop a framework for financial and human resource allocation, including capital and equipment, and that overlaps with the test of the core services review as well.

There are several other examples listed here, as well, that to me are overlapping. For instance, the minister responsible is to recommend the appropriate governance model for licensing functions, and she is also supposed to look at the advisability of including Pharmacare, ambulance services and Medical Services Plan in regional authority budgets. So there is a substantial amount of — the best face we could put on it — integration in the two tasks, and the negative part, we could say, is that there is a great deal of overlap.

Could the minister responsible for health planning as her sole responsibility advise how she plans to make sure there is no waste and duplication in the two processes?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Our goal in health care is to make sure that health care in B.C. — and I want to make it really clear — is universal, accessible, portable, comprehensive and publicly administered. We aim to keep those principles of the Canada Health Act. That is not going to change.

The core review asked very legitimate questions, all very good questions. It's about sacred cows. Just because we've always done things the way we have doesn't mean they work the best way. So the core review committee is looking at things at a very high level of what it is that government is doing, why they are doing it and should they be doing it. So the different components of, and programs in, the Health ministry will be subject to the same kinds of questions. It won't be a duplication, but it will fit into that process. Each of those programs will be subjected to that kind of scrutiny by core review. So it's not a duplication; they funnel into the process.

J. MacPhail: Accepting the minister's assertion on the face of it, can she give comfort to British Columbians on how she will avoid the duplication? What are the structures she's put in place? What are the plans to avoid waste and duplication in the two review processes? What mechanisms has she set up to avoid that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I appreciate the member's concern about duplication and wasting time and bureaucratic processes. I understand that the ministry staff have met with the deputy of core review to look into that very question, so we're not doing the same things twice, and to try and streamline and cut down bureaucracy or duplication around this process. But let me say that it's really early in the core review process, and I think that as we move along, we will find ways to cut the duplication if it looks like we're wasting time doing that. It's very early on; we're learning. I understand that there's already been a meeting to address that very concern the member raises.

J. MacPhail: The only reason I raise it is because I heard the member responsible for the core services review say that her first priority was Health. So I assumed, by her suggesting that her first priority in the core services review was Health, that the work had been done on integration of planning and making sure there was no waste and duplication, because that's the very purpose of the core services review.

Well, let me ask another question, then. I actually don't know the answer to this. Is there a government caucus committee that will be examining issues that relate to the minister's portfolio?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, I did say that it was the Government Caucus Committee on Health. That's the name of the committee.

We had quite a bit of discussion about government caucus committees this morning and the innovation of them — that the government had certainly been talking at length about government caucus committees and that they had let everybody know how important the government caucus committees were and how they were going to change the way this Premier was going

to do the business of government. What is the planning process to avoid waste and duplication between the government caucus committee, which is publicly funded, and the minister's responsibilities?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Well, let me say that I think it's incredibly important to have a government caucus committee on health that scrutinizes and holds the minister — there are several ministers who sit on that committee — and the ministry accountable for the programs they are going to develop and implement. I sit as vice-Chair on that committee. So if the member is asking what the coordination is, that's certainly one of the coordinating points of that committee. I think it's been extremely valuable.

Health is not a partisan issue; the member is right. We have members from around the province that come to the meetings of that committee and give their input. Certainly there's been a lot of interest, a lot of concern and a lot of issues raised. They provide a very valuable service in scrutinizing and making sure that government stays focused and accountable and that we're keeping to the new-era commitments that we've made to health care. I think that's very important. It's a committee that's going to keep this ministry focused on patients, quality health care and the needs of patients in this province.

Hon. G. Plant: I wanted to say that earlier this afternoon we had in the gallery a representative delegation from Guangdong province in the People's Republic of China, a delegation of lawyers here to learn a little bit about our judicial system and our political system and to try and initiate a relationship between the province of British Columbia and Guangdong province.

I had the opportunity to meet with the following people: Tong Yun, the deputy chief prosecutor; Guan Yingyan; Jiang Jiyun; Lai Xiangdong; Chen Yinmiao; Wu Xiaoping; and Wei Wei. I hope the House will acknowledge that they were here this afternoon, that they followed the proceedings with interest, and make them welcome to the province of British Columbia and this chamber.

J. MacPhail: The minister sits as the vice-Chair of the government caucus committee, and I thought I heard her say that the committee had met. I just couldn't hear whether she said that they'd met with members of the public or something. But let me ask a couple of questions, then. The government caucus committee is staffed by whom? Are there agendas? Is there public input? How does the public know about the government caucus committee meetings? How does the public have access to it? Who does the follow-up work for the government caucus committee?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'll try and answer these questions as best I can. Yes, there is staffing support provided to this committee. I can get the specifics of that for the member. Yes, there is an agenda. Yes, there is public input. The Chair of this committee is — no, I won't get this; I'll have to remember this — the member for Saanich South. I wanted to make sure I had the riding correct. She certainly gets all kinds of requests for presentations at this committee. We have had public input to date. The committee has met several times, and we have heard…. So there is public access, yes.

Is there follow-up? Yes, there is. The items on the agenda for this committee are items that are public policy in nature and certainly include decisions that government caucus and cabinet would consider. So there is some very good work that's done in this committee. Certainly the kinds of plans and programs I'm responsible for would get scrutinized through members of this committee.

J. MacPhail: I missed the minister informing us of who staffs the committee — whether they be public servants or caucus staff. Who are they?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The government caucus committee is a committee of cabinet and has access to cabinet documents. They scrutinize programs that ministers put forward. They get support from a cabinet officer.

J. MacPhail: The government caucus committee is staffed by cabinet operations staff.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, because of the nature of the documents that this committee scrutinizes and holds the government accountable for, they get support from a cabinet officer.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting to note the minister's assertion in relationship to the discussion that we had this morning under the omnibus bill led by the Attorney General. It does seem to be a bit at odds, but once again we'll see what the public has to say about that. My gosh, it certainly is innovative, then — this government mixing inexorably the role of the executive council with the Legislative Assembly and the role of caucus. How does the public find out about the government caucus committee meetings, and how does one get to attend? I'm sure my invitation is in the mail.

Hon. S. Hawkins: What a novel idea that government would be open to all members of the Legislature and that any member of the Legislature in a government caucus would be able to question a minister on the kind of spending and programs that we would bring forward. What a horrible idea. What a

horrible idea to have more openness and accountability for members in the government caucus. Gee, isn't that awful?

We actually believe, and the Premier actually believes, that each member of the government caucus should have a role, should be able to hold a minister accountable, should be able to scrutinize spending and should be able to have input into government decisions. That is what this government caucus committee does. It does a great job; it does it well. The public has access, and guess what. We're actually getting work done, and we're getting planning done, more than that member did in ten years in her government.

J. MacPhail: My advice to the minister would be to stop digging a hole deeper. I gather she missed the debate this morning in the Legislature. I know she's new to the job, and I know that the government caucus members who were here would probably be horrified at how she has confirmed some of the worst fears that were listed this morning in the debate. Nevertheless, I'm sure that will come back to haunt her. Actually, I did ask a question about it, and I didn't get an answer. Perhaps the minister could answer my question.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The public can ask to meet with the minister or members any time. The public can ask to meet, if they would like a meeting, with the Government Caucus Committee on Health. They simply make a request to the Chair, who is the member for Saanich South. As you can imagine, this is a new process, so we are looking at the request and meeting with members of the public as we feel is appropriate.

J. MacPhail: It wasn't a speculative question. The minister said that there's been a meeting of the government caucus committee, and the public attended. I'd just like to know how that took place. How did the public get notice of the meeting, and how did the public attend?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think we are confused, or at least I was confused, as far as public input. It is a public group that met with the caucus committee, not the general public at large.

J. MacPhail: Fair enough. I just want to know: did the government caucus committee submit invitations to groups? Who was it that the government caucus committee met with? Do they meet on the record, or do they meet in camera?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I don't think it is a secret. It was UBCM. They had a presentation to make to their government caucus committee. They asked for the meeting, and the Chair of the meeting deemed that that was appropriate. They gave a very good presentation and a brief. It was very much appreciated, and they are the ones that initiated the request. It was accepted, and the presentation was very much appreciated.

J. MacPhail: Are the meetings open? Are they on the record? Are minutes kept? Is Hansard used?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, minutes are kept. It's not Hansard. It is open to broad-based groups, and when broad-based groups are presenting, it is open to the public. In fact, I believe the media were present at a Natural Resources GCC when they were making a presentation on oil and gas.

This morning we met with HEU. They asked about the government caucus committee structure, and we said it was very appropriate for them to make a submission. And we will meet with groups that we feel are appropriate for the kind of presentations that the Government Caucus Committee on Health needs to hear.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The minutes generally are not made public. The reports are.

You know what? If the member tunes in to open cabinet meetings, perhaps she picked up some of the reports that the GCC Chairs gave in the past — very, very good reports. Perhaps she would like to stay tuned and hear from some of the Chairs herself at the open cabinet meetings.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's exactly why I'm exploring this line of questioning — the curious mix between the responsibilities of executive council and caucus and the use of funds, the mixture of funds to carry out the duties. I'm being polite when I say "a curious mix."

Hon. S. Hawkins: The minister wants to remind the member that this really isn't part of the vote. It's not part of my ministry. If she wants to question around the government caucus committee that reports to cabinet, the minutes aren't made public because the committee does advise cabinet. Anyway, maybe if the member wants to keep it to Health Planning in this vote, I would answer any questions that were appropriate around health planning.

J. MacPhail: In fact, that's exactly what I'm trying to do, Mr. Chair. The minister is the vice-Chair of the government caucus meetings. Cabinet support is given to the government caucus committee. Public funds are used. Actually, vote 1 funds are used to pay for this government caucus committee. The minutes are kept secret, because somehow there's a cabinet confidentiality invoked — a very curious mix. I'm trying to find out, in her role as Minister of Health Planning, how that integrates — that's all. I would say it's perfectly appropriate for Health Planning.

This is my second set of estimates, and it's the second time I've been told that my questioning perhaps should have gone elsewhere. Well, sorry; I beg to differ.

On the issue of the government caucus committees and the minister's responsibility for Health Planning, is there any money from her budget that flows to the government caucus committee?

J. MacPhail: So the Ministry of Health Planning has no staff funds that go to the government caucus committee.

J. MacPhail: On the issue of further planning, the minister is reported as having said, actually yesterday — this was a public report — that she has to go to Treasury Board to get money. Is the money that…? It was money for — and maybe she was misquoted — a nursing strategy; I think that was the questioning. Gosh, we all know how we can be misquoted, but she has to go Treasury Board. Is the Treasury Board submission that…? Any Treasury Board submissions that the minister makes around the implementation of her planning — does that come out of her budget?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The budget for that comes out of Health Services, unless it's so intrinsically involved in health planning that it would come out of Health Planning. But generally, it's out of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: In the minister's budget I note that her minister's office budget is $566,000, and I note that the minister's office for Health Services — I've got to make sure I get this right — is $456,000. That would have all come out of what used to be the ministry vote for just the Ministry of Health. What's the percentage of increase for the minister's office, given those two budgets?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I don't have those numbers with me, so I don't want to give the member inaccurate information. I will get those for her.

J. MacPhail: Can staff ballpark it for me? Is it a 50 percent increase, a 75 percent increase, a 100 percent increase?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I really do not want to give inaccurate information or a ballpark figure, so we will commit to getting you the information.

J. MacPhail: Well, we're a small but hardy caucus, but maybe my caucus research can get that information for the minister if she doesn't have it at hand.

Let's go through some of the issues that the minister is responsible for in her service plans outlined in the letter that she received from the Premier on June 25. Perhaps she can just outline for the public, for British Columbians, what planning mechanism she has in place to carry out the matters for which the Premier holds her accountable: examine the governance structure and make recommendations for alignment of the community health council, community health services society and regional health board responsibilities, including a recommended structure for the Vancouver-Richmond health board.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I have to remind the member that we've only been around for two months, so for some of this, there are no formalized structures in place.

This is a small ministry. We expect to be working with experts in planning and economics. We will certainly work with joint committees in Health Services and other ministries such as Advanced Education and Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. As I mentioned before, they have immigration responsibilities with them. Certainly we will be working with those ministries to develop plans.

If the member's looking for detailed, formalized structures that are in place right now that are working to build these plans, no, I don't have that in place.

For the different responsibilities, projects, that my ministry and I will be accountable for, as we start working on those projects and developing them, we'll judge what kind of planning processes we will embark on.

J. MacPhail: I think that's fair comment. I appreciate that the minister has been in place for almost 90 days of the new era, but I do know that the minister has expected to assume responsibility for years, as has the government. In fact, on his swearing-in, the Premier said: "This should have happened five years ago." So I assume, if that's what he thinks, that he's been preparing. [Applause.]

Well, I wouldn't expect the caucus to applaud too loudly, because that means that they'd have to provide some answers. If they're that happy about the fact that it should have happened five years ago, reviews and waffling aren't acceptable. Answers have to be provided, and the minister isn't able to provide the answers. So it's not necessarily a supportive thing — that the members in this chamber are applauding that.

Let me just ask the minister, then, based on the fact that the entire government caucus think that they should have been there five years ago: what's the time line for meeting the first item for which the minister is held accountable — examining the governance structure and making recommendations for alignment of community health councils?

Of course, that then ties into the next one, which is: develop an accountability framework for boards and an arm's-length appointment process with identification of clear expectations and performance measures. In what order will she be pursuing those goals?

Hon. S. Hawkins: You know what? I can say that we've gotten a lot more planning done in two months than that government ever did in ten years.

The Premier, in his wisdom, split Health ministries so that we have a minister that actually looks after the day-to-day and a ministry that steps back, takes a breath and says: "What's going on? What's happened in the last ten years? How do we help meet those patients' needs that were ignored and neglected for so long under your government's watch, under your watch, member?"

Anyway, it's no secret — I can tell the member, because she's probably heard already — that we have an ongoing review right now on regionalization, on governance, on accountability in our health care system. It's not part of the 90-day plan. It's not something I'm planning to rush. It's not something I'm planning to prolong. I want to make sure I get good advice. I want to make sure there's input from regions, from providers, from members from around the province. We're going to make sure that when we develop the components of the structure and the accountability and governance models, we are doing it on sound judgment and good advice.

J. MacPhail: This is the opportunity for the minister to demonstrate the difference about what's happened in the last two months, and so far we're very short on information. In fact, the minister just used the justification that they've only been in government for two months to say that she doesn't have any information. It was a bit of a contradictory statement here, of course, which is all being recorded for posterity. So I would just advise the minister that this is the time for her to get up and give the specifics to the public.

What's the time line? If there is a review in place, could she outline the details of how that review is taking place and the time line?

Hon. S. Hawkins: If the member wants to know what planning is being done, I say to wait for it, because unlike her government, we're not going to announce it until we have it in place and can actually deliver it. So just wait for it.

There is an internal review happening right now around regionalization, and we are getting appropriate input from the stakeholders involved. We recognize that it needs to be coordinated with the accountability framework and the governance issues. I'm not going to rush it, and I'm not going to prolong it. It is something that's happening as we speak. Again, I'm looking at the advice I'm getting, and certainly that is something that will be discussed with government caucus and the appropriate decision-making bodies. When it's ready, the member will hear about it. But right now it's policy that's being prepared for future implementation, so I would say to the member: wait for it.

J. MacPhail: Who's conducting the review, and who's being consulted in the review?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The review is being coordinated by my deputy minister. We're getting advice from the regional health boards, the CHSSs, the CHCs and the Vancouver-Richmond health board.

Hon. S. Hawkins: We've certainly had sub-missions. We've had letters, and I've had meetings with various stakeholders.

J. MacPhail: I assume that there's a great deal of interest in this from the various levels. So is each CHC and CHSS and regional health board being asked the same questions in a review? Is there a series of answers that they have to give? Is there a series of issues that each council or board is being asked to submit their views on? If so, could I have that information?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's been no secret. They are aware of the review. They've been told that they can have input on it. It's ongoing as we speak.

J. MacPhail: I asked a very specific question, Mr. Chair. Perhaps the minister could answer the specific question.

Hon. S. Hawkins: There aren't specific questions being asked per se. When the Premier last fall…. When we toured on the dialogue on health care, we certainly heard concerns from all around the province — how regionalization, the way her government implemented it, wasn't working. We certainly heard from stakeholders, from patients, from CEOs, from regional health board members — and we still hear from people across the province — that they don't think that the system is working to the best interests of patients. So we are asking for input on how the different regions feel that they should be organized; how we can find the last of the efficiencies, if we can put it that way; how we can make the services that we deliver across the province work better for the people in the regions where they live.

J. MacPhail: Well, this is a very specific project that the Premier has asked the minister to be accountable for. It's very specific: "Examine the governance structure and make recommendations for an alignment of community health council/community health services society/regional health board responsibilities, including a recommended structure for the Vancouver-Richmond health board." That's a very specific assignment.

It's not something that I assume was dealt with during the election, where the minister says they travelled around the province and heard input — unless it was. All I'm asking for is: what are the questions being put to the regional health boards so that it's a fair process, so that one board isn't being treated differently than one CHC. There's a specific reference

here to the Vancouver-Richmond health board. What are the specific questions being put to that under review?

The minister keeps saying that it's no secret that there's a review. Well, if there's a review, there's a review. I assume that when the minister states that her government is doing things differently, somehow the process…. I would assume she means that she's doing things more rigorously, that she's doing things in a fair and equitable way, that there are opportunities for equitable input, that there are indications of what the goals of the review are. So I assume that's what's in place. That's all I'm asking for in the way of information. They're technical questions; they're not political questions.

Hon. S. Hawkins: You know, one size doesn't fit all, so there's not a specific set of questions for each little piece of region across the province. There are different kinds of models that this government set up. What we're looking at is: what makes sense? How can we deliver services to patients where they live in the best, efficient, sustainable way? Certainly, across the regions the issues are different. Vancouver-Richmond health board delivers provincial services, so the questions for that are going to be different. Certainly other questions arise out of the review that the deputy's doing.

I did not send people in with a checklist saying: "Ask this question, ask this question and ask this question." What I expect to get is a document that gives me the best advice on the general question: are we delivering services in an effective, appropriate way for the regions that patients are serviced by across the province? Are we finding the efficiencies that we need across those regions? I can tell you right now that there are regions and groups of CHCs that have written to us and said: "Please regionalize us. We are not doing the job as effectively as we can." We're looking at the concerns of the different regions, finding ways…. And I'm getting advice on how we can model or shape them so that it makes sense, so that we have regions that are served appropriately for hospital services and for referral patterns — for example, that the Vancouver-Richmond region is providing provincial services appropriately for the population at large. So there's not a set of questions that are specific to this review, but they certainly are questions that are being asked specific to each region.

J. MacPhail: Well, this is a pretty straightforward question. When did the review start?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think I advised my deputy about a month or five weeks ago to embark on the review.

J. MacPhail: How much is the review costing, and where is the money coming from?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's part of the Health Planning budget. It's encompassed in this budget. It's not anything extra, over and above.

Hon. S. Hawkins: It is part of the Health Planning budget in the sense of whatever time the deputy is spending. It encompasses staff in the Health Services budget. It's an internal review, so staff are allocated for that purpose. It's nothing set aside. There's no discrete, targeted fund set aside. They're staff-assigned, and my deputy….

J. MacPhail: In meeting the first goal that the minister is held accountable for on page 7 of the Premier's letter to you, will you be issuing a public report for public discussion before a decision is made?

Hon. S. Hawkins: No. I think this is something that's internal and is part of the review of the way we deliver services, programs and governance accountability across the province, so there won't be public consultation for this — no.

J. MacPhail: I'm not even asking about public consultation. I assume, by point one of the minister's responsibilities, that you are to examine the government structure and make recommendations for alignment. Maybe the minister will come back and say status quo, but I assume that the goal here is really to make recommendations for change. Is the minister suggesting that the recommendations for change will not be made public? And will there not be an opportunity for public response before the decision is made?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Insofar as the regions are already involved, the health regions and the boards and other stakeholders are already involved in advising the minister on what kinds of structural recommendations for these changes are going to be made. That is the process in place right now.

You know, I don't see a massive restructuring of the health care system. I don't see the kind of changes that this member's government imposed on the health care system. This is basically finding, I think, the last few efficiencies and just doing some minor tweaking, if you will. There's a bunch of regions that have asked. There are groups of CHCs that have asked to regionalize. We are looking at those kinds of issues. This isn't something that's going to go out to public consultation or public discussion.

J. MacPhail: I've already given up on the request for public consultation. First of all, I asked whether there was a standard series of questions or tests or whatever that the people had to meet across the province so that everybody was being treated fairly and equitably. That doesn't exist. Change is going to be

made by the government without them notifying what the change is for public input before the decision is actually made. I'm wondering how the minister expects people to think that they've been treated fairly without any standardized — it doesn't have to be one size fits all — matters that they have to address. Then the document will be kept secret, and the decision will be made without public regard. Where does the test of fairness come into that?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Well, I find it very strange that this member lectures this side of the House, our government, on fairness and equitability when under their government, under their watch, we saw the least bit of fairness and the least bit of equitability as far as two-tiering and rural and urban health care. The way they set up the health care system, the rural areas have suffered. They've been neglected, and I can tell you right now that our government is trying to address those concerns. We are going across the province.

The regions are aware of the review. The review is going to be based on referral patterns, on health care services that are available, on economics, on trying to find those last few efficiencies and — guess what — on fairness and equitability as well. In order to apply a test of fairness and equitability, and certainly across the regions…. If the member reads the website and what I'm responsible for, I'm also responsible for finding a fair population-based formula to apply across the regions for health care services, and one way to do that is to find a structure for regions where a formula can be applied.

That is part of this review. We know that in order for a population-based formula to be applied, we need a critical mass of population. I believe it's somewhere in the range of 60,000 to 100,000 people that studies have shown you can apply a formula to that is fair and equitable. Some of our CHCs, I understand, service fewer than 2,000 people. Part of doing this structuring, or getting advice and recommendations on the kind of structure that we need provincewide, is so that we can provide a fair and equitable funding for our patients across the province.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm merely asking questions. It's a little bit too early in the process for the minister to suggest that asking questions is inappropriate. I would note that the minister, in answering the last question, provided more information about what the review is about than she has in the previous half-hour, so the questions are certainly proving useful to the public.

The next project that the minister is responsible for is to develop an accountability framework for boards and an arm's-length appointment process with identification of clear expectations and performance measures. How is that proceeding?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I can say that we have just started discussing that and have just begun work on that point.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could say how she started the work. Let me ask this: is this accountability framework separate and apart from the independent commission for agencies, boards and commissions that the Premier has said he's going to set up?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes to that member's question. And I can say that part of the reason for setting up an arm's-length appointment process for health boards is because that member's government was perceived to have put a lot of their party people — NDP appointments — on these boards and politicized the health care governance system. So we are looking at a process where we've removed some of the politics around that. We are looking at a process that actually endorses some of the recommendations that the auditor general made in his report, as far as governance and the people that sit on boards as governors — people that actually have expertise, knowledge and skills to sit on those kinds of boards.

So we are just in the beginning of the process of deciding how we're going to embark on this part of governance, accountability and performance measures for boards.

J. MacPhail: Why is it a separate process from the one the Premier has set up for an overall independent commission for agencies, boards and commissions?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It is linked with the director of agencies, boards and commissions. What we are doing is setting up an accountability framework for the health boards. If the member reads down to the fifth bullet — I believe it's the fifth bullet, if that's on hers — we will set up the arms'-length appointment process and then the ABC director will work on the board Chair appointments.

Hon. S. Hawkins: This director reports to the Premier, so those questions would be very appropriate for the Premier's estimates.

J. MacPhail: The identification of clear expectations and performance measures list — what does that refer to? Does it refer to the accountability framework or the arm's-length appointment process?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That refers to the accountability framework. If I can expand on that a little bit for the member, we will set up clear expectations and performance measures for the kind of program services that the health boards will be required to provide and meet these standards.

J. MacPhail: What will the performance measures be? This will certainly be groundbreaking. I have direct knowledge of this going on in Ontario right now, and it's certainly a very difficult issue. So what are the performance measures that the minister anticipates putting in place?

Hon. S. Hawkins: This is groundbreaking work. I understand there is an initial draft of a framework that has been developed. We are reviewing it. We are also looking at the Health Canada framework. They are starting to develop performance measures. We are also looking at models in England and New Zealand, and we will certainly get stakeholder input as we develop these frameworks and performance measures and goals. Also, just for the member's information, it's Health Services that will be implementing these measures.

J. MacPhail: I note further down that one of the projects for which the minister is to be held accountable is: "Consider the advisability of including Pharmacare, ambulance services and Medical Services Plan in regional authority budgets. Recommend appropriate governance model for licensing functions." I'm going to skip to that one, if I may, because it's related to the topics that we have. Is the minister asking the advisability of doing this in her review of the regional health boards and the community health councils?

J. MacPhail: I am wondering why not. It would seem to me that this would be an issue around workload, responsibility and performance measures. It seems to me to be integrated.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I consider that a longer-term project. The one that we talked about — examining governance structure and making recommendations for realignments — I see as a shorter-term, so we're working on that first. These are very complex programs, and I think we need to have a careful look at them. Again, I think we are going to do things in a very measured and…. We're not going to make quick judgments on these, so this is something that I think needs a longer look.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm curious is…. Let's just take the example of the Medical Services Plan — regionalizing that budget to a community health council or a regional health board. I assume one of the considerations that the minister would have in using the Medical Services Plan, the payment to physicians, is to do it in a way that makes the most sense for the region. I don't know what other reason the Premier would have in asking the minister to consider regionalizing the budget.

Often it's been contemplated by people in the health care system that perhaps that's the way to get physicians properly placed throughout the province, where the physicians are needed. If the minister is looking at re-examining the regional extent of authority of community health councils, for instance, wouldn't it make sense to do both at the same time?

Hon. S. Hawkins: No, I don't think it makes sense to do both at the same time. I think it's important that we get our structures in place. I think it's important that we get started working on our accountability frameworks and our performance measures. Certainly, this is something that we have been asked to consider, to get advice on. It is something that is not new. There are other jurisdictions that are experimenting with this. I believe that some of the regional health authorities of our neighbour to the east, Alberta, are looking at this. I think it makes more sense to do things in a measured way, and that's what we are trying to do.

Back to the Medical Services Plan, I would suggest that certain community health councils have said to this government that recruiting physicians is hard for them. If you're going to change the community health council, wouldn't it make sense to look at doing that in a way that also addresses the issue of the recruitment of health professionals? If you're going to regionalize the budget, why not look at both together? Clearly, the minister doesn't think that's appropriate.

What about ambulance services? That's a geographic issue. Why is the minister separating out ambulance services from the review of changing the boundaries or changing the way community health councils govern?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Well, I think the member, from when she was minister, probably understands that there are contract issues and structural issues that we have to deal with. Certainly, under MSC structure the BCMA master working agreement requires major modification. A lot of these contracts require notice. So it's not something we're rushing into. It's something we've been asked to review and get advice on, and that's what we're going to do. Certainly, this is in the realm of future policy. We'll keep the member posted. She can see what progress we're making as we roll some of this out.

J. MacPhail: I fully agree that the system is very complex and that much of it is intertwined and integrated. That's why I'm curious to know what the review process is for changing the governance structure. It is all very complex and integrated, yet the minister has been given assignments to deal with the whole matter. That's why I was trying to ask about the orderly fashion in which she's conducting the review to change the governance structure when the matters are so complex. That's why I wanted to know what the

Let's look at another one, then, that I think is integrated and part of the very complex system where they're all integrated: "Develop a framework for financial and human resource allocation, including capital and equipment." The amount of budget that goes toward our community health councils and regional health boards is substantial. I think it's in the billions. I can't remember, but it's in the billions. Those community health councils and those regional health boards are responsible for those billions of dollars. Within those billions of dollars there's financial and human resource allocations.

I think that the capital and equipment budget is separate still and is managed on a provincewide basis, unless that's changed. Maybe it's changed. I don't know; I can't remember. But if it has and it's been regionalized, is that part of the review process that the minister is conducting around changing the governance structure for community health councils and regional health boards?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think the goal of this is to simplify the governance structure, because as the member states, it is very complex. It's very integrated. Perhaps at this time it makes sense to the member to do everything all at once, but guess what. We've only been around two months. We're trying to break off chunks and deal with them in a reasonable, measured way so that we actually get some work done. The first step is looking at the governance structure, and the next step is looking at accountability framework, looking at how we deal with appointments, those kinds of things. We're trying to do it in a step-by-step fashion.

Now, the member asked about funding for the regions and capital funding. I think I already mentioned the population-based formula that the Premier has asked us to develop or advise on — how it would function provincewide. The formula that we are considering takes into account demographics, rural versus regional, urban issues, the social determinants that I'm sure the member is aware of: gender, tertiary services, academic services. All of these are things that factor into the population-based funding formula. Certainly the capital and equipment plan and some of those kinds of financial issues that the member is talking about will factor into the funding around those plans. Finally, the human resources plan is also going to be done on a regional needs basis.

J. MacPhail: Well, I want to get to the population-based funding in a moment.

It is interesting to note that the minister herself acknowledges that the human and financial resource allocation will be done on a regional basis. What region? Unless the minister is planning on doing away with the governance structures of community health councils or regional health boards, or both, I assume there will be some sort of regional governance structure in place. How does one determine that regional structure, if she's planning on changing it, so that it makes more sense? I assume that's why she's doing it. Is it not about the administration of the programs, the demands of the programs, the allocations that are necessary? Would that not guide the minister's determination of how to change the governance structure?

That's the only reason. I'm suggesting they're all so integrated that they should be considered together, and it should be the questions that are asked in the review that the minister is conducting. That's all. That was what I was trying to get at before: what is the minister considering in her review for change in the governance structure? Anyway, I only do that to look back and suggest that that was what I was seeking. But I understand now from the minister that those are not part of the review, and those factors won't be considered in the review.

On the issue of the population-based funding: "Develop a transparent population-based funding formula." Can the minister guarantee that no regional health board or community health council, current or restructured, will have their funding cut as a result of the population-based funding formula being put in place?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's difficult to answer that question, because I think the member knows that this minister is getting advice right now on the structure of the regions. She's asking if existing regions, the way they stand, will not get their funding cut. We have committed to keeping our commitment for $9.3 billion in the health care budget. The regions will be getting the money that was committed to them. If the regions change, that funding will, I assume, be adjusted.

What we have committed to is three-year rolling budgets for the regions. That gives them more flexibility and ability to plan over time. Certainly, with applying a population-based formula, we would be rolling that out and applying it over several years. Again, this is in the area of future policy. I think the questions are probably more appropriate once we get more comfortable with what the regions will look like and how we will apply the formula.

J. MacPhail: By virtue of the nature of the minister's business, as I said earlier, most of this she can write off as future policy. But the fact of the matter is that she has a budget, she has a minister's office, and that's the nature of her business right now. The Premier has been very public on what her responsibilities are. It's not a secret that this government is going to be developing a transparent population-based funding formula. It doesn't say to make recommendations on whether that's the right way to go. It doesn't say to consider all options, including a population-based funding formula. It says to develop one.

Let me give you what I think some of the regions may be concerned about, given this, and why I am, on their behalf, asking the assurance of the minister

against this happening. If a population-based funding formula were put in place right now, there isn't a population-based funding formula that wouldn't suggest that some regions are underfunded and other regions are overfunded. Not one population-based formula would do anything other than that.

Will the minister guarantee, because it says right here that she has to do it — not can she do it or should she do it; it says she has to do it — that no region, either restructured or as it's currently structured, will have its funding cut because of a new funding formula based on population?

Hon. S. Hawkins: This ministry is — and the member is right — responsible for developing a transparent population-based formula, and it will be transparent. As the member knows, because she was the Health minister and she sat on this side of the House, you can never guarantee that. Populations move; populations change. The services across the province and the way they're delivered change.

We have 11 regional health boards right now that serve 85 percent of the population and 41 CHCs and CHSSs that serve 15 percent of the population. So as we change the boundaries or tweak them, or the advice I'm getting on the way they should be adjusted…. The funding might be adjusted, so I'm not going to guarantee that there may be adjustments in one region over the other, because I think that would be impossible to do.

J. MacPhail: Is the development of a transparent population-based funding formula part of the review of the governance structure? Have the CHCs and the regional health boards been advised that it may affect their funding?

Hon. S. Hawkins: This is not a 90-day commitment; this is a four-year commitment. The population-based formula is not being considered as part of this review. It's future policy; it's something that we're working towards.

We know that it's a fairer way of allocating funds. I can tell you that I am not going to be picking winners and losers when we apply a population-based formula. It will be transparent, it will be fair, and it will be equitable.

J. MacPhail: There is a way that the minister can guarantee that there will be no cuts in funding, and that's to make the guarantee. This is a policy of this government. It's not an initiative that they can hold anybody else responsible for. They're putting in place a population-based funding formula. Maybe the minister has come up with a population-based funding formula that says nobody is underfunded or nobody is overfunded. But I expect that's not the case.

So what the minister could do, because this is an initiative of this government, is stand up here and say that the current funding level will not be reduced, even if the region or the community health council is negatively impacted by a population-based funding formula. And there will be regions and community health councils that will be negatively impacted, unless there's some new information. So the minister could give that guarantee.

Hon. S. Hawkins: What this minister will guarantee is that there will be absolutely no changes to the global budget. We committed to $9.3 billion in the Health budget. I believe it's at $9.5 billion, because we brought some programs over from Children and Family Development. We're committed to that; that is going to remain. Let me say to the member that the way she is explaining things, it wouldn't be fair to regions that were growing.

Hon. S. Hawkins: That's right, because they wouldn't get funding either. Populations change; programs change. Services provided in regions change. The structure of the regions is going to change. So to hold funding to where it stands right now, when the member knows that the region is probably going to change…. On the advice that this minister receives, there probably are going to be some changes. I don't think that's a secret out there.

So no, I'm not going to guarantee that funding for the regions as they stand right now…change, because some of them will be amalgamated. Some of the CHCs have asked us to amalgamate them. Perhaps some of their funding will change, according to which way they're organized. But the global budget for the Health ministry is not going to change. The programs, the way that they're funded right now, are not going to change. The money in the budget is $9.5 billion. That's what we committed to, that's what we promised, and that's what we're going to keep. [Applause.]

J. MacPhail: Well, I assume everybody who's applauding knows for sure that their regional health board funding won't be cut by the population-based funding. But I can rest assured that there are members sitting in this chamber right now whose communities' — if the minister won't give the guarantee of a funding floor and no cuts — funding will be cut if there's a population-based funding formula put in place with no floor to it.

J. MacPhail: That's not fearmongering; that's not fearmongering at all. The minister will only commit to a global budget. That global budget, if it's applied on a population-based funding floor, will change the allocation of funding on a regional and community basis unless the minister can stand up here and tell me she's developing a funding formula where that won't occur. There are members sitting right here who will be affected by that, if the minister won't give the guarantee.

I assume that a community that is now overfunded, if you apply a population-based formula, will have its funding cut. The global budget will stay the same. You're right: growing communities will get more money. But I expect that the regional health board or community health council that's negatively affected by that would like to know that — that's all — in the transparent and open process. And if it's not part of the review now, it will come as news to them that they may be negatively affected by that.

There is no way that this minister can develop a formula if all she's going to do is keep the global budget static, where she can put in place a population-based funding formula and not make cuts to certain areas. There's no way. If there is, I'll stand corrected, and I will receive the information as we speak. We all know that for the members present, their government has said there won't be any growth in health care funding unless the economy grows. That great 3.8 percent growth in the economy is going to be responsible for the growth in the health care system.

I would suggest that every single one of these government caucus members should be standing up and saying: "What does a population-based funding formula mean for my community?" Let's have them get up and ask that. Let's have them take a risk and see what the answer's going to be for that.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I wish this member had spent as much time on health care and the concerns of health care patients across the province when she sat on this side of the House as she does over there. If she had spent enough time on it, maybe she wouldn't have frittered away $450 million on fast ferries. That could go to patient care.

And guess what. In a population-based formula, $450 million…. Holy cow, I can imagine what that would do for services, especially rural patients across this province. Perhaps the $70 million that they wrote off on the convention centre could go to health care services across this province — waste after waste after waste.

I can guarantee that this year the regions will have the level of funding they have been given.

Hon. S. Hawkins: You know what? Maybe if she doesn't want to hear the answer, I'll just sit down.

There is a stakeholder committee that has been working. It's made up of various CEOs, CFOs and health authorities who have worked on this formula. This formula isn't ready to be applied this year, member. This formula will be put out for discussion. There will be input — guess what — because the Premier believes that the government caucus actually holds ministers accountable. The members will hear about it, scrutinize it and vote on it before it gets implemented.

So for this year I can guarantee there won't be changes. The fearmongering that this member is advocating is reprehensible. There will not be cuts to regions. There will not be cuts, because — you know what? — we're going to hold the funding. It was that member's budget, and we are going to honour the commitments to the regions and the CHCs and CHSSs that were made. The budget is at $9.5 billion, and that's what we committed to and are promising to keep.

J. MacPhail: Of course she can't use the population-based funding formula to cut budgets, because it's not in place. But she has to do it. It's an order from the Premier. I don't know what the members are going to vote on. Maybe this is where a free vote is going to take place in the government caucus. Maybe the members will stand up and say….

The minister's been ordered to do it. It's not to consider; it's an order to do a population-based funding formula. It's not in place, and it would be pretty weird for the minister to cut funding based on a formula that isn't even in place yet. What I'm asking the minister to do….

J. MacPhail: All right. You know what? I actually would. I would actually take the commitment of the minister to put the population-based funding formula to a vote of the government caucus, because I can guarantee that these members will vote against it in the areas where the funding is going to be cut, if the minister won't give a guarantee of a threshold that there will be no cuts. I can guarantee it. So if the minister commits that she will put the population-based funding formula application to a vote of her government caucus and make that public, I will accept that in place of her guaranteeing that there will be no cuts.

Hon. S. Hawkins: There is a population-based formula which was developed by the ministry under this member's watch. It's fairly well developed; it is not ready for implementation. There are other things that need to happen in the health care system before that formula can in any way, shape or form be planned or implemented. I think the member probably understands that, so I don't know why the fearmongering today around cuts and everything else. I think the member should recognize that this is something that the Ministry of Health Planning is being asked to look at in four years. This is not part of the 90 days. The bad population-based formula isn't out to scare everybody.

In fact, this is something that jurisdictions around the world are looking at: how to make sure that populations get fair and equitable needs-based funding. I'm actually looking forward to finding a way to implement a population-based formula, because — guess what — hopefully, that'll take some of the politics out of the decision-making. God forbid me being a cynic and accusing the former government of using health care dollars for political purposes. I

would hope that never happened, but I understand that in some cases it may have happened.

We are looking at a fair way. We are being asked to develop a fair way of distributing hard-earned taxpayer dollars for a public service that patients, the population across B.C., deserve. This is something that is not being planned for implementation this year. It is something that will be well discussed. It will be transparent; it will be open. It will certainly be applied in a fair manner, and it will certainly be applied after good discussion with the health authorities, with regions across the province and with stakeholders. And guess what: I bet patients and health authorities and the population — once we get something in place that is seen as transparent and fair and equitable — will thank us for doing it, because hopefully, it will take the politics out of the decision-making.

J. MacPhail: All I was asking was for the minister to guarantee that there would be no cuts in anybody's funding as a result of the formula, and she refuses to give the guarantee. I would say that's what the fearful part of this debate is, not the accusation of fearmongering by raising the questions. The lack of a guarantee should cause fear in certain regions and certain community health councils in this province.

Mr. Chair, on this particular section of my questions, I'm finished. I have more to do, though, so I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported resolution and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRIES OF
SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT;
WATER, LAND AND AIR PROTECTION;
FORESTS

Vote 53: environmental boards and Forest Appeals Commission, $1,967,000 — approved.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I have a few brief introductory remarks to make. I have with me today Jack Ebbels, the Deputy Minister; Doug Callbeck, ADM of management services; Mike Costello, the president of B.C. Hydro; Gary Rodford, VP of Hydro; Peter Ostergaard, BCUC; and Lorne Sivertson of Columbia Power Corporation.

I'll include in my vote just a few brief remarks about the ministry. I'm certainly delighted to have this posting as Minister of Energy and Mines. It's an exciting ministry that affects many more British Columbians than people probably realize. The ministry is actually responsible for a number of Crown corporations, which I have just mentioned, that fit well into the energy field. I'm proud to actually work with those individuals that head up those Crown corporations. They're great people and have great knowledge of what they do.

The Ministry of Energy and Mines was a ministry that wasn't well recognized for a long time, but since people started realizing how much they depend on energy and how expensive energy is or can be at different times — and I'm referring to the price of natural gas just a year ago — people, all of a sudden, took notice of the Ministry of Energy.

The ministry is also a great contributor to the revenue side of the province. That was also very much unnoticed for many years, when it was only — and my goodness, I say "only" — generating some $400 million or $500 million a year, which was almost all profit for the province. We now see that same ministry generating — without the Crown corporations, just the ministry itself — almost $2 billion a year for a cost of

running a ministry of around $65 million. That's a very good return to the people of British Columbia.

I will work every hour to make sure we can live up to our commitments in our New Era document so that we can provide access to Crown land and so that mining and resource companies can access Crown land. We will work as hard as we can to reach agreements with some of the native bands around the province so that we have some agreement of revenue-sharing or some responsibility-sharing of how those resources are developed, so British Columbia can continue to enjoy good health, good education and good social services.

The ministry will also work very hard to increase revenue to the province through a number of initiatives we will take, mainly directed through the New Era document — as I said, access to Crown land and a number that we've already committed to and fulfilled. This is a reduction in taxes, so we can encourage more industry to come to British Columbia to create the jobs we so desperately need in the province.

The reduction in personal income tax was the first step, and I think it was a good step, especially where I come from and where most of the oil and gas is generated from. We're so close to Alberta that it's easy for people to live just across the line or to file their income tax in Alberta and actually work in British Columbia. We want to reverse that so we have a more level playing field.

Secondly, we reduced taxes on machinery and equipment for both the mining industry and the oil and gas industry so that we can level the playing field a little bit more with our counterpart, Alberta, and encourage industry to actually move some of their branch offices back into British Columbia — ones that left in the last ten years. That's mainly what we're trying to do.

I look forward to a very good year for the Ministry of Energy and Mines. It's an exciting portfolio. It's one that brings all kinds of challenges. We know that. I guess our first challenge will be our core review of not only the ministry, which we are undertaking at the present time, but also of each and every one of the Crown corporations that are under this ministry. They will come under a full core review to figure out the things we're doing. Are we doing them to the best of our ability? I'm not saying we're not, but we want to look at that. Are they things that government should be involved in or that the private sector should be involved in rather than government? We will look at it from that way and look toward those people who work in those Crown corporations and the ministry.

There are hundreds and hundreds of people with very bright minds that actually work the front lines. We want to access some of that information from those people to give us information on how we can actually make government work better for the people of British Columbia. That's what our core review process is mainly about. With those few words, I'll take my place and wait for some questions.

D. MacKay: I wasn't going to ask any questions, but when I heard you mention the good profits in the neighbourhood of $2 billion from the Crown corporations and the B.C. Liberals' position to encourage investment in the province, I beg to ask the question…. I'm going to take you up to the small community of Meziadin Junction, which is on Highway 37, north of Kitwanga.

The hydro main line went through that area of the province some time ago, and the residents of the Meziadin Junction relied on diesel generation to electrify their community. They recently had hydro electrification installed in the community of Meziadin Junction, and the surcharge that has been assessed against the users in Meziadin is three times the normal rate that everybody else in the province is now paying.

I have to ask: if we are seeing such huge returns from our B.C. Hydro corporation and we're trying to encourage industry…? I would suggest that what we've done to the people of Meziadin Junction…. A lot of them are unable to pay the huge surcharges that have accumulated since they have been electrified. My question to the minister is: is there something we can do to help the people at Meziadin Junction with these huge surcharge rates, given the big profits that we are now expounding on?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the question. I have had some contact with the people at Meziadin Junction. As I understand it without having the information handy with me, there was a deal made between those people and B.C. Hydro where the charge would be quite a bit higher than the rest of the province to recapture some of the cost of providing the service. That's it as far as I know, basically, but the Hydro officials may have a little bit more information for me that they could bring to me, and I could try to take it further.

On that point, and that's part of the core review we're going to go through, not only at Meziadin Junction, but there are many places…. Fort St. James came to me with a problem about extension of B.C. Hydro and increasing the line capacity. I've had that in my constituency and South Peace. I've had it from some people in the Kootenays who would like to be able to enjoy B.C. Hydro rates but find the cost very prohibitive. So that's part of the core review that B.C. Hydro and the ministry will go through to re-look at those agreements that have been put in place quite a long time ago — rural electrification programs — to see if they can be a little bit fairer.

D. MacKay: Another question to the minister, through the Chair. This one deals with the mining issue. I have a constituent in the small community of Atlin who has a placer claim. He's had this placer claim and a number of placer claims for a number of years. He's been a placer miner most of his life. In order to keep the placer claim current, he's required by regulation to spend money and do actual physical work on the properties to retain that placer claim.

The native Indians have gone up there, and they've built a cabin on one of his placer claims. It was a claim that he had intended to work this spring and this fall. Obviously, because of the cabin being built on his claim, he is now unable to work the claim. He has hired a lawyer to look after his interests, which I think seems a little unfair, given the fact that he has complied with all the regulations the government has imposed on him to keep this placer claim in place.

I realize this issue crosses many boundaries such as the Attorney General's ministry, with the treaty process, and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

My question to the minister is: what will we do to compensate this constituent if in fact he loses the claim he now has with the government to that placer? Will we compensate that man? How will we determine a compensation package for him?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Under the Mineral Tenure Act, the miner can actually ask for some compensation, some help, with not being able to file the claims or work the claim. As far as the issue goes on native land claims — if it's involved in that, and I don't know whether it is or not; I'm not sure about the background of this particular issue — that would be something we have put in our New Era document, which said we would give compensation to those people who are involved in native land claims.

So the decision about how the amount is decided…. I'm not sure of that process either, but I'm sure there's a process in place that would evaluate what the claim could be, what it would be over a period of years, and have some negotiation between government and the proponent as to what would be the compensation. I would hope that we don't get that far down the road and that we can actually deal with the issue long before it comes to that.

D. MacKay: The issue has been ongoing for some time now. I have addressed it with the previous government, and now I'm bringing it up with our own government. I would like to see some closure on it for his sake. He's getting on in years. He's been at it for a long time. It's not part of a land claim, as such. The natives are exercising their muscle: they're tempting us to do something with the cabin they've built. They've built three cabins, and one happens to be on this land claim. I would hope that the minister will direct someone within his ministry to get at this issue and see if we can't bring it to some resolve quickly.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I thank the member for bringing it to my attention, and we will be looking into it fairly shortly and see if we can get it resolved for the gentleman.

B. Penner: I'd like to first of all congratulate the minister on becoming the Minister of Energy and Mines. I think it's a positive development for the people of the province to have a minister who is as well-versed as the one we have now dealing with this very important portfolio. I'd like to ask the minister a number of questions relating to B.C. Hydro, and maybe this would be a good time for the staff to pull up a chair, if they're able to do that.

First of all, I'll just ask the minister for an update on the California situation. It's been well reported in the media that the state of California and/or its various private sector utilities owe B.C. Hydro, or Powerex, something in the order of $400 million (Canadian), give or take a certain amount. I know there've been some discussions ongoing, some negotiation. Let me just say for the record that I'm very frustrated, as I think most British Columbians are, that we sold our power in good faith for what was the going market rate.

At the time those transactions took place, no one in California indicated that they wouldn't be willing to pay the going rate, and now here we are. After the commercial transaction has taken place and the goods — i.e., electricity — have been transferred, the recipient is now saying: "We don't agree with the price at which we purchased the product."

I liken that to going into a restaurant, looking at the menu, ordering an item for $20 and then, on my way out the door, saying: "I think I'll leave you $15, because I think that's the correct price." If a person's got a problem with a price, they should raise that before concluding the commercial agreement. After all, that's what the law of contracts is all about. It's to establish some certainty and to force a meeting of the minds beforehand.

So I ask the minister, with that prelude, if he can update the Legislature as to the status of the amount of money owing to B.C. Hydro, or Powerex, from the state of California.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I share the member's frustration that British Columbia is still owed $290 million (U.S.). I'm told by officials that out of all the power we sold them in recent times, we've collected about 95 percent of it. We're outstanding about 5 percent, which represents the $290 million (U.S.).

The member will also know that there were two bankruptcies that took place, in ISO and the Power Exchange, in California. Actually, because of the fear of what could happen, I believe B.C. Hydro had been very vigilant in making sure that they were collecting the money they could and that they were not extending the time too long to those organizations. In fact, after it did happen, we still were good Samaritans to the Californians and provided them electricity — but on a very short rope, to make sure B.C. Hydro was paid for the hydro.

B.C. Hydro is continuing, as I understand, to attempt to collect the $290 million, but there's also a process ongoing with FERC. Not only B.C. Hydro but companies that generate hydro within California are in the same position that we are, in different dollar amounts, and are owed a lot of money. FERC is now looking at that to see what kind of agreement they can make with California — either remit all of the money, or some of the money remains with California — and go on with new relations with California in selling hydro.

I share the member's frustration. At the end of the day, I don't know whether we'd want to just say: "Well, we're just not going to sell you any anymore." I don't quite know how far or how well that would be received by our neighbours next door to us, and we'll have to wait and see how B.C. Hydro makes out.

B. Penner: Perhaps the next thing we have to worry about is long-term power contracts. I noticed an article in the Los Angeles Times on Saturday with the headline "Sudden Power Glut Puts State in Costly Bind." That article goes on at some length to describe the reaction of the California Legislature, in a panic earlier in the year during rolling brownouts, buying into long-term electricity supply contracts at a very high rate because, I guess, they were panicking. Now electricity prices on the spot market are dropping, and the politicians in California are looking at these long-term contracts they signed just a few months ago and are saying: "Gee, that price doesn't look too good right now. Maybe we should see if we can get out of these agreements as well."

I don't know exactly what kind of comment I'm looking for from the minister, but maybe the minister could tell us whether B.C. Hydro has entered into these types of long-term agreements that may be subject to this political pressure in California to ratchet down those prices. Again, as I say, if you enter into a contract, you'd better be prepared to live up to the terms when you sign it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: B.C. Hydro, I'm told, has no exposure there in long-term, high-priced contracts. As I stated earlier, they're holding the leash very short, making sure we get paid quickly as we sell it. It's mostly short-term contracts, which have in fact reduced the revenue the province can expect as a dividend from B.C. Hydro in the long term. As I understand it, the price at the COB, the California-Oregon border, which is kind of the measurement we use now, is $50 (U.S.) right now. All of B.C. Hydro's power would be coming through that process somewhere in there.

B. Penner: Just to confirm, then, what the minister is saying: electricity that is currently being sold to California, if any, by B.C. Hydro or Powerex is along the lines of short-term or spot market contracts as opposed to the long-term arrangements.

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I understand it, the answer that I gave earlier is correct. There are no real long-term contracts that have some very high thresholds for the costs of electricity.

D. MacKay: I might be incorrect on the length of time I've got written down here, but I've been told that by the year 2005, we will run out of energy. We'll have to start buying energy for British Columbia.

My question to the minister is: what are we doing to ensure that we have sufficient electrical energy in years coming down the road? Are we looking at building new dams, or are we looking at other projects to ensure that the energy is there for us?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, and 2007 is more the magical date, as I understand. This is a process we're going through in the core review process: to look at all options for B.C. Hydro to see what we have to do. Everything is on the table, including Site C. Whether it should go ahead or not will be discussed at length.

We're also looking at encouraging, and will encourage, IPPs. We've committed to that in the New Era document: independent power producers to produce power for Hydro, not just for export but for British Columbia's own use. That will all be part of a plan.

B.C. Hydro's had a plan for future hydro, obviously. But we, as a government, would like to have an energy plan that includes hydro, natural gas, coal, geothermal, wind and solar and the whole mix of things. We want an energy plan so that British Columbians can look into the future for quite a number of years hence, so we don't get caught out short.

B. Penner: In terms of this energy policy development process, I wonder if the minister could tell us a bit more about it. Are the plans for it finalized? Do we know, for example, if it is going to be a committee that's struck to examine policy options for electricity generation, or is this part of B.C. Hydro's internal core review?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is not just internal to B.C. Hydro. This will include others as we go forward in discussing and deciding how we're going to formulate an energy plan. It will include the ministry itself, in fact, and the IPPs to a certain degree.

I don't have a schematic plan of who's going to be involved and who isn't. We will seek the widest possible consultation that we can across the province and look to other jurisdictions across Canada and North America to find out what works and what makes sense, then try to adapt it to British Columbia, remembering that if we want to include IPPs in the system, which we want to do and we've committed to…. I think it's a very good way of looking forward to our energy needs and for export.

For IPPs to actually produce energy and export it, they have to have good, solid access to the transmission lines. That'll be a process that's going to take some huge discussions about how we work with unfettered access to those transmission lines and how that process is going to work out.

So this is no afternoon tea over at someone's office, trying to figure out what we're going to do. This is pretty in-depth stuff. We're going to get the best and brightest people we can to come give us ideas, to help

D. MacKay: My question to the minister deals with Alcan. I could be wrong on this, but it's my understanding that Alcan is presently obligated to B.C. Hydro to provide energy to the power grid. If that is the case, could you tell me how long the contract is for? Given the water shortage we are facing in the Nechako watershed at the present time, there are going to be some problems there coming down the road. I'd just like to know where we are with the Alcan–B.C. Hydro contract that I believe is in place.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are apparently two. There's the long-term contract B.C. Hydro has with Alcan to supply. I think the member's probably referring to the short-term contract. As I understand, it's supposed to be repaid by 2002, but there's been an extension given. I don't know for how long, but I can get that information for the member and give it to him later, or the officials here could find it a little bit later.

Maybe, just while they're looking, I could answer with a little bit more information about the Meziadin Junction question you had. They were covered under the uneconomic extension policy, which was approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission. The community decided — this is what I understand — to amortize their share of the cost in their rates for power going forward rather than lump sum payments at the start.

Apparently, under the uneconomic extension policy they have that option. I've had people in my constituency come to me, mainly farm communities. They may pay $30,000 to hook up to electricity, $30,000 to $50,000, depending on how far they are from the line. I guess they have that same choice: they can either pay it up front, or lump it in over a number of years in their repayment.

D. MacKay: If I could go back to the Meziadin Junction issue just for a moment, then. It's my understanding that the residents of Meziadin Junction never actually saw the amount of the increase or the surcharge they would be paying until after the contract was signed and they were energized by Hydro. So that is kind of a back way of getting into them. They had no idea what their costs were going to be after they were energized by B.C. Hydro. They weren't told; they never saw it. It was on a document that came out after they were energized.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I would almost think that someone would have had to see what they were getting into before they signed on to an uneconomic extension. I'll have the folks from B.C. Hydro try to find the documentation.

If they were under the understanding it wasn't going to cost them anything more than what it would anybody else, as a postage-stamp rate, then someone has erred, but I would assume that someone had to sign a contract.

Let me tell you, from my constituency and my personal experience, farmers that I know who have paid $30,000 to hook up to the hydro line knew exactly what they were getting into before they hooked up. They came to my office and told me about it, so I can only assume that they knew. But we'll have B.C. Hydro check into that and find out exactly what took place, and I'll forward that to the member so that he can see firsthand, from Hydro's viewpoint, what took place.

D. MacKay: I would appreciate that, because I have seen the documentation. The letter that showed what the surcharge was going to be was in fact a couple of months after they were energized, and that was the only documentation they were able to show to me on what the surcharge would be. There was nothing prior to that. They said there would be a slight surcharge to cover off the cost, but when they actually saw the amount, it obviously set some of them back on their heels and some of them back financially — really badly, as we're finding out now.

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said, I will get that information, or the B.C. Hydro officials will get it, and we'll forward it to you. Then feel free to meet with me, and we'll try to resolve whatever issue is there. Also, on the repayment of the short-term hydro for Alcan, the other question you had, we'll get that information to the member also, so he can view firsthand what agreements have been made in the short term and the long term.

D. MacKay: I'm sorry. I'm confused there. It was my understanding that Alcan was locked in with B.C. Hydro to provide power for a certain period of time, so you lost me when you said that an extension was given. Are we saying we extended the length of time that Alcan had to provide power to the B.C. Hydro grid?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry I confused you. There is a long-term agreement from B.C. Hydro with Alcan. That's not the question. The question you're talking about is the short-term agreement. B.C. Hydro did give Alcan some power to help them get over a tough spot with low water, so they could continue to employ people at the plant. Because the low water has continued and there's some difficulty, they've extended that short-term repayment of extra hydro to actually facilitate Alcan's desire and need to continue to employ people. So if that's a better answer, I hope so. I see the member smiling, nodding. He's happy.

B. Penner: I see the minister's still smiling. Let's hope that's the case when we're done here.

Going back to the energy policy review, the minister commented that we need to consider a whole range of options. I heartily agree and also heartily endorse the direction toward encouraging more independent power producers to step forward, to bear some of the capital risk of developing new projects.

I would just like to mention, as an aside, my criticism of the previous government for not doing enough over the last ten years to put us in a position of having more capacity. I'm worried when I hear that 2007 is the date at which we will no longer be self-sufficient for electricity. The lead time for significant-sized projects can be much more than what can be accomplished by 2007, if you were to start today. That gives me some concern.

Leaving that aside, I'd like to ask the minister specifically about a news release put out by B.C. Hydro, I think about a month and a half ago, when they called for proposals to build a 10 megawatt wind demonstration project on Vancouver Island. As I recall, looking at the B.C. Hydro website at the time, I think there was a 30-day period during which they were looking for comments or proposals. What caught my attention was the description of the project.

B.C. Hydro was asking for a partner to share ideas with them about how to build this demonstration project. If these projects have already been built successfully and are commercially viable in many parts of the world, I wonder why B.C. Hydro wouldn't simply say, "Give us a proposal about how you're going to plan to build it and run it, and we'll evaluate it," rather than forming a formal partnership with somebody to do it.

I'm not sure why B.C. Hydro needs to be involved in the building, construction or maintenance of a wind turbine when it seems to be done commercially in other parts of the country and in North America. I'm just wondering if we can get a status report on that call for proposals and maybe a comment from the minister. I do believe — as you do, I think — that the free market and independent power producers have a lot of know-how and expertise, and we should maybe encourage them to utilize it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: A number of things. Wind power is much more expensive than other forms of generation of electricity, so B.C. Hydro would actually be in there as a partner to try to encourage and start working on wind power. To do it by wind, as I understand, is about twice as much as what we pay for hydro now.

There were 14 respondents and three that were short-listed, and as I understand, B.C. Hydro is evaluating those. The site preparation and choosing the sites and what not, which was apparently fairly expensive and time-consuming, was also done by B.C. Hydro, so it's more of a partnership than anything.

But it's an interesting comment from the member, and maybe what we should be looking at is putting out an RFP for wind generation: see how many will come forward to actually do it on their own and take the chance to put it into the grid and sell it on the open market and see what happens there.

It's something I'm sure I'm going to look forward to — asking those questions about it as we go through the review — and so will a number of other people. Obviously, other people that you've talked to, independent power producers, will be there asking some of those same questions. It'll be interesting to see the response we get out of that.

B. Penner: My last topic is indirectly related to the wind demonstration project on Vancouver Island. My understanding, from discussions with B.C. Hydro officials in the past, is that probably the most pressing demand for electricity in the province is on Vancouver Island. That's because of the aging underwater cables that connect Vancouver Island to the mainland source of electricity and the growing population and industry on the Island.

There've been a variety of efforts made to try and address the growing electricity demand on the Island, not least of which has taken place in Campbell River. I think it's a 240 megawatt natural-gas–fired cogeneration plant, which has been plagued with a number of delays and difficulties in getting online.

I'm just wondering if we could get a status report on how that's coming and whether it's true we are facing the imminent loss of that power line or lines from the mainland to Vancouver Island. There's been significant speculation that it would cost hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars, perhaps a billion dollars, to replace those underwater cables. I'm just wondering if in fact that's correct, if that's imminent, and about just how serious a problem we're really looking at here on Vancouver Island.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I understand that Vancouver Island is on the same wavelength as the rest of the province — 2007. When it becomes critical, hopefully Campbell River will have things straightened out. I know they have some technical problems at Campbell River. If Port Alberni gets built, that obviously helps a lot of things. In the event that it doesn't, for whatever reason, we'll be reviewing all those things as to how we get hydro over to the Island. Again, we're evaluating cables and those kind of things. As I understand, it's very expensive to do that, rather than building generation on site.

All of those things will be part of the plan, through the member, and we'll be discussing those so that we don't have rolling blackouts in the city of Victoria. One would never like to see that. Can you imagine the newspapers? They would all have the front-page story that Vancouver Island ran out of hydro. That would just be totally unacceptable, and we won't let that happen.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.