Hansard -- Volume 1, Number 21 -- Monday, August 20, 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

Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 7). Hon. G. Plant
	Introduction and first reading	1410

Community Charter Council Act (Bill 12). Hon. T. Nebbeling
	Introduction and first reading	1415

Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 19). Hon. R. Coleman
	Introduction and first reading	1415

Oral Questions
	Appointment of B.C. Hydro CEO	1420
	J. MacPhail
	Impact of offshore hake sales on fish processing plants	1425
	G. Trumper
	Status of youth employment program	1430
	J. MacPhail
	Burns Bog conservation proposal	1430
	R. Masi

Proceedings in Section B

Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 9)
	Second reading
	Hon. C. Hansen	1435
	I. Chong	1450

Lobbyists Registration Act (Bill 20)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Plant	1500
	J. MacPhail	1510
	Hon. G. Plant	1525

Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001 (Bill 17). Hon. G. Plant
	Committee stage	1535
	Third reading	1535

Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act (Bill 22)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Bruce	1535
	J. MacPhail	1540
	Hon. G. Bruce	1555

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Health Services estimates. Hon. C. Hansen
	Vote 33: Ministry operations	1605
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Cheema
	Hon. C. Hansen
	K. Krueger
	R. Stewart
	R. Hawes
	G. Trumper
	J. Nuraney
	Hon. K. Whittred
	I. Chong
	Vote 34: Vital Statistics	2040

Proceedings in Section A

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services estimates. Hon. G. Abbott
	Vote 20: Ministry operations	1440
	Hon. G. Abbott
	R. Stewart
	D. MacKay
	M. Hunter
	G. Trumper
	I. Chong
	Hon. L. Stephens
	R. Lee
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. T. Nebbeling
	V. Anderson
	Vote 21: Local government grants	1755
	Vote 22: Royal British Columbia Museum	1755

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Today I would like to introduce two guests who have been here before. First, Mr. Jim Abram, who is the president of the UBCM, is here with Richard Taylor, who is the executive director of the UBCM. The UBCM is an organization that represents all community councils and regional boards. Because of that role, it is a major partner in the creation of a community charter.

Today they are with us to witness the introduction of a bill that will initiate the process of bringing to British Columbia a community charter. We value not only their input but also the dedication to bring it into the House in the spring session. I ask the House to make them welcome.

R. Harris: This is my first time to be able to welcome some guests down from Terrace. I'd like to introduce to the House at this time the mayor of Terrace for the last 17 years, Mayor Jack Talstra, who is down here with his chief administrative officer, Ron Poole. They're going to be spending a couple of days in the capital, and I'd like the House to wish them welcome.

Hon. L. Stephens: I have the honour and privilege to introduce to the House today a delegation from Ethiopia. I know, Mr. Speaker, that you hosted a lunch today, and I have the honour of meeting with them this afternoon.

I would like to welcome our guests today. They are the Minister of Women's Affairs and members of the Women's Affairs Committee, House of People's Representatives, Parliament of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia: the Minister of Women's Affairs, the Hon. Tadelech Mechael; the Chairperson of Committee, the Hon. Hirut Birasa; the Secretary of Committee, the Hon. Ethiopia Beyene; committee members the Hon. Nuria Mohammed, the Hon. Meselech Wedajo, the Hon. Senite Andarge, the Hon. Asefash Tasew, the Hon. Aster Donocho, the Hon. Mr. Girma Tesema, the Hon. Mr. Mohammed Ahmed, the Hon. Hasna Waleo, the Hon. Zeyituna Teha, the Hon. Mesert Mamo; and their adviser, Ms. Hadera Tesfay; with the Parliamentary Centre representatives from Ottawa Mr. Ted Dreger and Ms. Raphaelle Vrain. Would the House please make them all welcome.

G. Trumper: It's my pleasure today to welcome — they're somewhere in the gallery — a delegation from the Alberni Valley who is here to meet Treasury Board regarding the proposed smelter project: the acting mayor, Donna Brett; the Chair of the regional district of Alberni-Clayoquot, Gary Swann; Hugh Anderson, who is the Chair of the Port Authority and a past member of the Port Alberni council and a Member of Parliament and was also given the Freedom of the City award last year. They also have with them Eric McCormick, who is the manager of the city of Port Alberni; Bob Harper, who is the administrator of the regional district; Dennis White, who is the manager of the Port Authority; and Janet Schlackel, who is the economic development officer. I ask the House to please welcome them.

Hon. G. Campbell: All of us in this House know how important volunteers are to our efforts to serve in public life. I'd like to recognize two people who have always been strong supporters of mine and of the B.C. Liberal Party. Peter and Helen Macdonald are here. I can tell you that Helen was a supporter way back in 1993, when I was seeking leadership of the party. I must admit, Helen, that I feel much better about you today than I did in 1997 and 1998 and 1999. But thank you for being there all the time. I appreciate it.

E. Brenzinger: It is my pleasure to introduce to the House three people in my family who are visiting Victoria today. I have with me today my mother-in-law, Ingrid Brenzinger, a retired linguistics professor from UBC; my husband, Leo, who is being a great Mr. Mom these days; and my youngest son, Alexander Brenzinger. I believe they're somewhere up in the gallery. Would the House make them welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today I'm pleased to have two guests in the House from the British Columbia Wine Institute. The first is Tony Stewart, from Quails' Gate Estate Winery in Westbank. The other is Harry McWatters from Sumac Ridge Estate Winery in Summerland. They're both located in the great riding of Okanagan-Westside. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: I would like the House to welcome two of my very good friends from Burnaby, Jeanette and Neil MacKay.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased today to be able to introduce Susan Rogers, who is visiting with us from Winnipeg. I'd like to say she's here to check out question period. She's actually here to check on a member of my staff, her daughter Danielle. Please make Susan welcome today.

H. Bloy: It gives me honour today to have the pleasure of introducing Debbie Moffat. Debbie Moffat worked tirelessly on my campaign and donated many hours running the food bank. She also works very hard in the community as Chairperson for Burnaby's 7th Mountain Scouts, and she's active in her parent advisory committee at the school. I would like to ask the House to make Debbie Moffat welcome, along with her friend who's visiting from London, England, Gary Appel.

Hon. G. Abbott: Visiting Victoria today from Sicamous is my wife, Lesley. I would ask the House to make her welcome.

Hon. J. Murray: I have the pleasure of introducing two people today. One is a constituent from New Westminster, Michael Cairns, and his friend Nick Deeley. Michael was a very capable and energetic volunteer in my campaign. He is moving to Ontario tomorrow, unfortunately, but I'm hoping B.C. can lure him back before too long. Please make Michael and Nick welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce today the president and CEO of Riverview Hospital, Marion Suski. Riverview Hospital is a significant employer in Coquitlam-Maillardville and one of the largest mental health facilities in British Columbia. I'd ask the House to make her welcome.

J. Les: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House a good friend from Chilliwack, John Jansen. He was previously a member of this House from 1986 to 1991 and, amongst other things, currently serves as the Chair of the B.C. Milk Marketing Board. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001.

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

Hon. G. Plant: I am pleased to introduce the Constitution (Fixed Election Dates) Amendment Act, 2001. This bill would amend the Constitution Act to provide for a fixed date for general elections every four years. It will enact the new-era commitment to establish a fixed provincial election date under the B.C. Constitution Act to ensure that provincial elections must be held on a fixed date every fourth year or immediately if a government loses a confidence vote in the Legislature. Another new-era commitment made, another new-era commitment kept.

In its terms the act will provide that, subject to the right of the Lieutenant-Governor to prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly as the Lieutenant-Governor sees fit, a general election day must occur on May 17, 2005, and subsequently on the second Tuesday in May in the fourth year following the most recently held general election.

The government believes that the certainty and predictability brought about by this reform will serve to make government more responsible and accountable to British Columbians and will encourage greater fairness and trustworthiness in the political life of the province.

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 7 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.

Hon. T. Nebbeling presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community Charter Council Act.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move that this bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I am very pleased to present the Community Charter Council Act today. For a long time local governments have asked for greater autonomy over decision-making powers that impact their local citizens. The community charter will do exactly that.

The Community Charter Council Act is the first step to create the process to complete a community charter for the spring session. I believe, and so do all my colleagues and local governments, that the charter is for local governments and must be created in consultation with local governments. Today we fulfil our 90-day commitment to introduce the process that will allow local governments to indeed have a voice in how the community charter will be created. The charter will give local governments greater autonomy. It will stop provincial downloading and prohibit forced amalgamations, and the charter will give local governments greater abilities to create financial resources.

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

Bill 12 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.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

Hon. R. Coleman: This bill amends the Consumer Protection Act by removing the requirement that direct sellers be licensed, and it amends the Credit Reporting

Act by removing the requirement that credit reporting agencies be registered. These amendments are introduced in accordance with a promise made in the New Era document: the reduction of red tape and the regulatory burden on business. This reduction can take place without compromising consumer protection. I will speak about each amendment in turn.

Direct sellers licensed as companies, not as individuals, sell such products as home renovations, cosmetics and vacuum cleaners at a place other than their permanent place of business. Typically, this involves door-to-door sales. In the latter part of the 1990s, since the introduction of direct-seller licensing in 1994, B.C. has worked with other provinces and territories to develop harmonized rules for direct selling. These rules address the abusive practices that licensing was introduced to combat and include a cooling-off period that provides the consumer with an absolute ten-day cancellation right.

Licensing is not a required element of the harmonization agreement. Licensing in B.C. has proven ineffective as an enforcement measurement for direct sellers, with most complaints being addressed through non-licensing enforcement methods. These include application of the rules of general application, the Consumer Protection Act and the Trade Practice Act, which continue to apply to direct sellers. The regulatory burden on business may be lifted without negatively impacting consumer protection.

These amendments also eliminate the requirement that credit reporting agencies register with government on an annual basis. Credit reports contain information about an individual's credit history and are used by lenders to make decisions about whether or not to grant a loan. Registration costs credit reporters time and money and does not assist government to ensure that the rules set by the Credit Reporting Act are followed. Under the act, credit reporting agencies must give consumers access to their own credit reports and correct any incorrect information in those reports. Agencies must have procedures to ensure the accuracy and fairness of the information they collect, and they are prohibited from collecting certain types of information. All consumer protection rules remain in place with the repeal of the registration requirement.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be placed on orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: If I may, hon. member, I believe we neglected to move the first reading and introduction, if you would be so kind.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that Bill 19, intituled Consumer Protection Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, be introduced and read for the first time now.

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

Bill 19 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: At tremendous cost to the B.C. taxpayers, the Premier has appointed the B.C. Liberal transition committee Chair Larry Bell, CEO of B.C. Hydro. The Premier promised that it would be a non-partisan public service, yet we know that Mr. Bell has donated tens of thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party. It has also been reported that a salary of a large size will be forthcoming to Mr. Bell, although that came from the Vancouver Sun and the Province, so we need to check our facts on that.

To the minister responsible for B.C. Hydro: can he confirm the salary that the CEO of B.C. Hydro will be paid? What other terms and conditions is the CEO subject to?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, let me say to the member opposite that our government has decided that it's going to go out and attract the best and the brightest British Columbians to public service in this province. It is necessary that we do that, because her government — the previous government — decimated the public service, appointed people with no experience, with no background, and did inestimable damage to Crown corporations like B.C. Hydro. When you can go and attract someone like Larry Bell — a former Minister of Finance, someone who's been active in the government for years, a former Chair of B.C. Hydro, someone who has been an active participant in the business community of British Columbia, who can help bring together the energy policy of this province — I say we should say: "Thank you, Mr. Bell. It's great to have you here, Mr. Bell. We're looking forward to working with you, Mr. Bell."

J. MacPhail: Certainly the Premier's tune on that has changed since his election. Let's look at what the Premier truly has in mind, then, by appointing Mr. Bell. During the election this government and this Premier promised British Columbians that they would not sell, privatize or deregulate B.C. Hydro, including the transmission lines. Now the architect of privatization who is Larry Bell, the architect of privatization of B.C. Gas, has been appointed the CEO of B.C. Hydro. Is that the best and the brightest in terms of accomplishing the goal that the Premier has in mind?

In his estimates the Minister of Energy and Mines said that B.C. must provide "independent power producers unfettered access to those transmission lines." Unfettered access means one of two things. It means either privatization or deregulation — one of the two. That's how the Premier's story has changed. Will the minister please explain to British Columbians how his comments are anything other than a direct contradiction to what the now Premier said during the election?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member should read the New Era document and focus on it, because that's exactly what this government intends to do with energy policy in the province.

J. MacPhail: Indeed, British Columbians expect this Premier to fill in the gaps of information that were not contained in the New Era document, and that's what this session is all about. After B.C. Gas was privatized, Larry Bell served as director of B.C. Gas and as a senior director of TransAlta.

As the Premier may know, many companies require senior executives to undertake to not work in the same industry for a period of years after they leave. Given Mr. Bell's close connections with companies that stand to gain from the energy deregulation that will occur in this province, it would give British Columbians great comfort and great confidence to know that as CEO, Mr. Bell has no incentive to sell, privatize or deregulate its parts.

Again, to the Minister of Energy and Mines — I assume he wrote the contract: does Mr. Bell's contract include that he not work for any part of B.C. Hydro that may be sold or privatized, or for any company that stands to gain from the deregulation of energy in B.C., for a period of years following his term as Hydro CEO?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it would be best if this member understood that the people that we're appointing to government have a far higher ethical standard than the people that she appointed to government.

Mr. Bell's background, both in public service and in private life, has been a background that has always been focused on what's best for the province of British Columbia. He has been asked to join us as we develop an energy policy. He has been asked to take over the helm of B.C. Hydro, which was mismanaged for years and years and politically manipulated under that member's government. So that member should know this: Mr. Bell, as all other heads of Crown corporations, will come to the Committee on Crown Corporations of this House, and you can ask him any question that you'd like.

I can tell the member this: we will have an energy policy which will put our consumers first in British Columbia and which will take advantage of the energy opportunities that British Columbia has, so everyone in this province starts to benefit from that incredible resource.

G. Trumper: I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. Fish processors on the Island are concerned that local fishers are selling their catch to offshore factories such as the Polish fleet instead of to the fish processing plants in British Columbia. Many of these processing facilities fear that the supply of hake has been jeopardized by the size of the catch that has been sold to the offshore factory ships. What is the minister doing to ensure the sustainability of processing plants in British Columbia which rely on this catch for survival?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to say to the member that I have met with the owners of those plants and have toured those plants. Certainly, there has been a significant level of investment made there based on the understanding of a long-term policy that priority access would be given to shore plants. I have written to the federal minister indicating our opposition to further allocations to the joint venture, to the Polish vessels. We will work with the federal minister. We have also spoken to the federal minister, the Hon. David Anderson, and will continue to work with our Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations to ensure that these plants get the fish they need based on the longstanding DFO policy.

G. Trumper: I would like to address the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations. The federal government is responsible for determining how much of the hake goes offshore. British Columbia fish processors are fearful that the federal government will increase the quota of acceptable offshore sales and threaten the survival of these processing plants. Will the minister tell us what he is doing to ensure that the federal Ministry of Fisheries addresses the concerns of British Columbia processors?

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: To the member opposite, certainly the hake industry is important to the economy of British Columbia and particularly to the coastal communities and the fishers and processors over there. Further to that, I have been working with the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries on a common position for British Columbia. About three weeks ago we met with Herb Dhaliwal, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and outlined our position. He has promised us that he will be reviewing their policy this fall, and we will certainly be a part of that.

Just last week we had the opportunity to meet with Stephen Owen, the leader of the Liberal caucus in

British Columbia. He had met with some of the processors as well, so he's aware of our concerns. He's bringing those concerns to their caucus in Edmonton this week and will be meeting with federal members of the Alliance Party, as well, to make them aware of our position in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Last week six young people in Nanaimo were fired from their jobs two days after they were hired, because this government axed funding for a youth team initiative.

Now, cast your mind back three years ago. The now Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise almost came to blows with the former Premier because a young person in his riding lost his youth employment position. How things change. The Minister of Competition has axed six young people from their youth employment positions because he thinks hiring young people to fix our environment is a subsidy.

To the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Three years ago he almost came to blows over youth jobs. Could the minister explain to these six young people in Nanaimo why he's cut their summer jobs? And how many other young people's jobs has he taken away that we don't know about?

Hon. G. Collins: The member can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the program she's speaking about is something where the government provides subsidies to elements in the public sector to hire youth for part-time jobs in the summer. There was a policy in place — and it's been a longstanding policy in place — that people not make hires until such time as funding is granted. Funding had not been delivered to any of these programs, to my knowledge, at this point in the fiscal year. I and my ministry have been undergoing a review of all of our programs. That is one that we have decided not to continue with as part of our ability to keep the government's finances under control, and it's unfortunate that anyone was hired prior to receiving any notice of grants. Those agencies should not have done that.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I fear for the safety of the Minister of Finance if the Minister of Competition and Science hears that answer. I say he should not go out into the hallway when the Minister of Competition and Science is out there, because what the Minister of Finance has said is that he's cut jobs for young people — the great defender of young people during the last election. They've cut the programs for young people, so I fear for his safety. These young people were to complete a habitat restoration project and protect an endangered ecosystem at Rathtrevor Provincial Park.

To the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: can the minister explain to these young people why her government took their jobs away?

Hon. G. Collins: I'll continue with the answer that I gave earlier. Members of the public, the various parts of the public service in British Columbia understand how this program works. They're not to hire people until such time as the funds are granted. The previous government had not granted those funds. I have chosen, out of the Ministry of Finance, not to grant those funds.

What I would like to add, though, to the member opposite is that I expect there to be many jobs for young people in British Columbia in the future, and we'll actually see our youth unemployment rate go down over time. The reason for that is that this government understands that the way to keep longstanding, good jobs for people in British Columbia is to make sure our economy is doing better than it's been doing for the last decade. That's why we put tax cuts out there for small businesses, for medium-sized businesses and for individuals. I expect we'll see lots of jobs for young people, and we'll see them coming back to British Columbia instead of leaving.

R. Masi: Burns Bog, located in Delta, is home to a wide variety of plants and animals, many of which are now in danger. The people of Delta are very concerned that this scenic greenspace may be damaged by development. Can the minister tell us what the government is doing to preserve and protect Burns Bog?

Hon. J. Murray: In opposition we promised to acquire and protect that important ecosystem, Burns Bog. Its ecological integrity and future were at risk due to the NDP's support of the development of a theme park.

This was a new-era commitment to acquire and protect Burns Bog. One of the first actions the government took was to put in place funding for a federal-provincial agreement that included the funding for Burns Bog. We remain committed to acquiring and protecting Burns Bog.

R. Masi: I realize that there is a deal — and our constituents are strongly supportive of this proposal — intended to transform the area into protected territory. Can the minister tell my constituents the status of this deal at the present time?

Hon. J. Murray: Negotiations with the landowner have begun, and they're underway. We're confident that we can reach a deal. One thing that I would like to assure British Columbians, though, is that this government is committed to getting value from taxpayers' dollars, so we will not pay one penny more than fair market value for this property. We will

acquire and protect it, and we will involve the local community in how it's managed.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, by prior agreement we will be discussing the estimates of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 9, the Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 9, the Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, be read a second time now.

Bill 9 is the result of legislation brought in by the previous government during its term in office. In 1997 particular amendments were brought in to section 16.1 of the Health Authorities Act. The amendments had two purposes.

One was to allow the government to force government-funded non-profit societies that own and operate health facilities to amalgamate with government-appointed health authorities. In essence, what it did was: if even a small amount of money went from the government health budget into a not-for-profit organization, this gave government the power to seize their assets, fire their volunteer boards and force those facilities under the ownership and operation of the local health authority.

The other provision in that change was an amendment to the Expropriation Act so that when this happened to not-for-profit organizations around the province, they also could be denied compensation for the assets that were expropriated. That was done by way of an amendment to the Expropriation Act.

This bill, which was introduced last week and is now before the House for second reading, repeals that section of the Health Authorities Act. It also repeals section 2(5) of the Expropriation Act. In essence, this bill before us today will put the wording of the Health Authorities Act back to what it was prior to 1997.

I recall that debate in 1997 very well, because at the time it was going through the House, I rose in this chamber and asked the minister some very specific questions about what the changes that they were proposing might entail. If I can, I'll share with the House some quotes from Hansard from July 23, 1997, because I think it's instructive, first of all, to give you a sense as to how this legislative change was first brought in. Secondly, it also points out, I believe, the importance of the debate that takes place in this chamber. We often think, as legislation and other matters go through this House, that somehow the debate itself at times may not seem directly relevant to what we're trying to achieve. To me, this was a case in point of how important the debate in this chamber is.

This was my question to the Minister of Health of the day, who is currently still the member for Vancouver-Hastings: "If we have, for example, a private nursing home that's run either by a private corporation or by a not-for-profit society, does this particular section give the minister the power to in effect expropriate those particular facilities?" The minister of the day responded to me and said: "No, there will be no expropriation." Later when I came back, just to re-emphasize this point, again she said: "The clause does not in any way contemplate expropriation."

That particular section from Hansard actually became part of a judgment that was brought down by the Hon. Madam Justice Southin of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, in a judgment that she brought down relating to Glacier View Lodge, which I'm going to talk about in a second. Madam Justice Southin's reflection on this particular exchange in Hansard was this: "From reading this reply in the Legislature, I can only conclude that the then minister puts a meaning on the word 'expropriation' different from its common meaning."

Not only should these amalgamation provisions devised by the former government be repealed, they should never have been introduced in the first place. In the summer of 1997, only a few months after this legislation was passed and in spite of what the minister had assured me in the House that day, that government used this provision to force a registered not-for-profit society in the Comox Valley, known as Glacier View Lodge, to amalgamate with the local health authority. It was outright expropriation, and it was to be done without compensation. When the government proceeded down that road, the community got quite exercised over the prospect of a very valuable long-term not-for-profit society in the Comox Valley being expropriated without compensation as a result of that provision. The Glacier View Lodge Society chose to challenge section 16.1 of the Health Authorities Act in court and to appeal to the public for their support in getting this legislative provision changed.

The people of the Comox Valley expressed their dismay with this legislation, which affects every not-for-profit facility in the Comox Valley and in northern Vancouver Island. It puts them under the threat of expropriation without compensation. As much as the media attention on this particular case has centred on the Glacier View Lodge in the Comox Valley, it also affected communities and community-run facilities in Port Alberni, Qualicum-Parksville, Victoria and indeed throughout the province. This is not a story about Glacier View Lodge in the Comox Valley. This is a story about every single not-for-profit health care facility in British Columbia. Under the provisions of this legislation, every single one of them was under threat of expropriation without compensation by our provincial government.

Through the lengthy court challenge by the Glacier View Lodge Society and a very spirited public debate that ensued around this issue, efforts to stop the previous government's policy were successful. But in doing so, they sent a letter to give reassurance to the residents of the Comox Valley that they would stop the action to expropriate the assets of Glacier View Lodge and that they would not proceed. While they didn't change the legislation, they did try to give the reassurance that that legislation wouldn't be utilized. But the continued existence of this legislative provision remained a huge concern for the residents of the Comox Valley, who viewed it as a potential barrier to fundraising by the society and as an ongoing source of distress to members of the society and to the individual residents of the lodge.

Indeed, hon. Speaker, as long as this provision is on the books, every single not-for-profit health care facility in the province has that cloud hanging over their head. I have talked to community-minded volunteers throughout British Columbia, who normally would have been the leaders in their community to go out and raise the dollars necessary to help build not-for-profit facilities for long term care, extended care and multilevel care in the communities. The word had got out around this province that those efforts by community-minded volunteers could be negated by a simple act of the provincial government to walk in after they had put all of their time and effort into a community project — to see that community project then expropriated by government.

You know, hon. Speaker, I want to quote again from the judgment that Madam Justice Southin brought down earlier. I will simply quote without comment, because I think the Madam Justice's words speak for themselves:

Today it's time to right the wrong that's been done. It's time to let non-profit organizations like the Glacier View Lodge Society feel secure in their endeavours. It's time to kill this snake. We made it very clear prior to the election that we would repeal this legislative provision. It was in our New Era document for all to read. If I quote from that New Era document, we said that we would "support community services volunteers and repeal the NDP legislation that allowed government to expropriate community health facilities without compensation." Hon. Speaker, that was a commitment that we made, and that is a commitment that we are fulfilling today.

Section 16.1 of the Health Authorities Act should only be included in that act for the length of time it takes to repeal it, and not a moment longer. This government values the contributions of hundreds of non-profit societies that play a significant part in the delivery of community health services across this province. As someone who has roots in the Comox Valley and on behalf the entire government caucus, I am proud to thank the efforts of the Glacier View Lodge Society and its supporters from the Comox Valley, Parksville, Port Alberni and beyond for its brave fight in defence of the volunteers and charities of British Columbia.

After this legislation was introduced on Thursday, there was a large delegation that was here from the Comox Valley, Parksville, Qualicum and Port Alberni. After the legislation was introduced, we gathered in the office of the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, who's the MLA for the Comox Valley. As I was leaving that small reception, a reporter asked me if I took some personal satisfaction in bringing in this bill today. My response to her was that the greatest satisfaction I got out of bringing in this bill was the enthusiasm that I saw in the eyes and faces of those volunteers.

I had met with most of those volunteers in previous years, and what I found in those previous years was that they were disillusioned, disappointed and distressed by the action that government was taking against their hard-working efforts as volunteers in their communities. What I saw on Thursday after this bill was introduced was renewed enthusiasm. I got a sense that those volunteers will be back working hard in their communities to make sure that the volunteer efforts are there to supplement — not in place of, but to supplement — the efforts that government is able to do to make sure that we have adequate health care services and adequate health care facilities throughout British Columbia.

So Bill 9 sends a strong message that our government welcomes non-profit societies and volunteers to play an integral role in the delivery of health care. It's time to turn the page and get on with the job of building a health care system that welcomes the participation of non-profit groups and volunteers.

I. Chong: I rise today with pleasure to speak on second reading of Bill 9, the Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001. This bill is neither long nor complicated, but as was indicated by the Minister of Health Services, it is very significant.

This piece of legislation returns stability to several non-profit and volunteer organizations which had operated health facilities throughout our province and donated these facilities to our communities. They were concerned when, in 1997, the NDP government of the day went out and seized those assets without compensation. It wasn't always so much about the compensation but the fact that the government of the day would go and in fact seize these assets, which our volunteer and non-profit groups had worked so hard for — raised money and had these facilities built.

In the riding that I represent, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the one facility that affected me was the Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health, or the Queen Alexandra Hospital. Clearly, the previous NDP administration did not recognize or value the contributions made by the volunteer sector of this province. While in opposition I disagreed with the tact taken by the NDP government, as did many of my colleagues. It was so obvious in our minds — so obvious — that there should never be expropriation without compensation. I remember, at the time, the Minister of Health Services being so vociferous and so particular in asking the questions of the Health minister of the day as to why there was expropriation without compensation. And at the time the Health minister, who is now Leader of the Opposition and the member opposite, ignored most of his comments.

So the NDP moved ahead with its vicious attack. There were many non-profit groups that spent money reorganizing, as well, by establishing a foundation that would hold the assets. The foundation then would be separate from the society that would run the facilities. At that time I questioned why our non-profits had to spend moneys they had to raise through fundraising efforts to reorganize in this manner just to protect the assets — assets that should never have been under attack. In the end, though, the NDP, while in government, were still wishing to acquire the assets of Queen Alexandra Hospital. But because of the outrage in the community, they did agree to have an arbitrator step in to satisfy all the parties' concerns. I recall that was in the fall of 1997, as well as early in 1998.

The person they had assigned to this was a lady by the name of Ms. Miriam Gropper. She was hired to come to terms with the suggestions that were being offered by the society and what the government wanted to do, which, again, was to seize the assets. Eventually an agreement was drafted, but that agreement, strangely enough, mirrored the suggestions made by the society, which was that the assets should be retained by the non-profit group and that the operations could still be run and funded by dollars from the provincial government. In essence, the asset would be leased back to the government for a dollar, essentially still allowing the asset ownership to be held by the foundation. Those were the suggestions made by the society, and after I don't know how many dollars were spent by the then government, that was essentially what was drafted. At the time I felt it was an extreme waste of time and money, that the government couldn't just see the commonsense approach being offered, as was being offered by many other non-profit groups who were trying to establish the same set of rules and guidelines.

Over the course of the next three years each and every year — 1998, 1999, 2000 — I got up in this House and asked a question of every successive Health minister as to where we were with that agreement. In fact, it had been drafted in 1998, but it had never been signed off. Every successive Health minister would always answer that it was about to be signed off, but the following year I'd pose the same question and get the same answer: it was about to be signed off.

That uncertainty has lingered on for far too long, and I am so proud today that our government has acknowledged that we have to remove that uncertainty, that we have to return these assets to our non-profit groups, that we have to value the contributions made by our volunteer groups by ensuring that they know there is continuity, that they can continue to provide the services in their communities without fear that the government will come along and take away their assets.

So as I rise to speak on second reading, I say this to all those who may be listening, particularly the constituents that I represent. You finally have a government that has listened, you finally have a government who acknowledges the value that non-profit groups and volunteers have in our communities, and we finally have a bill that will restore the consistency, that will restore confidence back into their sector. Today is the first day of that turning of the page, as the Health Services minister has indicated. We should be proud, and we should all support this bill. With that, I'll take my seat.

Bill 9, Health Authorities Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Mr. Speaker: We'll recess for just a moment or two while the Attorney makes his way to the House.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the indulgence of the House for the last few minutes. I rise to speak to Bill 20. I move that Bill 20, the Lobbyists Registration Act, be now read a second time.

Bill 20 is another step in implementing this government's commitment to open, accessible and accountable government. The bill implements a throne speech commitment made at the outset of the current legislative session. Lobbying is a fact of political life, and lobbyists can have considerable effect on government policy. This bill will create a new act and a new process that will require lobbyists who are paid to lobby government to register and to have their actions and intentions open for public scrutiny.

Lobbyists, whether they are on contract or are regular employees of an organization, will be required to provide information to the registrar of the registry. That information will include the following: the name of the lobbyist, the identification and address of the employer or client of the lobbyist, the nature of the business of the employer or client, information about any subsidiaries of the employer who have an interest in the lobbying, the purpose of the lobbying, the date the lobbying starts, the name of any public officials contacted or to be contacted by the lobbyist and whether the employer or client is funded by government.

The registrar of lobbyists will be the information and privacy commissioner. It will be his office that will set up the registry. The registrar — that is to say, the person who holds the office as registrar will be the person who holds the office of information and privacy commissioner — will have, under this act, some powers. These include the power to verify the content of each registration and to refuse to accept or to remove a registration that does not comply with the act. It will be an offence not to register or to file false or misleading information. A fine of up to $25,000 may be levied for such an offence.

In drafting an act intended to make the business of lobbying transparent, it's important to set out what the act will and will not apply to. This act, as drafted, will not apply to the following: members of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada; members of the legislative assembly of another province or their staff; employees of the government of Canada or another province; members of a municipal council, regional district board, improvement district board, school district board or other local government authority or their staff; members of an aboriginal governing body in British Columbia or their staff; diplomatic or consular agents or officials of the United Nations.

In saying that the act will not apply to these people, it's important to make clear what I mean. The people who fall into the categories I have just outlined will not be required to register if, in the course of their activities, they choose to make contact with members of government or members of the Legislature or senior public officials. However, if the people who fall within those categories were themselves to retain a professional lobbyist, the lobbyist would have to register the fact of their retainer, and all of the other requirements would apply.

There are also some other important limitations on the application of the act to make sure that it does not interfere with basic elementary processes of parliamentary democracy. For example, the act will not apply to people who make representations to public committees of the Legislative Assembly or a public body under an act of the province of British Columbia. The act will not apply to people who are commenting on the implementation or enforcement of existing programs.

The act will not apply to people who are responding to a request for comment by a public official. Someone in my position, for example, could seek input from the public about a particular issue, and people who respond to that request for comment would not be obliged to register in relation to their response.

The act will also not apply — and this is important — to persons who contact their own MLA regarding a personal matter. Citizens who contact their member of the Legislature to advance what MLAs often refer to as case files will not be required to register under this act.

The act will also not apply where the registrar is satisfied that the disclosure of a person's name or other information about that person would endanger the safety of that person.

There are some forms and regulations required in order to make sure that the act is put into place in a way that makes good public policy and public administration sense. The act will not come into force until the regulations are complete and the register is established and ready to accept registrations. I expect that the timetable for the implementation of this will be to work to have it come into force at the beginning of the next fiscal year.

The act attempts to strike a balance. It does not regulate in any detail the profession of lobbying. Its focus is on transparency and openness. Its focus is on ensuring that the public — for the first time in the history of the province, I might add — will have access through a public register to information about who deals with government for pay in order to influence the members of government to change public policy, grant benefits or enter into contracts.

We looked at other models. There are, as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, two other jurisdictions in Canada that have lobbyist registration requirements: Ontario and the federal government. We looked at those models to take from them what we thought would work best in British Columbia. This act represents our attempt to take from the Ontario and federal statutes a bit of what works for us here in B.C. and to draft it in a way that makes sense for us overall. In drafting the bill, we were mindful of this government's commitment to minimize the impact of regulations on businesses in British Columbia and, in fact, to reduce their impact over the life of this

government. We attempted to draft the bill, which will give effect in a meaningful way to the objectives of openness, transparency and accountability, without unduly or unnecessarily extending into an arena that would amount to the regulation of the business of lobbying.

It's a new initiative in British Columbia. It's an initiative which, I suggest with respect, is overdue. I think it's a good step down the road to ensuring that government is open and accountable. I'm certain that like all new initiatives, this one will bear some watching. Certainly as long as I'm in a position to do so, I will be watching this act and its implementation to make sure that it's serving its purposes in the most efficient and affordable way possible, as I think is the test that should be applied to all legislation.

J. MacPhail: Let me just put forward, for the Attorney General's consideration, some questions. I know this is a debate in principle, but I'd actually like him to seriously consider these questions as we move forward into the next stage in the coming days. This is the first time that British Columbians have been subject to a lobbyist registration act. I listened carefully to the Attorney General's opening remarks to see what problem is trying to be resolved here. I'm not exactly clear on that, so we need to have a discussion at committee stage to understand what problem is actually trying to be resolved.

Is it inappropriate access to public office holders — I think that's the definition; yes, public office holders — of which I'm one? Is it that we're trying to limit undue influence or influence peddling, all terms that have meaning within the law in other jurisdictions? If indeed the thrust of this is not that lobbying is wrong, lobbying has to be stomped out or we need to have such an open and accountable government that people don't need a lobbyist to get to the government, then what is it we're trying to achieve here? Is it that we're just trying to put on the record who's got contact with whom?

If it's the latter, I have a major concern about the bill, and it's where the act does not apply. There are two sections, as the Attorney General was describing, to which the act does not apply. One is if the government of the day or a public office holder — and it could be me — has asked or sought advice and therefore the initiative has come from an MLA, then that's not considered to be lobbying. With the honour and recognition of the entire legislative chamber here, there are 77 opportunities for that to be invoked by the government and perhaps only two opportunities for the opposition to invoke that exemption, so I am nervous about it.

What it means is that the government, through written direction, can ask a wealth of people to give them advice. All that written request does then is say to the lobbyist: "Don't worry, pal; you're off the hook. You don't have to register as a lobbyist, and you don't have to tell us what your business is."

Let me just give you a couple of practical examples of where that's already occurred. The government has appointed the progress board. In a written form, the Premier has asked for advice from the progress board, so every single person that sits on it is exempt from this legislation. And who is sitting on that progress board? Well, it's the CEOs of major companies, the CEOs that will have a direct interest in the policy of this government. It's the CEOs of energy companies, financial institutions and forestry companies whose daily CEO lives are directly influenced by government actions. In the reverse, daily government actions are what these CEOs want to influence. Yet the government has given written direction to the progress board to seek advice on certain matters, and therefore, they're completely exempt from this legislation.

Today the Premier appointed his Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. If you look at the list of people he has appointed to ask directly for advice, the majority, if not all of them, are major players in corporations that have a direct ongoing interest in government activities. They also happen to be major donors to the Liberal political party. So they clearly have a partisan interest in the government, and now they've been appointed to the Science and Technology council to give advice to the Premier. They're exempt, and their companies are exempt from this legislation.

So who is it trying to capture? Well, we know that the government isn't asking for advice from environmental people. We know the government isn't asking for advice from people who represent working people through trade unions. We know that women's social policy organizations are not on the Premier's list of appointments, so they will definitely not be exempted from this legislation. They will be covered by the legislation.

So once again, even though it all seems innocuous and it all seems like, "Oh, this piece of legislation is just for the good of all British Columbians," what the legislation doesn't cover is more important than what the legislation does cover. You have to put it together with this Liberal government's actions already on who they favour in seeking advice from. They favour their corporate backers — the large corporations, the CEOs of the corporations and the business community in this province. Putting the two together — who they are appointing to positions of advice-givers and thereby having them excluded from this piece of legislation — gives a leg-up to the business community to not have to reveal their dealings with this government. I think that is regrettable under this legislation.

I might just say one other thing. In committee stage I'll be asking the Attorney General for his comments for future use, and that would be on the personal matter of a constituent and the Member of the Legislative Assembly.

As I understand it, if a constituent comes forward on a personal matter and lobbies or make

representation to the MLA, that is exempt from the Lobbyists Registration Act as well. Again, on the surface it seems fairly thoughtful and certainly seems to protect the interests of the private citizen. If that is the case, so be it, but there are many times, as an MLA, where a personal matter of a constituent interferes with the rights of another constituent. That's the business we are in, in terms of balancing the interests of all of our constituents. There are times when a personal matter of a constituent means it's about the personal circumstances of the constituent, but it's also about how government actions have affected the personal circumstances of that constituent. It could be a small business person coming forward with an advocate, imploring the government to take action because of his changed personal circumstances arising out of government action.

I do not want this piece of legislation to become a shield against competing interests of constituents, and I would urge the Attorney General to think about that very carefully, once again, in the exemptions from this legislation. I'm trying to wrack my brains, Mr. Speaker, after ten years of public service in my constituency, about a time when such a circumstance would arise that would need an exemption. Frankly, if constituents are dealing with a personal matter that is truly of a personal nature, they come themselves. There is the confidentiality requirement that we all live by and that pretty much all of my colleagues in this chamber have lived by greatly. But there are also times when personal issues of one constituent are really about changing government action, and that should not be excluded from the Lobbyists Registration Act.

My last concern is with the growing trend of this government to introduce red tape to the economy. This was an interesting piece of legislation in that it's fraught with red tape. Lobbyists now will have to go through incredible red tape to register: filing of reports, specific forms and the content of the return. In fact, a substantial part of the bill, even though it's legislation, is devoted to the red tape that this government is introducing. So on the one hand, a government that prides itself on slashing, having a sale of two for one — "I'll give you one regulation," says the Premier, "if you give me back two" — has introduced a substantial amount of red tape.

Again, that's in the context of who the bill is really trying to target. It won't be that the big CEOs of the corporations in this province will have to meet the red tape, because they are exempt. Most of them are exempt by virtue of the fact that they've been asked to give the government advice. So it will be the women's organization in the downtown east side, first nations and perhaps tenure holders that need to fill out these forms. It will be small business people, whom I'm very concerned about. It will be those who represent working people through unions that probably will be affected by this.

I know that there is plenty of time. We can relax and spend time on this piece of legislation. Between the time that we discuss it at committee stage and now, the Attorney General can put his mind to perhaps tightening up this piece of legislation as we proceed through committee stage.

Hon. G. Plant: Seeing no further speakers, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I'll give her remarks the attention they deserve.

I will make one or two comments about some of her suggestions. Not surprisingly, she criticizes the act for being too narrow and for being too expansive — that is, she wishes it covered more but then says that it's already overly regulatory. I say "not surprisingly" because I'm used to hearing arguments that have a certain unsoundness on public policy principle from that member and the party she represents. But she did make some practical suggestions that, if I can understand them properly, I'll certainly give some consideration to.

Let me say this first of all. This act isn't intended to regulate or affect the way this government does business today or tomorrow. This is intended to be an act that will endure, and it will affect all governments. It will affect our government and the successor government. It's intended to be an act that will work for governments generally to ensure that the work that governments do is made more open and transparent.

The second general comment is that this act is primarily focused on the business of lobbying — people whose profession or business it is to lobby government, people who are paid to advocate positions on behalf of clients to persuade government to issue contracts, grant benefits or change policy or law. It's primarily targeted at a relatively narrow sector of the business world, which is the business of trying to persuade government to do something.

So when the member complains, if I may put it that way, that it may not apply to the Premier's Progress Board or the Premier's council on technology, the answer to her question — at least as I understand it so far — is pretty simple. Neither the Progress Board nor the Premier's council on technology are lobbyists. They are agencies or organizations set up by the Premier's office to provide public policy advice and information and guidance to the Premier. They were not established for the purpose of engaging in the business of lobbying.

When I look at a statute that's called a Lobbyists Registration Act, it does seem to me to make relatively good public policy sense to not have it apply to boards or organizations that are not in fact about lobbying or the business of lobbying. Sure, they're there to give public policy advice to the Premier and, through the Premier, to the government, but in my view that's not lobbying. And I expect that the majority of the advice that these organizations give in the course of the work they do is in fact going to be made public, so the public will know what advice the Premier is getting from the Progress Board and the Premier's council on technology.

The member asked the question: what is the problem which this act is attempting to fix? I think the problem, if you will, is this. It's not a question of

whether there is inappropriate access to officeholders; nor is it a question of whether lobbyists have undue influence on officeholders. It's not a bill that is concerned with making a moral or ethical statement about the business of lobbying. It's concerned primarily with making sure that there is more openness around a large part of the work that is done to try to persuade government to take public policy decisions.

When I was in opposition, sitting on that side of the House and watching the work of the former government, it seemed to me that a huge amount of the decision-making by the former government was made behind closed doors as a result of the influence of lobbyists — that is, people who were using their influence with government to seek to change government policy or direction. Now, I'm not complaining about the fact that there are lobbyists who do work out there. There are lots of good lobbyists who do good work in terms of informing their clients about the business of government and advocating on behalf of their clients to try to change government policy.

What I argue for is something that maybe is just a little bit too modest for the member opposite — who did, after all, have ten years to introduce legislation of her own. What I advocate for is simply that the public is entitled to know a little bit more about how the business of government works. They're entitled to know that there are people whose terms of employment with their employer say: "Your job is to go and try to persuade governments to change policies." Those undertakings and those activities happen, generally speaking, behind closed doors. They certainly don't happen on the floor of the Legislature. The public, I think, are entitled to know a little bit more about what goes on — not because what goes on is necessarily wrong, but because when governments spend public money and do the public's business, governments have an obligation to open up that business to public scrutiny.

It may be that the opposition leader's fundamental objection could be summarized quite briefly: this act doesn't go far enough. We'll deal with her questions, I suppose, in committee stage. But you know, it goes a heck of a lot further than any initiative ever undertaken by the former government, and I think it actually does find a reasoned balance among the competing considerations. In terms of regulatory requirements, I think it's a pretty light burden. Essentially, the people who are doing this business are going to have to file a form and provide a little bit of information about who they are and the business they're doing. I don't think that people who do that business are going to find that form terribly onerous, and I think that people who do that business, sharing any of what I have in terms of my principles of how governments ought to operate, will be glad to contribute to the spirit of openness and transparency in government that this act will promote.

That concludes my comments, and I look forward to further comments and questions from the opposition leader and other members, if they have them, when we get to committee stage debate. I move second reading.

Hon. G. Plant: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Lobbyists Registration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Plant: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 17, Provincial Court Amendment Act (No. 2), 2001, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm pleased to move this bill be read a second time. Bill 22 is a bill eliminating the fixed-wage policy and is another step towards our goal of eliminating unneeded and damaging regulation. This wasn't a fair-wage law as it was called; it was a fixed-wage law, and it has been anything but fair. It burdened provincial taxpayers, construction companies and construction workers with an uncompetitive wage system and did little to promote skills development.

To give you an idea of the scale and scope of the fixed-wage program, in the fiscal year 2000-01 nearly 800 projects with a value of $1.5 billion came under this

legislation. All of these contracts were tendered without giving taxpayers the benefit of an open and fully competitive tendering system. All of these contracts were tendered without giving all companies an equal chance to bid. However, I want to make it perfectly clear that getting rid of restrictive tendering is not about compromising safety, and it's not about forcing workers to take less.

Labour force information shows that there is a looming shortage of skilled people in construction. There are projected to be approximately 50,000 openings in the decade ahead. Over one-half is due to the baby boom generation reaching retirement. This means that people with skills will have plenty of choice about who they work for, and it means that companies that want to attract and retain the best people are going to be the ones that offer the best wages and working conditions, including training opportunities.

Our government is fully committed to increasing the number of skilled workers in British Columbia in construction and in other sectors. But there has been no evidence that fixing wage rates and protecting trade jurisdictions has resulted in more apprentices being trained. I would argue that fixed-wage legislation is not the right tool for the job. The best training program is a healthy construction industry. With a healthy industry, you will see good wages for skilled people. You will also see that people who are motivated to improve their skills are rewarded for getting additional training. You will see that companies are motivated to provide it.

Finally, I would like to state clearly and for the record that this government fully intends to honour contracts awarded under the previous government's restrictive tendering practices. However, we will be seeking to make savings on contracts awarded in future.

This bill fulfils yet another of our government's 90-day-agenda commitments. It allows for open tendering, and it allows the competitive marketplace to operate. It gets us out of the way of innovation and gives everyone an honest chance to compete. These will be the foundations of a strong economy and a strong construction industry in the years ahead.

J. MacPhail: It may surprise the members of the Legislature that I am not going to fight this to the death, because of course the government did campaign on this during the election. There's no question about it. On this particular one, they were pretty straightforward. They of course used to taunt people by calling it the fixed-wage legislation, but nevertheless they did that fully explaining what their actions were. British Columbians did know, in a very straightforward fashion, that this government was going to end the fair-wage legislation. The government has stood up, unlike perhaps some other pieces of legislation, and they haven't fooled around with their commitment. It's straightforward. People who discussed this matter received accurate information during the election about what the government planned to do, and hence we have Bill 22 here.

I say to the government straight up that there will be no challenge to the straightforwardness of this exercise, unlike some of the accusations I've made in the past — well, accusations with substance always. In this particular case, I want to have some discussion about what exactly is going to be the consequence of repealing this legislation. I'm putting it to the government that I will be watching to make sure that the advances that were achieved under the fair-wage legislation are not now eroded. This will be as much for the record to test the government's progress in a few months or a year, but also to put on the record for those that are re-entering public service about what they must protect in their responsible role as a member of the executive council.

I know that the thrust of this legislation from the Liberal government has been that somehow fair-wage legislation really increased costs horrendously to contractors in the construction industry and that that increased cost put an unfair burden on the taxpayers. The proof in the pudding, the testing of the government's theory, will be this: when this legislation is in effect and no longer will there be a threshold level for wages, does the value of the contract put to the government for bid decrease, or does the money just go into the pockets of the contractors? If the government's premise is proven here — the Premier goes around and says that this legislation costs the taxpayers $300 million, $400 million, although I'm going to present some evidence to say that he's wrong — the government should have some way of proving their premise that that was an unnecessary invalid cost. They should be able to say that the taxpayers' construction costs have gone down by $300 million to $400 million.

Here's why I put that question to the minister for him to present the evidence for, very quickly. I expect what will happen is that the new-found money for contractors, which they're not paying in the form of a fair wage to workers, will go into their own pockets. It won't go back to the taxpayer; it'll go into the profit margin of the contractors, which is why Phil Hochstein of the ICBA wanted this legislation in the first place. For all contractors who paid fair wage, there was a level playing field whether you were union or non-union. Then people had to turn to quality issues to determine the best competition — quality and being on time and on budget — because there was definitely an open tendering process. So I will be watching to be shown how this legislation puts money back into the pockets of taxpayers and not into the pockets of contractors.

But there were other aspects of the fair-wage legislation. In his opening remarks the minister recognized this, because he said that he knows he has a problem to deal with here. The fair-wage legislation required that companies also contribute to the training of the workforce and that they give that training in a fair and equitable way to all British Columbians.

There was a very good reason that the former government required that caveat; it's because these contractors are spending public dollars. Mind you, they're contributing to the economy — absolutely. But it's taxpayer dollars that they're taking. They're building hospitals, schools, roads and highways. But it isn't the private sector that's contributing to the private sector; it's the public sector putting forward these dollars that stimulate the economy.

So it made sense, the legislators of the day said, to get some value for the public in the long term for their hard-earned tax dollars going to these construction contractors. The law said: "You've got to train workers; you've got to have apprenticeships on your job. You've got to have a certain number of journeypeople on the job to make sure that training and safety can take place. Secondly, you've got to train people outside of the norm that you've been training in the past. You can't just say that the only people you're going to train are males of a sturdy, healthy nature. You have to train women, who traditionally have not been part of the construction workforce."

In areas where there was an aboriginal population suffering high levels of unemployment, the government of the day said: "We're going to take the tax dollars and ensure that people in the community are trained and benefit from these tax dollars being spent in their community. You've got to train aboriginal, first nations, people."

Then the government of the day also said: "And with the tax dollars, contractors, you have to train people with disabilities who can work in the construction trade." But the contractors, left to their own devices, weren't training those people.

This became increasingly important when the industry was going through a very, very difficult time dealing with the leaky-condo crisis. They're not related in terms of a legislative connection, because the leaky-condo crisis was among developers and construction workers who weren't covered by legislation — the residential contractors and builders. But at the same time, there was a crisis of confidence amongst consumers. Consumers were devastated by the lack of quality construction that they were being faced with each and every day, literally in their own homes.

So the then government said: "We have to do something to shore up that confidence, so we are going to require a certain level of accountability amongst contractors who are using public dollars to build." That was one reason why this was put into place — not just the fair-wage aspect of it but also the requirement to train and contribute to a skilled workforce.

The other reason was that we were in the mid-nineties, and the baby boomers were — are — aging. There were predictions even in the mid-nineties of a skill shortage that would emerge at the end of the century, 2000, and would be exacerbated into the next century. And it wasn't as if we were going to be able to get males. There weren't enough white males to fill all of the vacancies. We knew that if we were going to rely on the traditional group of young people to draw from to train in trades, we would fail. We had to look for some other area to draw young or middle-aged people from to train them in the trades.

We gave that impetus in the legislation, and it has proved to be very effective, Mr. Speaker. Was the problem resolved as a result of the fair-wage legislation? No, it wasn't resolved, but there were huge improvements, and I'll go through that. I just want to put the government on notice — and I say that advisedly, with respect — that I will be monitoring to see how their repeal of the fair-wage legislation achieves any end or any goal of resolving the skilled labour shortage. I will be watching that carefully.

Let's look at what was achieved in the decade of the nineties in terms of the changing face of labour in the construction industry. Just to go through it, there was a study done by Marjorie Griffin Cohen, renowned economist at SFU, and Kate Braid, who also works at SFU. They refer to the fact that the occupations in the construction trades are amongst the least integrated of all. Not only have women been kept out but so, too, have other potential workers from minority groups. In B.C. women accounted for less than 1 percent in construction trades. The story is the same for first nations, only slightly better for other visible minorities and most dismal for those with disabilities. So something needed to be done. That was at the beginning of the 1990s.

An important first step was made when women and first nations were trained for construction work on the Vancouver Island Highway. I don't know whether the community of the minister responsible for this bill touches directly on the Vancouver Island Highway, but I know that the area certainly benefits from that construction. Here's what happened. During the construction of the Island Highway, during peak building periods, the people from those two equity-hire groups, women and first nations, in about equal proportions accounted for over 22 percent of the workforce, whereas in the general industry of the construction trade less than 1 percent are women. That's a huge benefit.

One had to go on even more to understand that there was a benefit to contractors with the fair-wage legislation in that the government set up HCL, which at the time was called Highway Constructors Ltd., although they have expanded. They were responsible for assisting contractors with training and dispatching workers. It was not that the government of the day imposed all these rigorous minimum-wage requirements in the construction industry and then said: "Go out and cope on your own." The government of the day assisted with training, hiring and occupational health and safety. All of that is gone now.

At the beginning not everybody accepted the fact that there were more women and first nations in the workforce and that there had to be a common working relationship, a partnership relationship, amongst the contractors, the local community and assistance from HCL and the government to make sure that there was a proper use of government funds to expand the skilled

I know that the Premier and the Liberal government did a campaign promise that was very glib and certainly had a lot of appeal to non-union construction workers. I know that Phil Hochstein of the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association, ICBA, lobbied long and hard for this, and I know that Phil Hochstein was the single largest donor to the B.C. Liberal Party in the year 2000. He made almost $150,000 in donations to the Liberal Party.

So we had to sort of say it was a slam-dunk that the government would be eliminating the fair-wage legislation. All British Columbians want to make sure is that while this government moves along on its risky, hasty agenda to deliver for its corporate backers, it doesn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. They definitely want to level the playing field so that Phil Hochstein doesn't have to train people, doesn't have to pay people fairly and perhaps can put the rest of the money into his own profit margin — although I expect the government knows that it will have to prove that the money doesn't just go into the pockets of the non-union contractors.

I have a study here that was done by Marjorie Griffin Cohen and Kate Braid. It was August 2000; it's very current. It's the summary of the value of the fair-wage legislation and the application of that legislation to various taxpayer-paid projects. I'm going to table this for the benefit of the minister. Actually, I won't table it; I will just make sure he gets a copy of it. It will be on the basis of this success that we will watch as this government pays off another one of its large Liberal donors, perhaps to the detriment of ordinary British Columbians.

Hon. G. Bruce: Bill 22 is just one more of our New Era document 90-day-agenda items that we said we would do and now are doing in fulfilling it. It's all part of making British Columbia more competitive and restoring the economy so that we have jobs from one end of this province to another, not just in certain areas. All these pieces that we have brought in and changes to legislation through the Labour ministry have been aimed at ensuring that there are good jobs for everybody — well-paying jobs — and with that, there will also be the appropriate skills developments necessary through the province to meet the requirements in the future.

This isn't a question of the political contributions. I think some $330,000…. I'm not sure if it was the BCGEU that contributed to the former government's campaign fund or whether it was the B.C. Federation of Labour, but it was some $330,000.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, and we're not making and taking direction in government based on one particular special interest group or another. The entire program we have brought forward here is on behalf of all citizens, from one end of this province to the other, to restore the credibility and the economic vitality of British Columbia. That's what this, in part, will do.

Bill 22, Skills Development and Fair Wage Repeal Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Services and I agree, certainly for the benefit of the members of the House, that we'll be discussing issues with the Minister of State for Mental Health. If anyone else has any questions in that area, that's what I'll be proceeding with right now just for efficiency reasons.

Can the minister explain the relationship between mental health services and the health authorities?

Hon. G. Cheema: This is my first question from the opposition side. Let me first explain my role, and I think that will help the member to understand what my role is with the ministry. Maybe that will be helpful.

The definition of my role as the minister of state is very clear. It's a very flexible role. There are three main responsibilities that I have: (1) being the advocate for mental health patients throughout the ministry; (2) to build a public information campaign which will reduce the stigma attached to mental illness; and (3) to implement and fully fund the mental health plan. I do work with the Minister of Health Services, and I will work with any other minister where mental health patients are concerned to make sure they get the best possible care. As regards your specific question, I hope I have answered that.

I have to work with the Minister of Health Planning as well as the Minister of Health Services. It's a very unique role; it's very flexible. The main idea is to give the focus to mental health patients, which obviously was not given full attention in the past even though

there were good intentions. I understand that the mental health plan was brought in by the previous administration. It is the 1998 mental health plan, but unfortunately, because there were a lot of difficulties during that time, somehow they did not put the money into the mental health plan. I was examining the budget, and it was only $10 million over a period of almost two years. That was not good enough.

As the Premier saw, this issue has been ignored in the past. There are so many pressing issues which concern the day-to-day management of health services and long-term planning, so the two ministries were created. Then there were two ministers of state: one is myself, the Minister of State for Mental Health; the other, the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

The people of British Columbia are very fortunate that we are in the situation where we can focus. I know my job description; I know which direction we are going. I have met with many, many stakeholders and many interested groups, and there is not a single group that has told me that this thing cannot be done. It's possible. It won't be changed overnight. I am telling them when I meet with them that whatever we do for mental health patients is not going to have good effects in a week, a month or maybe two months. It may be six months; it may be one year, but we have to start somewhere. The positive process has been started. I am meeting with many consumer groups, and I'm getting a lot of feedback. In a short period of time we'll be able to tell the member more about the mental health plan. We will be fully funding the plan as well.

I hope we can get help from the opposition, especially the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She was the Minster of Health, and it's my understanding that she was very much in favour of the plan when the plan came in. Then somehow, because the critical culture was very different, it was ignored. So we are not going to be ignoring that issue.

Those are my three main responsibilities. I will repeat them again. The first one is to be an advocate for mental health patients throughout the government. The second one is to build a public information campaign. I think that's very crucial, because people see mental illness as a very significant issue, but they're always afraid to talk about the issue. They are not very open, because sometimes the stigma attached to mental illness is more dangerous than the illness itself. I think those are the issues I will be building on.

My third role is to implement the mental health plan. Of course I have to work with both Ministers of Health and many more ministers. I also have to look at the issue of how we are going to change the culture of mental health within the government's structure, within the hospitals, within the institutions, within the various groups, and how we are going to deal with the issue so that this becomes an important issue where the patients are given equal status. I think that's where we are moving.

I'm very positive that we'll be able to achieve many things, but they will not happen overnight. It's going to take some time. If you change the system of acute care, if you fund the hospitals more at this time — give more money, for example, to cardiovascular care — you will see the good effect. You will have a lot of patients coming for bypasses, and you will see the results immediately. For mental health it is very, very difficult. We are trying to give service to people who have been forgotten in the past.

I sincerely believe, and I'm fully dedicated. I have fairly good knowledge about what's happening in this province and in many other provinces and how this thing is going to evolve. People want to look towards us to resolve this issue. I have met with many organizations. They're all thinking in the same pattern. I would encourage the member to be on the positive side, to see how she can be of help and to give us some of her insight as to why the plan was not implemented when they were the government, why the issue was not given priority, why these patients were ignored and, I think, above all, why…. When you announce something, you should be able to deliver it.

I think there's a question of trust here, especially for people who cannot speak for themselves. There is not a single family that is immune to mental illness. In anybody's lifetime, any family's lifetime, you will end up having one form or another of the problem. One in five British Columbians at any given time will have one or another form of mental health problem.

That's the role, and I feel very positive about the role. I think we can really do very well. It's going to take a lot of courage, but I think most importantly it's going to take dedication and a commitment to fulfilling our obligation. We are going to fulfil our obligation. On page 23 of our New Era document it's very clearly stated that we will be funding and implementing the mental health plan.

I'll wait for the member to ask me more specific questions, but I must tell her that many jurisdictions in this country are very excited about this position. They think it's the first in this country, and I know it's the first in the country. I met with many ministers from other parts of the world. They were here three weeks ago during the World Assembly for Mental Health meeting, and they were also very positive and very excited that this is a new opportunity. I think we have a good beginning.

There's only one caution. When I go out, I tell them it's not going to be done overnight. It's a very, very difficult problem; it's a very complex issue. You need the patients, and you need the families. The key is the patients. We have to make sure that the patients are given proper respect, that families are given proper respect and also that health care providers who are working for mental health patients are given the proper tools to work for these patients. There are many, many advocacy groups, many volunteer organizations who have done a tremendous amount of work. They have put in thousands of hours of volunteer work, and nobody really appreciates that. I'm finding out, even myself, that there is so much out there that we can do.

I would certainly expect the member to be on the positive side of this issue so that we can achieve the goals that this government started in 1998. At least we have the chance now. I am here, and I don't have any other responsibility. I'm working full-time on this issue. We're spending a lot of time, and I'm getting help from many members of this House. We're trying to come up with a reasonable, rational and realistic policy approach to a very, very complex problem.

J. MacPhail: I hope the minister of state can pace himself a little bit, because I did ask a very specific question, and I got the full-meal deal. Perhaps I'll just address a couple of those right now, but it was a very specific question that I asked.

First of all, maybe the minister of state was absent when I said to the Minister of Health Services that I will be examining only the parts of the estimate that are new initiatives of this government. I fully appreciate that the Health Services budget is the budget that was brought in by our government. Virtually every health initiative that has been announced so far from this government, including the nurses plan, is with old money that was already there in the budget.

So the questions will be about what the minister of state has planned as part of a new government. There was no new money allocated for the mental health plan in this budget brought down on July 30. The plan had been funded by the previous government. If there are new initiatives, then perhaps the minister of state can stand up and say what those new initiatives are.

But my question was: what is the relationship between the Minister of State for Mental Health and the health authorities or regional health boards and community health councils?

Hon. G. Cheema: I will try to explain my role again. As I told you in my first reply, my role is very flexible. There are three areas of my job description. They are on the website, and anybody can have a look at that. I work with the Minister of Health Services. The Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning are responsible to work with the other authorities. I just work with them, mostly with the Minister of Health Services.

Again, my role is to implement the mental health plan, to be an advocate for mental health patients and to build a public information campaign.

If the member doesn't want to pay attention to the positive things we are doing, then it's your problem; it's not my problem.

Hon. G. Cheema: No, I'm not. I'm just trying to explain to you that you can ask me three times, and my reply is going to be the same, because that's what my role is. My role is very clear. I'm not going to redefine my role for myself. My role is to work for the mental health patients. That's my role.

J. MacPhail: I asked two specific questions. They are straightforward questions: what new money in the July 30 budget was allocated for mental health services, and secondly, what is the role…? Maybe what the minister is trying to say to me is that it's the Minister of Health Services who actually implements all of this and that he acts as an advocate on the issue of mental health planning. But does he have any authority over mental health programs and the health authorities?

So the question is twofold: what new moneys are in the July 30 budget for mental health services, and secondly, what is the role between the Ministry of Health Services and the health authorities with regard to mental health programs? Is it regionalized, community-based? Has that changed?

Hon. G. Cheema: I'll try to explain a little better for some of the specific questions. There is the same amount of money that was given in the March budget. We have the same kind of money dealing with the thirty-first of July. So it's the same amount of money; we don't have extra money attached for this year's budget.

The second question was what my role is with the mental health authority. Is that the second question? Can you repeat it for me, please?

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, there's no new money for mental health programs, despite what the minister said in his opening remarks. The money that's been allocated for the mental health plan is the money that was allocated by the previous government. Okay.

The second question is: do mental health programs under the new Liberal government operate from Victoria? Is there a mental health department within the Ministry of Health Services? What is the relationship between spending on mental health programs and the health authorities?

Hon. G. Cheema: The first part of the question was…. The adult mental health division provides the policy direction. That's the policy within the Ministry of Health Services.

Second is that health authorities deliver a broad spectrum of mental health services, including in-patient and out-patient assessment, counselling, treatment and outreach services and also residential services, rehabilitation services, emergency response and support to the consumers' families and caregivers. Health authorities also provide specialized mental health assessment services for persons with a mental handicap as well as a mental illness. These are provided by the capital health region, Simon Fraser health region, Northern Interior health region and the Okanagan-Similkameen health region.

The main thing is that within the Ministry of Health, there is an adult mental health division that will be providing the policy direction. The health

J. MacPhail: There have been substantial changes to the delivery of residential services in the Kamloops area. What involvement did the health authorities have in that?

Hon. G. Cheema: If the member is asking a question on a continuing care area, that's not part of my responsibility. You have to ask the other minister. If there's any question regarding mental health, then please go ahead.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair, it was about mental health. I asked specifically what the services were that health authorities offer in the area of mental health. One of the areas that the minister of state listed was residential services for people requiring treatment for mental illness. There has been a longstanding planning process for a residential psychiatric facility in Kamloops. What role, if any, in the provision of residential services did the health authority participate in, in the change of plans announced last week?

Hon. G. Cheema: I know where the member is going now, which direction. There was no announcement made last week. We made no announcement; we are not changing that plan. The commitment made during the campaign was for a Kamloops provincial facility; we are going to be fulfilling that obligation.

We had an initial discussion. The Minister of Health Services made a very clear statement that there's no change in the plan. But we will be meeting with the board and many other interested parties. I'll be going to Kamloops and meeting and also consulting with them. We are going to be fulfilling our obligation. There is no change in the plan. I think the most important thing is that in 1995, 1996 and 1997 the previous government made the commitment. That commitment was not fulfilled. We are going to be fulfilling our commitment, the commitment that was made during the campaign by our Premier and then by the Minister of Health Services. I'll re-emphasize: there's no change in the plan.

J. MacPhail: For reassurance, could the minister of state please outline the plan that will be proceeding: number of beds, type of institution and where it is at in construction?

Hon. G. Cheema: I'll read it again because I don't want to be stuck in the words or have the language changed by the way the person who is asking the question wants to look at it. Let me just make it very clear again: our government is committed to a psych facility in Kamloops. We want to ensure that the new facility will meet the need and support our focus away from institutional care. We have to make sure that patients get the best possible care, and that means the institutional beds as well as the long-term beds and that we are going to be requiring rehabilitation beds. We have to look at the new model of delivering mental health care. I think the Kamloops area is going to be very pleased to have a facility. It's going to be a provincial facility. It's going to be a state-of-the-art facility. We'll be meeting and discussing with them, not only with the board but also the medical staff and many other interested parties. We are going to fulfil our commitment.

J. MacPhail: I think this a question that actually requires technical detail. The minister of state has said that there has been no announcement about a change in plans. All I'm asking him to do is stand up and describe the facility that his government is building, because the planning and approval process was for an 88-bed regional psychiatric institution. Stand up, please, and describe the commitment. Is that the commitment that the minister of state is making — for an 88-bed facility, which is what the community has been working on?

Hon. G. Cheema: I think the member is trying to put some kind of legal trap here. I will just again explain to her that we are going to fulfil our commitment.

Hon. G. Cheema: I am answering the question. I don't want to answer the way you want me to answer. I'll be answering the way I know. We are going to fulfil our commitment, and that's not going to be changed by you asking me the question. I think we have to go to Kamloops, and we'll be explaining to them. We'll work with the interested groups. We are going to work with the health authority. We will work with them. You can smile, and you can make all the faces. That's your problem.

My job, my responsibility, is to implement the mental health plan. That's one part. The second part is that the commitment was made for Kamloops, and the commitment is going to be fulfilled. That's my final answer.

J. MacPhail: The minister of state misjudges my thrust here. That facility was planned after a lot of input from the community. The community has worked long and hard in building the facility. There have been troubles with the planning process with the city around the parkade. There's been a lot of trouble.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Health Planning, who seems to want to get into the debate, says: "Your government had the chance to build it — your government." Well, the fact of the matter is that the money has been there, the approval certificate has been there, and the community is devoting a lot of energy to getting the 88-bed psychiatric facility built and integrated with the city zoning laws. They're doing an excellent job, and they're about to start construction.

All the minister of state has to do is stand up and say that the planning process that the health authority has put in place, that the city of Kamloops has worked on, that the Royal Inland Hospital has worked on for years — that that is the facility that's going ahead. Here's what the rumours are in the community: this government is cutting the regional psychiatric facility down in number of beds and that the remaining residential beds will be put out to some sort of process about planning for smaller group home units. So all the minister has to do…. It's not a political trap; this is current discussion going on in the community.

Let me ask it this way, then: what will the Minister of State for Mental Health be discussing with the community of Kamloops? Will he be discussing how to proceed on his election promise to build an 88-bed psychiatric facility?

Hon. G. Cheema: If we want to get into the history of this facility, this member knows full well that it's your failed history on the Kamloops facility. It was a failure on your part. We are going to fulfil our commitment. Our commitment is to build a provincial psychiatric centre, and it's going to be one of the best centres. The people of Kamloops and area are going to be very happy. We will provide a new model of delivery. Minister Hansen has met with some of the groups, and I am going there to visit and meet with them. The staff will go with me, and we will explain it to them. They will be very happy in the long run because our intention is to take care of our patients. The caregivers, the hospital board in Kamloops and whoever wants to talk to us…. We will go and explain to them, but the main idea is to fulfil that commitment. I think it's the trust there.

If I look at when the member was the Minister of Health, there was one story in Kamloops, I think, in 1997. The minister said at that time: "Let me reassure you this will be done." We are not going to do that. We are going to do the real thing. We have met with some of the groups, and the planning has been done properly. Our commitment is going to be fulfilled. At the end of the day, our commitment is to the patients. That is what's going to be done.

J. MacPhail: During the election, what discussion around the psychiatric facility occurred? Did the Liberal government say: "We're going to build a provincial institution, but it won't be 88 beds"? Did they say that?

Hon. G. Cheema: We made commitments during the campaign. There were two parts of the commitment. One was a 90-day commitment, and we are fulfilling all of them. This commitment for a psychiatric facility was part of the pre-campaign. The Premier made the commitment, then the Minister of Health Services made the commitment, and we have clarified it a number of times. I have tried to explain to the member that our commitment is to build a psych facility in Kamloops. It's going to have acute care beds, long-term beds and also rehabilitation beds. The member should know; she was Minister of Health.

During this time, if you want to provide the best possible care, acute care beds are important. They are a very important part of the health care system, and so are long term care beds and rehabilitation beds. If a patient is discharged from an acute care facility, where are you going to send them? Our idea is to keep them in their communities. In the Kamloops area we want to make sure patients are with their families. We also have to take care of their families. You can't move the families from Kamloops to Vancouver.

You should understand that this is a very complex problem. These things are not resolved by two minutes of estimates questions. It's not going to be done. You took seven or eight years. It was a wasted opportunity for you people. On this side we are going to be fulfilling that obligation. I will repeat the answer again: we will be building a psych facility in Kamloops. You can scratch your head. You can do whatever you want. But the answer is going to remain the same. We are going to fulfil our obligation.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, let me try a different approach to see if I can get some information out of the Minister of State for Mental Health. The Premier went to Kamloops and said that the psychiatric facility in Kamloops will proceed as planned. Until last week the health authority thought "as planned" meant an 88-bed psychiatric facility. When did the community first become aware that the psychiatric facility that this government is building will not be an 88-bed psychiatric facility?

Hon. G. Cheema: I looked at the whole process, and we had a good discussion with ministry officials. I met with the deputy minister, associate deputy minister, and also met with people who are in charge of planning this psych facility. It was a good discussion, and we looked at it from all angles. Also, at the end of the day we decided that we are going to go there and talk to the board. We are going to go and talk to the medical staff. We need to talk to the mayor and the council, and we need to go and talk to the health advisory committee there.

We have to sit down with them and explain to them the whole process. At the end of the day we are going to fulfil our commitment. Our commitment was to have a psych facility in Kamloops, and I think we will be providing one of the best facilities possible. Members should know that when they were in government, at Riverview Hospital they announced a 20-bed facility, and that's a new prototype facility. That's one of the good facilities. It's going to be built at Riverview Hospital. We want to look at all the things now.

At the end of the day the most important issue for us as a government is how we are going to be serving our patients and their families and to make sure that the patient receives that care where they live and in their community so that they don't have to uproot their

family. It's very difficult for mental health patients to move away from their communities. So our commitment is going to be fulfilled. We will be implementing the mental health plan as well, which will also complement this facility and many other services which this government will be providing for mental health patients not only in Kamloops but in many parts of this province.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I asked a very specific question. It may be just that I didn't understand the tense, but when did the minister of state discuss the change in plans with the community? So far I heard that he discussed it internally with his officials and amongst his colleagues. When did the community become aware that there was going to be a different kind of psychiatric facility built?

Hon. C. Hansen: I decided to participate at this stage, because what the member is asking about is decisions that were made well before the election and made while I was Health critic. Maybe I can just take a minute to fill the member in on some of the history around this particular facility. This is a facility that was first promised to the community of Kamloops in 1993 by a previous government. Here we are in the year 2001. There has yet to be a shovel in the ground after eight years of NDP government, eight years after that promise was initially made.

The promise to build that provincial psych facility in Kamloops was reiterated by the NDP government prior to the 1996 election. It became a big issue during that election, because Kamloops, as this member will know only too well, has been betrayed by the previous government. A previous leader by the name of Mike Harcourt promised Kamloops that they were going to get a cancer centre, and then in 1991, after the election of the NDP government, that promise was reneged on by the NDP government. In 1996 Kamloops got promised once again, three years after the initial promise, that they were going to get their provincial psych centre.

Do you know what happened after the election? Twenty-eight days after election day, 28 days after the election in which they reiterated their promise to the people of Kamloops, they froze all of the capital construction projects across British Columbia, including Kamloops. Is that member going to stand up and tell me that they did not know that in the middle of the election campaign, when they were making that promise to the people of Kamloops? They put them on hold — iced them.

Shortly after that freezing was brought in…. In fact, I believe she was named the Minister of Health immediately following the election in 1996. She was actually the Minister of Health on that day that the Finance minister, Andrew Petter, had to admit to the public of British Columbia that they had been betrayed in the middle of the election campaign and that these capital projects were in fact not going to proceed as they had been bragging about during the campaign.

The next year, while this member was still the Minister of Health in this province…. This is from the Kamloops Daily News, dated October 28, 1997. The headline says: "Psych Facility Funding for RIH to Go Ahead, Health Minister Says." Let me read from this article. It's a quote from the member, and she says: "Let me assure you, 85 beds in Kamloops are going ahead. There is no doubt about that." That was just under four years ago.

Let me also just read another wonderful paragraph from this article — again, referring to the member for Vancouver-Hastings. She suggested — this is while she was Minister of Health — that two facilities may be preferable to one. A facility of more severe cases that needed acute care services could be located beside the hospital. Another facility could be located nearby for people who needed less acute care support. I know very well that during the years while the member was Minister of Health and during the term of the one, two, three, four ministers that served after that period of time in a very short space of years, there was a very active debate as to what the appropriate model was to meet the needs for the delivery of mental health services in British Columbia.

During that period of time a lot was changing. A lot was changing in the whole philosophy and the principles around how mental health services should best be delivered in British Columbia. We made it perfectly clear last January or February. I can't remember the exact date on this now. We made it very clear that we were committed to proceeding with making Kamloops a centre for mental health services in British Columbia. But we were also clear that we weren't necessarily buying into the exact model that the previous government was trying to impose and that we reserved the right to look at that model. So in terms of the commitment that we made to the people of Kamloops, the commitment we made during the election campaign, that has not changed. We will live up to our commitment. As the Minister of State for Mental Health has said, we will ensure that there is the construction development of a mental health facility in Kamloops that will truly make Kamloops a centre for the whole province in terms of the delivery of mental health services.

What I did last week in a meeting with representatives of the Thompson-Nicola regional health board was share with them some ideas around what that new model might look like. It was not, in any way, backing off from the commitment that was made. What it was saying is: "Let's look at the model to make sure that we best meet the needs of mental health patients in British Columbia." That was the sum total of it.

What happened after that meeting is that one of the individuals at that meeting decided to go to the press, as if we were announcing some change. We weren't. What we were doing was exploring some options. As the Minister of State for Mental Health has explained, he's going to be in Kamloops. He's going to be meeting with all of the various participants in this discussion to look at what that appropriate model is and how we can

move forward. I think, more importantly, the commitment from this government is that it's not going to take eight years to fulfil a promise. This promise will be fulfilled, and it's going to be done in as rapid and timely a fashion as it possibly can.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's all very well and good for the Minister of Health Services to try to rescue the Minister of State for Mental Health, but let's just go over some of the things that the Minister of Health Services has said. First of all, he says mental health planning is complex, is active and has to keep up with current trends. Yet here's a government now in office, when there was a mental health plan put in place that required active participation, which got the active participation, and that acts were changed, greater rights were given to patients, and then how the programs flowed…. This government stood up and slammed the fact that there was a process in place that may have taken time.

If the minister somehow thinks that putting an 88-bed psychiatric facility in a town that's as thriving and as complex as Kamloops is something that just occurs overnight, then we'll see. We'll see just how well he does.

Let's stake it in the ground right now. Somehow he thinks that all of the work that was done by the regional health authority, which was given responsibility for the planning of the psychiatric facility, was just a waste of time; that the complexities of integrating it with the rest of the acute care system, the complexities of the zoning, etc., was just the health authority wasting its time. Let me just say to the Minister of Health Services that at no time during the election did the member for Kamloops–North Thompson or the member for Kamloops ever stand up and say anything other than: "The psychiatric facility will be built." Guess what. The community then turned to the Premier, and the Premier said: "Have no fear. The Kamloops psychiatric facility will be built as planned."

I have just asked both ministers to stand up and confirm that they will be building an 88-bed psychiatric facility.

J. MacPhail: Well, 85 or 88. My apologies for not having exactly the same resources available as the minister does, that I have to rely on my memory. Let me just say that all the minister of state has to do is stand up and give reassurance to the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, because the debate is raging in the community that there will be an 88-bed psychiatric facility built, as was the plan. Believe you me, that community went through a lot of planning to confirm an…. I'm sorry, minister — is it 85 or 88?

J. MacPhail: If we're talking about a difference of three beds, then I'll concede to the Minister of Health Services, but that's not what we're talking about. What the Minister of Health Services floated was cutting the regional psychiatric facility in half and the rest of the beds going into the community. Just tell us what your options are.

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me, again, just go through the history. We made a commitment. The commitment was to build a psych facility in Kamloops. The psych facility must meet the needs of the community, and if you would understand that if we have to go according to your plan, then we'll be building a lot of things. You remember how much money was wasted, how much money has been wasted by your government on many things. I don't want to go into that. My issue here, the basic thing, is that people in Kamloops….

Hon. G. Cheema: Okay. Mr. Chairperson, we made a commitment. That commitment was to build a psych facility in Kamloops. Our commitment is that we will be building a new, model facility that's going to have acute care beds. That facility is going to have rehabilitation beds. That community is going to have long term care beds as well. That will meet the needs of the community.

The needs of the community for mental health patients are very, very complex. Those issues have to be resolved. We met with some of the members from the council. The Minister of Health Services has been in touch with them. The member for Kamloops and Mr. Speaker has been informed about all the discussions. At the end of the day Kamloops is going to get one of the best facilities in this province, and the patients are going to be the beneficiaries.

Our focus is on patients and their families. Our focus is also on taxpayers' money and trust — and also trust that if we say something, we are going to do that. The trust we are establishing is very difficult in this critical culture in this province after what they have done for the last ten years. So we are trying to break away from that culture. We are telling them as it is. We are explaining to them. We are sitting with them. I will be going there; I'll be meeting with them. I'll be meeting with the stakeholders, with the advisory group, with other interested Kamloops groups, and we'll be able to explain to them what we'll be building there. The most important thing is that our commitment is there, and we are going to be serving patients and their families.

K. Krueger: I've been listening to the debate incredulously because for seven long years, press release after press release, announcement after announcement, the people of Kamloops and the region,

and indeed people whose families needed mental health services, heard the previous government promise over and over again that this facility would be built. There was never a spade in the ground. I and everyone else, really, in Kamloops were aghast that a government would make a commitment that many times and not do anything about it. We asked ourselves why.

Some time ago we began to hear word cautiously leaked to us that the government had promised something that was not in sync with what mental health experts said was needed by mental health care patients and their families in the interior — that is, it isn't necessarily a good thing for long-term residential care mental health patients to be housed at an acute care hospital. It's one thing to have the acute care beds at an acute care hospital; it's quite another to have the extended-living services beds at the same facility. Indeed, the conventional expertise, the wisdom of the experts presently, is that it's best for people who need that residential long-term living space to be apart from an acute care facility.

I'm absolutely astonished at the crashing hypocrisy of the member for Vancouver-Hastings who would stand up here and presume to ask this line of questions when she herself said to the Kamloops Daily News on October 28, 1997, "Let me reassure you 85 beds in Kamloops are going ahead," and then suggested that two facilities may be preferable to one. "A facility for more severe cases that need acute care services could be located beside the hospital. Another facility could be located nearby for people who need less acute care support. The total number of beds…." The total number of beds would still be the same, she said.

So the minister was saying almost four years ago that what today's government is talking about might well be the way to go. Now she stands up in this chamber today and would lead this line of questioning, suggesting that the Health ministers of this government are somehow betraying a promise, when she herself said this was the right way to go. She just never had the political courage, nor did the Health ministers and the Finance ministers that followed her…. And of course, she was Finance minister too. They never, ever had the political courage to say: "You know what? It'd be a mistake to build this." It'd be like building another fast ferry and parking it on the South Thompson River, because it would be the wrong thing to do. It wouldn't be used.

There have never been more than 40 patients at Riverview from the entire region that this facility is intended to service, and a 44-bed facility allows for those 40, plus obviously more. So this government is looking at building three facilities, not one, with a total of 84 beds, one short of the 85 that the member for Vancouver-Hastings was talking about.

She should be absolutely ashamed of herself to stand up in this chamber and lead any of the questions she just led, because she did nothing but jerk the people of Kamloops around for all those years. She did nothing but deprive the mental health patients of the region of these services "closer to home," which was an NDP term that was used. Her record and her government's record were absolutely shameful, and of course that was just part of the whole pattern that led to the decimation of that party. May they never rise from their ashes, because British Columbians know what to expect from them.

I just want to have the minister of state confirm, if he would, that this is what we're really talking about: three facilities rather than one, care for 84 patients in the area, the goal of making Kamloops a centre of expertise for psychiatric care and mental health services for that whole region, and doing things according to what the mental health experts say is the right way to do things — rather than the tired, wrong-headed, crooked, hypocritical, rotten NDP practices of the past of doing the wrong thing for political reasons and letting people suffer while they mess around with their little political agendas.

Hon. G. Cheema: The member from Kamloops has been a very active supporter of this process. He's been fully involved. He has more information than the former Minister of Health. He has knowledge about the issue. He has been passionately involved with this issue.

For this member as well as for us as a government, the most important thing is the patients and their families. We have to make sure the patients and their families get the best care where they live. This area of mental health is very complex. We have to make sure, when we are spending taxpayers' money, that we are going to be building one of the best facilities possible that's going to have acute care beds. That facility is going to have long term care beds, and that facility is going to have rehabilitation beds. Certain patients, when they receive acute care, cannot be released back into the community. You want to give them a place where they can stay for a short time and their families can learn how to manage those patients so that we can take them back into their community.

The whole thrust of our health care policy has been to provide patients with the best possible care where they live. I don't think it's fair for anybody who lives in Kamloops to bring their family with them to Vancouver. If we can provide the care, we should do that. That was our commitment. The numbers game is a very dangerous game, and that's not good enough.

We have to make sure that we establish trust and respect for Kamloops. Respect for Kamloops is going to come when two members of this government have been working very hard with us. They have been telling us what's happening out in the community. Both of them will be participating with me when I go, along with the staff who are very well aware of the process. The process has been there for the last seven years — '93, '94, '97, '98…. Many promises were broken; many things were done wrong. I think this province has finally made a choice to elect a government which is responsible, which is accountable, which is caring and which is compassionate. I think that's the area we want to go. If

the member for Vancouver-Hastings wants to create another problem, that's her issue.

My answer to the member from Kamloops is…. I want to assure him and his constituents that the four of us within the Ministry of Health are working together. We are working with the health boards and with everyone who's concerned about mental health issues. We'll be able to deliver the best possible mix of services.

Mental health is not just putting one person in an acute care bed. It's more than putting a person there. You have to take care of the families. You have to make sure that those patients will get the best possible care in the community. That means that we need to talk to the various other groups as well. We will also be talking to them and explaining the processes to them, making them a part of the solution. I want them to understand what we are doing, so they will feel very much an integral part of that facility. We want to make sure that Kamloops has one of the best provincial site facilities possible. People will be very proud of that facility.

We are building 20 beds at Riverview Hospital. That's our prototype facility. We're building ten beds in Prince George and 20 in Victoria. That model will be one of the models. It's a possible model that will be good for the community.

I think people are fed up with the game which has been played in the past. They want some assurance, but they also want trust established here. These are the patients who have been forgotten. These are the patients who have been misled by the previous government. We want to make sure that we, first off, establish a relationship with them, talk to them, talk to not only the health care providers but the health care board and facility — each one of them. That's our role and responsibility. Along with the member from Kamloops, we will be going there and speaking to them. I want to reassure him that everything is going to be done to suit the needs of the patients in the Kamloops area.

J. MacPhail: I feel a little bit more comforted to know that a member of the government caucus, albeit on the back bench, is being stonewalled the same way that I am in the answer to his question. He asked a specific question. Will there now be three institutions where there was one planned before? The minister of state refused to answer it, so welcome to the club, member for Kamloops–North Thompson — stonewalled. Also, the filibustering of the Minister of State for Mental Health is completely unnecessary. All we need are answers.

When the government has to resort to constantly looking back to justify its own recent actions, they're way off base. People voted for a specific agenda from this government. What I said to the Minister of Health Services when I started the estimates was that we had a very clear debate, and I would only be talking about the things that have changed since the election. This is one thing that's changed since the election.

The planning process after 1997 was a fully integrated community process that came to the conclusion that we needed a substantial psychiatric facility — 80-plus beds. That's what happened after the examination was made. Somehow the Minister of Health Services said: "Oh my God, you, member for Vancouver-Hastings, actually speculated on this back in 1997." Well, guess what. The community was speculating on it, and they came to the conclusion to build the psychiatric facility that they thought they were building up until last week. That's the planning process that went on.

When the Premier went to Kamloops and said, "The psychiatric facility that will be built is the one as planned," the community thought it was the 88-bed psychiatric facility, unless…. Let me ask the question. Again, on behalf of the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, he referred to a different design. Was that different design discussed during the election, and was that the plan that the Premier was referring to when he said the psychiatric facility would be "as planned?" If that's the case, why is it coming as such a surprise to the community now?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me just go back again. The member is telling me that the people voted for us on a specific agenda. And they did.

Hon. G. Cheema: In this case, they voted for us on many issues. One of them was the psych facility. We said before the campaign…. The Premier made a commitment that we will be building a top-notch psych facility in Kamloops. We are going to be fulfilling that commitment. The member from Kamloops has said the same, and I said the same thing. The Minister of Health Services has said the same thing. All of our government is saying the same thing, so what is the fuss here? I think this member is trying to create a problem. I just want to reassure the patients and their families that our obligation is to them. Our obligation is to fulfil our commitment, so we will be building a top-notch, state-of-the-art provincial psych facility in Kamloops that's going to have acute care beds, rehabilitation beds and long term care beds for mental health patients. Patients can not only receive acute care; they can also receive chronic care as well as rehabilitation care, which is very crucial for patients if we want to bring them back into the community. That's part of the mental health plan as well. That's part of my responsibility.

My job is to make sure we implement the mental health plan, but it cannot be done in isolation, so we have to look at the whole structure. We have to look at every part of the province so that the patients will get proper care where they live, so they can get closer-to-home care. That was the philosophy of the previous government, but unfortunately, that was never implemented.

At least people have the reassurance that we are fulfilling our commitment, and we are also making sure that Kamloops will get the best facility and that the patients will be very happy. As part of the process, my role is to go and talk to them. I will be speaking to them and also taking their views, explaining what we want to do. I think that at the end of the day, they'll be very happy that we'll be giving them one of the best possible facilities.

J. MacPhail: When the minister of state goes up to Kamloops and the community says, "When the Premier was here, he said the psychiatric facility would be built as planned," and they then ask the minister of state, "What did the Premier mean by as planned?" what will the Minister of State for Mental Health say?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm going to intervene only because part of the division of responsibilities here between the minister of state and myself as Minister of Health Services is that I take responsibility for the capital planning side. This is an issue that is clearly on the capital planning side. How this facility is to function and to be integrated with other provincial programs is obviously something of primary concern to the Minister of State for Mental Health.

We knew prior to the election that there were some real concerns about the particular model, the 88-bed acute care facility without the community supports. There was real concern about whether or not that model would best be able to meet the needs of the community. There was no particular design, no plan, in our mind as to what to replace that with.

After forming government, after I was sworn in as Minister of Health Services, I realized that the ministry had done a considerable amount of work on this issue and that that work had been going on for some time. None of that was ever explained to the population of Kamloops. In fact, I can recall discussions that I had in Kamloops and with media in Kamloops — if the member wants to go back and find the articles, she'll find them in the Kamloops media — where I stated that I knew there were planning documents in the Ministry of Health that were not made public and which would call into question the particular purely acute care model that was being designed.

Quite frankly, I think that if that information had been shared with the people of Kamloops much earlier, like when that information was first developed, some of this time could have been better used to moving this project ahead. But after I became Minister of Health Services, I realized that the ministry did have a proposal to put forward in terms of how that facility could better meet the provincial and community objectives.

What I did in my meeting last week is share with members of the regional hospital district — who pay, as the member will know, 40 percent of the capital cost of construction — some of the thinking that was going on in the ministry about what this new model might look like. I think the member for Kamloops–North Thompson talked about the model, which would be 44 acute care beds complemented by two 20-bed modules of the residential style.

As I understand this, a lot of the thinking that's gone into this change in how mental health programs are delivered is that the purely acute care model that we would have looked at ten years ago no longer meets the best needs of patients. To go to a model that says to stay in purely acute care, that institutionalized hospital setting, should be to stabilize patients….

As I'm sure the member knows, the stabilization of a patient with severe psychosis can sometimes take a matter of days, or it might be a matter of weeks. But it's not like ten years ago, when we used to actually lock people up in acute care settings and keep them in a hospitalized environment for months and months at a time. With the new model, using some of the new medications, new treatments, new therapies that are coming available, stabilization can be done much faster in that hospital setting. Then move the patient into something that's much more of a home-style environment so that they can truly start to heal and get their lives back in order again. Hopefully, in short order they will be able to go back to their communities to live with their families. That's all part of a process, and that's some of the new thinking around care.

What we're trying to do is just reflect the fact that experts are telling us that a different model may be the best way of achieving these goals. I think it would be a mistake for us to go out at this point and suddenly say to the people of Kamloops that we in the Ministry of Health Services have already made up our minds as to what it's going to be, and it's going to be 44 beds of acute care, and it's going to be these two modules. I think what is more responsible on our part is to say: "Here's a model that has been put forward by experts. Let's sit down with the community and make sure that fits in terms of the land that they have available."

I think the short answer to the member's question is that we have not come up with hard and fast decisions as to what this model should look like. We do have a commitment to try to come to those conclusions as quickly as possible so that we can get on with the construction and the people of Kamloops can actually see that Kamloops soon will become truly a centre for psychiatric services in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: There's all sorts of work that goes on in the public service with various options for planning. For instance, the Minister of Public Safety introduced a bill about parental responsibility. That kind of information has been available in the public service for a decade and was examined and rejected by various governments. Just by virtue of the fact that something exists in the public service doesn't mean that the government of the day hasn't taken it into account and has chosen a different way of proceeding.

For someone to stand up and say, "All these documents were available, and therefore there was a secret agenda," is balderdash. It's absolute balderdash. Or then, if it is the case when we get to the Vancouver agreement and all sorts of that stuff, we'll hold this

government accountable for those documents existing in the public service as well. And why didn't they proceed knowing that these documents were existing? That kind of game, where the people responsible for policy are beholden to public servants putting forward various initiatives, is just wrong. Assume the responsibility; just assume the responsibility for which the executive council is charged.

My question was: when the Premier went to Kamloops during the election and said the psychiatric facility will be proceeding as planned, what did he mean?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to correct the record, earlier I said that 40 percent of the project is picked up by the regional hospital district. That's not the case; 100 percent is picked up by the province because it is a provincial facility. I did want to correct that before anybody got too excited on that front.

What the Premier said, and the commitment that was made, is that Kamloops is going to get a provincial psych facility. The commitment that was made is that Kamloops will become a centre of excellence for the delivery of psych services. That is our plan. That is what the Premier was talking about, and we will deliver that as planned.

J. MacPhail: I'm certain that all of this discussion is coming to the attention of the people of Kamloops with great interest, because all of the discussion since this story broke has been about how the community thought the Premier meant something very different. The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has not been able to explain what the Premier meant to say, by any stretch of the imagination, and he's under attack in his community. I thought maybe I could help by giving some comfort by getting straightforward answers. Clearly, what's happened is that not only has the member for Kamloops–North Thompson not been able to get his own questions answered, but there's not been any clarity for the community either.

R. Stewart: I have a couple of questions for the Minister of State for Mental Health, specifically related to Riverview Hospital. As you know, Riverview Hospital is one of the largest mental health facilities in the province. It is located in my riding. I note that the post office thinks it's in Port Coquitlam, but it is in my riding of Coquitlam-Maillardville.

My question to the Minister of State for Mental Health is: can you please tell us what is the future of Riverview Hospital?

Hon. G. Cheema: I just want to say thank you to the member. We have met with the board a couple of times, and we also met with stakeholders and various other interested groups. Riverview Hospital has a long history of patient care. They have done a great service to the community. The health care providers and the family groups have been working together to make sure the patients will get the best possible care.

What is going to be the future role of Riverview Hospital? I think it's an immediate policy decision which is going to be reviewed. Part of it's going to be the mental health plan. The idea is to make sure the patients are given not only acute care facilities but also the long term and chronic care and rehabilitation facilities. That's part of the service we'll be providing out of Kamloops also. Part of the Riverview downsizing is also providing long-term beds in Prince George and Victoria. So over a period of time we want to ensure that the patients will go back to their communities where they can get the best possible care — not only acute care but also transitional as well as rehabilitation care.

Over a period of a few years we'll be able to have more clear direction, but at this time we want to make sure that we review the whole process. At the end of the day, we must be able to provide the care to those patients. When we visited that hospital we were shocked that the buildings were very old, and some of the facilities are totally outdated. One patient has been there for almost 87 years. One patient has been there for 43 years. Somebody has been there for 27 years. That place has a long, long history of care. People are emotionally attached to it, so we have to be very, very careful that we get everybody involved in that process.

At this time we want to ensure that Riverview Hospital is part of the mental health plan. We'll be developing community-based care, so those patients will go back to their communities, and then we can take care of the other parts of the institution. Again, that's another issue which has to be dealt with in consultation with the community and also the health care providers. I must say that this is one facility where people have different views about the whole process and the whole of patient care. So far this place has served this province very well.

R. Stewart: I applaud the minister in one regard particularly, because he did join in a facilities tour that I was able to participate in. I really appreciated the opportunity to participate in that facilities tour. I of course had toured the facility in the past but had never seen some of the specific facilities that we were able to look at during our tour.

I don't know the last time a minister of the Crown was able to tour that facility, but as the minister of state discovered and as I was able to see, some of the facilities at Riverview Hospital have suffered from neglect. Some of the facilities at Riverview Hospital are a less-than-perfect environment for the treatment of mental illness. I wonder if the minister has some comments as to how we might address the facilities questions at Riverview Hospital over the long term, recognizing that the hospital that exists today does not have the patient base that it did at one point in the history of this hospital.

Now, with 808 patients, it nonetheless is a major facility in British Columbia and a vitally important one. But how do we address the facilities needs of that institution?

Hon. G. Cheema: The member has seen the place. The buildings are almost 100 years old, and some of the buildings are almost non-functional. Part of the long-term solution for the Riverview Hospital is to downsize the hospital and at the same time build a community-based mental health care system so we can take patients from the hospital and bring them back into the community. As part of that process, we are also building 20 prototype beds at the site and, thus, a new model of delivering mental health care. I think it will be very helpful. It's a good experiment and will benefit all those patients.

As far as the overall capital upgrading of the building at this time, I'm not sure how we are going to do it. But as we examine the whole mental health care system in this province, we will have a better picture. The idea is to not uproot the whole community and the whole institution. We have to do it in a way which is more human and also which is more caring and compassionate. Also, the patients must be given proper medical attention. I think that's the whole issue. Whether Riverview Hospital ends up with 300 to 400 beds in the long run — I'm not sure of the numbers — those buildings are not well suited at this time. We have seen that the washrooms are not even suitable for the average person to go there. We have seen where the keys are almost 100 years old. That key represents a power struggle and also a power over patients, so it gives a strange feeling. If you talk to the patients and the families, they are concerned. If patients are taken out of the hospital, where will they go?

We want to make sure that we first develop the community-based care before we send any patient out of the Riverview Hospital. I hope that will answer this member's questions. I encourage him to continue to work with the board and the health care providers to ensure that the proper care is provided at the community level.

J. MacPhail: What is the reporting structure between the board of Riverview Hospital and the Vancouver-Richmond regional health board?

J. MacPhail: Just a follow-up question to that, then. So the board of the Riverview Hospital reports to the Ministry of Health Services here in Victoria. I note that the Minister of Health Planning has the responsibility to examine the governance structure and make recommendations for alignment of community health councils, regional health boards, etc. Then it says, "including a recommended structure for the Vancouver-Richmond health board." Is there any prospect that the Minister of State for Mental Health will be looking at a closer relationship between the Riverview Hospital board and the Vancouver-Richmond health board?

Hon. G. Cheema: I think this question is more suitable for the Minister of Health Planning, and I think she is not here, so we can take that question on notice.

R. Hawes: My question to the minister surrounds the supervised release of forensic patients into communities. My question specifically — there are a couple of them — is: first, as part of the minister's budget, are the residency costs of such released patients, when they have no ties to a community and they're released into a community, under your budget?

Hon. G. Cheema: The main responsibility is with the health authorities. But we, through the Ministry of Health Services, do fund them for this special purpose. Also, there is funding for the patients who are released from the forensic facility into the community. So there is some comfort there, but the exact number of how much money is given per patient…. We can find that out. I can take that question on notice.

R. Hawes: I'm less interested in the amount of funding that's available and more interested in whether cost is a major driver in determining what community you're going to place such forensic patients in. Or is proximity to the supervisors and the treatment that's available a bigger driver? What's the big driver here — cost or treatment?

Hon. G. Cheema: I think there are a number of issues when the person is released into the community — first of all, the client's needs. Number two is the concern about the community and also the service providers, if they are available within that structure. There are multiple areas of choices for that person, but the main purpose is to settle that client.

R. Hawes: I think I get where you're going with your answer. I guess my question really would be, then: when forensic patients are released into communities, what's the reporting structure that you use to give prior notice to communities that these patients are going to arrive in their community and take up residence? Are the police notified? What do you do?

Hon. G. Cheema: All the intelligent questions are coming from the Fraser Valley area. When the patient is discharged from a forensic facility, if there is a need for police to be informed, then the police are informed. If there is a need for the community to be informed, then the community is informed. It depends on the client and the case worker and the mental health worker who is in charge of that person's services within that community. This issue is, again, very complex. I think everything is done to make sure the patient gets the services and that the community is well informed and that the health care provider is also very well involved. If the police need to be involved, then they are.

R. Hawes: I guess, just along the same.... I would wonder, then, who makes the determination if there's danger and whether the police should be notified. For further information, I think the minister knows of at least one case, which I think I've put in writing to his office, of a very dangerous forensics patient that was released into my riding and into my community, and there was no notification. He subsequently went astray, and the police went out looking for him. It could have potentially developed into a highly dangerous situation. The information we had was that we couldn't be pre-notified because of privacy considerations. To me, that seems to put the community, the police and indeed the patient himself in some jeopardy in many circumstances. I'm wondering if the minister could respond to that.

Hon. G. Cheema: The discharge of a patient from a forensic facility is ultimately decided by the review board. The review board makes the final decision, and they take into consideration many factors. These include privacy factors and community safety as well as that person's needs. So the ultimate decision is by the review board.

R. Hawes: I'm still interested to know, though…. I'm well aware that it's the review board that makes the decision on the release. In terms of notifying the local police who have to deal with that patient in the event of an incident and thinking of patient safety first then, and nothing else, the local police ought to know that he's coming. If there is something that goes wrong in his treatment and they have to intervene, they should know in advance what they may be facing when they go to see that patient. They don't know he's a patient, but they should know. I guess that's what I'm asking. Is there a regime that can be put in place under your budget for notification? I'm sure it's not very expensive.

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me explain further. I'll try my best again. When a person is released from an institution, that person is released as a patient, not as a criminal. So when that patient is released into a community by the review board according to their knowledge, when they make that decision, it is based on the facts. That's the way they are functioning. They are not releasing a criminal into the community, but they are releasing a person, a patient. That's the way the information flows.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to a new topic in mental health, if I may. That's the issue of a conversation I overheard the Minister of State for Mental Health having on talk radio. I just wondered whether the…. I'm focusing these estimates merely on changes that have occurred since the election, but it appeared to me that the Minister of State for Mental Health was surmising about a new initiative. He talked about depression and his ideas around a mental health plan for the treatment of depression. Could the minister of state describe to me what he has in mind?

Hon. G. Cheema: The member did hear me correctly. We are looking at a major depression initiative in this province that will help us to establish the framework for how to deal with this. It is a major issue in this province. The member probably knows that there are close to 16,000 people at any given time in this province who suffer from major clinical depression. That's one of the main parts of the mental health care system.

We are going to develop long-term planning: how to deal with depression, how to tackle it with new medications, with an information campaign; how to make sure the patients are getting community-based help. In that respect, we are forming a 15-to-18-member committee. On that committee, we'll have one Chair, and it's going to have members from the medical community, from community groups, from stakeholders, from institutions, as well as from the ministry, which will be looking at long-term planning for depression in this province. The UBC department of psychiatry will also be involved. Dr. Goldner will be providing the overall direction and helping this committee to come up with a policy, which I think is probably going to take six to nine months. They're hoping for a first meeting sometime in the second week of September, and I will meet with them twice a year — once sometime in the first or second week of October and then when they come up with their policy.

I think it's a very positive step, and it will help us to deal with one of the major parts of the mental health care system in this province. I'm very positive about the whole thing. This will take some time, but we don't want to start things that we can't finish. I want to be very careful, very cautious. We have sent invitations out now, and we are hoping for confirmation. Once we receive that confirmation, we will announce the committee. The committee does have significant, very high profile individuals from this province. We are going out and talking to them, and none of them will be paid for this job. They are helping us; they are becoming a part of the solution. At this time we don't have specific funding attached. Once the policy comes out, then we will have the specific money attached to that.

This depression initiative will help us to implement the mental health plan also. I think the member would probably know shortly. I don't have the specific deadline. Once my mental health plan is approved, we will be able to explain how we are going to be doing it. We'll have the business plan for three years.

We are also doing something exceptional in this province. We will be having a mental health report card as part of the mental health plan. The reason I'm explaining that is because that, again, is going to part of the depression initiative. When we go out and talk to people and where we are funding the organizations and institutions and the community groups, we want to know how they are spending their money, what benefit we are achieving, whether the patients are getting better or not. At the end of the day we need to

know if the dollars we are spending are being used properly and if the patients are benefiting.

The depression initiative is going to be a very significant step, and I'm very positive about the whole process. It's not going to take too long, but it will probably take at least six to seven months to have the total consultation done and the advisory group…. Once the member sees the names, she'll be very happy. They are very prominent persons. I've been in touch with them, and they have offered their services at no cost to taxpayers. I think that's the beauty of the whole process. People are willing to help. When I've gone out there, I've met with a large number of groups. Every time I go out there, I ask them: "What can you do to help us?" I think it's a part of helping the institutions and, ultimately, the patients and the families.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, the time frame for a decision is six to seven months. If the minister could just confirm that…. Secondly, will the committee be charged with recommending new programs?

Hon. G. Cheema: This is a new initiative. Our main purpose is to increase public awareness, assess how to diagnose depression at an early stage and look at the various other options of providing care for depression. Within six to seven months, once we have the report from this group, we will look at how we are going to implement their ideas. Once that report comes, I'll then be able to go back to the department and see how those initiatives will become a part of the mental health plan. I think that needs to be assessed. But the main objectives are to have a proper assessment done, build a public information campaign and develop a new initiative. That will be very helpful. The timing is close to six or seven months.

J. MacPhail: Will the committee be limited in any way in the work that it's able to do?

Hon. G. Cheema: This committee will have three or four issues. We want them to have a look at depression. No. 1 is a public information campaign, No. 2 is the early diagnosis and treatment, and No. 3 is developing more community-based care. And there's also looking at the issue of disability when you are depressed or when you are at your workplace and are not being treated fairly; also looking at how to remove the stigma attached to depression. Those are the broad areas, the four or five issues that I want them to have a look at.

If they want to give us some more ideas, that'll be great. We don't want to restrict them, but I want them to be very focused. I want them to look at at least four areas of interest we have at this time so that we can develop a plan that will become an integral part of the mental health plan. It's going to take some time, but not too long. I don't want to rush, because it's a very important issue for us. The people who are going to be part of this committee are very prominent. I'm very hopeful. And it's not going to cost extra money to the taxpayers.

J. MacPhail: But I would assume that if the committee is not going to be limited in any way, they will be recommending expenditures in new programs. That's why I was asking whether the minister of state is going to be limiting them in any way in terms of what they recommend in the way of new programs.

Hon. G. Cheema: They will have a consultation process. They will go and meet with the caregivers, stakeholders and many organizations. I think they have a long list, and we have a long list, of the various health care providers, and that will be helpful. But I want them to be focused. I just want them to look at four or five issues and give us advice on those issues so that we can implement those issues. I'm not going to tell them to look at 20 things. We want them to be very focused on four or five things, and if we can have four or five issues resolved in the long run, I think that will be great. That's very positive. That's one major step to deal with a major part of the mental health problems in this province, and that is clinical depression.

Another issue that was brought to my knowledge and was very disturbing to me was that people who are mentally ill, and especially those suffering from depression, are sometimes not treated fairly at their workplace. If they are sick because of depression, they cannot get leave. Once they put their clinical history on their application, they won't ever be able to find a job. So we will be trying to change that culture also. That's part of the issue. I want them to have a look at it and come up with a policy which is realistic, which can be done, and also to see that it is not too expensive. We don't want to go out there and start spending extra money on things that we can do without having extra resources.

The public information campaign is a very large campaign. We are going to be involving many other institutions and also various other interest groups.

J. MacPhail: There is a category in the Pharmacare budget specific to drugs for people with mental illness, I believe. Does that category still exist?

Hon. G. Cheema: That plan does exist; it's plan G. That plan is very specific for this province. I don't think any other province has it. B.C. is the only province. The previous government did something very specific on that, and that's very positive. Actually, that plan covers patients who are not covered by welfare, patients who do not have more than about $20,000 income, and they can't buy their medications. That plan is in place at this time. My understanding is that plan G is costing us close to $9 million at this time.

Hon. G. Cheema: Last year the budget was $7.265 million. This time it's $9.003 million. That's a 23.9 percent increase.

Let me just give an explanation of this plan G. Basically, if you don't have an income and if you're diagnosed with schizophrenia or depression and your medications are not covered, you'll go and see your doctor, who simply has to register you through this plan, and your medication will be covered. So it's a very positive program, and it really helps patients and their families. It's a good program.

Hon. G. Cheema: At this time this plan is not under any major review. I actually met with the assistant deputy ministers in charge of Pharmacare and MSP this morning, and I had a good discussion with them. It is my understanding that this plan is functioning very well. It is very unique, very positive.

The overall review of the Pharmacare process is being done. Even during the Premiers' conference there was a question about Pharmacare coverage across this province. We want to have consistency in how the drugs are approved. I think that's a larger issue, and maybe the Minister of Health Services will answer that. I just wanted to make sure that I understood this plan. I met with them this morning, and I was pleasantly surprised that we have something very exceptional in this province.

J. MacPhail: Plan G is of course, as I've already stated, the provision of drugs for people with mental illness. Could the Minister of State for Mental Health please say what drug applications are under review for coverage under plan G?

Hon. G. Cheema: I'm not aware of any other medication which is under review at this time, but if an application had been made in the recent past, I can inquire about that and take this question on notice. I had a good discussion with the Pharmacare and MSP assistant at the ministry. We reviewed many things. I think the main concern, from my perspective, is that we should be making sure that the patients are getting their medication. At the same time, we should look at the duplication and all the issues about Pharmacare which are very expensive. That needs to be examined. I am sure the Ministry of Health Services is going to be examining all parts of Pharmacare.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the Minister of State for Mental Health can describe the drugs that are covered under plan G.

Hon. G. Cheema: I don't have the name of each and every medication which is covered, but under plan G, all the atypical anti-psychotic medications are covered, and I have a few names here. I can maybe state them: olanazapine, risperidone, clozapine and quetiapine. I am used to only the names I used to write on a prescription, but these are other names. We are spending close to $27 million on these four drugs in this province. That's a lot of money. If you examine the Pharmacare budget, you will be astonished to see how it has been going up for the last so many years. There is $27 million, and there are close to 27,000 patients who are making use of these medications. So Pharmacare is functioning. We need to examine the whole issue of Pharmacare.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, there are no applications being made for coverage under…. Let me just ask a general question then. I assume the $27 million for the drugs to which the minister referred must be covered under plan G and then another plan as well, because the budget for plan G is only $9 million. Are there any applications for coverage under any other plan under Pharmacare that would be classified as drug specific for the treatment of mental illness?

Hon. G. Cheema: I am not aware of any special drugs at this time, but if application has been made in the recent past, I can certainly inquire and get back to the member.

J. MacPhail: When was the last drug approved under Pharmacare for payment for treatment of mental illness?

Hon. G. Cheema: I have been informed there has not been any drug recently approved for these problems.

J. MacPhail: My last question for the Minister of State for Mental Health before recessing, and it will be my last question for this set of estimates, is: what, if any, role is he playing in the planning for improved addiction services in the province?

Hon. G. Cheema: During this short ten weeks, I have been able to do only so much. I'm going to be examining that area. We will be looking at services for those patients who have a mixed diagnosis or had addiction as well as the mental health problem. I think we need to examine that area. At this time, I can only report that, and in due course I can certainly report back to the member.

I just got this job on June 5, and as of June 5 I've been working very hard. There are certain special issues I want to know more about — what the services available are — and then we can come up with a policy which is going to be more serving to our clients. I think the issue here is that we don't want to miss patients who are suffering from both addiction and mental illness. I think that seems to be the concern from the member — that we don't want to just miss one part and leave the patient…. If you are mentally ill and you don't want to take care of addiction, or if you have

I think that in due course I'll be able to answer those questions more. At this time, I think that's all I have. I can read in Hansard much of this stuff that they have, but I want to know myself what's happening at this time. So I hope that will satisfy the member, and after maybe six months' time I'll be able to answer all of her questions.

J. MacPhail: I assume I can ask questions about addiction services of the Minister of Health Services, and I will do that after recess. Just for the information of the government, I will be pursuing with the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term Care and Home Care changes that have arisen since the budget of the previous government — that's all I'll be exploring — and the plans for that area and then back to the Minister of Health Services.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that this committee stands recessed until 6:30 this evening.

J. MacPhail: Here we are for our first evening sitting, so I assume there'll be lots of debate from the government who needs this evening sitting. I'm not quite sure why we need to sit in the evenings, but here we are.

I wanted to ask questions about intermediate and long term care, but we'll wait for the minister of state….

J. MacPhail: Okay. We'll start with what I asked the Minister of Health Services about. What I have a specific interest in is addiction services, which has moved from what previously was the Ministry for Children and Families, I think, over to Health Services. Perhaps the minister could outline for me the reasoning behind that and the implications.

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly there's been an ongoing discussion over a number of years as to where addiction services could best be provided. I know there was some work done in the previous government to contract those services to the Vancouver-Richmond health board, when it came to that particular health region in the province. I guess our view is that the addiction services in British Columbia should be properly seen as health services and that there's much to be gained by better and closer integration of those services with other public health programming and health care delivery in general, in the various health regions and community health councils around the province. That's the rationale. We see addiction services as being one that is much better served by an integration with the delivery of health services generally.

J. MacPhail: The second part to my question: what are the implications for the change? What change will it mean for British Columbians?

Hon. C. Hansen: I believe you will see much better delivery of addiction services and integration with existing health delivery services at the regional level. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is set up on a different model than the Ministry of Health Services, in that the Ministry of Health Services is regionalized. It's our view that by delivering addiction services at the community level, we will be better able to serve the needs of that population.

Hon. C. Hansen: No. The budget, as was set out for addiction services and that was tabled by the previous government at the end of March, is in fact the same. It gets transferred from the previous Ministry for Children and Families to the now Ministry of Health Services. I am told that $64.934 million for addiction services and $74.9 million for children's public health are transferred as a result of this, for a total of 202 FTEs.

J. MacPhail: The previous government targeted an increase in funds for addiction services of in excess of $11 million. I assume that money is there.

There was a report done between the government and the community with great input from the Kaiser Youth Foundation. Can the minister tell me — and I don't declare any bias or conflict; I declare a vast interest in this area because it affects my constituents so much — what has become of that report? And what has become of the setting-up of a centre of excellence?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the Weaving Threads document that was put together by the Kaiser Youth Foundation is an excellent document. There was certainly a very comprehensive consultation process involving, I think, health care professionals and community groups. It was very well put together. I think there are some excellent ideas in that report. We're now looking at exactly how we can draw on that report to move forward in some of our policy development.

J. MacPhail: Correct me if I'm wrong, but there was $10 million set aside to set up a centre of excellence in this area. Is that money being spent?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member may know, or maybe I shouldn't assume that, but…. It was set up in rather a peculiar way. In fact, the $10 million was expensed against the previous fiscal year by this

government and was put into a separate foundation which is now arm's length from government. I guess I would certainly have some concerns if that model was used in the future, because it sort of diminishes the accountability that I believe government has to the taxpayers in terms of how moneys are spent. In this case, that $10 million was literally…. A cheque was cut, and it was deposited into a financial institution, where it sits. There is an arm's-length board of directors established by the previous government, which in fact has control over that money. That money is there; we know where it is. It's certainly our hope that it is going to be used to fill those objectives. We're working on those issues.

J. MacPhail: What does the change in the government's delivery mechanism for addiction services mean for people in the community?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think I've addressed that. Maybe I don't understand the member's question. The intent is better integration of addiction services with the local health authorities around the province.

J. MacPhail: Let me be a little more specific, then. I asked the…I don't know why. You should have been paying attention, but…. I asked the Minister of State for Mental Health about addiction services, and he referred me to you. I'm wondering what it means: addiction services integration into the community for mental health services. The Weaving Threads report said very much that there would be a local planning model for the delivery of addiction services based on community need, rather than one size fits all. What approach is the government taking on those two issues that would impact on the community?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, there are lots of examples where a closer integration with health care delivery has wound up in better care and better services for those who are suffering from addictions. The member raises the issue of mental health services, and there is certainly a need for a close working relationship and collaboration between mental health services and addiction services because, regrettably, we find that far too many British Columbians have both of those issues that they are trying to deal with in their lives.

The structure we see in terms of addiction services being delivered through a health model, I believe, will lend itself even more so to accommodating those suffering from addictions who are also facing mental health challenges in their life. By bringing that into a health model, we believe all of these individuals will be better served.

J. MacPhail: Did the transfer from the then Ministry for Children and Families to the Ministry of Health Services result in any changes to staffing levels, either positive or negative?

J. MacPhail: On the issue of addiction services, there is a contracting by the Attorney General for addiction services within correctional institutions. Did the Minister of Health Services assume responsibility for addiction services in provincial correctional institutions?

Hon. C. Hansen: Generally speaking, it's status quo. There may have been some very minor issues involving some of the contracts for some of the consultants and physicians that may have been involved, but generally speaking, the status quo is the case from what was there previously.

J. MacPhail: Well, this is something that I'd highlight for the Minister of Health Services to be cognizant of. Yes, the previous government, our government, did contract addiction services within the prisons. I would suggest that it's an issue that needs to be looked at in terms of integration with what I hope is a new model. I would hope that the government would embrace the report Weaving Threads and embrace a proper level of funding that was planned for it as well. The addictions of British Columbians cause huge heartache for families and result in an unwarranted level of death but also put unbelievable strain on the health care system. So even though it's an area where there's not a huge amount of sexiness, it's one that I watch with passion in terms of improving the system.

In the area of addiction services that exist within the correctional system right now — and I'm talking about the provincial correctional system — there's a meshing of people, some of whom are mentally ill and some of whom have the dual diagnosis of a mental illness and an addiction, and they've committed a crime. No matter how hard society tries to straighten out the system so that people with a mental illness aren't criminalized, nevertheless the system is not there yet. The way one could help British Columbians is to have the addictions treatment in prisons coordinated with the rest of the Ministry of Health.

I would expect that if one were to closely examine addiction services within the correctional system, one would find them lacking. One would find people dispensing meds to addicts who are not qualified to dispense meds, and one would find people literally dying because they're overdosing and there is no ability to treat them within the correctional system. God knows, if one of us is addicted, there is also a vast possibility, regardless of our socioeconomic background, that we could end up in exactly that situation of being in a correctional institution. So I would urge the Minister of Health Services to take the Weaving Threads model, which is a totally integrated model including the Attorney General, and use that to closely examine addiction services in correctional institutions.

Are there consultations going on with other ministries that may be affected by the provision of addiction services?

Hon. C. Hansen: Let me say that I share the member's enthusiasm for the Weaving Threads report. I had the chance to read it when it was first released; I think it was probably a year and a half ago now. I may have my dates wrong on that, but I'm just going from memory. I think it's a very positive contribution to policy-making in British Columbia, and we're certainly taking that to heart. While we have no announcements to make in terms of what action government will take in that regard, it's certainly one that is being looked at most favourably. We want to find ways to make some of these initiatives happen, because clearly there is a consensus.

I'm reminded that the Weaving Threads report came out in February of 2001. Actually, there was a previous report that I'm thinking of that was their first step in that stage, which then led to the Weaving Threads report.

In terms of the relationship to the forensic side, clearly there is a need for close integration of programs. I'm thinking back to some of the reports by the mental health advocate where she was really quite critical of the lack of programs available in our criminal justice institutions around mental health. I have no doubt that applies to addiction as well. I think the member's suggestions are positive, and we'll certainly try to follow through on those.

As far as the cooperation between ministries, yes, there is ongoing work between all of the ministries that are affected by this. There is clearly a desire to make sure that these issues don't fall between the cracks. As I think the member will appreciate, when you have issues where there's a responsibility and an accountability that involve more than one ministry, it's very easy for any one minister to allow it to be put onto somebody else's desk rather than their own. So I think this is an area where there will be, and must be, a very concerted effort so that integration of programs across ministries is cohesive and we can start moving forward on some of the proposals that have been made.

J. MacPhail: Do the minister's addiction services include gaming addiction? If so, was the money transferred from the Ministry for Children and Families to his budget?

J. MacPhail: I assume tobacco use is also included as an addiction under addiction services. Could the minister outline what budget…? Was the budget for the campaign against tobacco use transferred into addiction services, and if so, how much is that?

Hon. C. Hansen: The only reason I'm smiling, hon. Chair, is that we were actually discussing this exact subject during the dinner break, and I used the expression…. We've got the drug and alcohol programs, the gambling programs and the dollars associated with those coming from Children and Families into the Ministry of Health Services, and then we've got the programs that have been ongoing in the Ministry of Health around the tobacco strategy and tobacco addictions. Those dollars remain the same, so all of the dollars come into the Ministry of Health Services intact, but at this stage we're not integrating the programs between the alcohol and drug and gambling with the tobacco. They will remain as separate initiatives — with good coordination, needless to say.

The expression that I used during our brief dinner break, as I said, was: "So you mean we're not going to be mushing these together." We decided that was sort of the new technical term within the restructuring of the ministry. The plan for now is to keep them as separate initiatives. Perhaps over time we will look at how they can best be integrated.

J. MacPhail: Well, how much is being spent on the tobacco strategy, including the lawsuit?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that number right at my fingertips, but we're going to dig it out. If the member wants to go onto additional questions, we'll find it, and I will share it with her as soon as we come up with that number.

J. MacPhail: Is the responsibility for the lawsuit against the tobacco companies resting with the Minister of Health Services or the Attorney General?

Hon. C. Hansen: There has been no change in that regard. As the member will know, any legal actions that are undertaken by government are done by the Attorney General, and certainly there has been no change in that respect.

J. MacPhail: I am going to move, still in the area of addiction services, to the Vancouver agreement. Perhaps the minister could outline how…. The Vancouver agreement is very much about the provision of addiction services, the four-pillar approach. What is the status of the Liberal government's participation in the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. C. Hansen: The actual agreement as it is in place has been made a responsibility of the Ministry and Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Clearly, there are some major health components to that, so the Ministry of Health Services, through the various agencies that may be involved, is certainly continuing with its ongoing obligations and responsibilities under the Vancouver agreement.

J. MacPhail: Under the Vancouver agreement, does the Vancouver-Richmond health board still participate in that process? Do you know?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Just to be clear, does that mean there have been no changes in the funding that flows to the Vancouver agreement as well?

R. Hawes: I have a few questions for the minister that really spring out of what he had to say on Wednesday when debate on this ministry opened. He said: "What has become obvious to me is that spending in health care in British Columbia is not in control." That statement kind of made the hair on the back of my neck stand up, as I'm sure it did for many others. Anyone who was listening or has heard that would feel the same way, so I have a few questions about that, if I could, Mr. Chair.

The first one. Maybe the minister could say: what areas of the budget are not in control? Are there some areas that are in control versus others that are out of control?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's a big question. Certainly, if you start looking at things around Pharmacare, for example, if we continue delivering services as they are currently structured, we would be looking at growth of 16 percent this year. That was something that I think even the previous government recognized was not sustainable, because they didn't fund it in the budget that they brought down. The projections for next year would be 17 percent growth. The projection for the year after would be 18 percent growth. When we say that it's out of control, it's the rising demand that is there. It's very predictable. In fact, the modelling they have in the Ministry of Health can tell you with very good accuracy what the financial requirements are going to be.

If you start looking at areas around the demand for physician services, for example, in the province…. It's an area that the ministry has models for to try to predict what that will be, but also they are not within the ability of government to say: "Well, we're only going to fund to a certain level." If you start looking at issues of the allocations to the various health authorities in the province, we can allocate budgets. We didn't have to rely on the management team at the local level to bring their operations in on budget with the dollars they have available. Clearly, when you start looking at the need for hospital services — the number of people coming into emergency rooms, which was certainly highlighted in the media over this last weekend — that's an issue where government has to do its best to meet those needs. We have very few tools at our disposal right now to control the demand that is out there for those services.

R. Hawes: One of the things I would wonder about is: are the health indicators saying that we're becoming a sicker society? Is that why demand is up?

Let me ask a different way. I'm assuming the number of current MSP cards that are out in the province are tracked fairly carefully. Could I ask how many MSP cards are out there? I guess an adjunct to that question would be: given that for as little as $32 a month you can have health care in this province versus just a few miles across the border, where it can be hundreds and hundreds of dollars a month, do we have something in place that tracks whether or not we have cards in use in this province by people who are not residents of this province?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm going to be joined in a second by the ministry official that can probably assist with some of the detailed questions the member is asking. Generally speaking, we have a very comprehensive audit service in the province. There is investigation around the fraudulent use of personal medical cards. There are certainly mailings that are sent out to a randomized group of British Columbians to get them to verify that the medical services that are being charged against their personal health number are in fact charges that they are aware of. So that is undertaken.

There has also been media attention in British Columbia in the last couple of years around the fraudulent use of cards, and there are clearly some issues there that must be addressed. I know that Ontario in recent years started looking at the fraudulent use of cards in a fairly systematic way. They found that there was a very, very significant dollar value to the abuse that was identified. There's certainly room for us to do some work in this area, but generally speaking, we do have a good audit capacity now, which is certainly trying to address and minimize any fraudulent use that might be there.

R. Hawes: One of the reasons I'm asking these questions is because my constituents are asking me why we are paying so much more and getting so much less. I'm trying to see if there's some kind of answer that can be given to them. I know we haven't got substantially more nurses. We don't have substantially more doctors. We don't have substantially more acute care beds, and I know acute care is one of the areas that's got the highest increasing costs. So I would ask: are there public health indicators that would say that we as a society are getting sicker?

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, for the last number of years the health indicators that are available to any British Columbian are actually very encouraging. When we start looking at the increase in longevity in British Columbia, British Columbia leads Canada in terms of longevity. In fact, life expectancy in B.C. for persons born in the year 2000 is 79.2 years, and that's 76.5 years for men and 81.4 years for women. The Canadian average is 79 years, so we're slightly above the Canadian average, and Canada actually ranks as one of the best in the world when it comes to longevity. When you start looking at issues around infant

mortality, infant mortality rates in Canada and in British Columbia specifically have been decreasing consistently over time.

I would recommend to the member the annual report of the ministry, which is available on our website. There was an initiative taken by the previous government which I applauded at the time and I'll continue to applaud. About a third of the annual report is devoted to looking at health outcomes region by region around the province. The point I made at that time as an opposition Health critic was that this was all interesting information for British Columbians, but what becomes even more interesting is when you can start comparing the progress that we're making over time around a whole range of outcomes from region to region and, more importantly, from year to year, so we can see some progress is being made.

Also, the provincial health officer, in his annual report, puts out a whole list of outcomes, so there is a range of outcome measures that is quite encouraging in terms of previous records. There is a lot more that we must be doing in terms of being able to measure outcomes to make sure that we can actually demonstrate to British Columbians that the dollars they're spending on our health care system are in fact producing better results. We can't measure those results specifically by the number of procedures that are being done or the number of diagnostic tests that are being done, but rather we want to measure those outcomes in terms of whether or not it has actually made a difference in the quality of life for individuals in British Columbia. That's key.

R. Hawes: I thank the minister for that answer, though it does tell me that if one wants to know why we have such huge explosion of costs, it maybe doesn't lie in that we're getting sicker, obviously.

I was reading the estimates in Hansard from 1996, and there was a lot of questions asked around administration and the number of administrators or non-hands-on employees within the ministry, non-patient hands-on employees. I'm not sure. Administration is a funny term. It can catch a lot of people that maybe are administrators or aren't administrators. I think you know what I mean and where I'm getting to.

Can you tell me: has the number of people working directly in the ministry changed since regionalization? Has there been a substantial change in the number of administration people in the ministry?

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, as a result of regionalization, you wound up with employees who used to be employees of the Ministry of Health becoming employees of their various health authorities around the province. So yes, the numbers of employees of the ministry have diminished significantly as a result of that shift in FTEs from the ministry to the various health authorities.

The member is touching on a subject area that is of great interest to me, as ministry officials will know, because certainly around the province you hear anecdotally lots of stories about how overly administered we are in this province. There was a study done by the Hay Consulting Group looking at administration costs in some of our hospitals in British Columbia compared to other hospitals in other parts of Canada. Actually, that showed we fared very well compared to those other jurisdictions, but what that study did not look at was the total package of not just the hospitals but also the administration levels in our health authorities.

One of the difficulties we've got in this area is that it's very difficult to compare from region to region, because every region will use different definitions around what an administrator is. As we've been asking our health authorities to provide this kind of data so that we can do that analysis, we realize we're not comparing apples to apples. There is some work being done now to try to look at the various job descriptions so that we can standardize those across the province. I think the most important thing for government is not to come up with some magic answer that says that in a particular health authority, you can't spend more than — I don't know; let's pick a number — 6.7 percent of your budget on administration. That would be an artificial number.

I think what's more important is that across the various regions of the province, let's make sure we're comparing apples to apples when it comes to identifying who is administration and then publicly reporting the percent of the budget that's spent on administration from region to region. Then we can find what is an appropriate balance and build the incentives in to make sure that our administrative services in British Columbia within health care are as lean as necessary to get the job done.

R. Hawes: Along the same line, then, I assume the process has started now out in the regions to identify what administration is. If that has started, is it being done internally? Is it being done through self-reporting by the regions? Is there an outside body that has been retained to take a look objectively at this, or just how is that exercise proceeding?

Hon. C. Hansen: As a result of the member's question, I'm learning some things here tonight as well. The process of trying to standardize our ability to measure administration levels is being driven in-house, within the ministry. There are advisory committees that are made up. Serving on those advisory committees would be vice-presidents of various health authorities and that. The ministry is driving that process but drawing on some of the expertise from health regions around the province in terms of how best to make sure that these things are standardized.

R. Hawes: As you said, anecdotally we hear all kinds of stories of administration. I wonder, since a lot of those stories come from health care providers themselves, particularly nurses: is there some thought to including nurses and other health care providers directly on those advisory committees?

Hon. C. Hansen: There certainly is currently a good nursing perspective that is brought to the table in these discussions. I know that nursing, for example, is an area where many of the nurses will lament the days when they had a head nurse and there was clearly a management person on the wards who was there as that interface between the front-line nurses and the administration.

In fact, one of the issues that I recall in recent years was trying to determine whether nurse supervisors that we have in the system now are management or front line, because they're in fact doing both.

There is involvement by the nurses union in this discussion. There's also involvement by the nursing directorate within the ministry in these issues. You'll also be aware that our colleague the Minister of Health Planning is currently in the process of trying to recruit a chief nursing executive for the province. Clearly, this would be an excellent opportunity for us to tap on the expertise that person will bring to the table as well.

I know there's a new health plan under development, and I'm just wondering: as that plan progresses, is the plan being developed in large part by use of these advisory committees within regions? Is the public involved in this in any way?

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, this is being done in-house. I wouldn't want the member to be left with the impression that this is some kind of a specific study that's going to culminate in some report that is then going to be implemented. This is an ongoing project by the ministry.

I think that anybody who has watched the ministry over a number of years will know that there have been some huge challenges around the gathering of data. In our health industry in British Columbia — the Ministry of Health budget alone is $9 billion — it is, quite frankly, astounding that we have such a poor capacity when it comes to technology and information-gathering. Even the kinds of systems that are being used from hospital to hospital and health authority to health authority are really quite diverse. Our ability to collect common data on any subject, including the subject of administration levels, is hampered by that.

This is ongoing work by the ministry. I think that as these tools become more refined, we're going to be more capable of answering your initial question, and that's around the administration levels that we have in our health care system.

R. Hawes: Just before I ask my last question, I would just like you to know, though, that I know there are many members in the House who get a lot of input in their constituencies about what's happening around their hospitals and their public health system. In general, I know many of us are hearing a lot about administration, and the anecdotal stories actually have a lot of veracity. We're living them and we're seeing them, and we can provide a lot of information about our specific communities.

I'm hoping, as you move through this and as you take input from the advisory groups, that you're going to be listening a lot to the members who are sitting here, who I think can provide a lot of information to you, and I think that information is very, very valuable. I can tell you that many of us are being pressed by our communities to make sure their voices are heard as you look at the issues that we've just been talking about.

My last question is going to be about the actual control that the regions have. When they submit their annual plans — I guess they're plans — and budgets to the ministry, my understanding is that sometimes there are changes made to those plans within the ministry and they go back amended. So where does the power lie? Who's got the power to operate the system? Does it lie here in the ministry, or does it lie out in the regions? Who's got final say on the plans that are submitted?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, just to follow up on that issue about administration, the goal of every one of us in this chamber and everyone that's involved in health care in British Columbia would be to make sure that not one dollar is wasted and that every one of that $9.3 billion is a scarce dollar. We have to make sure that every dollar is spent wisely. We certainly want to make sure, when it comes to levels of administration or any other costs in the health care system, that those dollars are spent effectively and that there is not — in any way, shape or form — one of those dollars wasted.

We are, generally speaking, well served by our health administrators in British Columbia. If you go to any jurisdiction, any province in Canada or any state in the United States, you will find that there are issues around too much administration. The best health care system is one where you have the clinical providers of care working in partnership and mutual respect with the administrators. That's the model in which we can ensure that there's best patient care. So how we achieve that model is obviously an ongoing issue. Clearly, we do want to work with all of the members in this House to make sure that all those suggestions, in terms of how administration dollars can be best spent, are listened to and followed up on.

With regard to the budgets of each of the health regions, each year the health regions send in their budget requests. The ministry does not try to go in and change the way the health authority is trying to run their region. We obviously can't fund everything that every health authority is asking for, so I don't think there's a health authority in this province that got everything they were asking for out of a health budget. There is a responsibility on the part of the ministry to make sure that those budgets cumulatively fit into the overall funds that are available.

We are looking at new models for how dollars can flow. We're looking at ways of ensuring that health authorities get more authority so that we don't have any kind of micromanagement from Victoria in areas that should be properly managed regionally. I think

that as we shift to that new funding model, which Health Planning is working on, and look at new ways of dollars flowing within the health care system, which is what Health Services is looking at, as that model evolves, we're going to see that the regional administrators and regional health teams are going to have more control over how available dollars are spent to meet the needs of the populations living in that region.

G. Trumper: To the minister. I'm not sure whether it's to you I should be addressing this question or to the Minister of Health Planning. I would ask, in light of the fact that there will possibly be capital projects taking place in the next while, if there have been any changes made to the process of the approach that is taken by the ministry to dealing with local groups in the financing of those particular capital projects.

If I might give an example of what I'm getting at, which I'm probably not doing very well. As you are well aware, we have a new hospital opening. We are very fortunate to have a new hospital opening fairly soon because the other one was condemned. The actual capital cost came in under budget. However, in the time it has taken from the beginning of the contract being issued to the finishing time…. The amount of time that has been taken in work orders that have had to be changed, the process of going back to.... Maybe it was the Ministry of Health, then it was moved to the Treasury Board, and then it was moved to the Minister of Finance. The amounts of money that have had to be hived off the project compared to the amount of money that has been spent in going back to the referrals and going back through the whole process again…. There's probably not a great deal of difference in the final outcome for those who have been working on this particular project.

The reason I bring this up is that I would hope to see that this doesn't happen again in further projects. The amount of time and energy that has been spent by the community to get this project finished has been really slowed up considerably by the process they've had to go through from ministry to ministry to ministry for work changes.

My question to you is: are you looking at the process of how these capital projects and approvals are being done?

Hon. C. Hansen: I recall a year ago last March, when the then Minister of Finance brought in the report by Deloitte and Touche looking at the whole management of capital projects within government generally. The chapter that actually focused on health care was particularly critical of government's inability to get these projects launched in a timely fashion. What we had seen during that number of years was that the capital budget within the Ministry of Health was consistently underspent, and it was because of exactly the points that the member made in terms of the inability to get these projects going in a timely fashion.

A lot of those issues have been addressed. Clearly, they're looking at a much more sophisticated — if that's the right word — approach to project management within health care to make sure that these capital projects, once they're approved, get moving and get developed in a timely way. Part of this is the work that's going to be done by Health Planning, because one of the commitments we made is to develop a ten-year facilities plan. We can start looking in as long a horizon as possible to what the facility needs are and in particular starting to look at those needs on a regional basis. That way, we make sure that the services provided in one community are not isolated unto themselves but in fact complement the services that would be provided to the population in that region.

There is some work that will be done in that respect. Clearly, when it comes to a project, once it's been approved, the ability to get it going with timely project management is something that there has been some strides made on, and we continue to build on that. In addition, just to expand on another aspect of the member's question, we're also looking at models such as public-private partnerships that may allow us to move on some of these projects even faster than conventional financing, in government terms, has allowed in the past.

G. Trumper: I thank you for your reply. I think that in many cases, where the money has been spent, with money in tight supply and so many facilities needed, with streamlining and improvements you may possibly be able to provide more money for capital projects.

J. Nuraney: There are certain treatments and medication dispensed to cancer patients. I believe it is the authority of the head of the cancer clinic who decides which treatment and medication is covered and what is not covered. The doctors, however, dispense these treatments and medication which the head of the cancer clinic deems not covered. My question to the minister is: if such a treatment is authorized to be administered by the doctors, why is it not covered?

Hon. C. Hansen: When it comes to medications that are required by cancer patients in British Columbia, there are basically two budgets that provide for those services. The actual medications that are required for the treatment of the cancer — for example, the chemotherapy treatments or other cancer-fighting medications — are funded through the B.C. Cancer Agency. They're actually funded outside the Pharmacare program by the B.C. Cancer Agency. For things like the universal plan, for example, and the deductible levels that would apply to various citizens in British Columbia, the medications needed for cancer treatment are separate from that. They get provided, and they're 100 percent funded through the Cancer Agency. In terms of other medications that a cancer patient may use, such as anti-nausea drugs, that would

be provided through the Pharmacare program based on prescriptions provided by the doctor. So there are issues today around Pharmacare in terms of medications that a doctor cannot automatically prescribe and have covered by Pharmacare. That's part of the reviews that we're looking at, and we certainly are trying to find ways that we can put some of that authority and responsibility back in the hands of individual doctors so that they don't have to go through the various paperwork and forms and other things that they're required to do now.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the comments of my colleagues. Some of my questions flow along the same theme. Let me begin by following up on the line of questioning from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission. He was asking some very succinct questions about planning in the community for health and how that takes place.

One of the things that is interesting about all of the changes that the Liberal government is making, particularly in the 90-day plan, is the change in how we do business in here. There will be a budget brought in about seven months from now, the third week in February. That's just a little over a half year from now — in fact, just about a half year from now. So I assume that the budget-planning process is going on in detail. I'm sure the budget-planning process is much more advanced than in any previous year because of the deadline of the middle of February for the budget.

Maybe I'm wrong on this, and this is what I want to explore with the Minister of Health Services: how he plans his budget and what he puts forward to Treasury Board. There's also a restriction on the amount of money that was announced for health care, that the amount of money that will go into the health care budget depends on growth in the economy. The Minister of Finance directly linked the two. Even though there may be some who would argue that it's not how much you spend but how you spend it, there'll be lots and lots of British Columbians arguing that we need to spend more. The Minister of Health Services is restricted by economic growth in his budget-planning process, I would assume. Maybe he could answer whether that's correct or not.

Secondly, that restriction in what he is able to ask for at Treasury Board. Does the economic growth have to exceed 3.8 percent in 2002 before he can ask for additional money, or does he get to ask for additional money in his budget based on…? If the economy grows by 3.8 percent, he gets to ask for up to 3.8 percent?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the commitment we made in the New Era document, which I will quote for the member, we said, first of all, that we would maintain this year's overall $9.3 billion budget for health. In doing so, that reference was specifically to the health spending of government, not specifically the spending on a ministry of health. We obviously didn't want to be accused of playing games with moving money from Children and Families into Health as a way of achieving that target. It was the overall moneys spent on health across ministries, of which obviously the overwhelming amount is specifically within the Ministry of Health Services.

Just to finish that, even in this budget restatement that has come out, I believe the number is $9.5 billion that is spent on health services across government.

The very next commitment that was made was to increase future health care funding as economic growth increases government revenues. I know some people have indicated that if there's exactly 3 percent growth in the economy, that's going to mean that there's exactly 3 percent growth in the Health budget. That's not what it says. Clearly, we are in a situation where we are limited in how much can go into the Health budget by the province's ability to pay, which is driven by economic growth. So it would be a mistake for the member to tie an exact percentage point to an exact growth in the Health budget. The parameters we are working in are very narrow.

When the previous government — I'm not sure if the member herself had said that while she was Health minister, but I know her successors did — talked about the annual growth in the Health budget and claimed that it simply was not sustainable.... That growth of 8, 9 and 10 percent a year in the Health budget is not sustainable. We have to look at better ways of delivering health care, how we get better value for the dollars that are being spent and how we focus in on the priorities of British Columbians so that we can make sure that those needs are met in British Columbia within our ability to pay.

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact in the debate that did occur during the election, the Premier refused to say that the funding wasn't sustainable, and he refused to in any way indicate that there would be anything other than an increase in funding. The question was put to him over and over again.

I'm actually a little bit more disturbed by the minister's answer. I mean, at some point, as a mature government responsible for a budget of $23 billion to $24 billion and the Crown corporations associated, the government's going to have to move beyond its New Era document in terms of answering questions. That's what I'm trying to pursue here.

What the document does say, though, is that there has to be a growth in revenue, which disturbs me a little bit more, even. Is the minister saying that unless revenues in this province increase beyond the July 30 budget, there will be no increase in health care funding?

Hon. C. Hansen: Our priority is meeting the health care needs of British Columbians. When it comes to what's in next year's budget, I would be happy to stand in this chamber and debate that with the member when we do estimates next year.

The budget that we have before us today of $9.3 billion is a significant increase over what her government had budgeted for the ministry at the end of March to reflect some of the changes that were

imposed upon us, such as the shortfall in Pharmacare funding. Those increases are there now for this year's budget. Work has started already on what the Health budget will be for next year. On February 19, when that budget is tabled along with the estimates, I'll be more than happy to try to answer all of the member's questions vis-à-vis that budget for the next fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: Well, the difference in this situation from ordinary planning circumstances and the way this chamber normally operates is that the government itself has put restrictions on the budget planning process that have become very public. So it's not a matter of me trying to get into cabinet and find out what's going on at Treasury Board. I don't want to do that. But the government has put restrictions in its New Era document, and the Minister of Finance stood up and put severe restrictions on how health will proceed in this province.

The member for Maple Ridge–Mission was asking about how the community can be involved in the planning for health care. So does the community have to plan on the basis that only when there's an increase in revenue can they ask for an increase in health care funding? I see the answer is yes.

The government removed its requirement to balance the budget for three years; they repealed the much more progressive law that was in place — attention, National Post, who gave the government a glowing review on the basis that they repealed a law to balance the budgets in a progressive way and replaced it with no requirement to balance the budgets in 2004.

So let me ask a question on behalf of British Columbians. Is it possible that they can plan for their health care on the basis that maybe revenues won't increase but that the government will put health care spending as a priority and run a bigger deficit?

Hon. C. Hansen: Health care is a priority. We've made it quite clear that health care spending, which we have seen rise considerably in previous years, will not be cut back. We've also made a commitment that it will rise as our ability to pay rises. So the answer to the member's question is that we will ensure that health care needs of British Columbians will be met. We are not prepared to allow health care spending to continue to rise at the uncontrolled rates that were happening before.

When we started these Health estimates last Thursday, I believe it was, I started out by making the point that I did not believe that health care spending was under control. The demands that are being put on the system are not being managed in a way that allows us to ensure that British Columbians are getting the best value for every health dollar that is being spent in the province. We want to ensure that.

I can't pretend now for the member that we've got some magic plan that's going to make that happen, but we're working on those plans. I hope that by the time next year's budget is brought in on February 17, we will be in a position to say that health care needs of British Columbians are being managed within the financial envelope that is provided to us by the government at the time that budget is brought down.

The one clear message that we've made to all British Columbians is that health care spending will, if anything, only increase in the years to come. That has not changed from what we said in the election.

J. MacPhail: That's reassuring. So let me just run through how that could possibly take place, because we are actually six months away, as of today, from the tabling of a new budget. That's a very short time frame to plan. I wish the government well in this area.

The government has been willing to risk running a deficit, has run a deficit, on the basis of giving tax cuts, and they've made no bones about it, that even though deficits were terrible in all the years past, a deficit is good if it means tax cuts for large corporations. I guess the rubber hits the road here for British Columbians who may need more health care services than currently provided, because that tax-cut theory of economic growth may not come to fruition. So a deficit is good for corporate tax cuts.

In this case, then, if the government is actually saying that not only is health care cost probably not going to decrease or remain the same but will probably increase, then that means that the government is willing to run a deficit for health care, which I think is a good idea, given the risk they've put the economy in.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm a little bit cautious in that I know we're treading over into the purview of the Minister of Finance here, but the dollars that are available for the Health budget in British Columbia this fiscal year are not dependent on government revenues. We have made that commitment to health care spending in this province — that it will be maintained and will increase as the government's ability to pay can afford to increase it.

The member is clearly still living in a state of denial when it comes to the ability of tax cuts to generate more government revenue. I think the good news for every British Columbian and for every patient in British Columbia, whether they're currently a patient or a future patient, which includes all of us, is that this government has a plan to stimulate the economy in a way that will generate more revenues to government. In that, we will see that the health care system that we need in the future is in fact going to be affordable. Whereas if we had kept going on the track we were, with overtaxation and health care spending that was out of control, I think that was a much greater risk, and a huge risk, to patients present and future in this province.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's just look at a couple of examples, then, about what the minister has on his plate to plan for spending in health care. This weekend

Eagle Ridge Hospital had to close its emergency ward. I don't think that's ever happened before, but maybe it has. There were pressures put on, particularly in the South Fraser health region. The public reports were about not being able to staff. I'm certainly willing to take the minister's word over the media's any day, but the public reports an inability to recruit staff, etc. So we had a situation at Eagle Ridge Hospital that I think is unprecedented.

What kind of pressures does that put on health care spending? Ambulance EHS services must have increased. What kind of plans does the minister have, in preparing his budget, to deal with that particular crisis?

Hon. C. Hansen: I must say I found the whole situation at Eagle Ridge Hospital over the weekend quite distressing, because it is a service that people learn to depend on. Most people don't check the 6 o'clock news when they're in an emergency, trying to decide which emergency ward to go to, only to get there and find out that it's closed.

The reason it is closed is because of staffing shortages, because we have a shortage of nurses in this province. That's part of the legacy we inherited in terms of the reduction in the number of nurses who were actually educated in this province over the last decade. The member is absolutely right. Incidents like Eagle Ridge put huge cost pressures on the province. We wind up today with a much greater dependence on overtime by nurses, and overtime is very expensive. Clearly, one has to question whether that's an effective use of health dollars, but the reality is that it's our only option, because we don't have an adequate number of nurses.

There were also cases over the weekend where patients had to be transferred to other regions or to other provinces or, in fact, to the United States. Yes, that is very expensive. It's clearly unacceptable. But when we have an obligation to deliver patient care for those who have urgent and emergency needs, we have no other option than to make sure that patients get the care they need, albeit at great inconvenience to themselves and at great expense to the province.

J. MacPhail: I think the minister articulates very well the pressures that he may face in designing his upcoming budget. Let me just try to see whether I could take a different tack on why there will be pressures for increased spending in health care.

The Eagle Ridge Hospital and that whole South Fraser region actually were under great pressure because of a nursing shortage. If one wants to look at the past and say the legacy of the ten years of mismanagement created the nursing shortage, so be it. But then the legacy of the last ten years would be a legacy shared by the rest of the world as well. It is a nursing shortage — there's no question about it — putting all those pressures on the health care system.

Firstly, does the minister think that he will be able to resolve that nursing shortage by February 19? If not, then the pressures on the health care system for extra spending will increase.

Secondly, does the minister think that there will be no consequences flowing from a forced settlement on nurses, who now have a right to choose or not choose to work overtime?

Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer to the member's question is no. I do not think the nursing shortage will be solved by February 19, but I think we can make some improvements. We can make some strides, at least, in that direction.

The number that I recall being floated around — I'm not sure where this number came from exactly; it's a number that I believe was being used by the B.C. Nurses Union, although it may have originally come from some other source — was that in this last year there was $72 million spent on overtime for nurses in British Columbia. That's a big chunk of money. There is a need, obviously, to get as many nurses into the system as quickly as possible. That was part of the rationale behind the announcement that was made last week by the Minister of Health Planning, along with the Minister of Advanced Education.

We are looking at ways of recruiting more nurses in the short term. I have no doubt that as a result of the initiatives that were taken last week, there will be nurses coming to British Columbia prior to February 19. We know, even now, that the RNABC has a significant increase in the interest that is being expressed by nurses from other jurisdictions to come to this province. So I am sure we're going to wind up with at least some movement towards that.

In terms of putting together next year's budget — which, again, I want to remind the member is outside of the purview of these estimates debates — it's certainly my hope that that $72 million overtime bill, if that's in fact the number, will be reduced significantly as a result of some of the initiatives that were being made today. And those dollars that are saved…. If we can wind up with better nursing being done on straight time, regular hours, rather than overtime hours, then obviously those are dollars that will be available to hire more nurses. They'll be dollars that will be available for direct patient care in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I'm merely trying to point out that the government's own actions will have an impact on the budget for next year and that spending increases aren't as a result of mismanagement or health care demands being out of control. It's about the fact that there's a nursing shortage worldwide and that that nursing shortage will increase cost pressures, whether it be in the short term, the medium term or the long term. Whether indeed the minister's nursing recruitment initiative offsets the forced settlement put on BCNU, on nurses working on the front line, we'll have to wait and see, but it's not going to happen in the next six months, which is when this minister's budget has to come down.

Well, let me look at another area here. The government has been talking about Pharmacare and the increases in Pharmacare. The previous government put a lot of ground-breaking programs in place to control the costs of Pharmacare, and the costs still spiral. The previous government always used the opportunity to fund that either through direct budgeting or through contingency. The government now seems to think that, you know, something terribly awful was done because there was a difference between what was budgeted and what the actual costs were. So does the minister have any plans to control Pharmacare costs?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, I'll start by correcting the member. The previous government did not fund the Pharmacare budget for this year. The information that was given to government at the time was that the needs of Pharmacare would go up by $91 million. It was actually more than that; I think it was $109 million. But what happened in the budget is that the government funded only a 2 percent increase in the Pharmacare budget. There was absolutely no information that came along as to how that was going to be achieved. What we did in the restatement of this budget that was presented by the Minister of Finance a few weeks back was to at least recognize $45 million of that $91 million cost pressure that was there. As the member probably knows very well, the ministry has very good models when it comes to anticipating what the Pharmacare budget, the costs, will be.

So clearly, upon being sworn in, we were presented with some challenges of a Pharmacare budget that had not been properly funded. We've managed to deal with at least half of that challenge, and we're going to have to find ways of dealing with the other half of that challenge in the months to come.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's not the nub of the question. The minister himself has used examples of spiralling costs for Pharmacare as being one of the unsustainable costs of the health care system. What are his plans for keeping the costs under control?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are looking at a range of options. There is a consultation process that we hope will be underway very quickly to invite various organizations around the province — from groups such as the Pharmacy Association and some of the patient advocacy groups and others — to start looking at their ideas as to how we can better manage that. Out of that, some decisions will be made, but there are no decisions that have been made at this time. If there were, I would be able to share those with the members, but that's basically where we're at.

The other thing is that there is considerable progress being made in terms of interprovincial collaboration when it comes to pharmaceutical management and management of the cost side. Out of the Premier's conference of a couple of weeks ago there was some excellent discussion around ways that various provincial governments could work together to try to bring costs in line and to start looking at an evidence-based process for evaluating new medications, for example. I am hoping that when I attend the Health ministers' conference at the end of September, we are going to have an opportunity to be able to advance some of these initiatives, which I think will have some real cost savings for all provinces.

J. MacPhail: What changes does the minister have planned for the reference drug plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the member doesn't like me constantly coming back to the specific New Era document, but it's a good reference point. I think the other side of it is that if anybody had any doubts about what we were going to do, it's spelled out. The Premier has made it very clear that we are going to do what we said we would do. I'll just read the reference in here, which says that we will work with doctors, pharmacists and others to find a cost-effective alternative to the reference drug program.

There are certainly a lot of complaints. I don't know if the member has had those complaints at her constituency office, but I know I've certainly been bombarded over the last few years around the difficulty that patients have of accessing medications that their doctors feel are very important to their particular treatments.

So we've made the commitment that we're going to do that review, and it will be underway. It has not started yet but certainly will be started within the next weeks or months.

J. MacPhail: Well, the reference drug plan is a cost containment program as well as providing the best possible health care for British Columbians. Of course, the minister did campaign on changes to the reference drug plan, and that's what I'm asking. What are his plans? What are the alternatives? Are the alternatives from an approach of containing costs and still providing effective health care, or is it just to remove any impediment to the pharmaceutical companies in their access to Pharmacare dollars?

Hon. C. Hansen: We've made it quite clear that whatever changes come out of this process must be cost effective. We still need the ability to manage cost within the Pharmacare budget. I know the member will know there are many advocacy groups out there that will say that by introducing new, expensive pharmaceutical products, we can save a whole bunch of money on acute care. The point we've tried to make back to them consistently, over the last two and a half years at least, is that we are prepared to review the reference drug program, but whatever alternative is put in place still has to allow us to manage costs within the Pharmacare budget.

So there isn't any grand design. There's not something I'm going to pull out of my hip pocket and

say: "Well, we've had this in mind for three years, and now we're going to implement it after we go through some pretext of a consultation process." The consultation process is real. We are prepared to look at the reference drug program and come up with an alternative that is equally as cost effective, which allows for cost containment within the Pharmacare budget. The outcome of that is not predetermined, but we are prepared to look at a range of options.

I can give a for instance. In Ontario they have brought in drug utilization agreements. A lot of people have talked about proper utilization of medications as a way that there can be better use of the Pharmacare dollars that are available.

Let's look at some of those options. If we can find ways of giving the power back to doctors to prescribe the medications they feel are most appropriate for their patients and at the same time allow us to contain costs and allow us to ensure there is proper utilization of medications that are available to the doctors to prescribe, then perhaps there may be an opportunity for saving. As I say, that's just one of the options, and we have to look at a whole range. We don't pretend to have a monopoly on the ideas, and my bet is that some of the ideas in this area are going to come from the doctors and the pharmacists themselves.

J. MacPhail: The minister is about to set on asking various people for their opinions or their advice on how to change Pharmacare. I assume he's listed pharmacists, pharmaceutical companies and doctors in seeking that advice. Will the minister assure us that that will not be a way of getting around registering as a lobbyist?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's a good question. I hadn't thought of that in the context of the new Lobbyists Registration Act, but certainly that is not the intent. I know that everybody that is paid to lobby government will have to be registered under that act. As we go out for consultations, if we have bodies that come back to respond to that invitation who are paid to make representation to government, then my understanding is they would fall under the provisions of that legislation once it is fully enacted.

In the meantime, the consultation process is looking at a whole range of inputs from not-for-profit organizations, from the Pharmacy Association, from the B.C. Medical Association and from the various health unions. We'll be looking for input from some of the anti-poverty groups in the province and the seniors' organizations. We're trying to be as inclusive as we can in seeking those inputs. If there are individuals out there who are being paid to lobby government, then they had better take a close look at that legislation that's been brought in, because they will have to be registered once that's brought into force.

J. MacPhail: I want to move on to the capital budget now. Can the minister outline for us what capital projects have changed in terms of the planning process because of the review that the government is taking for capital projects?

Hon. C. Hansen: While we're shifting gears, let me pick up on a question that I deferred earlier around the tobacco funding. The tobacco strategy programs in this budget are $5.1 million. Enforcement, which is around the whole issue of sales to minors, is $600,000, for a total of $5.7 million. There is, in addition to that, part of the federal agreement, which is also around sales to minors, of $600,000, for a total of $6.3 million for these services.

To respond to the specific question the member asked around changes to the capital budget, the March 15 capital budget that was brought in by the previous government included a capital expenditure limit of $401 million for health capital projects. There have been two changes since that time.

The first is that the capital expenditure limit has been reduced by $77 million to reflect the reclassification of expenditures, which are now considered to be operating expenses. I think the member is aware of the issues around the directive that was given by the comptroller. These expenditures include funding for capital maintenance expenditures, such as roof replacement and equipment, with costs of less than $100,000.

The second, more minor change has been the addition of $830,000 to reflect the transfer of responsibility of the Maple Cottage detox facility from the Ministry for Children and Families. As a result of these changes, the capital expenditure limit stands under this current budget at $324 million.

J. MacPhail: Just to be clear, the $77 million where projects were charged against the capital budget is now charged against the operating budget. The capital expenditure limit has been reduced by that amount and put into operating. So no planned projects of $1 million or more are affected by that change. That's question number one.

Question No. 2. Is the government, the executive council doing a review of all Ministry of Health capital projects to determine whether or not capital projects — the ones that are planned now — should proceed? The minister, I think, had a five-year capital plan.

Hon. C. Hansen: We are in the process of reviewing all new capital projects. These would include reviewing project priorities, opportunities for alternative procurement, affordability on the operating budget, changes which may result from health authority restructuring, should that come about, and changes which may result from the core review process. Yes, there is a review underway.

J. MacPhail: What is the status of the capital plan that the Ministry of Health had? Is it frozen?

Hon. C. Hansen: The capital planning process is proceeding. The only change that has happened to date is that we have sent a formal letter to the Chair of the Thompson health region with regard to our desire to take a second look at the psych facility, as we had discussed earlier in the day. Other than that, the various planning processes around the other capital projects are proceeding, and there have been no specific changes around any of those planning processes as they are evolving.

J. MacPhail: The capital budget that remains after the accounting change is $300-and-some-odd million. Sorry, I don't have the figure. Will that money be spent this year?

Hon. C. Hansen: That capital budget as it now stands is $324 million, as I mentioned earlier. That breaks down to $286.2 million for ongoing projects, and then around new projects there's a budget of $37.8 million, of which $29 million would be around equipment issues. Those certainly are on track with the exception of some of the issues that we've discussed. There is, as I mentioned, a review that's underway. Clearly, there is still the possibility that as a result of those reviews, there may be some change in instructions and directions, but basically everything, other than the ones we've previously discussed, is moving ahead.

J. MacPhail: The criteria that the Minister of Health Services outlined are being conducted by whom?

Hon. C. Hansen: The review is being done internally in cooperation with the Ministry of Finance. We are working with the various health authorities around the province to look at projects in terms of the scope of the project. We're looking at opportunities for alternative financing for some of these projects. We're looking at how these projects may fit into regional priorities. Basically, for those projects that have not yet been tendered, we're revisiting those factors, but it's an internal process.

J. MacPhail: I will suggest that either the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care or the Minister of Health Services can answer this. This is my last question on capital projects. The Minister of Health Services said that they were considering private-public partnerships. That would be new if the private-public partnerships are being done in an area of acute or community care. Is part of the review to determine whether private-public partnerships are viable in the acute care system?

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, no decisions have been made in that area, but it's part of the review. We want to look at opportunities as to how the needs of British Columbians can be best met. Certainly, alternative procurement…. There's a range of options; there's a range of ideas. We want to listen to those ideas as ways of making sure that the needs of British Columbians can be met in the future in the most cost-effective way.

J. MacPhail: Those are my questions, except for the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care. I did pose a question prior to…notice of what it was that I was interested in, which was: what changes have occurred in her area of authority since the election?

Hon. K. Whittred: I think you were asking, member, about the changes that have occurred in my responsibility since the election. I don't think there have been any changes in my responsibility since the election. Perhaps I could just define for the member what my responsibility is. As the member is no doubt aware, I am one of two ministers of state within the Ministry of Health Services, with responsibility for intermediate and long term care as well as home care.

The assignment that I have falls basically into three commitments that are outlined in the New Era document. One, of course, is the commitment to provide 5,000 intermediate and long term care beds by 2006. That is our long-term plan. The second is to have a plan in place for the general area of what we normally call continuing care. The third is to provide a focus for the populations that are affected, who are largely seniors, disabled persons, a small portion of people that come from the developmentally delayed who are now in the extended care service of Health. I think that pretty much summarizes my responsibility.

J. MacPhail: Again, I repeat it for the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care: what I was focusing on in these estimates is changes that have occurred within either the budget or the responsibilities that are different than what was in place in the budget last tabled by my government previously, in March. That's what I'm focusing on. Have there been any changes to the budget provided for continuing care or home care?

Hon. K. Whittred: In those areas and in terms of the budget — that was the March budget — there have been no changes that have affected my particular responsibility. I think that the principal areas in the budget that fell within my responsibility would be those moneys that were allocated for the continuing care renewal plan, those moneys that were budgeted for long term care facilities, those moneys that were budgeted for palliative care and those moneys that were specifically allocated for home care. There has been no change in any of those allocations.

J. MacPhail: So I assume that any imprints that the minister of state will put on her area of responsibility will start as of February 19 of next year. In the meantime, the work carries on as was planned prior to the election.

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, in response to the member's question. I think her assumption that the new footprint would take effect next spring in the February budget would be correct. Further to that, I think my role is one that shows a great deal of foresight on the part of the Premier. It is one that I'm confident the member knows. If we are ever going to solve the problems in acute care in health, we must address the long-term needs. Part of my responsibility, certainly between now and next February and ongoing after that, is going to be to try to think outside the box and to try to think about ways that we can use vehicles in the community — whether it be through supportive housing, whether it be through various programs for seniors, whether it be on other kinds of community programs for disabled persons that will allow them to live functional and productive lives without having to access large commitments from the health care system. And that can be a huge commitment.

I think we have to look at other ways of providing primary care for groups such as seniors. I'm very pleased that my own region in North Vancouver has recently started a program where elderly persons, when they're admitted to emergency, are admitted through a separate intake. This often has the effect of only having them there for a few hours rather than several days. That's the kind of innovative thinking that we want to become engaged in and which is a very important part of the assignment that I have been given.

J. MacPhail: Is the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care also responsible for all seniors programs that were part of the Ministry of Health prior to that? If the answer to that is yes, has she received responsibility for all of the programs that were seniors programs? And what, if anything, has happened to the funding of those programs?

Hon. K. Whittred: The member asks a very good question and one which we have struggled to rationalize within our own group as we're working out how this ministry is going to function. I am responsible for the seniors groups, such as the office for seniors. That is an obvious responsibility that I have. However, I am not responsible for the seniors advisory group to Pharmacare, if that helps to address the issue. My role would be to be the advocate within the ministry that would advocate on behalf of seniors at the table when issues around Pharmacare would come up. But my ministry does not hold the primary responsibility for that. I hope that addresses the member's question.

J. MacPhail: Those end my questions for the Ministry of Health Services estimates. I have tried to take these estimates seriously in a way that allows the government a chance to deliver on its New Era document but to stake out the issues that the public must examine in terms of changes that have occurred as a result of the election of the Liberal government. That's the nature of which the examination has been. I look forward to doing everything I possibly can to assist British Columbians in having the best health care system possible.

I. Chong: I just have a few very quick questions for the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition already pinpointed when the imprint of this new government's plan is to going start with the community care beds, and that's what I'm particularly interested in. I've heard from a number of constituents who've read our New Era document, who are keen to see that 5,000 new community care beds are to be added. The people are anxious to see how it will affect their regions, in particular in my area, where I do note that we have an aging population obviously very much interested in seeing where the planning will be taking place for those care beds and how that planning is going to take place. I'm wondering whether the minister can share with us how that's going to unfold, how the rollout plan of how these community care beds will occur and whether specific regions are going to be — I wouldn't say targeted — looked at with a greater proportion of beds than other areas simply because of the demographics.

Hon. K. Whittred: Health authorities have for some time been planning what they feel their long term care commitments to be and are at this very time providing that information to the ministry. Some of those reports are already in, and some are probably going to come in within the next few weeks. Our intent is that the planning, then, is ongoing as far as the plans for each region are concerned. The vehicle which is central to the planning process is, of course, the health authorities, because they are the ones that are closest to the community and will be most aware of what the needs are. We are, of course, looking for innovation from the health communities and the health authorities, and we're hoping to hear from health authorities of possible partnerships that they may have in mind or in fact creative and alternative proposals that they may wish to present to us. We are also committed to working with non-profit groups, and we're trying to send a very loud signal to the non-profit sector that we in fact welcome their input and eagerly await their proposals.

I. Chong: What I'm hearing from the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care is that the health authorities are currently working with the minister in identifying, if you will, an inventory of need in various areas and that that would be coming to her shortly.

When those health authorities bring all this information to the minister, if the number of beds that is identified as necessary in these regions is more than the 5,000 that we have committed to, will those extra number of beds be rolled out into the next phase? I know we are committed to the 5,000 within five years, but if the

needs are going to be that much greater, what kind of contingencies is the minister looking at? Is she going to then have to allocate to get us to the 5,000 so that we can at least move ahead and plan on that?

Hon. K. Whittred: What the ministry has been focusing on in terms of planning is to try to focus on a real mix of services in the community and asking the health authorities to try to give that mix of services that is home-based and which may in fact include a variety of housing solutions. It is the belief and the intent of the ministry and certainly of my assignment that when this plan is completed, or at least at the end of five years, what we will have is a broad spectrum of service that will include enhanced home care. It will include supportive and assisted living in terms of housing, and it will include the number of long term care beds that we need. But it is our hope that we can move toward providing services that represent a good mix and that are concentrated on enhanced home care and on the supportive and assisted living.

I would like to canvass her on a couple of facilities that I'm aware of in this area. As I indicated earlier, there is a keen interest in the communities about this, particularly in the greater Victoria area because of our aging population. Two facilities that I know of, one of which is in my riding and is Oak Bay Lodge and another which is in the riding of the member for Victoria-Hillside and is the Victoria Chinatown Care Centre, are both looking to add beds. They actually have the capacity to add beds. In one case, one has land that's readily available, and I'm sure they're going to see what innovative process they could proceed on with that.

My question is simply this: are these organizations going to have to go through the health authorities, or will they be able to direct them through to a ministry staff person? If so, what criteria or guidelines are they going to have to follow, what kind of application process before they can get moving on these? I know that in one case they're very anxious. I know the member for Victoria-Hillside in particular has toured the site, and she's been in touch with them. I know she, as well, is anxious to help move that process along.

At the Oak Bay Lodge they want to take a look and see if they have to do rezoning, if that's possible. All these things take time. If they knew how this process was going to unfold and how soon it could be unfolding, they could perhaps be working on these things this fall. I'm just wondering if the minister can shed some light on whether there's anything available to them if they were to approach the ministry now or whether they have to wait until next spring for the health authorities to submit everything before they can begin. Every month that passes means a further delay before they can put all their funding in place as well. So if the minister can shed a little light about the criteria and the guidelines, I'd appreciate that.

Hon. K. Whittred: Any organization wishing to build or expand a site would have to apply through the health authority. The health authorities are the vehicle through which this process works. They could do this by presenting an expression of interest, or they could do it by responding to a request for proposal, which would come from the health authority. I might add that in my knowledge, I believe that in most cases long term care facilities within health authorities are included in meetings and planning sessions with the health authorities. I think that is the norm rather than the exception.

I. Chong: I just have two final questions. I'll pose them, and the minister can answer them both at once. One is in the area of hospice and palliative care, and I know the minister is well aware of this area. I'm wondering how this fits in with our plans for community care beds, if she would like to shed a bit more light on that. I know the hospice and palliative care facility here in Victoria is certainly maxed out and in need of an expansion. I know the minister recently had a tour of the facility and perhaps can give us some insight on what agreements arose out of that.

The second one is that here in Victoria, again in the riding that I represent, there's a university. Within the university there is the Centre on Aging. I'm wondering if the minister sees how the university's Centre on Aging can be a part of any consultation or working relationship with this new ministry. Again, not every place has a centre on aging. Since we have one here, it would certainly, I think, be of advantage for our minister to include them in some consultative processes, if that were to take place. Those are the last two questions that I have, and I'll wait for the minister's response.

Hon. K. Whittred: I had the opportunity just a few days ago, in fact, to visit the palliative care centre here at the Royal Jubilee and was very impressed with the program they had. To bring the member up to speed on what our plans are regarding palliative care, we are committed in the New Era document to providing all drug costs that would be available in hospital to a person at home. The present palliative care program, which I would give the former government credit for introducing, has now been in place for six months, and I'm told that there are 1,935 people enrolled. I think that is a very positive sign that people do appreciate the choice that is being given. Certainly, it is one of my personal goals to ensure that we continue to expand on offering quality end-of-life care for our citizens.

On the second part of your question, regarding the Centre on Aging at the University of Victoria, yes, I am familiar with that program and have worked with Ms. Chappell in her capacity as the director there and also with the centre on aging at Simon Fraser and Dr. Gutman. In fact, it was my pleasure, just a few weeks ago, to offer the opening remarks at the international conference for gerontology that was held at the Trade

and Convention Centre. It was really quite an experience. There were 69 nations represented at that conference, dealing with the kinds of topics that affect elderly citizens all over the world.

So I certainly welcome the contribution that these institutions make, and I'm always very eager to share in their information.

G. Trumper: We know there is a great shortage of beds and facilities available for people needing intermediate and long term care, and we have set a target of 5,000 beds. However, there are some long-term care or multilevel facilities that are having a problem with deficits because of the fact that there apparently is no standard for the level of care that they should be receiving for those that are funded by the province. Consequently, some of them are facing the closure of beds, which, at a time when there is a lack of beds, seems to be inappropriate. I would ask the minister: is the issue of standards in long term care facilities being looked at so that we are making full use of the facilities that we actually have at this time?

Hon. K. Whittred: First of all, addressing the first part of the member's question regarding the beds. This is actually a situation that I hear about fairly frequently. What it has to do with is the ability of the care centre to provide full, extended or multilevel care. To put the issue in context, a number of facilities were built several decades ago, and they were built to what would be high quality at that time. Since that time the illness level of people using these facilities has increased greatly, and some of those facilities are no longer offering appropriate care. Therefore the health regions, I'm given to understand, are asking some of the facilities to upgrade in order to continue to receive their funding. I think that is the issue that the member alludes to.

As to the second part of the question that deals with the quality of care in long term care facilities, the quality of care is defined by the Continuing Care Act. It describes the licensing requirements, and that is the act that the facilities are governed by.

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

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

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to present to this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for the year 2001-02. First, I'd like to introduce the ministry staff who are here with me today. Leta Hodge is the executive coordinator of the deputy minister's office. Lori Wanamaker is the assistant deputy minister of corporate services and acting assistant deputy minister, safety and standards. Judy Brachman is the director of communications. As well, with us today to assist in these estimates are David Richardson, assistant deputy minister of community services and culture; Liz Gilliland, assistant deputy minister of women's equality and social programs; Tom Jensen, who is the acting assistant deputy minister of aboriginal, multiculturalism and immigration programs; Jeanine Ratcliffe, director of housing policy; and Carole James, director of child care policy.

These are among the dedicated professionals who have come together under this new ministry to help better serve the people of British Columbia. Certainly, I'm very pleased to be working with them, along with my colleague who is here today, the Minister of State for Women's Equality. The Minister of State for Community Charter and the 2010 Winter Olympics bid will also be joining us. I believe he's probably out entertaining questions from the media at the moment, about the bill he's just introduced.

Through the new Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services we have the goal of building stronger communities and, indeed, stronger local governments. We want, through the various programs and functions of the new ministry, to improve the quality of life for all citizens in British Columbia. It's a ministry that will focus on service delivery and governance, and through this ministry we will be able to bring forward and achieve a number of the new-era commitments that have been made by our government. This ministry is client-centred and will offer a fully integrated approach to service delivery.

A number of programs have been brought together in the new ministry, such as the Vancouver agreement, the First Citizens Fund, Stopping the Violence Against Women, sports and culture programs, public library services, local government infrastructure programs, provincial nominee programs, social housing, transition houses and multicultural policy and services, to name a few. We have quite an array of programs to serve the diverse needs of British Columbians in our communities. I believe the role and scope of this ministry holds great promise and will chart a new model for government service delivery and governance.

In just a couple of short months we've been able to accomplish a number of goals together, such as, certainly, strengthening relationships with the various interest groups which the ministry brings together. We have taken steps to repeal the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act, a remarkably useless and destructive piece of red tape. The repeal of that bill will allow housing societies more control over their properties and, I think, really release the dynamism of the non-profit sector as they move forward with their own goals.

This ministry is also committed to carrying out a number of the new-era commitments — for example, support and champion B.C.'s bid to win the 2010 Winter Olympics and increase funding to the B.C. Arts Council. Another goal is to double the Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports fund to $44 million, pass a community charter to give local governments greater autonomy, increase child care choices for parents, double the First Citizens Fund and work to implement a flexible and innovative program to increase the supply of affordable housing. We will be striving to achieve these and many more goals in the weeks, months and years ahead.

We will also be participating in what everyone has referred to as the core review program. Over the coming months there will be changes made within this ministry that will improve the way it works and the way government works, and we'll be focusing more directly on what communities and British Columbians need.

There are certainly going to be challenges ahead, and some of them are well known. We'll be working with other interested parties and certainly with other levels of government to address long-standing issues such as the leaky-condo crisis; helping immigrant newcomers who need English language skills in order to find better jobs; providing assistance to women at risk who need the support of transition houses; and increasing program funding, hopefully together with the federal government, to solve aboriginal urban challenges and…capacity.

All of these things that my ministry does have a very fundamental impact on the quality of life that communities and the people in them enjoy in British Columbia. We are going to use that integrated and focused approach to ensure that we achieve our goals and, indeed, when we look back months and years hence, to say that we have left the province a better place than when we arrived.

With those brief opening comments, hon. Chair, I'd invite any questions that there may be with respect to this vote.

R. Stewart: Minister, my background quite strongly includes affordable housing. In fact, I'm the founding

chair of the council on housing affordability in B.C. and past president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C., and with the last government, I served for many years on the Minister's Advisory Council on Affordable Housing. I ask you: in the future what kind of emphasis will we be able to place on — not so much on government's role in supplying affordable housing, which by its very nature ends up coming up short vis-à-vis the need for affordable housing…? What emphasis would we place on that? Or can we look to more innovative ways to have housing that is affordable, perhaps built by the market or by other organizations in partnership with government?

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, I thank the member for Coquitlam-Maillardville for his excellent question. I think there are a number of things that can be said in response to the member's question. I'll try to cover off some of them here, at least superficially. He may wish to pursue some of them further.

Certainly, our government has committed to an innovative, flexible housing program. There's a number of elements to that, including working with the federal government to develop a cost-shared program that will result in more affordable rental housing and more affordable development generally. We want to look at a full review of all the regulations with respect to the construction and housing industry. I guess the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act is a good example of getting rid of that red tape and allowing those dynamic forces to provide some new and affordable housing to British Columbians. In our core review, as I mentioned, we're also going to be looking at all of the regulations, all of the programs, and we want to make sure that B.C. Housing is delivering their programs and their products as efficiently and effectively as possible.

I do also want to mention to the member a few of the high points that came out of the federal, provincial and territorial housing ministers meeting last week in London, Ontario. There were some very useful gains made with respect to affordable housing at that conference. First of all, the federal government has, as we requested, promised a good deal more flexibility around some issues, such as the $12,500 per-unit cap that the federal government had put on it. The federal government has also promised flexibility in recognizing the commitment that the British Columbia government has made over the past several years on affordable housing. They certainly have committed to recognizing the commitments that we've made but which have not yet been built. I think Quebec and British Columbia are the only provinces left in Canada that have been doing social housing, so it puts us in a very good position in terms of being able to access close to $90 million in federal funds over the next four years.

The other thing which I emphasized — and which I know the housing minister from Alberta emphasized, because we are, I think, working in much the same direction — is that we made a commitment in the New Era document around long-term care and affordable housing for seniors. The federal government, I think, will show a lot of flexibility in terms of the provincial government moving in that direction as well. So I think that basically the discussion we had in London was a very constructive one. I think British Columbia is very well placed to maximize the value of those federal dollars.

The final point I'd make — because others, particularly the province of Ontario, emphasized it at the conference — is that tax policy should never be underestimated as a way in which affordable housing starts can be generated. If the federal policies around affordable housing are such that there's no incentive to invest in affordable rental housing, then it's not likely to happen. So Ontario put forward that pitch very strongly, and I certainly supported it as well. I think tax policy is, in large measure, the fundamental on which a dynamic housing industry can be built.

R. Stewart: I do congratulate the minister, actually, on the work he did last week back east. I think there is a tremendous amount of expertise in British Columbia built up both within government and outside of government on delivering outstanding non-market housing. I believe that we can move forward with those programs, and I urge the minister to do that.

I also take to heart his comments related to needless red tape and, as well, the tax incentives and/or disincentives that we must sometimes address in looking at the ways in which the housing market is affected by government. I urge the minister to continue to examine the effect government has on the housing market, because in the end we need to make sure that flexibility is the hallmark, both within the non-profit sector and in providing not-for-profit housing — and the tremendous expertise that the non-profit sector has in providing housing. I believe that we must try to look at increasing the ways in which we can harness that expertise but also look at the flexibility of the market in being able to provide for many of the specific housing needs at the low end, specifically rental.

Market rentals have suffered all across Canada, but I wonder what specific incentives the ministry can consider in trying to remove the disincentives for market rental and remove the barriers that face for-profit and not-for-profit developers in trying to develop housing that meets the needs of families looking for rental.

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member's question. It's an insightful one. Further to the question, it is very critical, in terms of delivering affordable housing in the future, that any provincial dollars that go into affordable housing are levered as much as possible with other sectors that are maybe new to the area or are traditionally in this area. I've mentioned the federal government and the opportunity to lever on their $12,500 or more per unit. They have offered some flexibility around that.

We can also partner with municipalities. More than ever I think municipalities are very interested in working with us in this area. The non-profits, of course, have been in the business for a long time and have their own expertise in this area to complement the extensive and very capable expertise that we enjoy at B.C. Housing, with Shayne Ramsay and his staff.

The one area where I think we will want to go, as well, is in the direction of more partnering with the private sector, the so-called private-public partnerships. I think there are some real opportunities there which, perhaps for ideological or other reasons, we haven't really been exploring for the last ten years or thereabouts.

With respect to how to move ahead, the member knows full well about the core review process, and I won't belabour that point. But I do want to say this: construction industry leaders have told us that during the past ten years additional regulations have added about $5,000 to the cost of each new housing unit in British Columbia. In response to that suggestion, whether it's $4,000, $5,000 or $6,000, we know that if we want to have affordable housing here, we need to minimize unnecessary regulation. That's not to say that there isn't a bunch of necessary regulation, because certainly there is. The way in which those regulations are enforced can perhaps be done better as well, but what we're talking about here is eliminating unnecessary red tape.

We've begun this by compiling an inventory of regulations. More than 50 provincial statutes pertain to the housing construction industry. We're going through each of those statutes to see whether the regulatory menus that are contained in them are still appropriate to our circumstances in British Columbia in 2001 or whether they've exhausted their usefulness, assuming they once had some usefulness.

We're going to be going through that list to determine the purpose, effectiveness and impact of each of those regulations. We'll be reviewing those regulations with the industry and other interested stakeholders. It's going to be a considerable task. It's not something we're likely to report results on next week, but it's going to be an ongoing and very important evolutionary process in bringing our construction costs back into line in British Columbia.

R. Stewart: I appreciate your comment on Shayne Ramsay. I've worked with him in the past, and I believe he's one of the capable people that we will have to look to as we try to embrace the way government tackles housing in the future.

I believe that British Columbia is not unique. I, in fact, was at a conference in Australia, perhaps three years ago, where I was able to meet with a number of people on the housing side, and I asked them what their challenges were. They said that their challenges were regulation, taxation and the supply of land. Oddly enough, those, of course, are the same three that exist in every other jurisdiction I've looked at. I don't believe we are unusual in the way in which we have regulation that affects housing. In fact, I wrote some of the regulations that affect housing. Those ones are good.

I believe that as we move forward, if we deal with those three items on market housing — and of course, they also affect non-market housing — and the options available to municipalities in tackling housing regulation, surely we will now go through the process of tackling the regulatory burden and making sure it's appropriate. Some of it is entirely appropriate, and some of it must be looked at. The level of taxation on housing, both market and non-market housing, and the issues associated with the supply of land…. I wonder if the minister has any comments related to those three main issues in market housing.

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, in response to the member's question with respect to how we can endeavour — in the areas of regulation, taxation and supply of land — to assist in adding to the supply of affordable housing in the province, again I think it's a very good question. I was intrigued by the member's reference to Australia, given that apparently there's a fourth thing that we can now add to the list of common problems. That is, at least in a portion of Australia there is a leaky-condo crisis which is bedevilling the authorities as well. So I guess we have more in common with Australia than even previously mentioned.

In any event, how do we deal with each of those to enhance affordable housing supply? I think that on the regulatory side, the changes we have proposed and the very intensive process I've outlined will be of advantage to both the profit sector and the affordable, non-profit sector around housing supply. Regulations hold everyone back, regardless of where they may be in the marketplace.

On tax policy, I think our government has actually gone a long way already, in its very brief life, through the phased elimination of the corporation capital tax, to again provide some additional incentive to produce affordable housing and, indeed, any housing in the province. I've also mentioned that the federal government needs to do more. Certainly, we will continue, along with Ontario and Alberta and others, to encourage the federal government to look at how their tax structure can further assist us in enhancing the supply of affordable housing.

Finally, on the member's point about the supply of land. This is a difficult one. Obviously, in British Columbia we are up against a couple of factors. One is that we've got a lot of mountainous area that may not necessarily be well suited to housing. Of course, much of the available land that's down in the valleys, unless it had been previously used for some urban use, might well be in the agricultural land reserve and, as a consequence, is very limited in its ability to contribute to the available supply of land.

I think, therefore, that the best opportunities we have are with respect, again, to the partnerships we have had — and which I think we can greatly enhance

— with municipalities and with non-profits around this province. Many municipalities, certainly a number of them in my own constituency, have areas that they have set aside for affordable housing or for assisted living for seniors or whatever the priority of the municipality happens to be. I think we are going to be seeing more and more enthusiasm from the municipalities about bringing their contributions to the table, and all or a portion of those contributions might be in the land that they can provide for affordable or seniors-supported housing and so on.

There are lots of exciting opportunities to be had there, both with non-profits and with the municipal realm. Through the elimination of the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act, we now have put back into the hands of non-profits the incentive to redevelop their properties. Again, just to remind those who may have forgotten — and I'm sure none have — the bill that we repealed was one whereby the provincial government would have clawed back from the non-profits one-third of the current market value of any property that they proposed to redevelop, in no matter how insignificant or significant a way.

The consequence of that was that a one-third grant of $10,000 that was given for a housing project back in 1958…. Luckily, we are in the process of repealing this bill. Today the provincial government would have been clawing back one-third of the current market value of that property. So I think we have, through the proposed repeal of that bill, really restored a lot of the dynamism that is inherent in the non-profit sector and their excitement around providing new affordable housing to the people of British Columbia.

D. MacKay: First of all, I'd like to congratulate Mr. Abbott on his appointment as Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I'm sure it's a job that he'll do very well.

My question has to do with the doubling of the funding to the aboriginal communities to improve the life of our native population. I wonder if he could be a little more specific on the funding that is going to be coming from vote 20. Can he tell me if the funding will be specific? Will it be cash to the communal lifestyle that they presently have, or will it be target-specific? Will it be directed at programs for training for individuals, as opposed to the communal lifestyle? And will there be accountability attached to it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine for his question. The doubling of the First Citizens Fund was a new-era commitment that was made in the last provincial election. The commitment that was made by the document and by our government was a doubling of the First Citizens Fund from $36 million to $72 million. What happens, of course, is that it will make more interest available on an annual basis, to be expended in a range of programs which I'll discuss shortly.

The actual capital fund goes untouched from year to year. It's the interest from that fund which is expended for a variety of program objectives. I do want to note that as with virtually all areas of government, there will be a core review process done with respect to the First Citizens Fund to ensure that, as in other areas of government, we are delivering programs as effectively and efficiently as we can, and that in fact government is not into areas of endeavour that they perhaps shouldn't be. That holds for every part of government, including the First Citizens Fund.

At this point the government makes no particular reference to individual versus communal kinds of endeavours. There are five elements to the First Citizens Fund programming. One is the business loan program, which again is being reviewed as part of this. It allows individuals — or I suppose bands, probably — to access up to $75,000 over the course of their lives to create new businesses. There is a post-secondary bursary fund, as well, which obviously supports aboriginal students as they go forward and hopefully access post-secondary training, whether in technical or academic areas.

A third element is the elder transportation program. As the name indicates, it assists elders in meeting and discussing issues of concern to them. A fourth element in the program is the funding of friendship centres. Of course, the friendship centres offer a range of social and recreational programming to aboriginals living in urban areas. Finally, we will be assisting with aboriginal language preservation and promotion through additional assistance from the First Citizens Fund as well.

That's kind of a snapshot of the First Citizens Fund and what we are doing with it. Obviously, the intent of the fund is to enhance the lives of aboriginal people, both on and off reserve. I think we will be reviewing each of the proposals which comes before the First Citizens Fund with that objective in mind: will this improve the lives of aboriginal people on and off reserve in British Columbia?

D. MacKay: I have one last question, and it deals with the Nisga'a natives. Now that the Nisga'a have signed off on treaty and are outside the province — they have their own core lands — does the First Citizens Fund provide any funding for the Nisga'a people themselves?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's possible I have misunderstood the member's question. Let me just run through this, and he can correct me if I've misunderstood it. The Nisga'a, by virtue of their recent treaty, certainly have some governmental responsibilities which are, at this point in time at least, beyond those that are customarily found among other aboriginal bands and nations in British Columbia. For example, the treaty — we went through it in some detail here a year or two ago — certainly gives them additional powers or responsibilities with respect to health, education and a range of other areas that are detailed in the treaty itself. None of that, however, at least in my understanding, makes the Nass any less a part of British Columbia

The Nisga'a people remain citizens of British Columbia. They have an opportunity to vote in provincial elections just as they have an opportunity to vote for their own Nisga'a Lisims government elections, but they do have — and will continue to have, as I understand it — the same rights, responsibilities and so on as other British Columbians. That's a long-winded way of saying that assuming I got the question right, they could access the First Citizens Fund were their proposal found to be appropriate.

M. Hunter: I'd like to start by echoing the sentiments of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine and congratulating the minister on his appointment to a ministry which is extremely varied, as I'm sure he has found out and as I have observed from other dealings with him and looking at the estimates.

I have three areas that I would like to pursue with the minister at this point. The first is to do with the issue of the so-called third sector: non-profits. The minister, in his opening remarks, talked about the objectives of the ministry being the improvement of the quality of life of our citizens, a focus on service delivery and being client-centred — all qualities that I might suggest are, if not unique to the non-profit centre, certainly objectives which drive most of those volunteer organizations which I have had the pleasure of meeting and working with so far, since I've been elected.

As I stated in my speech in response to the throne speech some weeks ago, my community of Nanaimo…. I use the word "community" rather than "riding" because Nanaimo is bigger than my riding. Out of 80,000 or so people in the Nanaimo area represented by myself and the member for Nanaimo-Parksville, there are in the order of 800 volunteer groups that occupy some part of the lives of an estimated 22,000 people. If not a record in British Columbia, that has to be a really noteworthy percentage of people who actually involve themselves in the lives of those in their community who are less fortunate.

I want to ask the minister, particularly in light of one thing that I see in the estimates…. It has arisen as a result of announcements made last week by his cabinet colleague the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise with respect to business subsidies in non-profit organizations. I think the minister may recognize that there has apparently been some confusion, certainly in my community, that the decision made by cabinet last week and its planned review of the second phase of business subsidies in October…. Because the word "non-profit" was used, there has been some concern in my city that maybe some of the very good, worthwhile volunteer organizations are at risk.

I would like to ask the minister if he could, at this time, clarify this confusion that has arisen. It has arisen from people like, for example, the president of the Haven Society, an organization which I'm sure the minister and the Minister of State for Women's Equality are very concerned about. Organizations like that are confused by the way announcements have been made. I would like to ask the minister to assure us that that confusion is misplaced, if he can. Perhaps I could ask him to make that assurance in light of the line item that appears on page 91 of the Estimates, where government transfers are being reduced by some $10 million between the last fiscal year and the fiscal year we are now considering.

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to try to provide some light on the issues which the member for Nanaimo has raised. First of all, I think it's great to hear that the volunteer ethic is alive and well in Nanaimo. To get that number of people involved in their community is, I think, both commendable and remarkable. What I find, from my personal experience in my hometown of Sicamous and, I suppose, communities that I have visited all around British Columbia is that volunteers are what frequently make our communities vibrant and special. Volunteers are very, very important to us in this government, and I'm sure the member shares that view.

We do not share the view, however, that somehow we preserve volunteerism and enhance volunteerism by centralizing and bureaucratizing it. I don't believe that happens. I believe volunteerism is an ethic which we should nurture and which we should always be proud of, but I don't think we necessarily have to be throwing millions of dollars at it. I think we are going to be, again, taking a close look at that in the months ahead, through the core review.

Just to be clear for the member, and indeed for all members, this is a government that keeps its commitments. We will be honouring the commitments not only that we have made but that the former government made with respect to funds for the volunteer sector, the co-op sector, etc. If there is a contract in place where both sides have signed off and it's underway, we're going to honour it. I think people can feel confident that if they have the commitment in place, it will be honoured through the life of the contract.

In the Minister of Finance's fiscal update late last month changes were made in the community enterprise program particularly and in some other programs as well. Primarily, the funds that were taken back by Treasury Board or taken back to consolidated revenue were almost entirely unallocated and unexpended grant funds in the community enterprise and the cooperatives and volunteer areas. Where contracts are in place, they will be honoured. These were unexpended and unallocated grants. In the weeks and months ahead we will be looking at what those program areas are doing and whether they have any future at all in our new government. So we will have an opportunity to assess those.

Another part of the member's question referred to the discussion that occurred in open cabinet last Wednesday. I, unfortunately, was at the housing

ministers' conference in Ontario and missed the firsthand sense of that. But I understand there was some relatively spirited discussion around what exactly a business subsidy is, particularly once you get into the so-called second-phase business subsidies. When we're talking, for example, about the government buying a mill or throwing a whole bunch of money at it, that's pretty easy to understand as a business subsidy. When we get into the funding of, for example, community economic development activities, the distinction gets a little bit more blurry and therefore prompts the kind of debate which I think the member was alluding to in his comments.

I can say this. My understanding of where our government is with respect to business subsidies is that it should not be anything that would cause fear or consternation or concern among the non-profit sector. I don't believe there is, or ever was, any intention that the non-profit sector would have something to fear from the notion of, for example, doing away with business subsidies to enterprise. Non-profits, by their very character, are offering up a service — frequently, but not always, housing — to the community to assist those in need, who are often among the more disadvantaged in our society. I think that, particularly given the Premier's frequent reference to working with non-profits to find solutions around affordable housing, to find solutions around seniors supported housing and so on…. All of those things suggest to me that the non-profits of British Columbia should have nothing to fear from the discussion we are having around business subsidies.

M. Hunter: I would certainly like to thank the minister for the clarity if not the brevity of his response. I did sense in his reply that he thought his area of the province might be competing with Nanaimo, where the volunteer ethic is indeed alive and well. I might point out to the minister that the volunteer organization, the umbrella organization in Nanaimo, has been speaking to me about…. The minister might want to think about using Nanaimo as an example for looking at how the system works, of how volunteerism works at its best. But this isn't the place to get into a discussion about whether the interior or coastal Vancouver Island is the champion of volunteerism in this province.

I would like to thank the minister for that reply. I am sure it will bring a great deal of comfort to people throughout the province who I know, like those in Nanaimo, were a little concerned over what they heard from the cabinet meeting last week. As the minister will appreciate, I'm sure, what was said often gets truncated in the passage through to the media, and that answer was very helpful, certainly for me.

Perhaps I could move to a second area of questions. I would like to pick up on the First Citizens Fund, if I might. There are two parts of that fund which I would like to ask the minister about: how the performance of the fund and the use of the money are assessed. I stand here as a person who has been involved with many of our aboriginal people in coastal British Columbia from a business point of view for many years, and I think that helping hands to people, whether they are aboriginal or not, is part of the job of government.

The First Citizens Fund does include, as the minister stated in his answer to the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, a business loan program. I wanted to draw the minister's attention to experience that I have had in the fishing industry with similar programs, which have had two or three different forms over the years. One of my first professional jobs after I joined the Department of Fisheries, 100 years ago, was to assess the impact of a program called the Indian fishermen's assistance plan. In later years, I was involved in some elements of a program run by a native society that had similar objectives of loaning money to aboriginal people to buy fishing vessels and become part of the business, before the federal government took certain actions which resulted in a decimation of that business.

In both of those programs in which I have had experience there has been a tendency, because it's government funds and not commercial money, for some of the loan repayment provisions to be dealt with rather liberally, if I can use that phrase — small l. Can the minister explain to me what the terms are, how the business loan program is policed and what the record of repayment is? Are there significant amounts of those loans in arrears? Perhaps the minister could advise me on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to provide the member with some information with respect to the loans program portion. We're trying to get a little bit more information here, and I may have it, assuming there may be some follow-up question to this one.

Last year, which I guess would be a fairly typical year since the instigation of this program, there were 141 loans approved to aboriginal individuals or groups. The average value of those loans was $28,100. The default rate is unclear, and we'll try to get a more precise percentage for you, but we understand that historically the default rate has actually been quite low with respect to the loans.

Probably one of the reasons why the default rate has been relatively low is that some 40 percent of the loan is guaranteed by the province through the First Citizens Fund. Further, the management of the loans programs is done through an organization called All Nations Trust, which does some supervision and oversight with respect to this program. In terms of the character of the loans themselves, the four areas where loans have been most common, in sort of descending order of importance, are our service industry — things like restaurants, I'm presuming — then forestry, then retail, then the fishing industry. So those have been where the loans have most commonly gone.

In terms of whether the program has been managed as well as it should have been, we don't see at this point an obvious case to say that it has been mismanaged, but as with all areas of government, we

do want to do the core review and have a very close look at how this program is being generated and administered. We will want to ensure that we have comprehensive service performance indicators in place to see that, in fact, the program is helping us achieve the goals it was designed for. Again, one of the things we know is that historically, for reasons related to most people's tenure to land, it is very difficult for them to access loans for any business purpose. As a consequence of that, they face interest charges which are much higher than the marketplace. This program has intended to try to rebalance that. Again, we will be looking, in the weeks and months ahead, to ensure that we are getting the best bang for the buck for this program — that it's fulfilling the goals that are inherent in it.

I'd like to switch to the final area of the estimates that I'd like to question, and that is the role of the minister under the subvote for local government, local government services, where the responsibilities of the minister and the ministry are described as including "investigations into local government issues and community and regional planning."

This is quite different from the previous two question areas, and my question to the minister is actually quite general. There is a great deal of concern in areas of the province where streamside protection regulations under the Fish Protection Act are included in official community plans by the competent authority in question. Can the minister advise me whether or not his responsibility for investigations into local government issues and community and regional planning includes an oversight authority over the inclusion of such regulatory instruments into official community plans?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I know the answer to this. I'm going to give the answer with the caveat that if I'm wrong, which rarely happens but is theoretically possible, we'll quickly advise the member that I was incorrect.

Here's my understanding with respect to the current issue about streamside protection. It's really not a new one. I recall, as a municipal councillor and regional district director ten years ago, that there were issues around setbacks from creeks and so on. I guess the general direction has been to see those increase and, in some cases, become relatively more onerous, but the concept is not a new one. Generally, when we're talking streamside setbacks and that kind of thing, it is something which is set down by the province, and I suspect it's probably set down at this point in time through the new Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection.

When municipalities and regional districts are adopting official community plans or making amendments to those plans, it is not unusual for the provincial government, in its consideration of those plans or amendments to those plans, to oblige the local governments to have their plans reflect whatever provincial regulation has been deemed appropriate.

Now, I know, and I'm sure the member knows, that there has been a certain amount of controversy around the current streamside protection provisions that are operating in this province. There are some who think that they are entirely too onerous, that they need to be revisited. That may be the case. I guess all I'm saying is that it's the provincial government that really needs to have a look at that and see whether that debate needs to be resolved in a way that would see some changes with respect to the streamside protection provisions that are currently being required by the province.

M. Hunter: So in the case of an official community plan — which, as I understand it, under the minister's responsibility for the Local Government Act, requires the minister's approval — if there is a lot of concern around some of the streamside protection setback provisions…. I'll repeat the question, I guess. Does the minister's responsibility include an oversight provision, and is that oversight provision usable in the current circumstances, pending a review by the entire government of these issues that have to do with streamside protection?

Hon. G. Abbott: By remarkable and fortuitous circumstance it appears that the answer which I gave was in fact correct. That was not a bad guess on my part with respect to this.

The way it works is that when local governments are considering the issue, if they deem it appropriate, they can expand the area of streamside protection, but they can't diminish it. The provincial minimum is set, as you might expect, by the provincial government. As I said in a somewhat windier fashion in my last response, it may be that for the best of reasons, the province needs to take another look at what they are doing in that area of government. But that debate will be led by, I presume, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection in concert with provincial Fisheries and in concert with federal Fisheries.

So really, the authority for that goes outside this room to other ministries, but this ministry is bound to ensure that local government plans reflect whatever setbacks and whatever streamside protection is deemed appropriate by broader government.

G. Trumper: I'd like to ask the minister a general question on infrastructure grants. Where there are joint

infrastructure grants, can I ask at this time whether local governments will have input into how those grants are delivered?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll begin by just laying out briefly the responsibility of our ministry with respect to the so-called green infrastructure grants, typically the water and sewer grants which many municipalities and regional districts have expressed an interest in, in recent months. I guess we know they're very interested because at this point we have, I think, $2.1 billion in applications for some $800 million in funding. So there's lots of interest there. Certainly, there is more interest than there are available resources.

My ministry — Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — through our municipal affairs section, does the assessment of those water and sewer infrastructure applications. They bring forward what they believe are the appropriate projects to recommend. When that is completed, those grants plus the non-infrastructure grants go to a federal-provincial-local government management committee for final consideration and for final approval. There are six members on the committee. There are two representatives from the federal government and two representatives from the provincial government. They're non-political. They're a representative from my ministry and a representative from the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise. As well, there are two representatives on that management committee from the Union of B.C. Municipalities.

G. Trumper: I thank the minister for that answer. The reason I ask it is that in the past when there have been joint infrastructure programs, there has been little input from local government. Consequently, in some cases where there has been deemed an urgent need for that particular grant, such as water, the grants have been given to other projects which were not the first priority, certainly for the local government — for projects that would be nice but are not urgent. That was due to the fact that there was very little input from local governments.

Today some of those communities who are asking for funding, particularly for water and sewer…. Some of these issues could have been addressed before they got to the state where it's questionable — in some cases, to the standard of their water in some of the areas. I think it's important for all of us. We want to make sure that those infrastructure grants are spent to the best of their ability on the very necessary needs of local government.

I think we actually have come some distance in terms of making the federal-provincial-local government partnership a genuine partnership among those three levels of government.

If the member is looking for some really compelling rhetoric around this issue from a few years ago, I recall, back in the 1996 Ministry of Municipal Affairs estimates, sitting in a chair over there as Municipal Affairs critic and calling for the then Municipal Affairs minister, Dan Miller, to make the partnership a genuine partnership — to give UBCM an opportunity to not just be a recipient of those funds but also to have a voice in setting up the infrastructure program mandate and its parameters, and so on.

I think we have come some distance since 1996. I expect that there may be other improvements that the UBCM might recommend around how we do this in the future. We always have to be very alert to those opportunities to make things like infrastructure programs work for our communities. I again thank the member for her question.

I couldn't agree more that, given limited resources and almost boundless demands for those resources, we need to ensure that all of the applications we approve are solid, deliver the best bang for the buck and help to ensure that communities across British Columbia all enjoy the benefits of safe, clean drinking water, which is something we take for granted on a day-to-day basis in this Legislature. Certainly, I know from some of the applications we've received that there are some communities in this province that can't say the same. I couldn't agree more with the member with respect to her observations.

Just to follow up on a couple of things, if I could. Going back to the question around the First Citizens Fund and the default on the business loans program, the default level over the entire period of the program has been 9 percent. That may be a little higher than commercial loans. I'm not sure. It probably is. But that's the magnitude that that sits at.

The other thing I want to note is that the Minister of State for Women's Equality has another appointment. I'd just like to invite anyone who has questions that relate to the Minister of State for Women's Equality to…. Perhaps this would be an opportune time to bring those forward.

I'm certainly hoping that the extent of these estimates will be comparable to my Forests estimates last year, which was about 25 hours. But we can't count on that, so if there are any questions for the Minister of State for Women's Equality at this point, they'd certainly be welcome.

I just want to put on the record that I actually do have questions for all three ministers, but I will start with the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

I note on page 88 of our blue books that the Women's Equality and social programs budget has gone up substantially over the previous…. It's some $41 million. I guess I'm trying to, within the context of the definitions here, find out where that increase is being spent. I know this minister of state is responsible for some of the child care initiatives, and I think, from the information that has been put out, that that

accounts for some of it. But I'm wondering if the minister is able to highlight, perhaps, a little bit more of where this extra expenditure this year, 2001-02, over the previous year — perhaps what incremental programs are being provided…. Or is it just sustaining programs? If that's the case, is it because the demand is greater?

I do appreciate the fact that this minister is also going through her core review process and will perhaps get a better understanding in detail of what government programs are being provided. But just a highlight or outline on that, so I could share it with people in my constituency, would be most helpful.

Hon. L. Stephens: I am very pleased to answer the member's questions. I do apologize, as I do have a meeting, and I appreciate the opportunity to jump into the middle of all of this.

In terms of the funding for women's services, the fundamental changes to our budget are the $77 million addition to the child care program and the about $6 million in low-wage redress to the programs that the ministry delivers. So those are the two fundamental increases in the budget for this year.

I. Chong: In the area of the low-wage redress, can the minister, for my benefit…? I wasn't sure how long this was ongoing. Will this complete the low-wage redress, or is this an ongoing five-year or three-year program? I'm not clear on how long this ministry would have to deal with this particular issue.

Hon. L. Stephens: In terms of the low-wage redress, that was an initiative that was brought forward by the previous administration. Our commitment is to those contracts that are in place at the moment. As the member knows, we are undergoing a core services review, and all of the services and decisions of government will be looked at in terms of what is and what is not sustainable. That is one of the areas that we are looking at, and the future will unfold as it should. In the meantime, the low-wage redress that has been put in place will continue.

I. Chong: Also, within the program for women's equality and social programs, the vote provides for community social services. These are the bridging employment programs that I would like to canvass the minister on. I know that in this particular area, in Victoria, there are a number of bridging employment programs which at one time, under the previous administration, were seriously under threat of not being able to continue. Can the minister advise whether in this year's budget there has been any change to those? I don't believe those contracts are in the same fiscal year. Or perhaps they are, and the minister can correct me if I'm wrong. I think some of them actually start in September, and then they have a different fiscal year.

Are those programs fairly secure? I think they start in September, because they follow the academic school year. For that reason, they may be starting. They've got a certain time frame in which to complete some employment programs. Some people are in the intermediate years and need to know that there's a continuation and, I guess, need some assurance. Before I get too many calls from constituents about the security of these programs, if the minister could provide a little information on that, it would be most helpful.

Hon. L. Stephens: I can provide some comfort to the member. The funding for those programs has been authorized. The programs that the member talks about are primarily those around educational opportunities, those programs that are coming through the bridging program for the fall. The bridging program has been under review. The review is not completed yet. However, we are committed — very much so — to women who have survived abuse obtaining the necessary life skills and work skills and training to improve their employability options. So the contracts with the current delivery system have been extended to ensure that the service continues until the revision of the program is complete.

I. Chong: The final question I have for the minister, before we go back into the routine of however we are going to be posing questions, goes back to the child care initiative. There is a lot of confusion out there in the public. There is some confusion in the constituency that I represent as to what parents are going to be able to access this fall and what's going to happen in January. While some of us realize we are committed to a portion of that, there is confusion as to the rollout or the phasing in of other parts of that. Can the minister provide a little bit more information so we have it on the record, so when those constituents call in the future, I could point to this and explain how it may affect them?

In my area in particular I've got young university-student single moms who are getting their education upgrades and who rely on child care programs. And I know that throughout greater Victoria there are working parents who are looking to be able to access…. One of the areas in greatest demand is in the infant-toddler area, and I am wondering if this is the area that we will see the quickest movement on.

So if the minister can just provide that. If not, and if she requires further information, then I would be happy to meet with her at a future time. For the record, before the minister leaves, I want to thank her for her information and thank her staff for providing information. I'll put that in, in advance.

Hon. L. Stephens: The government has, as you know, talked about a new child care plan for the province of British Columbia. In the election and leading up to it we were very clear about our new-era commitment to the families of British Columbia, and that is to provide targeted funding for those families who need it the most and to expand child care spaces

in the province. So what we have done is repeal sections 3, 4 and 5 of the previous administration's Child Care BC Act to enable us to do that. The previous administration's child care program was not sustainable. The funds were simply not there to provide for the kinds of commitments that the legislation called for.

So what we are going to do is honour the contracts that have been awarded to the child care providers up to the end of June 2002. That is for the before- and after-school child care portion of it. The portion of the child care plan that was to roll out in January 2002, which was the family before- and after-school child care and the infant and toddler program, will not move forward.

What we will be doing between now and the end of this year, and really only until about the end of September or early part of October, is developing a new child care plan with those two new-era commitments in mind, targeting families who need it the most and increasing child care spaces for British Columbia parents.

I've been talking quite extensively with the child care providers, and it is clear that the biggest pressure point for child care is the infant and toddler spaces. They are certainly the most expensive to provide, and they are the most expensive to access. As a result of that, they are the most in short supply. So we will be in consultation with child care providers and with parents around the province to develop that new child care plan. I think parents and the providers can rest assured that we understand their disappointment at universal child care not moving forward. However, we have made the commitment that we will, with our limited financial resources, do the best we can with the most money that we have available. That means that we're going to have to target, and we are going to try to find ways to use our scarce resources to the best of our ability.

I. Chong: Not to try and put a firm date on this, because I know the importance of consultation with the child care providers and all the stakeholders and people involved, but from the information the minister provided, the rollout, I guess, of what direction we're taking child care…. I'm gathering from her comments that we will have substantive consultation this fall. Are we able to anticipate that it would be in the spring that we would see something? Or would some sort of discussion paper come out in the spring for implementation in the fall? Is it far enough ahead that the minister can share that with us, or is it still a real work in progress? As I say, we want the consultation, which I know this new government does. I can appreciate that that's needed, but as you can understand, there's a lot of anticipation out there. Children start growing up very fast.

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes, I do understand that families are quite apprehensive about what may or may not happen. During the last child care development plan there was quite a lot of consultation done. We're going to be using a great deal of information that is already being gathered. The ministry staff are going through the 10,000 responses that we received at that time and looking at some of the other areas that were suggested in those responses. We are hopeful that the consultation process with the parents and child care providers will take no longer than six weeks. We will have to go to Treasury Board at that time to put in front of them the plan that we have. We're hopeful that we will have something for the public somewhere around the middle or towards the end of October, with the view that we would be able to communicate a plan for the province for the new year.

That's what the time line is. Having said that, though, we're going to be trying to do it as quickly as possible. We understand that it is an issue that parents are concerned about. We certainly have the expectation that there will be a plan announced very shortly, and we're trying to do it as quickly as we possibly can.

I. Chong: I just want to again thank the minister and her staff for that information. We'll all be watching those.

With that, I'll yield the floor to other colleagues and wait my turn to jump back into the queue for the other ministers' questions.

R. Lee: I just have a quick question on multicultural services and immigration services.

We see that there is $24 million transferred from the federal government. I just want to see what percentage is on aboriginal services and also what percentage is on immigration and multicultural services.

Also, under immigration services there are two categories. One is settlement, and the other is language programs. My question ultimately is on the services to parents and schools and the liaison between parents and schools. Recently services to immigrant parents were being cut off in terms of, say, the multicultural workers in certain cities, in Burnaby particularly. Traditionally, the school district provided those services. However, because of the budget they cannot allocate any more money for those kinds of services. I was just wondering if there was any plan in your ministry to help those immigrant parents settle and to provide some services between the students and the schools and the parents.

Hon. G. Abbott: I will try to provide at least a preliminary answer here to the member's very good questions around immigration and multiculturalism settlement grants. It is a very important question, and he may wish to follow up with some additional questions.

The issue has been a very important one in the current fiscal year. The federal grants for immigration settlement in each province are determined by that province's share of immigrant settlement in the preceding year. One of the consequences of the economic malaise which the former government

visited upon this province is that over time it became a relatively less attractive place to settle than, for example, Alberta and Ontario and Quebec. As a consequence, our proportion of immigrant settlement in British Columbia was reduced, and the consequence of that in the current fiscal year was that there was a proportionate reduction in the federal immigration settlement grant.

The grant reduction in the current fiscal year was $3.8 million. About $1.9 million of that reduction was absorbed by the consolidated revenue fund, but it did leave something like a 15 percent shortfall from previous years in the amount of money which immigration settlement societies and multicultural societies had to work with in order to assist in the many fine and, I think, useful and constructive programs that they offer to new immigrants to this province. So it has created a difficulty; 15 percent is a significant reduction.

We are very cognizant of the difficulties that has imposed on those societies and, indeed, on English-as-a-second-language providers in different universities and colleges in British Columbia as well. I met, along with the minister responsible for Women's Equality, with most, if not all, of the service providers in British Columbia about a month ago now and heard firsthand from them the difficulties that the reduction was going to occasion. We are sympathetic. We have tried to assist by the consolidated revenue fund absorbing a portion of that hit, but we also want to work with the societies to see if there's anything additional we can do — whether it's, hopefully, of a non-financial nature or of any nature. We're always anxious to work and see if we can assist.

So it has been difficult. I think the real answer to the difficult issue we're facing is to make British Columbia once again a dynamic and vital economy where there are many well-paying jobs, where people will be attracted to come to British Columbia rather than to Ontario or Alberta and where people will want to settle. There'll be two benefits from that. One, the province's ability to assist people through quality health, education and social service systems will be once again fulfilled. It will also see the direct grant from the federal government for immigration settlement purposes restored to its previous level or, hopefully, beyond that.

R. Lee: I think my point is that there are some who think that, for example, if Burnaby were cutting the multicultural workers services, parents would be moving to Vancouver instead, because there are no cuts to those multicultural workers in Vancouver. Actually, they are the liaisons between the school and the families. Traditionally, it's not funded by the multicultural society or that kind of organization. It's actually funding provided by the school board.

In terms of attracting immigrants, the thing I heard is that the immigrants will move to the places where the services are provided. For the image of this province…. If we can provide the services, then we should provide them, in order to attract immigrants. You know, this is one of the attractions, if the services are provided.

Another comment is that some immigrants actually move. They're very mobile. They probably applied to Quebec, for example, but in one or two years or a few months, they moved to B.C. or Alberta. How do we keep track of the actual number of settlements in B.C.? Do you have any idea of the number that are not destined for B.C. but eventually settle in B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked a number of very important questions in his previous submission, and I'll try to respond in some kind of coherent fashion to the questions that he's raised.

First of all, looking at the broad flow of immigration to British Columbia, the peak years, in terms of in-migration from outside of Canada into British Columbia, were during the mid-1990s. The peak was around 50,000 annually at that time. That has, in more recent years, been reduced to what last year was approximately 37,000 immigrants into British Columbia from outside of Canada.

The migration to British Columbia of immigrants who didn't land in British Columbia is also an interesting area to look at. Again, I think it underlines the point I made previously about British Columbia becoming a relatively less attractive place for immigrants to settle over the course of the decade. It's a trend which we obviously would want to see reversed. During the 1991-96 period, the last census period for which we have numbers at this point, we saw a net increase of 35,000 immigrants who landed in Toronto or Montreal or anywhere else in Canada but who moved to British Columbia. So that's 35,000 who came to British Columbia from within Canada during that period.

In the period from 1998 through 2000 we have seen a net outflow of immigrants who landed in British Columbia and who made the decision for, presumably, largely economic reasons to go to Alberta or Ontario and so forth. Again, it underlines the critical importance of having a healthy, dynamic economy, not only for British Columbians who have been here for decades but for new British Columbians who obviously would see a stable job, as well as an attractive community, as a reason to come to British Columbia.

On the member's other points with respect to the school board. In particular, he mentioned the Burnaby school board decision with respect to the ESL and multicultural programs there. That certainly would be a question which, given that it revolves around school board programming, might be more appropriate for the Minister of Education at some point. I don't think we as a ministry would want to get into the business of second-guessing a duly constituted authority which was making what they thought, I presume, was the best decision within the ambit of their authority.

Certainly, we do believe that multicultural and ESL programs should be available on a fair, equitable and

proportionate basis in different parts of the lower mainland and in different parts of the province. We as a ministry are prepared to work with the federal government to try to find a stronger partnership with the federal government in addressing immigrant and multicultural needs here in British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: I, too, would like to congratulate the minister for his rather lengthy answers, which were slightly longer than his questions from previous years when he was critic.

Mr. Chair, through you to the minister, I wanted to ask the minister questions on the leaky-condo situation. As the minister knows, it's a big, big problem. Every time you turn a corner nowadays, it seems you see another building wrapped in the infamous blue. The responsibility lies with many people, I guess. The federal government, provincial government, municipal governments, architects, contractors and builders and everything are all culpable in some way. But none of them can really be held responsible specifically for the damages, as you're probably aware.

You know, if my house leaks, I don't ask to have it looked after by the provincial or federal government. I think there's somewhere now in the range of 45,000 or 50,000 units that have been damaged. So I guess the big question is: is the government looking at how far they're going to go as far as relief? I mean, to give non-interest loans is, to me and to a lot of people, almost nonsensical. Are they ever going to be able to pay it back? They've been damaged so badly in the fact that the repairs….

I wanted to ask a couple of brief questions, and maybe you could sum it all up, after having been in Ottawa. Is there going to be substantive relief to the people in the past and those coming down the line in the present? I notice that Quebec gave them about $3,500 apiece, but that's just sort of chicken feed, really, when you think of the total amount of repairs that were necessary. So are we going to extend our loan guarantees? Are we going to extend our non-payback guarantees? Are we going to look after all these situations that go on? Are you going to continue with the homeowner protection office?

D. Jarvis: As my associate here from Victoria said, the rainy season is upon us again, so it'll probably be hot and heavy in there.

I was playing golf with a gentleman the other day who was in the business of repairing leaky condos, a contractor, and he said to me: "It's unbelievable the ripoff that's going on with the general contractors." He's been called into court two or three times lately and has won his point with regards to the extent of repairs. Are they really as bad as they make them out to be? I'm talking about the people who come in and say: "Lookit, we can look after your damages."

Hon. G. Abbott: I am tempted to observe — although I won't — that one of the reasons for my occasionally lengthy answers is that the members have a unique talent for summarizing remarkably complex issues in remarkably concise questions. I apologize, but as was my weakness as a critic, I'll probably tend to try to provide exhaustive kinds of answers — as I did exhaustive kinds of questions. I know it was exhausting for some of my colleagues to listen to, but here we go.

Let me start with the first. Well, there were a number of questions asked. The member asked whether the homeowner protection office would continue. The homeowner protection office will be a part of the core review. Again, as with all the areas within my ministry — and within, indeed, all ministries of government — we will be looking at the HPO to ensure that it is delivering its programs as efficiently and effectively as possible. We may find that there are ways in which we can do some things better, or not. Really, we go into that core review with an open mind with respect to the HPO, as we would for B.C. Housing or, indeed, any of the other portions of the ministry and its programs.

The member raised the, I think, very important issue of leaky condos. It is a critical public policy area in British Columbia today, and certainly we are going to work very hard in the months and years ahead to try to find a more satisfactory resolution to what has obviously been a misery in many people's lives. The member's absolutely right: this is a huge problem. We now estimate that when all is said and done, between 65,000 and 70,000 units in British Columbia will be affected by building envelope failure or leaky condos. That's now the estimate, and that is up significantly from the estimate which was provided by the Barrett commission. So even since '98 our understanding of the magnitude of this problem has changed, and we know that the magnitude of it is far greater than what we estimated even recently.

The total cost estimate for repair of those 65,000 to 70,000 units now stands at $1.5 billion. So again, what we understand to be the magnitude of the problem has grown significantly since the initial public policy response with the no-interest loans, the provincial sales tax rebate program and so on. It has grown since then, and we're going to have to struggle to find ways to help mitigate the very real and very difficult problems that some people are facing in terms of managing this horrific event in their lives.

I want to speak a little bit more. The member asked about my proposals to Minister Gagliano, the federal minister responsible for housing, when we met in Ottawa last Thursday. Before I go there, though, I want to say that I agree with the member that there's probably plenty of blame to go around on this

particular problem. It is difficult, if not impossible, to attribute blame with precision around this matter. Certainly, there are many factors that come into play. Some of the allocation of blame may be resolved as a number of cases that are pending come before the courts, I think, starting in early 2002.

The question of provincial and federal responsibility may be tested if one particular suit is certified. As well, there are suits pending against particular municipalities which may go to the heart of the question of municipal responsibility in the generation of this crisis. That's where we sit in terms of that issue.

"How far do we go?" the member asked. Well, that's difficult to determine with precision, given (a) the difficult fiscal situation we face in British Columbia and (b) the fact that this is not the first instance where there has been building failure in B.C. and Canada. We've seen it with the insulation issue; we've seen it with the pine shakes issue. We've seen it — and the member mentioned this one — with the pyrite foundation problem that's occurred quite recently in Quebec. I guess it's hard to say how far we will go. We want to do what we can, responsibly, to mitigate the very difficult circumstances which face people who have, through no fault of their own, experienced this very difficult blow to their homes and to their lives.

Our proposal to the federal minister ran along these lines: first of all, an acknowledgment — and I think they certainly agree — that the magnitude of the problem has grown since they contributed some $27.7 million to the no-interest loan program a couple of years ago. The estimate on which that figure was based was of a much smaller problem. So we have suggested that, given the contribution which the provincial government has made to date, which is far greater than the $27.7 million the federal government has contributed, given the magnitude of what we have already done and given the magnitude of the fiscal challenge that we face….

I put forward three suggestions for the minister's consideration and for Canada Mortgage and Housing to consider. One was to expand the no-interest loan program. The additional contribution would be…. I don't have that figure at the moment, but we'll get back to it. At any rate, there are three proposals.

One is that the federal government should consider a goods and services tax equivalent rebate modelled along the lines of what we have done in British Columbia with the PST rebate. Government in B.C. has taken the position that we should not be benefiting from this very difficult situation that is facing people here. We shouldn't be earning tax revenue on the backs of leaky-condo owners. As a consequence of that position of principle, we now rebate for repairs 2.8 percent of their repair costs. The 2.8 percent is based on the fact that we don't tax labour, as the federal government does with the GST, so only 2.8 of that 7 percent applies to the remission to homeowners from the PST. If the federal government were to do the equivalent, based on the full 7 percent, given that the tax is the full 7 percent, that would be an additional $105 million in contribution from the federal government. So we've asked them to consider that.

We have also asked them to consider taking direct responsibility for the federally funded co-ops that have, in some cases, leaked. Again, the expenditures out of the no-interest loan program to those federally funded cooperative units have been $26.1 million — just a little bit less than the total amount the feds have contributed in that area to date. So, again, I think we're on pretty strong ground in asking them to do that.

The third proposal was to expand the no-interest loan program to bring it into proportion with what the real problem is today, as opposed to what was estimated previously.

If all of that was done, it would bring the federal contribution to some 48 percent of the overall cost, and we think that's fair and reasonable. There may well be other ways in which the federal contribution and the federal partnership can be strengthened. We'd welcome that.

These are just three suggestions, three ideas, of ways in which the federal government could help more with this problem, but there may well be ways the federal government, through CMHC or otherwise, can identify that they can help more. We may also find, as the Premier's leaky-condo task force goes out and presumably meets the public and meets informed stakeholders, that other ways of increasing the federal partnership may also be strengthened. We welcome that.

The meeting last Thursday with Minister Gagliano was of a very positive and constructive character. I looked at it as the opening up of a dialogue on a critical issue here in British Columbia, and we look forward to working with the minister and CMHC to find better ways to mitigate the difficulties people have faced.

I. Chong: Some of the questions I have of the minister are of a local nature, and some are generic. I'll start with some of the local ones first.

Vote 22 is the Royal B.C. Museum vote, and I am asking in particular about legislation. By way of background — and I'll just put it on the record once again — last year as the critic I had asked the minister then responsible, Ian Waddell, what was being prepared in terms of legislation. I had heard that the museum wanted to be given its own legislative authority as a Crown corporation. At the time, the minister indicated that there was draft legislation occurring. After some pressing on the matter, he admitted that in fact it had been drafted and would conceivably come forward in the fall — being, I imagine, September to November 2000. Since then, of course, we have had an election.

Even in the spring, when we sat for a short while, there wasn't an opportunity to ask him where that

legislation sat, but I was led to believe that staff had reviewed it and that, essentially, he was just waiting for an opportune time to bring it forward. I'm just wondering, now that this minister has assumed this responsibility, whether he can advise whether we had been given the full story, whether in fact the legislation was essentially drafted and ready to go or whether there were still some flaws in it, which is maybe the reason why it's being held up.

I know the museum officials and Friends of the Museum are anxious to find out where they stand with this, because it had been promised for well over a year and a half. Could the minister shed some light on that?

Hon. G. Abbott: I would be pleased to shed some light on this. The member may wish to advance some follow-up questions as well. The first point: if former minister Waddell was waiting for an opportune time to introduce the legislation, he waited just a little bit too long. His opportunity to do that has now passed.

I think that there was some draft legislation generated around that which was substantially complete but not a refined document, as one might expect a B.C. Liberal government to put forward for consideration. There was some draft legislation which reflected the direction of the museum board and the Friends of the Museum to move to Crown corporation status.

I have met now on two or three occasions with representatives of the Friends and of the board. They always make a remarkably persuasive case around how the change in their status from special authority to Crown corporation would be enormously useful to them, both in terms of their operational flexibility and in their ability to generate additional funds from the private sector and elsewhere.

I have found their presentations persuasive, and it would certainly be my intention to discuss with colleagues in both caucus and cabinet whether we can move forward with that request. I would like to think we can, but of course, it is future policy, and the last thing I would want to do is in any way encumber or undermine or constrain the rightful authority of caucus and cabinet to give full consideration to such a step before we commence it.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's response. I do know that it is future policy. A year ago, I guess, it wasn't so future, as it was indicated to me that it was imminently possible that it was coming forward.

I appreciate the fact that the minister has heard presentations by the Friends of the Museum and others concerned and that those presentations have made a compelling argument for moving this forward. Certainly, he is absolutely right that if this gave the museum an opportunity to lever more dollars from the private sector or other groups, then, hopefully, the dependency on government funds would be less. But again, that's to be seen when their presentations are made.

So I will wait and see what comes forward and what dialogue occurs. I gather from the comments the minister made that he's still receptive to hearing and dialoguing with those people who want to see this move forward as a Crown corporation. That's what I hear from him, and he's nodding. I'll accept that as a yes, so he doesn't have to respond.

But within the Royal B.C. Museum expenditure this year…. I'm taking a look at the operating costs on page 97, which have been reduced by about $1.3 million from last year over this year. The overall budget hasn't changed too much. In fact, there's an overall increase in the budget of about $260,000. What I'm surprised to see is a reduction of $1.3 million in operating costs. Can the minister advise what that's a result of? Were there substantial savings of some sort? Was there a restructuring, and are we looking forward to other reductions in future years as a result of operating costs, as a result of, perhaps, some fundamental restructuring?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's assessment of the $1.3 million reduction in operating costs is correct. The reduction, though, was quite straightforward. It was a reflection of the museum not bringing in a major exhibit from outside, like the Leonardo exhibit. Rather, they themselves have curated the Emily Carr exhibit, which is remarkable and fine in itself, but it does not come with the same operating cost magnitude that one would find with an externally generated one.

I. Chong: There are two very quick areas I would like to ask the minister about so I can get this on the record. The member from Alberni already asked about the infrastructure works program and about the green initiatives. I just want to note that vote 21 is where the infrastructure works program, worth $20 million, has been included in the budget. My understanding was that $800 million was the IWP, of which one-third would be government's commitment — one-third, one-third, one-third — being $270 million in total.

When I asked the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise a week ago or so about this, he committed to give me a list of all the projects that have been requested through his initiatives. I would hope that this minister can share with all of us a listing of all the applications that have come forward so that we see the magnitude of it. My question is: am I correct in understanding that if $20 million is included in his budget this year, the other $250 million would have been budgeted by the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise? Or is this just a phasing in of the $270 million that will be brought into the budget? Just a clarification. That's the first question.

I'll put another question on the floor so the minister can answer all these and have staff do this much more effectively. The other issue I wanted to raise was the issue of the Provincial Capital Commission, which this minister has responsibility for. I know he's heard in the past that someone believes that there are some difficulties, and I know that with the core services review that's going to be undertaken we will find out, perhaps, the vision and the mandate and direction the PCC will be taking. But as a member of the PCC region, clearly the minister can expect that those of us here are getting questions.

One in particular refers to a site here — I know the minister is aware — which is the Royal London Wax Museum. While all this is occurring, while the review process is taking place, this enterprise is faced with a huge uncertainty — again, the kind of uncertainty the previous administration would have a business like this under. They don't know whether they should be investing more or expanding, hiring more or laying people off, because they just don't know what's to be expected of them.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide assurance or advice, perhaps, as to what this particular enterprise should do, whether it would be one year from now that they're going to be faced with a major decision, whether it's 18 months, whether it's two years or whether there will also be a transition. Obviously, a business that has been established here for 40 years can't just pack up and close. That would have a major impact on our inner harbour and our downtown area.

Those were, I guess, the last two areas. I know I can meet with the minister throughout the year as other issues arise, but I feel compelled to have the minister respond to those two and to have that on the record.

After his response to that, I would like to ask one question of the Minister of State for Community Charter.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, let me address your questions in order, hon. member. We would be pleased to furnish you with a list of all the applicants. I think there are 116 or thereabouts that have applied to date for the sewer and water side of things, but we would be glad to provide you with that list.

Let me just clarify your understanding with respect to the $20 million. I think it's a little bit more than $20 million. The approximately $20 million that is allocated in the current budget for infrastructure, sewer and water relates to the anticipated initiation and drawdown as projects come on stream under the program. In short, we certainly don't expect to see the bulk of the improvements come on line in the current fiscal year. Projects will just be beginning as the current fiscal year ends. Hence a relatively small amount has been devoted in the current budget, which I think, again, goes back to the last provincial government. This is not new. It wasn't designed around our fiscal woes. It has to do with what we hope is a realistic drawdown schedule of those funds. Over a six-year period we will see some $270 million allocated in provincial budgets as projects are initiated and come to their different stages of completion. That's the answer to that question.

The third question, around the Provincial Capital Commission, is in some ways the most difficult question to respond to here. The Provincial Capital Commission will be subject to a core review. Again, it's no reflection on them. Everyone who provides functions or services to this ministry and to the province of British Columbia is going to have a core review.

The member raised the issue of the Royal London Wax Museum. This is an issue which has been raised forcefully to me by the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head as well as a number of other Victoria-area Members of the Legislative Assembly. The issue is obviously an important one for the museum. They have contacted me, as well, by letter to express their concerns. I've asked staff to look into those concerns. I have to say that, generally speaking, my view as a minister with respect to commissions or boards or agencies that are acting appropriately within the ambit of their authority is that they should be allowed to do so without any second-guessing on my part, as minister, or more broadly, by the ministry.

At this point I'm not sure that we are talking about anything that is beyond the ambit of the duly constituted authority of the Provincial Capital Commission. But the problem is a difficult one. As I understand the situation, the wax museum is confronted by a 40 percent increase in their rent. That, in their view, would dramatically undermine their ability to operate in that location. Obviously, there's a lot of history with that museum in that location, and no one wants to see it lost.

On the other hand, the argument from the commission, which has some force, is that there has been no increase in rent for the museum for some years and that it is appropriate for the facilities to now come to what is a realistic marketplace rent for that particular piece of ground. Beyond that, I can't say who's right or wrong, if indeed anyone is right or wrong in this thing. We will look further at the issue, but I do have to say that unless there is something dramatically untoward with respect to the analysis generated by the commission, I would be reluctant to step in and second-guess their approach on this.

I. Chong: I do thank the minister for his response, given the difficulty of it.

I want to just finish off for the record that yes, marketplace rent is, I'm sure, what would be desirable for that location. But I think what has been missed in some of the deliberations is that this particular enterprise has helped create a marketplace and helped provide for marketplace rents. I understand that agencies, boards and commissions, if they're given a mandate…. I know that PCC has a piece of legislation under which they're operating. If they're permitted to proceed with the rent increases, so be it.

Again, if for some reason, they have not done what we would expect to be incremental increases over the years and suddenly come along with such a huge increase, no one in any kind of enterprise, whether it's private enterprise or otherwise, would stand still for that or expect that. That is maybe the reason why we are in the quandary we are. I would hope, then, through the core services review program, that we will take a very hard look at and scrutinize what the PCC mandate is and its involvement with the management of the Inner Harbour.

It is the centre of economic activity for greater Victoria, and all of us here who represent the capital region will be affected and are affected by it. We want to see our economy grow here as well, and I would hate to see something detrimental happen. I appreciate the minister being aware of this, and I hope to work with him over the course of the next few months.

I didn't hear from him about whether there would be any ability to — I wouldn't say defer a decision — have a decision made such that there would be some certainty as to how that enterprise can plan in the future. We used to criticize the previous government for throwing out surprises and therefore not allowing investors to plan and make their own business plan. Well, we're put in this situation again — not through any fault of this new government but certainly through the previous one. Certainly, they're looking at us to help remedy that problem.

I just want to say for the record — I don't need a response from the minister — that I know he's going to be capable and able to handle this, and I look forward to working with him on that.

At this time I want to ask the Minister of State for Community Charter some questions. They pertain not so much to his role in the area of community charter, which I know will be coming forward in our 90-day agenda — I have full confidence that when it's presented, we will see that — but to his capacity as the minister responsible for the Whistler bid. There has been some confusion around this, and I am just wondering if the minister can more fully elaborate or share with us his role and his involvement with the Whistler bid.

As I understand it, a component of the Whistler bid is in the arts and cultural sector, and that's where I'm coming from in particular. The arts and culture sector envisions this as an opportunity to work with this minister. We certainly see the Whistler bid, if successful, providing a wonderful sporting venue, but the legacy, the infrastructure that is always left behind from any international games event, will usually be on the cultural component side. Can the minister in his responsibilities share with us how that's going to involve the arts and cultural sector, not just in the Whistler area but perhaps throughout British Columbia, and, in my case, how it's going to affect Victoria? That would provide us with some ability to speak with our arts and cultural sector here in our specific constituencies.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to give a bit of background on my role in the Olympic arena, so to say, I would like to go back a little bit. First of all, I should recognize that the Premier has made clear statements that he considers this Olympic bid and, obviously, the hope for success in bringing a bid to the Vancouver-Whistler corridor a tremendous opportunity not only to create a boost for our young athletes, which I think is very important, but also to showcase British Columbia worldwide because of the media attention that this province certainly would get.

The Premier has asked me to coordinate the many different ministries' activities that have a role in participating in putting in the background for the Olympic bid committee. We are dealing with intergovernmental relationships, obviously. We are dealing with the ministry of environment, we are dealing with the Ministry of Transportation, and we are dealing with a couple of other ministries as well. So first of all, in order to get somebody besides the Premier to speak for the provincial government, he has asked me to take on that coordination role.

We are right now trying to put a strategy together on how we can, with the bid committee, focus very much on this being an event for British Columbia as a whole and also a benefit for British Columbia as a whole. Some of the elements that will obviously be of immense value to this province are driven by the media exposure that the Whistler-Vancouver bid will have. We will clearly showcase British Columbia as a place renowned for its natural beauty, with tremendous opportunities, welcoming the world. It will no doubt be a lure for tourists to visit this province. It is also an opportunity to show that we have tremendous natural resources and that we have strong consideration for the environment. And with these values in place we can create tremendous business opportunities as well. High-tech is a new thing for British Columbia that will again find some exposure.

Giving British Columbia a new label, a new branding, is one of the objectives — and to create tourism opportunities and do to this province what we saw happen as a consequence of Expo 86. That really opened…the world to come to British Columbia. We expect a bid of this nature to have the same impact, and that will have economic value for every British Columbian, because when people come to this province, they will indeed travel.

The member is especially interested in the cultural aspect. What the Premier announced in the throne speech is a fund that will be created, at $5 million a year over four years. So it is a total of $20 million. This is an asset fund, and it means the benefit from that asset fund will be funding various cultural opportunities in this province. It is basically the interest from the $20 million fund that will be disbursed amongst what I believe are cultural activities that will entail the province as a whole. I think it is a tremendous opportunity to add something to a sports event. I was just in London, Ontario, where the Canada

Summer Games are taking place, and they also had included a cultural centre in the midst of the city, where performances were taking place every night. The athletes would meet there; the community would meet there. It made it a very special thing.

So yes, culture will be a big part of the Olympic bid. The International Olympic Committee, I should say, is very much interested in seeing these kinds of marriages happen. They fully support that kind of approach to enrich the bid. That the cultural activities reflect all aspects of British Columbia is, no doubt, the full intention. I think we're well on our way to preparing a package that will make the Vancouver Olympic bid very attractive on an international basis.

At the end of the day, the real legacy, of course, will be for our young athletes, who will have the benefits not only of the facilities…. Again, facilities can often accommodate cultural activities after the games as well. But this will be good for British Columbia; it will be good for our young athletes.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's clarification as to how the bid is going to be of value to all of British Columbia. I think what would be most helpful is if the minister is able to provide clarification on the fund — the interest on it being used for the cultural component of it — and how that will roll out over the course of the next while. I think people do see opportunity there — tremendous cultural opportunities — but are not yet sure how they're going to access that. Communities, whether they're here in Victoria or in Vancouver or Cranbrook or Prince George, are keen to know how they may be a part of this entire bid.

I noted that the minister indicated that he's working with the people in the sports groups, sports industries, ministries of transportation, etc. But what I didn't hear and what I would like to ask the minister if he can provide clarification on is whether or not any arts and culture stakeholder group representative has been — I wouldn't say appointed — asked to join the Olympic bid committee, or a group or subgroup. If they are to be a fundamental part of this bid committee and the future success of it, I think they should be welcomed in at the early stages.

I can assure the minister that, yes, when the Commonwealth Games were held here in 1994, once all the sporting activities were concluded, around 5 o'clock, the city was just a magnet for 50,000 or 60,000 people every night because of the cultural component. We know that's possible, and I know the minister knows that's possible. So if someone from that sector has been invited to be included either in the group or as a subgroup, I would appreciate knowing that. If not, then I would hope the minister could take it as a suggestion that he consider that and give that assurance to the arts and culture sector.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I would like to thank the member for having focused on that particular aspect of the Vancouver-Whistler bid. I think culture, as the member recognizes, is very important.

Obviously, the announcement was made a couple of weeks ago. Since that time, I personally have met with a number of organizations that have had basically the same questions. There is no doubt that we will form a committee made up of various interests — the stakeholders, as the member says — and it's going to be that committee that's going to guide us to the right programs that should be included in an activity such as this one, related to the Olympics.

You should remember that like I said, $5 million for four years will be put aside. The interest will not be used until the year 2003. The first two five-year instalments will be in the bank. That's how we're going to start. We have a little bit of time, but to create a program and a direction and the values that it has to represent is certainly right up front with the bid committee and with us as the provincial government. And we will certainly look for broad representation to get true cultural activities associated with the bid that represent the province as a whole.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for his clarification. For the record, then, people reviewing the Hansard transcripts will know that that's when the money will start to be made available for that. I think there was some confusion as to how soon that would be, so I appreciate the clarification.

I just want to thank all three ministers today for their responses. I appreciate the fact that they have had their staff here, providing us with this information. I will yield the floor to any other members who wish to ask questions.

D. MacKay: Through the Chair to Minister Abbott, I hate to belabour this point, but it's an issue that affects me and my riding. I raise it because I live in the area that is affected by native land claims, and I can see on a day-to-day basis what's happening between the native and non-native communities in the areas that I represent.

I'm going to go back to the First Citizens Fund again. I'm a little bit confused as to why the Nisga'a are allowed access to small business loans through the First Citizens Fund. The Nisga'a, as we all know, recently signed off on a treaty with the province of British Columbia and Canada. They have been given approximately 1,900 square miles of the Nass Valley and the surface rights on trees, fishing and mining. They have been declared self-sufficient. We continue to fund the Nisga'a by building roads. I guess as a taxpayer and a citizen of the north I have to ask: when will it stop? When does the funding stop?

We now have a small business loan available to first nations. I'm not for a moment suggesting that our first nations people do not require some assistance to help them get started, because they were neglected for years. But we now seem to have, with the Nisga'a being able to access this First Citizens Fund and the small business loans, a class of people in this province who, because of their birthright, have special access or special privileges not granted to non-native people and

special privileges over other native people in this province. They do have the right to tax people living on the Nisga'a territorial core lands, which is something that is not available to other native bands throughout the province. So to give them access to small business loans through the First Citizens Fund is, I think, giving them an unfair advantage over non-natives and other bands throughout the province.

My question to the minister is: is this right of access to money through the First Citizens Fund now available because of their birthright? In other words, is this going to go on in perpetuity because of the fact that they were born Nisga'a?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked some intriguing questions with respect to the First Citizens Fund and the impact which the successful conclusion of a treaty agreement with the province and the federal government should have on the ability of members of that first nation to access this fund.

The first point, which I want to repeat, is that the First Citizens Fund and, indeed, the business loan program portion of the First Citizens Fund will be subject to a core review process in the weeks and months ahead. It may well be that we will form some conclusions about the program during that time. It may be that the business loan program is delivering the goods in as fair, effective and efficient a way as possible. Of course, we can't prejudge what might come out of the core review around that.

I think it's also important to note that the business loans under the First Citizens Fund are loans, not handouts. They are loans. The purpose of this portion of the First Citizens Fund is to address the general and, I think, historic difficulty of native British Columbians in accessing capital because of the reserve system and, generally, the inability to put forward assets that would be found in the non-aboriginal community. So it is an attempt, again, to rebalance the opportunity for natives to access small capital for business loan purposes and to even out the playing field. Again, because of the problem around the asset base, the percentage on the loans that they typically are offered by the lending institutions is considerably higher than what would be offered to those off reserve.

D. MacKay: I'll just follow that up with a very short comment. The lack of an asset base for the natives to access assets to borrow money is going to continue on forever, because we've just given the Nisga'a that land, and it's communal land. It's not going to the individual. So we're creating something that's going to go on forever. I just wanted to get across to the minister that even the Nisga'a, with all the land assets they now have…. It's communally owned, so they're going to have problems down the road, as well, getting capital for any future endeavours they may have.

V. Anderson: I've a few different questions that come out of the Vancouver area. One of the areas, which is not directly on leaky condos but is an area that has been raised consistently there, is revision of the Building Code. Will there be a revision of the Building Code, not only for leaky condos but for a variety of other reasons, as well, which are a particular B.C. concern? As well, people would like to have an opportunity for some input into the Building Code. Related to that same question, people from the disabled community would like to have a part in that discussion, and also people who are working on user-friendly as well as energy-friendly kinds of concerns. So there are many concerns about the Building Code that people would like to raise.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his thoughtful questions. The Building Code is an important issue. It's an issue which involves, again, all levels of government: federal, provincial and municipal. It's one which our ministry is working hard at. We have in place a Building Code advisory committee. We have on that committee representatives from both the building industry and the ministry. The advisory committee has undertaken a broad consultation with the various stakeholders across British Columbia on these issues, including people with disabilities who've been asked for their views on issues as well.

The committee, again, as one would do in a core review, is looking at how best — most efficiently, most effectively — to see the code administered across the province. Suffice it to say that there is some concern with respect to how interpretation of the code may vary from municipality to municipality. We would like to find some way — without, obviously, impeding or constraining the autonomy of municipalities — to ensure that the code is administered across municipalities in a fair, consistent and uniform manner.

V. Anderson: I'll move on then, since our time is limited, and move into the area of multiculturalism and immigration — those two areas. There's a great deal of interest since another of the previous ministries was amalgamated into this overall ministry. What is happening in multiculturalism policy? I'll ask the immigration part of it at the same time. There has been discussion sometime that the immigration policy of the provincial government would become more viable in expressing the wishes and the needs of our province in encouraging and inviting people to come and having part of the national policy. Both under multiculturalism and immigration, I'd inquire about some kind of direction.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll give what I think is a fairly general answer to a fairly general question. First of all, around multiculturalism. I think the response I would want to make would be very much in the spirit of the response which I made with respect to volunteerism: multiculturalism is something which, as a government and as a society, we should celebrate. The richness and diversity of the multicultural community

adds enormously to the richness and diversity of this province and deserves to be celebrated.

As far as our programs around multiculturalism go, the current programs will be sustained. Again, as with all other areas of this ministry and of government, we will be undertaking a core review to ensure that all of the ways in which we have been addressing multicultural issues are being done in the most efficient and effective way.

On the immigration side of the coin — the other question raised by the member — British Columbia has taken an expanded role with respect to immigration. I think this newly elected government has already tried to work both as a ministry and with other ministries, such as Health Services and Health Planning, to find ways in which we can develop an immigration policy which not only serves new immigrants to British Columbia, who can come in and provide badly needed skills and energy to our economy, but also works for British Columbia in making our economy stronger and more efficient through the provision of the skills that they can bring.

One of the programs that has been in place, as part of the expanded provincial role, since 1998 is the provincial nominee program. As minister responsible for immigration I was quite surprised to hear that as part of our expanded role in the PNP, we had the opportunity to nominate up to 1,000 individuals who could come in and take on critical or desperately needed skills that could be used in this province. Nurses are an obvious and forceful current example of a skill that's much needed and which this program could help to address.

We are certainly going to be putting much more emphasis on the provincial nominee program than the previous government had. I don't expect that we're going to be filling 1,000 seats in the near future, but certainly we are going to make much more use of this program. I think it provides a great opportunity for the province to identify the skill set that they need and that can be met through immigration. We will be working with other ministries as well as within our own ministry to make the best use of the provincial nominee program.

V. Anderson: I have one more area that I would like to raise, and then I know my colleague has some in the few minutes we have left. It's around urban aboriginals. We have a great deal of treaty discussion, and we do a great deal of work with aboriginals throughout the country, but it seems to me — and it's what I hear from aboriginal people themselves in our own community, in Victoria, Vancouver or wherever — that the area that has been most neglected is the focus on urban aboriginal people, their particular needs and thrusts. Do we have a program that's developing a response in working with aboriginal people in urban settings particularly, in order to meet their very special and independent needs, apart from the treaty discussions and apart from what's happening with the reserve areas?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his excellent question. One of the first groups I met with as minister responsible for Aboriginal Services was the United Native Nations, who are based in Vancouver and who, I think, do a very excellent job in trying to bring forward the concerns and interests of urban, off-reserve aboriginals in British Columbia. Most of them, as I'm sure you're aware, are in Vancouver, but not entirely so.

We want to move ahead and try to address the concerns of off-reserve, urban aboriginals in a number of ways. As you know, hon. member, we have made a number of ambitious commitments around improving the lives and the opportunities of first nations in B.C. This ministry — the Ministry of Community and Aboriginal Services — which is a subset of the former Aboriginal Affairs ministry, has put together an aboriginal initiatives unit to try to bring to reality the doubling of the First Citizens Fund and also to create what we think will be a very important way for all aboriginal people in B.C. to speak to their government — provincially, at least — which is the first citizens forum.

So we'll be working on those two initiatives plus certainly other initiatives across government which affect, on a day-to-day basis, the lives of aboriginal people. For example, the Vancouver agreement, because of its focus on Vancouver and particularly the downtown east side of Vancouver, can…. There's certainly a high proportion of off-reserve, urban aboriginals who live in that area, and some of them experience some of the problems which really, I think, confront that part of Vancouver.

One of the other areas where I really want to do some innovative thinking with respect to aboriginal people — particularly aboriginal youth, but aboriginal people generally — is the use of sports as an intervention in troubled communities, whether they're on or off reserve. We're very early in our thinking on that, but I think one of the great strengths that this new ministry, which I'm proud to lead, can bring is that it does bring together in one ministry a lot of the elements which can be used to enrich and strengthen communities. I think this is one example where we can use some innovative thinking across the ministry to address — I think the member stated it very well — some of the difficult, acute, pressing issues for the urban aboriginal community.

R. Stewart: I've read the transcript of your answer to my question, and I appreciate it. Specifically, you added an element that I was moving toward. The element, of course, is the leaky-condominium crisis, which has occurred here in British Columbia but, as the minister mentioned, has occurred in all sorts of other areas around the continent and, in fact, around the world.

As the minister may know, I worked as a consultant to the previous government on aspects of the policy framework surrounding this issue. My question to the minister now is: where can we go…?

There are obviously two specific sides to this issue that we have to address. One is the protection of people from this point forward, and the second one is the response that government can make, to the extent that government is able to, to those people who have suffered already. There are, of course, a number of other issues related to non-residential buildings, schools and other buildings that have suffered from this crisis. To begin with, how can we move forward, then, with protecting people from the failure of building envelopes from this point forward?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asks, I think, a very important question. Certainly, the first question that I asked on becoming the minister responsible for housing policy for British Columbia was: have we put in place everything that we should or that we need to, to ensure that the huge personal and economic disaster that is leaky condos will not be repeated or continued in any form into the future?

There was a lot of discussion around that issue, of course, with the Barrett commission. And subsequent to the Barrett commission there's been a lot of discussion within and, indeed, outside government around what the appropriate public policy response should be to the issue of leaky condos.

Now several initiatives and recommendations have come into play. One is the mandatory private sector warranties on residential construction. That's a substantial change and one which I think is generally regarded as valuable. At least, I haven't heard from a lot of people who disagree with that point. There undoubtedly are some.

The varying interests — and they certainly are varying interests — that I have met with have all been supportive of the licensing provision. Undoubtedly, at some point in the future I will meet those who do not, but the consensus appears to be that that was an appropriate public policy response and a valuable public policy response.

The second initiative is the licensing and regulation of residential builders. Again, that has been fraught with some controversy, and I don't think I want to engage in that debate at this point. Suffice it to say that I think my ministry and the government broadly will be looking very intensively at that, along with a whole lot of other issues, through the core review.

Further, we've created the reconstruction fund to assist some of the owners that have been hit very hard by building envelope failures. I think it was this member — but it may have been another — who pointed out that the current loan program had some shortcomings. That's a fair observation. It also has helped a lot of people and, hopefully, will help a lot more people before it's done. We do want to work with the federal government, as I told the member from North Vancouver, to try to better mitigate the unfortunate situation facing homeowners.

As a public policy, we've also tried to improve training and apprenticeship programs, again to ensure that those trades that are critical in quality construction are getting the training and apprenticeship programs they need. There is also some research and development work going on, through Forintek and others, around building envelopes. I think there's lots to learn still. We've learned a ton, clearly, in the last few years, but I think there's more to be learned yet. The research and development that's being done, I think, is going to prove enormously valuable down the line.

We've seen improvements to the strata property legislation, and hopefully that's going to yield some benefits down the line as well.

Those, I think, would be some of the principal ways that we have tried to address the situation to date. I haven't a moment's doubt that there are also some other things that we can or should be doing, and I'd be delighted to receive any suggestions in that regard.

R. Stewart: I'm glad the minister mentioned the research at Forintek. The wall studies that have been going on…. I was keenly interested in the design of the studies originally and the ongoing work at Forintek and, for that matter, by other research groups around the province and around the country, specifically related to the drying capacity of walls and the ability of walls to dry after they've absorbed moisture. I'm also keenly interested in the work that the minister referred to related to the strata properties. I know that there is still some work to be done in the strata properties legislation framework, and I believe there's still work to be done in the loans program.

The loans program has its shortcomings. It is a step. Certainly, the forgiveness of PST is a step, but there is more that I think we can do not only to assist the owners financially but also to assist them with the enormous complexity of the problem that homeowners and strata corporations face.

I wonder if there are specifically some measures related to two things that I'm looking for, and they are the Building Code and the way in which we develop our Building Code. I sat for years in Ottawa on the National Building Code committee for part 9, and that committee addressed that. I sat on the minister's advisory council on the Building Code here in British Columbia as well. I think the Building Code process in British Columbia needs some improvement, and I wonder if the minister can outline a way in which he could be moving forward in Building Code development. I'll leave it at that one for now.

Hon. G. Abbott: We had a little bit of a discussion on the Building Code earlier here, so I won't repeat all of that. The member can probably pick up some additional comment in Hansard around this.

Briefly, I think the suggestion he's making with respect to the Building Code advisory committee is a sound one. We are — and we do want to do more — looking at other jurisdictions and how they manage their code processes, to see what we can learn there. We do want to get to a point where the focus of the committee is on policy rather than on, I guess, other administrative elements that might come into play. We

do want to ensure that the Building Code is administered in a fair, consistent and equitable way across municipalities and across the province. So I think there are some things we can learn and things we can improve on.

R. Stewart: One very quick question requiring a 30-second answer. Strata corporations are facing complex problems. Is there some move to help them deal with the complexity of the problems they face?

Hon. G. Abbott: The 30-second answer to the question, I hope…. I can barely clear my throat in 30 seconds, but hopefully this is close. Yes, there have been some things we've done, and there hopefully are some things we'll also do. The homeowner protection office, for the information of the member — he may already know — does provide some manuals on what the leaky-condo problem is, how it occurred, things to

look for in terms of selecting renovators and issues around dispute resolution. Those are all areas where the homeowner protection office has attempted to assist. There may well be initiatives on the part of government in the future to do even more.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.