Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 20 -- Tuesday, March 5, 2002

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
		Page

Introductions by Members		1497

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1497
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 7) Hon. S. Santori Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9) Hon. C. Hansen

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1498
	Retail sales in B.C. B. Suffredine Breast Cancer Awareness Day I. Chong Post-Polio Awareness Month R. Stewart

Oral Questions		1499
	Advocacy role of Mental Health Minister of State J. MacPhail Hon. G. Cheema J. Kwan Trans-Canada Highway between Alberta border and Revelstoke W. McMahon Hon. J. Reid Disability benefits for employed disabled persons V. Anderson Hon. M. Coell

Tabling Documents		1502
	Report of the Crown Proceeding Act 2000-01 Public Service Benefit Plan Act, annual report, 2000-01

Committee of Supply		1502
	Estimates: Office of the Premier On vote 9: office of the Premier J. MacPhail Hon. G. Campbell J. Kwan

Point of Order		1523
	Hon. G. Collins J. Kwan

K. Stewart: It's my privilege today to introduce the chief executive officer of Maple Ridge, Mr. Bob Robertson, who unfortunately will be leaving Maple Ridge for a new position in the city of Hamilton as their chief executive officer. Will the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to say that today in the Legislature I met a national celebrity of significant merit. On entering my caucus meeting today, I ran into none other than Marg Delahunty. Having met with Marg now, I can tell you that her social commentary is matched only by her sense of fashion.

Today I would like to introduce two people that I had lunch with — as interesting but certainly not as well dressed as Ms. Delahunty: His Excellency Wade Armstrong, the high commissioner for New Zealand, who is making an official visit to British Columbia. The high commissioner was accompanied by Tony O'Brien, who is the consul general of New Zealand in Vancouver. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. J. Reid: It's my privilege to make an introduction today. Unfortunately, this person isn't in the House. It's the birth of my first grandson. Congratulations to my son, Sean, and his wife, Grace — and add a new face to the Reid clan.

Hon. G. Hogg: I'll ask the House to join me in welcoming a delightful student from my alma mater, Semiahmoo Secondary. John Gratto is here with constituency assistant extraordinaire, Verna Logan. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: It gives me a real honour today to stand in the House and only as a proud father. I would like to introduce and ask you to make welcome my daughter, Katie, a first-year university student at the University of Victoria.

J. Nuraney: I have great pleasure today to introduce a group of students who are visiting us from the Ailanthus secondary school in Burnaby — a wonderful group who are visiting to learn about the history and the procedure of the House. I'd ask the members to please make them welcome.

M. Hunter: It's a pleasure for me to introduce a person who's well known to me — my greatest fan in the House: my wife, Joy. Will the House please make her welcome.

Hon. S. Santori presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002.

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

Hon. S. Santori: Mr. Speaker, Bill 7 amends the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to respond to the special committee of the Legislature that reviewed the act from October 1997 to July 1999 and to address compliance and cost issues.

The amendments in Bill 7 will allow the information and privacy commissioner more flexibility in meeting operational responsibilities; clarify FOI request requirements; make the addition of public bodies automatic; require further legislative reviews of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; clarify the definitions of personal information and provide the ability to disregard frivolous and vexatious requests; require the publication of a personal information directory — the first of its kind in Canada; allow the adjustment of response times to accommodate appeal processes before the information and privacy commissioner; require public bodies to issue a fee statement before providing a service; and permit public bodies to require a deposit to be paid.

The changes in Bill 7 are accepted by stakeholders and provide immediate improvements to the legislation and response to the legislative committee's recommendations. It will set the stage for further amendments in ensuing legislative sessions, resulting from a comprehensive operational review of the act and the need to provide a solid and evolving foundation for electronic government and electronic commerce.

It will address compliance and cost-reduction issues and recognize and facilitate compliance with recent budgets.

I move that Bill 7 be placed on 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. C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Medical Services Arbitration Act.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill intituled Medical Services Arbitration Act be read a first time now.

Hon. C. Hansen: The previous government of British Columbia entered into an agreement that provided for an arbitration process to resolve competing interests of the government of the province of British Columbia and the British Columbia Medical Association concerning compensation increases for doctors in this province.

The arbitration resulted in an interim decision for physician compensation that came down on February 8. Phase 1 of the interim decision provides for fees and on-call services. These two items alone are estimated to cost over $250 million annually. Our government is prepared to honour the spirit of the interim decision. The problem with this decision is that the arbitrator did not address structural problems in our health care system that are undermining patient care. The interim award also suggests further arbitration decisions on a number of other aspects of physician compensation, which have the potential to require the government to pay significant additional funds each year to doctors for services they are providing to British Columbians.

Our government values doctors. We need to attract and retain doctors to give patients the health care that they depend on. We need to ensure that we are providing an attractive and competitive quality of life for our health care professionals, particularly in remote and rural parts of this province. But it is clear from this recent arbitration process that binding-interest arbitration as a tool to resolve physician compensation issues is unduly risky in the power to impact the province's fiscal responsibilities to the public.

By signing on to binding arbitration, government forfeits its responsibility to maintain control and balance in the fiscal matters of the province on behalf of British Columbians. It is also clear that the arbitration process perpetuates a dysfunctional relationship between the government and the province's doctors that does not support appropriate and effective relations among the government, doctors, taxpayers and patients. The Medical Services Arbitration Act, which I'm introducing today, will remove specific sections and portions of sections that we find in the agreements that exist between the association and the government.

The introduction of this legislation marks a further step in efforts by our government to work with doctors to reform the health care system, to help make health care dollars work for patients and to make health care sustainable in British Columbia. By working with doctors and bringing our valued health care professionals to the decision-making table, we can save and renew health care and put patients first.

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

Bill 9 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.

B. Suffredine: On the weekend I became aware of the latest retail sales numbers and economic figures in both Canada and the U.S. South of the border, an economic rally on Wall Street began on Friday and appears to be continuing. Sales in a number of sectors in the American economy have improved significantly. These results are being hailed as an indication of strong economic growth and end the fears of a prolonged recession. Even the Federal Reserve chairman, Alan Greenspan, has signalled that he expects an economic recovery in the near future. Here at home the Bank of Canada governor, David Dodge, has predicted that an economic recovery could be here by the end of the year.

Well, Mr. Speaker, this recovery may be sooner than we all think. Retail sales in British Columbia are up significantly. Retail is our largest private sector employer. It employs one in eight British Columbians. It shows no signs of decreasing. Since the beginning of the year, retail sales are up more than 5 percent over the same time last year. This is well above the Canadian national average. Part of the reason for this retail sales boom is attributable to income tax cuts. British Columbians in the two lowest brackets pay the lowest income tax rates in Canada.

The tax cuts are bringing the forecast benefit to the economy of this province. Much of that extra money in people's wallets is spent in the retail sector. After all, what is more logical than people spending their hard-earned money on goods and services where they live?

Furthermore, our retail sector has become diversified and has weathered the restructuring of the sector over the past two decades with success. Niche retailing is booming in the province, with a wide array of shopping experiences unique to British Columbia. Our tourism industry is expanding rapidly.

With more money in people's pockets, retail sales will continue to be strong as we prepare for more prosperous and fiscally responsible times ahead. This is the first sign that a new era of prosperity is emerging.

I. Chong: On March 5, 2002, the Vancouver Island branch of the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation held its sixth annual awareness day. It began with a breakfast at 7 a.m., followed by a luncheon at noon where attendees were able to hear special guest speaker and international artist Carole Sabiston speak on her recent experience with breast cancer. These venues also provided an opportunity to find out more information on these related topics. The goal of awareness day is, after all, about sharing with everyone information about what is happening locally and, most of all, positive and hopeful information about breast cancer. The theme adopted this year is Reach for the Stars: Aim for a Cure.

The most recent statistics indicate that breast cancer mortality rates have declined slightly since 1985 and particularly since 1990. Breast cancer incidence has actually risen steadily during the past decade. This is due in part to more effective detection because of the rising number of mammography examinations since the mid-1980s.

While we are heartened by these statistics, there is still much to be done and to improve upon. Every year more than one million women worldwide are stricken with breast cancer. Later this year, from June 4 to 8, Victoria will be host, for the first time ever, to the World Conference on Breast Cancer. An expected 800 to 1,200 delegates from more than 80 countries will gather in Victoria to share ideas and plan action for the eradication of breast cancer around the world.

Cancer does not discriminate, no matter the age, no matter the gender, no matter the race or the social or economic background. This disease affects us all. Even a former MLA, Penny Priddy, brought her very personal circumstance to this Legislature during the previous parliament. We were all touched by her courage to be a breast cancer survivor.

Today in Victoria we mark awareness day for breast cancer. I wear my pink ribbon in recognition of and in gratitude for all those people and volunteers who continue to support and offer all of us so much more to hope for.

R. Stewart: March 2002 has been proclaimed Post-Polio Awareness Month by the government of British Columbia. Thousands of Canadian who survived the disease of polio as children now live with post-polio syndrome. They struggle with a long list of symptoms, including excessive fatigue; new or increased muscle weakness; muscle or joint pain; reduced endurance; respiratory difficulties; difficulty swallowing and sleeping; and sensitivity to cold, anaesthetics and medication.

While polio has been largely eradicated in North America, more than a dozen countries worldwide are known to have active polio cases. As a result, Canadians travelling to these countries risk encountering the virus and bringing it back home. Health Canada recommends that residents who have not been vaccinated for polio or who have not had a booster shot in the past ten years should check to see if they need polio vaccine before leaving the country.

One of the goals of the Post-Polio Awareness and Support Society is to make all British Columbians aware of the continued risk and presence of this disease. Many in this room are aware of the tremendous efforts by many groups, including Rotary Clubs such as my own, across the country and around the world to completely eradicate polio from the Earth in the next couple of years.

I'm sure the entire House joins with me in honouring the Post-Polio Awareness and Support Society of British Columbia, Rotary International and the many other groups that are working hard on this issue and in wishing them every success in their important work.

J. MacPhail: I want to return to a question the opposition raised two weeks ago with the Minister of Health Services. It related to a letter that I had received and passed on to the Minister of State for Mental Health. Those letters lay out a tragic story of a family looking for an advocate to help them cope with mental illness — and clearly a system that isn't meeting their needs — and how they approached the Premier. Then the Premier passed them off to the Minister of State for Mental Health, who did nothing.

I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Mental Health what training he has in mental health advocacy and what training his staff might have in advocating on behalf of the mentally ill.

Hon. G. Cheema: My office has been in touch with this person, and the health authorities have been in touch with this person. I have been in touch with this member's office, and we are doing everything that can be done.

Our first intent is to make sure that we provide the best quality of mental health in this province. Let me remind this member that for the last seven months we have done more for mental health than was done during the last ten years.

As far as my qualifications as a mental health advocate are concerned, this member should simply phone the mental health organization in this province. They give her a failing grade. They are giving us a passing grade. They are saying that we are fulfilling all the promises we made during the campaign; that we are fulfilling the mental health plan promised that will improve the quality of life and that will help this patient and many more patients; and that, basically, we are providing quality care and also paying respect to the families and the patients in this province.

J. MacPhail: I'm not actually sure what the Minister of State is talking about because the family, who we talked with yesterday, has a completely different version.

Mental health advocacy is a very, very difficult job. The former advocate conducted problem-solving, mediation, research and education strategies. She offered independent — and I stress independent — assistance to mental health patients and their families when the relationship with the health system became strained.

In this case, the minister's office, when pushed to action, simply flipped the family back to the system, offering zero — no advocacy and no help. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health advise this House if it's common for families to be treated this way by his office? Will he admit that he dropped the ball with this family, and will he now agree to fund an independent mental health advocate?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me just explain to this member again. As of June 5 we have been able to do a lot more for mental health than she was able to do for the last ten years. The office of mental health advocate has done a good job in the past. We fund a lot of mental health advocates in this province. We are funding up to $2.1 million for various organizations, and they're doing an exceptionally good job.

The most important thing for mental health in this province was that a promise made by that government failed three times. Let me say it. Let me make clear to that member again that we made a promise during the campaign to fully fund and implement the mental health plan. We made the promise, and we are fulfilling that promise.

Mr. Speaker, let me also explain to her the broken NDP promise for mental health. She made the announcement three times, and that announcement was never fulfilled. I shall read one article of….

J. MacPhail: When this government fired the independent mental health advocate, the Premier said specifically that that minister was going to be the new mental health advocate. He can make all the excuses he likes, but his record speaks for itself, and in this case his record is abysmal. After repeated pleas for help, the Premier told the family that the Minister of State for Mental Health would contact them and provide assistance. They never heard from the Minister for Mental Health. Two weeks ago the family had an ambulance and four police cars on their front lawn. We took this issue directly to the minister himself, and he still did nothing. The family hasn't heard a thing from this so-called advocate.

Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell this House why he ignored this family's plea for help? And will he agree to an audit of the work his office does to advocate on behalf of families, so this drastic, abysmal situation doesn't happen again to any family in this province?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me just explain it to this member again. First of all, she must stop misleading this House. She is not telling the truth. We have been in touch with this person.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, please temper your comments with parliamentary language.

Hon. G. Cheema: I will withdraw the words "not telling the truth," but I will say that this member is still not telling the facts.

Let me just explain what we've been able to do for the last seven months. We made a promise to fully fund and implement the mental health plan, and we are fulfilling that promise.

The previous administration broke their promise on mental health. They promised $125 million, and they delivered only $10 million. They promised 30 new day-hospitals for 1,800 patients. Zero were delivered. They promised more community-based psych treatment. Zero was delivered. They promised 2,900 training spaces for rehabilitation; 50 were delivered.

J. Kwan: The minister did not make contact with the family, and he knows it. He did not do his job.

In the secret new-era document released yesterday, British Columbians learned, by this government's own admission….

J. Kwan: British Columbians learned by this new government's own admission that wait-lists will grow, hospital beds will close, and patient care will be com-

promised. We also learned that this Minister of State for Mental Health has abdicated his responsibility to be an advocate for mental health patients at the cabinet table. Nowhere in the estimates or in the secret Health budget document is there any funding directed for mental health services, other than $15 million in operating costs. Whatever else patients receive is up to the health boards, who are being forced to cut services — just like education.

Will the Minister of State for Mental Health stand in this House and admit what everyone now knows: that he is washing his hands of mental-health-services patients and their families?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me just explain it to that member now. She should read the stolen document properly. We have made it plain that we will be having $17.8 million in new funding for mental health. We are going to have $15 million for community mental health services in this province. We are going to have $2 million for community-based psych treatment. We will be spending over $19.6 million for capital projects for mental health. We are delivering.

This will provide more community-based mental health. This will provide the housing for mental health. This will finally deliver what the Premier and our cabinet promised: the real plan for mental health in this province. We will not fail our patients. We will not cheat our patients. The NDP administration cheated the public on mental health.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: We know from the estimates book that the $400 million base funding for mental health is now gone. The only thing that is revealed in the secret document that was released yesterday is a $15 million dedication to mental health.

We know that this minister's record as the advocate for patients is ineffective. He doesn't bother to phone back the families who are seeking his assistance. Thanks to this government's secret briefing books, we now know that he is not an effective advocate at the cabinet table either.

The Minister of State for Mental Health is ignoring the needs of mental health patients at every level.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister just admit he's not up to the job and commit today to re-fund the independent office of the mental health advocate so that mental health patients and their families don't have to rely on help solely from an ineffective and incompetent Minister of State for Mental Health?

Hon. G. Cheema: She should read the stolen document in the proper way. It's very clear that we will be spending over $17 million on a new community-based mental health…. We will be spending over $19 million for new capital projects. We have 76 advocates in this House. They are all working for patients.

We care about the patients and their families. We made a promise during the campaign, and we are fulfilling that promise with action. We will be spending $125 million in our mental health plan. They failed the patients. We are giving them the due respect and the care they deserve.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As my colleagues know, I have a very dangerous stretch of highway through my constituency from the Alberta border through Revelstoke. Today the provincial and federal governments announced $122 million in new funding for B.C. highways. I would like to address the question to the minister and ask her to tell us how this funding will benefit Columbia River–Revelstoke.

Hon. J. Reid: That section of highway is extremely important to the economy of British Columbia — an extremely important transportation route. It's proven to be very, very dangerous and to have severe safety concerns with it. As a result, we've made it a priority with the funding. There is joint funding between the federal government and provincial government for national Trans-Canada Highway system projects.

The first two projects are on that section of highway. There is the Five Mile Bridge project. A very significant safety concern is being addressed there. The second one is the Victoria Road intersection in the city of Revelstoke. That will alleviate the safety and access issues as well.

V. Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. People in my community and right across the province who have disabilities are concerned about the changes that are coming about in that particular support by the government. They're worrying particularly about those who wish to work full-time. How will the changes that have happened and will be happening affect their ability, with disabilities, to work full-time?

Hon. M. Coell: Many people with disabilities in British Columbia aren't able to work full-time and receive continuous assistance from the province. We're going to do a number of pilot projects that will help develop a strategy for people with disabilities to find employment, whether it be full-time or part-time. In

the spring we'll also be changing the earning exemption, where people can earn up to $200 a month and keep that on top of their income assistance. We'll be moving that to $300 per month, allowing them to keep an extra $100. That should help those people working part-time. As I said, the strategies we're going to develop will be there around an easy access in and out of income assistance for people with disabilities so they can attempt to work full-time if they can. If they can work part-time, we'll allow them to keep more money and work with them to find a balance between the two.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the report of the Crown Proceeding Act for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2001, in accordance with section 15(2) of that act.

Hon. S. Santori: I have the honour to present the Public Service Benefit Plan Act annual report for the year ending March 31, 2001.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to continue. I wasn't going to pursue this questioning much further, but I'm going to pursue it a little bit more in light of the legislation that was tabled today to take away arbitration from the doctors. I'm sure we'll be getting some reaction to that. I won't be discussing the actual legislation, because, of course, that would be inappropriate. What I do want to go back to is to pursue the appointments to the health authorities that we were exploring before the noon break.

I think the Premier misunderstood me when I said what the communication had been to his office about the appointment of physicians to regional health authorities. It wasn't a matter of the physicians complaining about there not being a designated spot. They were saying that under the previous government, a designated spot wasn't enough. What they were complaining about was the absolute bar to being considered as appointments to regional health authorities — that health care professionals and health care workers were going to be barred from appointment.

I'm wondering whether the Premier has had a chance to look at that letter and whether he's had a chance to reply and/or reconsider that point of view. It was received quite a few weeks ago — I think about six weeks ago. I'm just doing this from memory.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the member opposite will appreciate, because I know she spent some time on this, that one of the things we're concerned about in appointments to boards and commissions in the province is potential or perceived potential for conflict of interest. One of the things we have said specifically is that someone who is a practising physician within an authority would not be on the health authority board. However, someone with a medical background is not precluded from serving on a board. They, as other British Columbians, will be considered, and the boards will be appointed.

J. MacPhail: My apologies. I just missed that very last part. Could the Premier just repeat that very last part about how they will be considered?

Hon. G. Campbell: Someone with a medical background who is not practising will be considered, as others will be considered. You are not precluded, because you have a medical background, from serving on a board. There are hundreds of people that have been brought forward as potential people to sit on those boards. They're going through review.

The member asked today how quickly that would be done. I would expect that those appointments will be made within the next two weeks in the province. It has been a very detailed review that's gone on. Someone with a medical background is not precluded from serving on a board.

J. MacPhail: So it is the government's position that someone who is practising — whether that be practising medicine, practising nursing or practising physiotherapy — is precluded through a potential conflict of interest. This actually gives physicians less representation in the new structure than they had before. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Campbell: Each region has a medical advisory committee. That medical advisory committee reports, by bylaw, through to the board.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. That was in place before, as well, but let's be clear. From '97 through to 2001 or whenever the boards were fired — yes, December of 2001 — physicians had a designated spot on every regional health board and community health council. They said that didn't work for them. It wasn't because of the designated position; it was the fact that they didn't have autonomy over saying who was going to be in that position. Their concern, in writ-

ing to the Premier, was that they would be precluded from being considered at all. The Premier is now confirming that their worst fear is true: practising physicians will no longer be eligible to sit on any regional health boards, so they have even less representation than they did before.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'll reiterate what I said this morning. Indeed, the boards are not constituency boards. They are boards that are there to make some decisions. There are a number of ways that physicians can make their contribution, that nurses can make their contribution, that administrators can make their contribution to these boards so these decisions are made. Indeed, in terms of physicians, we are in the midst of appointing a new assistant deputy minister specifically with the task of building relationships between our Health Services ministry and the physicians of British Columbia. There is little concern on behalf of physicians that they won't be included — they will be, as will our nurses and our workers throughout the province — in trying to make sure that we deliver the best possible services to patients in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: I wonder whether that message has been communicated to physicians in whatever organizations. Do the physicians now know that they are barred from sitting on the regional health boards? They wrote to the Premier. I'm wondering whether they now know that.

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't answer the question specifically, but we certainly have no trouble dealing with either the BCMA or physicians generally with regard to the structure of the regional health authorities. I should say, generally, that we have had very positive comments from physicians across the province with regard to the new structure, which will allow us to focus resources on patient care.

J. MacPhail: I would appreciate knowing. I can actually get the Premier's office a copy of that letter. My staff can get that, and perhaps the Premier could track down the reply to that letter as we go through estimates so I can see that reply, please.

In terms of the relationship with physicians — not to address the legislation that was introduced today; I'm sure we'll have lots of time to discuss that — the Premier said in a question earlier last month that he had met with physician representatives in terms of trying to resolve the implications of the arbitration. Since that time, what meetings has he had with the physician representatives, bargaining representatives or any physicians dealing with the compensation for physicians?

J. MacPhail: Is the Premier aware of any of his ministers or staff…? I know that we have to be very careful on these kinds of matters to ask very specific questions. Has anybody in the government met with physician representatives to discuss compensation, subsequent to that meeting that the Premier had and prior to the introduction of the legislation today?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Deputy Minister of Health Services and Deputy Minister of Health Planning, who is the same person, has met with representatives of the BCMA. The deputy minister of the Premier has spoken with representatives of the BCMA. We have been very forthright in the concerns that we have, and they have been very forthright in their responses.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. Please be aware that I'm happy to have others participate in the debate, and I'll try to look around and see members who wish to participate.

Then between that time and the introduction of this legislation, has the BCMA been aware of the changes that were being contemplated and were introduced today in the legislation?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Deputy Minister for Health Services has kept the BCMA informed with regard to the issues that we are dealing with in the arbitration. I don't believe they've seen the details of the legislation. Clearly, the policy issues that we were concerned about are ones that the Minister of Health Services and I have identified in the House.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm glad to give general comment. The meetings were held with our staff. They were positive on some issues and not as positive on other issues. We will have an opportunity to hear the reaction from the BCMA and other doctors in the province, I'm sure, over the days ahead.

J. MacPhail: We could probably explore these matters later on, but the order of estimates says that this is when we ask these questions.

In terms of the timing of this matter, I'm trying to get a sense of how the Premier sees the reform of health care going. I hear him stand up and say, "We're putting patients first," and I expect that is his sincere commitment, but there's no question that there's worry out there amongst British Columbians about the future of our health care system.

Some of the anxiety, though — not all of it, because there is universal anxiety amongst a certain age group about the future of our health care system — has arisen as a direct consequence of the announced changes that this government is making, the unannounced changes that the public finds out about and legislation that's been introduced to change our health care system. Like these discussions between the BCMA and the govern-

ment — I was curious to know the nature of them, whether there was hope that this would bring calm. This is a fairly substantial change in terms of how physicians relate to the government, their paymaster.

The timing of this legislation, the timing of refusing them access to regional health boards and the substantial changes in the way health care is going to be delivered in this province…. I was just wondering whether the Premier or the Premier's staff or the deputy ministers — public officials — discussed that. What was the feedback on that, on all of this happening at once? A subsequent question to that is: was it discussed in the context that there was some urgency to changing the way physicians determine their compensation?

I'll tell you why. Disruption, at the best of time, in our health care system is troubling. I'm curious to know how all of this prevents disruption. That's all.

Hon. G. Campbell: I think, number one, the member opposite, the medical community and the health community in British Columbia know that our government's goal and objectives are to transform the health care system so it starts to meet the needs of patients. One of the things that was clearly on the arbitrator's mind — if the member opposite has read the arbitrator's report — is the effectively dysfunctional relationship that existed between physicians and the government over the last decade. I felt, and I do feel, it's important that physicians know that they are a critical part of our health care system and that we respect the contribution they make.

Not just in the time since I've been Premier but prior to being Premier, I've spent a considerable amount of time working with physicians, listening to their concerns and trying to discover ways we could respond that were constructive, useful and thoughtful. There is no question that the changes we have to make in health care are significant. They're significant, because the health care system as we know it in British Columbia is simply not sustainable. One of the first groups to identify that was the physicians in British Columbia. One of the first groups to identify the dysfunction that existed within the management of the system was the physicians of British Columbia. One of the first groups to tell us that we had to create some accountability in the system was the physicians of British Columbia. We have tried to respond to that.

I think the issue the member raises is a critical one. Obviously, we would like to be able to try and say to people: "Believe me."

Let me go back. If we could have said, "There will be no changes, and things will just get better," I think, number one, that would have been false, and because it was false we were in a position where we couldn't.

It's not that we want the work. It's not that we want to be put in a position where we have to transform the system, but the facts are…. The member, I think, was at the provincial congress with us where we had a very strong presentation from a demographer pointing out the challenges we face in health care. The member knows, having been a Minister of Health herself, that these are not challenges that are just here in the province of British Columbia. They're across the country.

What we've tried to do is build some accountability into the system. What we've tried to do is build some responsiveness to patients' needs into the system, which recognizes the vast size of the province of British Columbia, the variety of geography and dispersion of population. What we're also trying to do is give the people of our province a sense of the challenge we face in health care.

Health care today takes 41 percent of the provincial budget. While I recognize that there won't always be agreement on how we try and meet those challenges, I believe there has been a significant effort to transform how government deals with health care, so that we do focus on patient needs. I can tell you that whether I'm travelling to Prince George or to Vanderhoof, whether I'm going to Fort St. James or to Creston, people have told me for some time that there was a challenge.

There was a blueprint laid out for health care reform in 1991. Unfortunately, it was not followed. Therefore, we still have intermediate, long-term and home care deficiencies in the province. We still have mental health care deficiencies in the province. We still have physician deficiencies in the province in terms of the distribution around the province. We are going to do everything we can to transform that system. We will do it with our nurses, with our doctors, with our administrators, with our community leaders and with our patient groups in this province, so that as we move forward — I certainly can't guarantee there will be no mistakes — we will make progress towards better patient care for British Columbians.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I was there for that very interesting presentation. I think the Premier's probably referring to the presentation by David Baxter of Urban Futures, I think his company is called. It was very interesting.

The Premier at the end of the provincial congress sort of gave a: "I hope Roy Romanow is going to listen to David Baxter in terms of…." That's assuming Mr. Baxter's presentation led to…because costs were growing all the time, that meant — ergo — that health care was unsustainable and that somehow Mr. Romanow needed to have that message put to him.

I actually went back and accessed some of the information available in the Ministry of Finance and B.C. Stats about sustainability of health care. Actually, I was curious to have this discussion with the Premier about why his view is that it's unsustainable in terms of percentages of GDP, health care costs as a percentage of GDP, and the trends across the country about health care as a percentage of GDP. It is true that in certain sectors of the country, as governments dramatically cut back on health care, they then had to increase funding for health care in subsequent years, but on average, health care spending as a percentage of GDP was relatively flat.

That's true of British Columbia, as well, with one exception, and that was starting in the year 2000 when the previous government put in massive funding increases to take care of factors such as hospital expansion, etc. That was the exception.

Is the Ministry of Finance doing that kind of work? Has the Premier's office asked the Ministry of Finance to answer questions about sustainability of health care? Has the Premier or his staff or anybody in this office made a request to anybody in the Ministry of Finance? The question could be — I wouldn't be surprised if the Premier actually said this: "Give us some numbers to show that health care is unsustainable." Or maybe just the question of what the real determination of sustainability of health care is.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, the increase in health care spending in British Columbia from 2000-01 to 2002-03, over two years, is actually $2.2 billion. As health expenditures were growing at 13 percent, our economy was basically flat. In British Columbia, indeed, additional dollars were added to the health care ministry as we went through.

The member opposite is probably aware of the fact that finance ministers meet across the country. Finance ministers themselves — I can't recall which ministry the member opposite was holding at the time — from all of the provinces, actually, asked for a report to be done on sustainability of health care. I think it was presented….

Having said that, because of her interest in public issues, I'm sure she would be aware of the fact that the finance ministers across the country had asked for this report.

It was prepared and brought forward. There has been no question that the increase of health expenditures is going to continue. I think everyone recognizes that. We have to look at different ways of delivering services. We have an aging population. We have growing and increasingly expensive technologies, both hard and soft technologies and pharmaceutical technologies.

What we want to try to do is take advantage of all those benefits for the needs of patients. We are going to see investments in telemedicine so that you actually can connect a patient to the caregiver or the professional they need in a direct and responsive way and in a timely manner. We are going to take advantage of the regimes that are available to us to improve the quality of patient care.

When you look at the costs we face, I believe that this is one of the most important generational shifts we are going to have to come to grips with in government. Human resources are the critical component in the delivery of health care.

I don't hold this member responsible — only for about ten years of this. There is a vacant building in Vancouver that was initiated in 1983 by a very, very previous government. That building is still not complete. That building by itself, without doctors and nurses and health care providers in it, does nothing for the health care system. What it's done is cost taxpayers literally tens of millions of dollars with no benefit to patients.

What we have said we want to do is make sure the resources we have focus on patients. I can tell you as a patient myself — and I assume the member opposite — that if you're sick, you'd like to visit with a health professional. You'd like to hear from a doctor. I can tell you, there is no end of the positive stories you hear about nurses and the contribution they make to individual health care in the province.

We have made a decision as a government to put resources behind the human resource — behind the caregivers, the physicians, the nurses and the people that make the health system work. The fact of the matter is that those people are in demand. Today we have top salaries for nurses. Today we are going to be in a position where our doctors are going to be compensated at the top level in the country. Our health employees have the top compensation in the country. We have built the infrastructure now in terms of the human resource that says we can move forward.

I believe that helps to stabilize the system. At the same time we're doing that, we have to ask to those people: how do we move forward so we're meeting the needs of patients? How can we deliver services differently so that we start to watch as wait-lists reduce and as you as a patient get the care you need in a timely way? That's the initiative we've undertaken.

I do not believe, in terms of the dollars that have been put in place, we've seen from finance ministries from across the country, as well as our own, that health care is sustainable. We know ourselves that you cannot continue to increase health care spending at 10 to 14 percent with an economy that is growing at 1 or 2 percent and say to people with any kind of honesty that that's sustainable in the long term. People still want to have other services. They still want policing services, education services, transportation services, human resource services and community services. We can't continue to consume as much as we have of the dollar from health care spending. We have to look at how we can deliver those services in a more cost-effective way, and that's what we intend to do.

J. MacPhail: I understand the need to compare public health expenditures with government expenditures. Maybe the Finance ministry has already done this work. If one actually compares public health care expenditures as a percentage of GDP, I'm sorry to tell the Premier that it's less than 8 percent. It fluctuates between 6.5 and 8 percent of GDP. That's been constant throughout the eighties and nineties.

I'm sure the Ministry of Finance has that information available. Here's my concern. If health care isn't sustainable… Does the Premier really mean health care

with public expenditure isn't sustainable — that somehow if it doesn't come out of the public purse and is distributed equitably and according to need and income, then that's okay. That means it's good to stop that kind of lack of sustainability, but it's okay to say that the expenditures on health care can come out of the private pocket, and that's fine.

I don't think people in British Columbia wake up and say: "Oh, damn. I've got breast cancer. Well, that's my problem." I don't think people create health care needs. I simply don't. I know there's some trend — I happen to believe that the Premier himself doesn't believe in this trend — that only health care problems that aren't self-induced should be paid for. Well, that's a slippery slope — right? — getting down that the public will only pay for health care costs that aren't due to lifestyle, for instance. God forbid that we go down that slippery slope.

What I see in the trend of this government's thinking in saying that the health care system isn't sustainable is that what they're really saying is the part of the public health system that we're going to distribute according to need rather than income isn't sustainable. It's okay to have a health care system where you can pay private dollars for a needed health care service, but the public purse isn't going to pay for that. I don't see any other way of interpreting it, frankly, unless the Premier is saying that the lack of sustainability is because people are abusing the system.

Hon. G. Campbell: I want to be very, very explicit on this. The lack of sustainability is because of the political imposition of systems that do not meet the needs of patients. They meet other needs than patient needs.

I'm not going to deal with the example that the member across the way used, because I don't think these things are frivolous. The fact of the matter is that if someone has cancer, that person wants service. I've talked to cancer patient after cancer patient in this province who has said to me: "Excuse me, Mr. Campbell, but the health care system is failing me. It is failing my mother. It is failing my father. It's failing my children." Our responsibility is to listen to what that person says and say to them: "Let's see how we can have a publicly funded system that actually meets your needs." Wouldn't that be a change — to put patients at the head of the list? That's what we're going to do.

There are British Columbians today who, because our public system has not responded to their needs, are required to use their personal resources to get the care that they need. You know what? They'll go anywhere to get it. They'll go south of the border. They'll go east of the border. They'll go wherever they need to go to get the care they need.

What we want to do is have a publicly funded health care system that thinks about those patients, whether they're living in Smithers or in Saanich. We want those people to know that we're thinking about those patients. We know that the connection between patients and care is actually the caregiver — the doctors and the nurses and the people in the system. We're trying to find ways that we can close that distance between patients and those people as well.

I will assume that the member opposite was not suggesting that I said it's people who are causing the problem. It's the system that's not responding to the needs of patients and people in this province that has created the problem. Our job is to change the system so that patients actually do get the care they need in the communities where they're living, so that children get the care they need in the communities where they're living.

I think those are the things that everyone in this assembly, regardless of their political party, are actually committed to. What I believe everyone should understand is that the costs of the health care system are expanding rapidly.

The member opposite is correct. I don't think the 6.5 percent is correct; it's significantly higher than that. The challenge that we face — and her government, as well as our government, has been dealing with this — is to recognize that if you talk with Canadians, they will say to you that one of the primary services they want is health care. All of the Premiers have gone to the federal government and said: "We need you to reignite the partnership that you used to have on health care. We need you to contribute some of the dollars that you take out of Canadians' pockets back to create the support you need for the health care system."

Having said that, we still believe that you're going to have to change the delivery methods we have, whether it's for aboriginal Canadians — which is an issue across the country that we've raised every time we've met as Premiers — or whether it's for people living in rural and remote Canada. We want to provide those, but we should all understand there is one agency that is constitutionally responsible for delivering health services in this country, and that's the provincial government. We intend to do that, and we have to do that in a way that's thoughtful, considerate of the needs of patients and also financially sustainable over time.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I'm finding this discussion — it's not a debate — very interesting. I actually do grapple with the issue about what part of the health care system isn't sustainable then. There are pressures; there's no question about it. What I'm trying to get at is the specifics of the change, the plan that the Premier has in mind for health care change, that deal with the issue of the unsustainable parts of the health care system.

We know the biggest cost-driver to date is drugs, but I don't think there's abuse of prescription…. Or certainly I don't see where there's abuse. I don't see anything in the plan to deal with abuse of Pharmacare costs. It's merely downloading those Pharmacare costs onto the individual. The public will no longer pay for it, but the individual will pay for it. That's a huge cost-driver.

Our population is aging, God forbid. It comes as a deep blow to many of us how we're aging. That's a factor that's…. I mean, we can't say that dealing with an aging population isn't sustainable. Maybe you'd like some specifics. What part of the system isn't sustainable?

Hon. G. Campbell: The part of the system which is obviously not sustainable is the financial components of the system that we must support. We have to look at delivering the service in a more cost-effective way to patients. I think the member opposite should take the time to go through the details with the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning, and I think there will lots of opportunity to do that. But let me finish this discussion, at least from my perspective, by saying this: we have asked, for the first time, for the government to set standards for regional health authorities. We will be holding those health authorities to account for the standards that are met. Those standards are not developed yet, not finalized yet, but they will be in place.

We will be holding authorities to account for how they deal with the communities they serve; how they deal with the patients they serve; and how they deal with the workers, the health care providers, who are a critical part of the health care system. We are committed to a publicly funded system. I think the member opposite will find that the discussions that she has with the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning will be more than enlightening on the challenges that we face and the ways we intend to approach them.

From my perspective, it is clear that this government has given a direction that we want a high-quality public health services system that meets all patients' needs where they live and when they need it. We have to do that in the context of an overall budget. Currently, 41 percent of that budget is consumed by health care, and it's growing at a rate that is clearly not sustainable.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's an interesting statement. I fully expect to explore all of these issues with the Minister of Health Services, but that's why I'm curious as to the reverse in doing estimates. I'm very curious about it, because in the past we would have been able to clear away many of these issues and then only deal with the questions to the CEO. Unfortunately, we're not afforded that opportunity because of the early aspect of the Premier's estimates.

I am trying to limit my questions solely to the area that the Premier himself has raised publicly. That's all. And the Premier is leading the charge on the lack of sustainability in the health care system — absolutely leading the charge and directing parties to deal with this question as a result of the provincial congress, as a matter of fact. It's very current.

If the system is not financially sustainable, I go back to my original point. The Premier is not saying it's not sustainable for a matter of the services that are delivered. I fully accept his sincerity, nor was I accusing him of saying there were unneeded services being delivered.

So it's financially unsustainable. Well, what that means is that the government, by privatizing and off-loading costs, is merely saying: "Sorry, we're not going to pay our share. The provincial government isn't going to pay our fair share. You, taxpayer, are going to pay the same amount of money — maybe more — for health care, only you're not going to do it through the taxation system. You're going to do it out of your own pocket." Therefore, it becomes regressive.

Because it's not sustained financially, as has been the case to date, through a publicly funded system and a progressive taxation system, it now becomes the responsibility of individuals through a combination of a tax system and regressive user fees, MSP premiums, privatization and increased drug costs paid personally. It may be unsustainable for the Premier, who doesn't want to commit public dollars to those services, but I don't think people who are ill or are in need of health services get a choice about that. They're going to pay one way or the other.

Financial sustainability. The Premier's inability to figure out a way for the publicly funded system to be sustainable out of public dollars means that individuals who can ill afford to pay the costs of privatized health care will either do away with the services or pay more out of their disposable income than they would have previously. That's the consequence of what the Premier is saying in terms of it just being financial — lack of sustainability in the financial regime.

It's what the public thought the Premier's intimation was then. He keeps saying the system is not sustainable. They believe they were promised something different, but the Premier is now saying: "Sorry, I'm not going to do that out of a publicly funded system. You, Sally and Gurmeet Singh, are going to be paying for it out of your own pockets, and I'm getting out of the business of sustaining the system."

That's very unfortunate. I just wish we could have that discussion instead of some discussion that's completely, in my view, manipulated about whether the system is sustainable or not. Doctors don't actually say it's not financially sustainable; they say to look for resources elsewhere. The doctors go and say: "Look to user fees; look to increased MSP premiums." The doctors are fine to fund the system through a regressive method, but that's not what our leadership in our provincial government should be saying.

I expect that will conclude this particular discussion. Actually, I want to do one more thing on that basis. I want to ask one more question. I wasn't going to ask this question. If the system is financially unsustainable but services will continue to be offered — I hope the Premier is saying this, although some of the government documents floating around go against that — then I guess not only will people, in a very regressive way, pay more for their health care. There will be different kinds of delivery of health care. Yesterday we

learned that there will be privatization. The document we had said there'll be $700 million of privatization in the health care system. How does the Premier expect that will make the system more financially sustainable? Has he met with organizations that deliver private health care elsewhere to figure out whether that is a cheaper way of doing business?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, I think one of the challenges we face here is that…. Let me just phrase the member's argument. If we keep doing everything in exactly the same way, if we agree that we are going to reimburse the people in the health care system at a level that will not just not make us competitive but will make us attractive to them so we have that critical asset available, will the cost of health care explode? The answer is yes.

What we're saying is that we'll do things differently. Let me give the member just a couple of examples. MSA Hospital in Abbotsford has been there for a number of years. There were six operating theatres built 17 years ago. One of them has never, ever been used as an operating theatre. The member opposite will know that when you make those sorts of commitments, that costs significant additional capital from creating a hospital bed. It has never, ever been used.

I mentioned the building at the corner of 12th and Oak in Vancouver. Tens and tens and tens of millions of dollars never did anything to meet the needs of any patient in the province.

One of the things we've said is: let's make sure that when you make capital investments, those capital investments have operating commitments behind them so that we do use those facilities to meet the needs of patients. That's a change in what's happened. That means that those capital dollars, those tax dollars, are going to be used more productively. I think one of the challenges we face is to make sure that our health care system is productive. What do I mean by productive? I mean that it meets the needs of patients. Health care is there for patients, and our job is to make it as productive as we can so that each dollar we put into the system does as much as it can for patients.

We are for a publicly funded health care system. We believe in it. We believe we have to change some of the methods of delivery to make sure that patients get value for the dollars they put into the system, so that people can depend on it. As the member stated earlier, we know that we are going to go through some changes in that transition, but we believe it will provide for long-term stability, a long-term increase in the quality of care and a long-term increase in the standards that we face in health care. That's our goal, and that's our objective.

J. MacPhail: I hear the Premier saying "a publicly funded system." I'm not quite sure how that jibes with the discussion we had when Bill 29 was being introduced and passed. The Minister of Health Services admitted that there would be contracting-out of things like emergency wards and any services that, if you step a foot away from the bed, can be privatized and/or contracted out — a foot away from the acute care bed.

Then, of course, we know that there is $700 million worth of privatization in the works this coming fiscal year in health care. It's not a secret. We don't have to beat around the bush. The Premier doesn't have to say to me over and over again: "We're committed to a publicly funded system." Great. Set that aside. I'm not sure what he means by that, but that's his responsibility to explain.

We know that they brought in legislation to contract out services. We know that there's $700 million of privatization ready to go. Has the Premier met with any organizations that are in this business? In the United States there's Humana Inc., for instance, that specializes in delivering private health care services. What is in the mind of the Premier to say that that would be a more productive way of delivering those services? Has he met with these people? Has he got evidence that it's more productive? Has he got evidence that privatization works?

I'll be frank with you. During the debate on Bill 29, the Minister of Health Services had no evidence, not one single study to table, to show that privatizing health care produced better value for your dollar. I'm just wondering whether the Premier or his staff have met with people — U.S. companies, European companies, anybody — to show that your direction is….

I've got a 13-year-old. You've got to ask the question very carefully, or you find out the homework is due tomorrow but not today.

Hon. G. Campbell: Again, if the question is whether I have ever met with anybody on health care, the answer is yes — including my staff. Have I met with Humana Inc.? No. Have I heard of examples of where perhaps the private sector delivery of non-clinical services would save taxpayers money? Yes. I think the member knows from the debate we had earlier that the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, which I used to call the general hospital, had to pay an additional $1 million for security services. That's $1 million that didn't go to patient services. There is a whole range of things.

I don't accept the member's suggestion of $700 million. I understand it's in a briefing book. Let's be clear about what we've said. What we've said to health authorities for the first time is: "We expect you to deliver results. We expect you to do that in a financially responsible way. We expect you to work with your workers, with the people and communities across the province to make sure you're delivering those services cost-effectively." I think that's a responsible position to take. There are some flexibility tools there so that they can make decisions that are in the best interests of patients.

That's what we've said. There have been no final decisions made. There have been no conclusions made except: let's make sure we have the flexibility for those

who we charge with administration, for those who we charge with the delivery of the services so that they can actually deliver those services in a cost-effective and thoughtful way for taxpayers, so patients get care and taxpayers are considered.

J. MacPhail: It's speculative, Mr. Chair, so if it's out of order, please tell me.

Given these changes in the health care system that the Premier is contemplating, who is he meeting with to discuss these changes? If it's not organizations that do alternate delivery — the private companies — who is he meeting with to determine what the…?

The Premier had that forum, I know, on health care. It was in the fall. What's been the follow-up since that forum, then? There were some pretty specific suggestions then. Is the Premier meeting with the chairs of the regional health authorities or the CEOs? Where is the vision coming from, if not from private health care companies and what they have to offer?

Hon. G. Campbell: Have I met with all of the CEOs? I'm not sure if I've met with all of them at once. I have met with groups of them on occasion.

I guess maybe this is as good a place as any to deal with this. As the Premier, I actually delegate responsibility for leadership for managing the health services of the province to the Minister of Health Services. I am glad to articulate the goals that we have as a government. I'm glad to be informed by people of different responses that we may have. I think we have some very good people in the Health Services ministry who are working on developing not just standards but accountability measures.

All of those things are directions which I have tried to give to every minister. I say to each minister: "You're responsible, and I'm going to hold you accountable for the goals." Those letters to each of the ministers are available on the website not just to the member opposite but to the public. My deputy minister to the executive council, as we mentioned today, has agreements with the deputy ministers in various ministries, and they will be held to account for the actions that they take.

I think the service plans that we've laid out do lay out, in more detail than I have certainly seen before, the direction we hope to go in. They will be three-year rolling plans, so next year there'll be another group of three years out, which will be there for ministries. We will continue to strive.

I think what's critical for the member to know is that I don't come with a bias that says: "You have to deliver the service this way or that way." I come from the bias that says: "How do we get the service to the patient in as timely and cost-effective a way as we can, so the patients are cared for regardless of where they live in the province?" That requires some change. I understand that institutionally those changes are sometimes difficult to manage, but that is, in fact, the task that we've given the Minister of Health Planning and the Minister of Health Services: to establish a long-range plan for the province, to look at ways that we can measure the success of that plan through their service plans.

I would encourage the member opposite to look at the service plan, to look at performance measures and to suggest better ones if she or others feel that they're better. We've certainly been doing that with people across the province. We will continue to do that. As a government, we have said to British Columbians that we want to hear their voices on health care. We have a Health Committee of the Legislature that spent the fall travelling and talking with British Columbians, trying to engage the public in the discussion about how we can improve health care.

I think that's what's critical. That's the direction I've given the minister. I think that the service plans of Health Services and Health Planning will give the member opposite a chance to delve more deeply into those matters.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and the Premier is referring me off to the Ministers of Health Planning and Health Services. So be it. Just so he's aware, though, I have confined my remarks and questions to him solely on matters that he's raised publicly. Regardless of the change in the way we're doing estimates, I have completely limited my remarks to his view of the way the health care system should be delivered.

Actually, I wish the Premier well, because there is huge unprecedented change taking place in the health care system. While the Premier may say that's needed because of everything that happened in the last ten years, I'm not quite sure what the outcome is. It's all very well and good for the Premier to say that there's a problem, but then to provide solutions to the problem is a very big, giant step that this government committed they would achieve for the public. That's exactly what they did.

To date, I think it's safe to say that the highest anxiety level in this province — and there is a high anxiety level across the province — exists within the health care delivery system. It doesn't help when there are mixed messages coming out about health care delivery and the supposed logic that's driving those very, very mixed messages.

One of the reasons why I wanted to be very careful about exploring with the Premier, himself, his views on private health care is because there were no answers coming from the Minister of Health Services in the debate around that very issue under Bill 29. We spent a great deal of time exploring that — a great deal of time. I guess what we have to do is just wait and see whether this great, grand change — what's been both revealed publicly and disclosed through documents that probably weren't meant to be made public — is going to work or not.

We are only two members, though somehow the public thinks that we represent the part of our great parliamentary system called opposition. I know the Premier doesn't recognize that, but the public seems to

We get all of these stories from around the province about the effect of these massive changes, and we get them in a way that only when pushed do we go public — for instance, today — with the consequences of the change and the lack of attention given by the government to these matters.

The public is flooding us with letters, and the Premier is constantly making reference that if there are positive suggestions forthcoming, he would be happy to receive them. I hope that he can actually and that when a positive suggestion is put forward about changes that may be a misstep or avoiding problems in the future, he won't just reject them because of where they came from. We are trying to do our best to bring attention to the problems across the province of people who are perhaps in disagreement with the direction of the government.

My colleague will be back to deal with other social policy areas that the Premier has addressed directly. She's in a committee meeting, Mr. Chair, so with the Premier's okay, I think I'll move on to some other matters, for a change of pace.

The Technology Council is the next one I'd like to deal with. I've got the Premier's website. It's a couple of pages, and perhaps the Premier could update me on what the Technology Council is doing. I have a Times Colonist report of February 20. It's a small one, but that's from the councillor himself. What is the Premier doing specifically with the Technology Council?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Technology Council was appointed last summer. They appointed a president of the Technology Council, Dr. Gerri Sinclair. They provided a first quarterly report — which is available on the website, so the member, I'm sure, has it — with regard to the issues we had to deal with in terms of bridging the digital divide.

The council has decided to pursue…. They have toured across the province. Just so the member opposite knows, there were public consultations and meetings in Prince George, Fort St. John, Nelson, Terrace, Nanaimo, Kelowna and Kamloops. I have had discussions here, as well, with representatives of the technology industry.

They have broken themselves into four task groups. The first task group is going to look at access and opportunity. That's to identify the challenges we face with the digital divide in the province and to suggest ways that we can bridge it, and the training and skills development necessary so that those British Columbians who wish to participate can have the opportunity to do so.

The people who sit on that task force of the Technology Council…. They are representatives of the Technology Council, so we're clear about this. They then go out, and there are larger groups that have input with regard to these items in the council. Paul Lee is the acting chair. He's joined by Greg Aasen, who is the chief operating officer of PMC-Sierra Inc; Victor Ling, a vice-president of research for the B.C. Cancer Agency; William Koty, who is the director of the division of applied technology for the University of British Columbia; David Sutcliffe, who is the chair and chief executive officer of Sierra Wireless Inc.; Doug Manning, who is the chief executive officer and president of Bridges.com; and Barb Alexander, who works with Microsoft.

There is a task group on government operations and services, which includes Mike Calyniuk, who is from PricewaterhouseCoopers; Barb Alexander; Jim Yeates, who is the chair of Burntsand Inc.; and Sharon Byrne, who is the chair of Paradata Systems Inc.

There is an industry growth and development task force, which is chaired by Norm Francis of Pivotal Corp. He is joined by Greg Kerfoot, who is the chief executive officer and president of Crystal Decisions; Don Rix, who is the chair of Cantest Ltd.; and Paul Lee. Paul, by the way, is the senior vice-president and worldwide studios chief operating officer for Electronic Arts.

Finally, there is a task group on marketing and public awareness, which includes George Hunter, who is the executive director of the B.C. Technology Industries Association; Ian McBeath, who is the president and CEO of Inflazyme Pharmaceuticals Inc.; Firoz Rasul, who is the chief executive officer of Ballard Power Systems; and Amos Michelson, who is the chief executive officer of Creo Products Inc. They are in the midst of public discussions.

We've had many, many people who've said they want to be included as we build a technology future in British Columbia, so the coordination, the development of policy recommendations and the advice comes through the public, up through those task groups, into the Premier's Technology Council so that we can become, as we identified, one of the leading-edge technology jurisdictions in the world.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the Premier can just say how the council works. I understand the task groups, but does the Premier meet with the Technology Council?

J. MacPhail: I said I appreciate…. Yes, I do have the report from the Technology Council, so I'm aware of the information the Premier just gave. But does the Premier himself meet with the Technology Council on a regular basis?

J. MacPhail: The task group on government operations and services. Can the Premier just explore that a little bit more with me — about the work of the council?

Hon. G. Campbell: The specifics from the perspective of the council are that they want to identify government services which may be able to benefit from improved telecommunications, improved networking, or what we call e-government. As the member opposite will know, we have a chief information officer who also has a service plan that is moving forward to try and expand services throughout government. One of the things I felt was necessary with the Technology Council was to make sure that we were constantly kept up to date about what was happening in the private sector, the world outside of government. They are doing that. They make recommendations on how we may be able to reduce costs, expand services or increase operational efficiency throughout the government.

J. MacPhail: My understanding is that — I don't want to use the lingo — in the January downsizing of government, 200 information technology workers were displaced. Most of them are junior enough that they are laid off. Is that the Premier's understanding as well?

Hon. G. Campbell: I do not have the specific number. There may well have been decisions that were made throughout ministries with regard to that.

J. MacPhail: Unless I'm being advised incorrectly, it is 200 information technology workers.

We and most governments spent the 1990s competing for information technology workers in the context of the private sector, so recruiting information technology workers was an incredibly hard task. I remember the Deputy Minister of Finance convincing me quite ably that there had to be special treatment in order to recruit information technology workers, because the government was having to spend way too much money contracting out those services. In fact, we had presentations as part of the budget consultation hearings about that very issue.

When I saw the Technology Council dealing with this issue of government operations and services, I wondered whether they had the mandate to actually recruit in order to be much more effective and efficient within government in dealing with information technology. Is that part of the mandate?

J. MacPhail: Unless this has changed in the last nine months, there is no question that contracting for information technology work is far more expensive than doing it in-house — no question about that. I'm just curious as to why that isn't part of the government operations and services, if it's part of the mandate of the council to figure out how things can be done in a more productive and efficient way.

Hon. G. Campbell: If the question is, have I asked the Technology Council to look at how we can recruit into the government? the answer is no.

If the question is, in looking at government operations, do they look at creating an environment where people in the technology industry may be interested in working? the answer is yes. Indeed, one of the challenges we faced was that many people, we heard, were leaving government because they didn't feel the government was responsive to the changes that were necessary. There have been significant changes in the technology industry in the last year and a half. Frankly, whereas before there was a real dearth of opportunity, and it was difficult to hire people into government, today there is potential to bring people into government if we are committed to changing service delivery models to take full advantage of the opportunities of new technology.

The chief information officer is currently working across ministries to try and make sure we are applying these new technologies and to show some leadership with regard to that. One of the challenges we faced was the plethora of platforms that was necessary to be used across government, which made it a very archaic system in terms of anyone who wanted to be up front and on the leading edge of technology development.

The second thing I would say to the member opposite is that the whole concept of shared services allows us to provide technology services across government in a way that is, hopefully, cost-effective, exciting for our staff and innovative. We believe it will make a huge difference in terms of delivery of services to people.

Those are issues that the Technology Council may well raise, or they may not. The Technology Council may raise issues about how we can use new telemedicine or how we can deal with payroll. In reviewing the government operations, one of the encouraging things for us should be to know that they feel there are many areas where we in fact are doing a good job in British Columbia. They're encouraging us to build on those.

We want to create a culture here where new technologies are available and are used to the benefit of the citizens of the province of British Columbia. The Technology Council will provide us with suggestions and perhaps best practices that are available in other parts of the world. Most of these people are travelling a substantial amount of time. They have created companies in the province of British Columbia that have lifted up our visibility in the technology industry around the world. They can come and be a huge asset to us in providing information, assistance and advice. But we don't ask them to actually recruit on behalf of the government.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's a funny way of creating an environment for people to want to join the government service when you're laying off 200 information technology workers.

Hon. G. Campbell: It's $500,000 for '02-03, going down to $425,000 in '03-04 and $350,000 in '04-05.

J. MacPhail: There was a very small story on February 28 about the payment to the president of the Technology Council. Gerri Sinclair is being paid the equivalent of an annual salary of about $200,000.

It's $10,000 a month, and apparently Ms. Sinclair is contributing 60 percent of her time. That works out to an annualized $200,000. I wasn't aware that council members were being paid.

Hon. G. Campbell: Council members are not being paid. All the council members are volunteering, as we said in the New Era document. We would also have a president of the Premier's Technology Council. The council members were asked to recruit their president. They recruited Ms. Sinclair, who has a very strong technology background and is recognized across the country and across the continent for her expertise.

She took on the task and said that she'd be willing to take on the task as long as she wasn't restricted from doing other activities. The council felt that that was good value. It turns out the council was right, because Ms. Sinclair is working between 70 and 80 hours a week on the Premier's Technology Council. I think most people would say that's not part-time. That's more than a full-time job.

J. MacPhail: There's nothing personal in these questions. These are public funds that are being spent, though. The information is that she was hired part-time. I just go with what the information is.

What is the role of the chief information officer in relationship to the Technology Council, then? Why is it that the Technology Council needs a separate staff?

Hon. G. Campbell: There is no direct relationship between the chief information officer and the Technology Council. The reason the Technology Council was established was to try to create an opportunity for government to learn from those outside of government. We wanted to create a focus here, because we think there's a huge opportunity to build the technology industries in the province to take full advantage of technology in British Columbia.

The member is correct with regard to Ms. Sinclair. She has said that she will spend a minimum of 60 percent of her time. As I say, Ms. Sinclair is currently working what is effectively double time compared to what many people would spend in terms of their week.

The chief information officer is responsible for initiating activities throughout government and for coordinating those activities. I think it's critical that there's strategic leadership and direction within government and across the broad public service that currently takes place. He is responsible with his staff for delivering government services on-line. He's responsible for managing and establishing both information management and information technology governance frameworks for the government. So he is part of the ongoing day-to-day operations of government. He's spending all of his time trying to make sure that we get our government's infrastructure up, that we create a consistency of platforms across government so that government can start talking with itself back and forth easily. I think those are critical things.

The chief information officer works with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. They are looking at creating strategic alliances that link important situations: business to government, business to business, government-to-government connections. All of those things are part of what the chief information officer has undertaken to do.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the Premier could outline the growth to date of the tech sector for this decade or whatever — I don't have up-to-date information on that — just in terms of how British Columbia has fared in comparison to the rest of the world. We all know that the rest of the world has faced some pretty difficult circumstances, particularly in California and Washington and Oregon. How is B.C. faring in comparison to those particular areas?

Hon. G. Campbell: British Columbia had significant technology growth. We actually were doing a relatively good job of starting companies, but companies that got started and that moved to the next generation of growth were finding that their employees were leaving the province of British Columbia. In fact, the technology industries association's report of 2000, I think, suggested that 50 percent of all new job growth was happening outside of British Columbia.

We think we will stem that because of the changes that have been made. We believe that there are major opportunities in biotechnology, in entertainment technology, in communication technology and in wireless technology for us to take advantage of in British Columbia.

We have generally lagged behind Washington, Oregon and California. I can't tell you specifically the level, but it was by significant numbers. Where we might be growing at 40 percent, they were growing by 60 and 70 percent. We do think there is a huge opportunity for us here. We think the quality of life in British Columbia works for the technology industries.

Since we last met, we had BCIT, UBC and Simon Fraser University come together with Finning on a new technology campus in Vancouver, which I think will have a huge positive spinoff benefit to the industry. We are starting to build a critical mass in Burnaby with companies of the nature of Electronic Arts, Creo, Pivotal, PMC and Wireless. All of these companies have a

very solid base for us to move forward with, and we think we've created a framework that will allow them to prosper even further and add more jobs to British Columbia's economy.

J. MacPhail: I fully agree with the Premier that many companies are moving from entry level to mid-level expansion. One of the issues that the companies face is access to capital for expansion. There was discussion in the 1990s about lack of access to venture capital at the mid-level. Venture capital funds tend to be offering money — $5 million or less to companies. Has the Premier got any plans, or is there any discussion at the Technology Council, about access to venture capital for mid-level and beyond?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you what their next quarterly report will say, but I can tell you that in dealing with people in the technology industry in the past, one of the challenges that we have to try and deal with is the whole issue of venture capital and how you can create it so that it's available for people. I haven't been aware of the Technology Council's specific concerns with regard to that. I have asked questions with regard to that on the occasions when we've met.

The first issue that the Technology Council wanted to deal with was the tax regime — income tax and how their options were treated. Options are a critical part of this. We have undertaken and worked with…. The previous government, indeed, worked with the federal government to try to get how Canadian companies' options were dealt with more in line with how American companies were. That's critical in the new era of open trade, back and forth, and free-flowing information. We're continuing to do that.

The Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise is responsible for those issues. I'm sure he may have some comments that he can give the member opposite directly with regard to that.

J. MacPhail: I was just curious, because I saw some speculation in the newspaper about expanding access and giving a greater number of tax benefits to a larger number of labour-sponsored venture capital funds. I wondered whether that had formed part of the discussion of why there was the necessity to expand access to labour-sponsored venture capital funds.

In the quarterly report — the Premier mentioned this as well — it did talk about skills access and that the goal of the council is to educate a world-class technology workforce. What's the status of graduates from post-secondary institutions in the field of technology? Are there specific seats still designated? I think that at some point there was an announcement made by the Premier, in the New Era or something, about dedicating a certain number of seats. Sorry, I can't remember. I can't remember whether it was the previous Premier or whatever.

I'm serious; I can't remember. What is happening to the access to post-secondary high-tech seats?

Hon. G. Campbell: In the New Era document we did indeed talk about increasing the number of technology graduates — engineering, computer science, engineering sciences, etc. That is part of the three-year service plan that the Minister of Advanced Education is putting forward. We will be working not just through that but with our colleges, our institutes and our universities to make sure we meet that human resource need.

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure they will have interest in it. It was one of the issues that they raised with their first quarterly report. The member opposite should know that I'll be monitoring it as well.

J. MacPhail: What does the Premier…? In terms of the development of the technology sector as a contributor to the growth in our economy, is it through the Technology Council that the citizens of the province will be monitoring that? Are there other areas of government that work with the technology sector in terms of economic growth?

Hon. G. Campbell: In terms of our goals of expanding the technology industry, we have set some goals for ourselves. The Technology Council has recommended those goals. They will review that. The Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise also will be looking at creating policy frameworks that allow us to meet that. Certainly, our goal remains to become, as I think it's defined, one of the top ten places in the world for the technology industry within the next ten years.

J. MacPhail: On the Technology Council, I couldn't see whether — because I don't recognize some of the names…. Is there a representative on the Technology Council that's from established industry? There's new industry and then established industry. Who is that?

Hon. G. Campbell: If you're thinking of the resource-based industries, no, I don't think I could look at any of these and say they were from that established industry. We have representatives from established institutions. We have representatives, for example, who have been here for some time. One of the issues I think that we're dealing with in terms of technology is to recognize — and the council has recognized this — that indeed it is the application of new technologies to our resource-based industry that will make us more competitive.

I was visiting a mill in Smithers where they pointed out that their productivity had increased by 21 percent because of a technology program developed in Salmon Arm, combined with a technology program developed in Fort St. James, and then applied. Obviously, the 21 percent productivity increase meant more people were at work and meant they were far more stable for the long term. We want to make sure we are giving those opportunities and opening up those opportunities across the board.

In terms of the appointments to the Technology Council, we felt it was important to have a range of backgrounds and a range of technology interests — academic as well as on the ground. I think we have a council here that, not just by their dedication in terms of volunteer time but also the product that they've come with, has been very worthwhile for us as government.

J. MacPhail: Just to finish. I've actually lumped together the chief information office and the Premier's Technology Council. It was only at the Premier's prodding that I remembered he was responsible for that. I thank him for that.

Just to conclude, then, on the area of the chief information office. Is the chief information officer at the status of a deputy? Does he attend Technology Council meetings with you?

Hon. G. Campbell: He has. His attendance isn't required. I normally have one of my senior staff with me, the deputy minister to the executive council or the chief information officer, but that is not a requirement. In fact, what we want to do is make sure they know about the reports, and the chief information officer is certainly cognizant of the reports. It would be nice for him to be there on occasion, because they often say nice things about what's happening in the government.

J. MacPhail: The Premier mentioned e-government. What are the barriers, if any, to expanding e-government that exists now?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it's fair to say that some of the barriers we've had have been technological. They have been how the systems — what they call legacy systems — that have been in place don't communicate back and forth with one another. Probably the largest single barrier we have is cultural, meaning people within government getting comfortable with the use of technology infrastructures and how they communicate.

Let me use myself as an example. It's not unusual for me to read something on a screen and say that I better put that on paper so I can read it even better. The words actually are exactly the same. You just have to get comfortable with how that communication works and how that paperless flow works.

I think there have been barriers with regard to people's concerns about security — security of public information. Health care information is clearly a big issue that people are concerned about. When we talk about creating common platforms across government, it wouldn't be unusual, for example, for health care information to be available without the proper security in place to flip over to Competition, Science and Enterprise — just to pick one — or Water, Land and Air Protection. How we make sure we protect people's privacy is a barrier.

I think there are some barriers in access to the public accessing services. It seems to me that the strategy we should be employing is a strategy of choice, allowing the public to choose to use the system. I think there is a certain amount for all of us, in looking at new technologies, of saying to ourselves that that's fine for someone else, but I don't like it. That's a challenge in terms of a public service that's 30,000 strong as well. Those are some of the barriers that we face.

I think that the more we train people, the more we develop expertise in the use of that and comfort…. Training is a huge thing. Just to use a simple example of using e-mail, you can tell people to use e-mail, how easy it is and how good it is. Then you say to them that they've got to be careful with it, and they're not particularly comfortable with it yet.

The average age of our workforce…. I don't know exactly what it is, but my bet is that it's somewhere between 40 and 50. We're asking people who've been at work for some time to actually develop new skills and new tools. That's a significant barrier we're working with.

What the chief information officer has tried to do is lay out a program which says: "Let's try to make sure we're adding new electronic services over time. Let's recognize that when we bring those services in, you have to get used to and comfortable with the use of them, but let's be persistent in our pursuit of providing those." I think that's probably the most significant thing. In a few months I don't expect there will be very many barriers in terms of the technology — the hardware, if you want. There probably will always be problems with software, and for some time I would expect there will be some cultural problems in terms of how we deliver the service.

J. MacPhail: Two final questions. One is: does the e-government initiative go across Crown corporations and agencies? Secondly, I was curious to know whether the legal aspect of e-government in terms of a legal signature has been resolved.

Hon. G. Campbell: First, with regard to Crown corporations, we will be endeavouring to try and make a better connection between Crown corporations and the government. We are in the midst of developing what they call a portal for British Columbia, which provides access to the whole range of government services. Hopefully, they'll be plugged into that.

The second question was with regard to the legal signature. I think, actually, the issues revolving around the legal signature have fundamentally been resolved, and the issue is now bringing it forward for legislation, which will allow it to take place. I think we heard a

little bit today, with the introduction of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 that was recommended by the Parliamentary Committee from the previous government. We're moving down that road as well.

J. MacPhail: Next on my list is the core services review. I think I'll move to there. One of the changes that has occurred since our last set of estimates was that the Premier himself assumed the chair of the core services review and, I guess, the deregulation task force. Those are separate things, as I understand it — the core services review and the deregulation task force. Is…?

Hon. G. Campbell: The core services review and deregulation task force are the same thing.

J. MacPhail: Throughout the service plans there is reference to…. Almost every service plan has a reference to further action by core services review. We talked about it a bit this morning, in public affairs bureau, etc. Perhaps the Premier could just update us on the work of the core services review, the status of various reviews.

I know that the last I heard was that the core services reviews of the Crown corporations and agencies were not yet completed, certainly not public. I will be dealing with that under the Crown agencies secretariat, because I know you have a separate deputy for that. Can the Premier give us an update on the whole plan?

Hon. G. Campbell: All the ministries have been completed in terms of their core services review. The implementation plans they brought forward are, in fact, the implementation plans you have seen, and their service plans were presented on January 17 and then again on February 19 as part of the budget. I believe the member has those plans.

Hon. G. Campbell: And evidently she has the briefing books that go with them. That's right. That's good, because it makes it public, and we can get on with this.

There are some Crown agencies that are now complete. We have dealt with B.C. Buildings and B.C. Lotteries already and made decisions with regard to Fisheries Renewal B.C., Forest Renewal B.C., the Job Protection Commission and the Pacific National Exhibition. The remainder of the major Crowns — Insurance Corporation of B.C., B.C. Rail, B.C. Ferries and B.C. Pavilion Corporation — will be dealt with over the next number of months.

B.C. Hydro will be reviewed after the government has adopted an energy policy. The energy policy — I hope I get this right — was put out in first-draft format in December, a preliminary format. It was asked for comment. The public said they'd like more time. We've extended that time frame till, I think, February 15 for public comment back, and we haven't yet received that. In fact, we haven't made those decisions yet as government. We won't be reviewing B.C. Hydro through the core review and deregulation task force until that's complete.

Finally, another major project which we talked about last August was the administrative justice review, which is reviewing all of the administrative justice parts of government. I don't remember the number off the top of my head, but there are dozens. That is being proceeded with incrementally and will be continued over the next four to five months.

J. MacPhail: My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will be addressing the issue of the administrative justice review.

I want to deal with the energy policy review separately, because that's a new item that has occurred since we last met in this chamber, so I'll deal with that in a moment.

On the issue of the Crown corporations review, has the Premier had a chance to look at the Select Standing Committee on Crown Corporations report as it relates to goals and objectives?

Hon. G. Campbell: I haven't actually read the Crown Corporations report, so I should start there. All of the Crown corporations will be meeting with the Crown Corporations Committee. What we expect the Crown Corporations Committee will do is not carry out a further core services review but look at what the Crown corporations have been asked to do, look at what their plans are and ask them questions about how they're delivering the services that we've asked them to deliver.

J. MacPhail: I'm aware of that. I sit on that committee. I haven't had an opportunity to attend any of the meetings, but the Chair has done excellent service to keep me in the loop. Also, then, I did have a chance to review the report of the select standing committee. The reason why I raise it is if the Premier hasn't had a chance to read it, it would inform him of what may need to be incorporated into the core services review. Let me just put him on notice, if I could, that the select standing committee has done a very good job of performance measures and performance targets.

As the Premier rightly notes, it's not going to be a core services review, but it is going to be an annual review. I don't know whether it's annual; I don't know whether I'm right on that. The committee — and I can't take any credit for this — has put together a checklist of questions for regular review and a set of performance targets as well. Certainly, what I'll be examining is the co-relationship between that report and the results of the core services review. It's a good guide, from the work on it. I'm not sure; I think it's the Chair….

J. MacPhail: My apologies. There are so many Stewarts in the chamber. The member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows….

Hon. G. Campbell: As a Campbell, I can tell you there's far too many Stewarts in the chamber. But who's talking? You're on that side; I'm on this side.

All of the Crown corporations submitted their service plans on February 19. All the Crown corporations have goals and measurements that they're using. I would expect — and this will be annual; certainly I'm expecting if I'm in government it will be annual — there will be annual reviews with the legislative Committee on Crown Corporations with those Crown corporations.

As I tried to say this morning, we don't pretend that these service plans are the end of this task. It's the beginning of it. We hope to improve them over time, and we look forward to the comments of the legislative committee. Certainly, I will be reading the legislative committee's report, and that will help inform us in the discussions we have both at the core services committee but, more importantly, here in the Legislature with the legislative committee.

J. MacPhail: Is the core services review examining the issue of governance within Crown corporations? We examined that a little bit in the last set of estimates.

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite has identified one of the real challenges of modernizing Crown corporations with modern government. The core services review does not specifically deal with governance, but the Crown agencies secretariat and the deputy minister for corporate planning and restructuring do deal with governance. One of the major issues that we're looking at is governance structures for various Crown corporations as we move forward. We will continue to look to try and improve on those.

J. MacPhail: In the examination of governance, is there any consultation planned on that issue — public or stakeholder?

Hon. G. Campbell: To date, the Crown agencies secretariat and the deputy minister have been reviewing with the Crown corporations themselves, doing a review of what's taking place in other jurisdictions. They will be reporting back on the results of those discussions.

J. MacPhail: The time frame for completion of the next phase of the core services review, as I understand it then, is the next four to five months. I think that's what I heard the Premier say. Maybe I'm wrong in that. You can correct me.

Hon. G. Campbell: I expect the core services review and deregulation task force's task will be completed by the end of the summer of this year. The follow-through of the implementation plans, etc., which are part of the service plans that have been provided, will be ongoing. But it won't be ongoing with the core services review and deregulation task force. It will be ongoing with the deputy minister of the executive council and with the various deputy ministers. It will be ongoing in terms of Crown corporations with the legislative Committee on Crown Corporations. That's how we envisage this happening.

I do not expect the core services review component of government to be carrying on in the kind of way it has over the last nine months beyond the next nine months.

J. MacPhail: Originally, there were four stages. Phase 1 was mandate review. Phase 2 was service delivery review. Phase 3 was implementation, and phase 4 was continuous improvement. I'm just curious about phase 4 — whether it's changed. It's fair enough, as this process unfolds, that there's been change. I'd be interested in that.

We haven't had a chance to examine the impact of the budget process on the core services review. When cuts were determined, there were budget cuts made that affected programs and a substantial reduction in funds to many ministries. How did that impact the core services review?

Hon. G. Campbell: It's a good question the member asks, so I want to try to be clear about it. The critical part of this, as we went through the core services review and dealt with what we described as the first phase, was: are you doing this? Does it need to be done? If it does need to be done, are we doing it in the most cost-effective way? Those things came together around the first half of December and January.

The budget process was going down. We were going down the road with regard to Treasury Board. Some ministries were dealt with earlier than other ministries were, so they were able to go to Treasury Board and lay out some of their plans. In fact, I think the core services review was an integral part of the budget process. What's important is that the core services review, if anything, led the budget process — not the other way around.

J. MacPhail: The Premier is saying that there was an examination through core services about whether or not services were needed, which may have led to budget cuts. Like, there was a determination made that this service wasn't needed, and therefore it was cut in the budget. Is that what he means by saying the core services review led the budget cuts?

Hon. G. Campbell: In the core services review as we reviewed, for example, various activities that ministries have, and when we established what we had decided government was going to do, that allowed them — for example, ministries — to move ahead. Core services review makes no decisions. They make recommendations to cabinet, and cabinet makes the decisions.

When the cabinet decided that Forest Renewal B.C. was going to be disbanded, there was an implementation plan put in place. That was part of the budgeting process. The policy decisions were made by cabinet on recommendation or advice from the core services review, and those were reflected in the Treasury Board's decisions with regard to the budget.

In fact, I should say that I really think that in times where there is economic constraint — and we can have a discussion about whether we're concerned about those things or not — and when we were facing the deficit that we were facing, that's exactly the time when you should be looking at what the critical services are that government provides. You make sure that you're providing the critical services within the affordability framework that you have.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that's how it ended up, but the initial mandate was, in my view, completely overtaken by the fiscal necessity. In fact, that question was asked about whether the core services review was being driven by financial constraints, and the Premier said no. It is interesting to see how the two did eventually blend together.

One of the aspects of the core services review that I had trouble getting a handle on — and I will say openly that this was because it was a process that was very internal to the government side; it was not a public process…. Was there a systematic method by which all ministries presented to the core services review? Was there a systematic series of questions? How did the process work? Were there guidelines? Was there a series of questions, and were they ever made available publicly?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes, there was a systematic method, and they were actually communicated on the government website — the letters to ministers with regards to core services review.

Here are some of the issues we dealt with. Does the mandate, program, activity or business unit continue to serve a compelling public interest? First thing last summer we defined affordability to deliver the service within the fiscal environment of government. Are we doing the right thing? Is there a legitimate and essential role for the provincial government in this program, activity or business unit? How would we tell whether or not, if it is the right thing to do, we're actually delivering on that service over time?

I would say core services was a critical part for ministries. Without naming a ministry, let me go back and review. It was not unusual for the first ministries to come in and explain what they were doing and how important it was. We said: "Let's look at what the results are, and let's see how we are actually delivering on those things. Then we can determine whether or not the program is good." In fact, we had a transformation that took place over the first series of meetings, as ministries came and started to get down to the core questions we were asking.

So yes, I think it was systematic. Each ministry came and made a presentation. Some ministries came more than once. Actually, all ministries, I think, came more than once. Some came a little less than others, because there were some real challenges and public policy issues that we had to deal with. I think that on balance, the strategic shifts that were highlighted through the series of cabinet meetings we had in the fall were the right decisions that reflected the concerns we had as a government.

J. MacPhail: Were all of the core service reviews done in-house, or were any of them contracted out?

Hon. G. Campbell: All of the core service reviews were done in-house. A few ministries had some outside consulting help for strategic planning, but generally speaking, they were done in-house.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps we could just explore that a bit. My information is different than that. Perhaps the Premier could just explore with me what ministries sought outside help and in what areas. Who were those people?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't answer. I don't know the information the member wants. I don't know all the details of how every ministry pursued the development of their core services review package — either phase 1 or their implementation plan. I know that in fact every one was represented by the minister and the deputy minister and perhaps a staff person. I know, because I've just heard from my deputy minister, that perhaps a quarter of the ministries had some outside assistance for the development of their strategic plan.

The best way to discover how those plans were developed within a ministry would be to ask the ministers in their estimates. That's the best answer I can give you. If there's something else you want, I'm not sure what else I can tell you.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking these questions in the capacity as Chair…. I'm not trying to catch the Premier out here. We just had information. We had some disgruntled people who were upset that as part of the

public service, they couldn't have access to the core services review. Yet contracted agencies were being asked to participate in the core services review. I was just curious.

It's true. I mean, there were lots of people who were trying to get involved in the process, both internal to government and external to government. I'm just trying to figure out who had access to influencing the strategic planning direction of the government through the core services review. Can the Premier provide those agencies?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can tell the member opposite that from my perspective as Chair of the task force and the committee, the leaders of the core services review were always the ministers and their deputy ministers. They may have brought an assistant deputy minister who was responsible for strategic planning.

I cannot tell the member opposite what outside assistance was provided to ministries. I think if she asks ministers during the estimates, they'll be glad to share that information.

J. MacPhail: Basically, we should be referring our next questions on the core services review process to the individual ministers. What about phase 3, implementation, and phase 4, continuous improvement? What are the plans for those?

Hon. G. Campbell: Phase 3 is effectively the implementation plan, which has been laid out in terms of both the interim plans that were presented on February 17 and the three-year plans that were presented during the budget on February 19. Continuous improvement will be part of those plans as we move through them. This is the first set of strategic three-year plans. We're hoping to improve those. We look to members of the Legislature, the member opposite, to suggest how the measures could be improved so that we can continually improve the delivery of government services and the planning function of government so that it's accountable to those it's meant to serve.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why I bring up those next two phases, phase 3 and phase 4, particularly the continuous improvement phase, is because the Premier has laid out a three-year budgeting process. In some ministries and I expect in some Crown corporations, too, there are reductions in each of those three years. Will there be an interrelationship in the examination of the budget reductions as it impacts on the delivery of services? Where does that take place?

My experience is that it normally takes place throughout the budget-building process on an annual basis. Ministers would come before Treasury Board and say: "Oh my god, this program is in dire need. We're short here. We have an excess here." That's been usurped by a three-year budget process. The next place to look to make sure there's no ill effects beyond what the government had intended would be through the core services review. Is that part of what phase 4 is — the continuous improvement phase?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm not meaning to sound glib here. My answer is: estimates are an opportunity for the whole Legislature to look at the performance of the government, the performance of ministries, and to measure the performance of the ministries against the upfront measures that we put in place. One of the things we've heard from other jurisdictions is that your ability to measure, and the measurement tools you have, improve as you go through it with the input we get. That will be done here.

I just want to be clear about how this can work if we do it properly. You lay out a three-year plan. Next year there'll be another three-year plan and the year after that, so it's a rolling three-year plan. It's not a three-year plan done once in three years; it's a rolling three-year plan. You're measuring performance as you go through the first year. We'll be able to sit down next year in estimates, and you'll be able to say: "You said you were going to do this, and you delivered that. What about this? Maybe if we measured it better here…." Perhaps my office isn't the best example of that, but all of the ministries have those measures.

I want to take a couple of specific things for you. The legislative Committee on Crown Corporations. I have told Crown corporations that they should expect to have to visit to lay out what their plan is, to lay out how they've succeeded against their plan, to look at what the measures are and to answer questions. All of those things are part of what we hope the legislative committee will be able to do.

I look at health care. We've identified today that health care is a major issue for all British Columbians. There is a legislative committee on health care. I would fully expect that committee will be receiving input and looking at ways we can do a better job of measuring and holding the health care ministry to account and making recommendations to the House, as well as the estimates that will come back next year with another three-year rolling plan.

Education — same thing. For all the ministries — same thing. We've said to the Minister of Revenue: "We expect you to make sure everyone pays their fair share, and we don't have the kind of avoidance we've seen — that we get some of the systems in place that we need to make sure revenues are properly collected as conveniently as possible to people, etc." He's got measures there that we will all be able to hold the ministry to account for.

It's my hope, as I said this morning, that we can get to a point where estimates becomes a time where we deal with service plans and what we're expecting to have happen, as well as the service plan and what we actually manage to accomplish, so that questions are about why we didn't accomplish the things we laid out in the service plan. That's how we hope to build in accountability. That's how we hope to build in continuous improvement. Hopefully, if the process works, over time it would be something that would become part of government in British Columbia — not just one government or one political government. It would be part of how we deliver.

I know the member opposite was involved with a government whose deputy ministers council actually came forward and said they hoped we could make some significant changes in the estimates process. We're actually reflecting some of that in how we're trying to develop the service plans now and how we hope to deliver those in the future.

J. MacPhail: One of the other bodies that recommended change in terms of judging government was the auditor general. I don't know whether the Premier has had a chance to read the report from the Public Accounts Committee that was tabled in the third week in February. The auditor general's office, both the old auditor general and the new auditor general, had been working diligently on performance measures. We had great debate at the Public Accounts Committee around performance measures for holding the government accountable. It was controversial. I will admit that it was controversial because things had changed. Both sides had flipped, as a matter of fact. The then opposition members, now government members, wanted to go slow, slow, slow. Those of us who are now opposition, then government, had conceded the right of the auditor general to make these evaluations.

Has the Premier had an opportunity — if he has, kudos to him — to read the Public Accounts Committee report?

Hon. G. Campbell: In view of the kudos involved, I'd love to give another answer, but the answer is no. I have not had the chance.

J. MacPhail: I don't blame the Premier at all. It's only a couple of weeks old.

Let me just very quickly outline the debate. The reason why it's relevant is because…. The committee questioned the chair of the Treasury Board, Mr. Paul Taylor, very carefully on this. The deputy minister responsible for Crown corporations agency was there as well. The clear message from the government represented by Mr. Taylor was, yes, we're committed to holding ourselves accountable, but we can't move too quickly. There are certain things that just are happening too fast.

As a result of that, the government members voted against all the recommendations in this auditor general's report on performance measures and replaced them with their own. The government members didn't deny the fact that the auditor general's recommendations were moving too fast. They replaced them with a much more genteel, slow-paced set of recommendations for performance measures.

I'm wondering where it is. The auditor general's recommendations were rejected completely. They were very specific — very clear guidelines and a very clear set of questions. As far as Public Accounts is concerned, we're left with nothing in terms of specifics of performance measures.

I relate that to the context the Premier just gave me in terms of rolling three-year plans, etc. What will the performance measures be by which we in estimates can judge the success of the government's agenda?

Hon. G. Campbell: First, let me say the Public Accounts Committee does not report to me. It reports to the House. The reason we have a Public Accounts Committee is so that when the auditor general comes forward with a report, legislators can decide what their recommendations are. I assume that's what has happened.

In terms of what performance measures we should be held to account for, there are 21 service plans for the 21 ministries. There are a number of service plans. I can't tell you how many for the Crown corporations. Each of those service plans has both objectives and performance measures. As I've said, as we go through this process, I'm sure those measures will get better and better, year in and year out, as we move forward.

There is also a strategic plan available as part of our government plan. There's also the Progress Board report, which is available to the public as well as to members of the Legislature. Those are independent measures that have been put in place so that we can scale our progress in moving towards our objective. We have already legislated a requirement that we have government meet generally accepted accounting principles. All of those things are part of building an accountability framework within government.

I can't speak to the discussion that took place in Public Accounts nor to the comments that were made by the deputy minister of Treasury Board, but I'm sure the Minister of Finance would be glad to address some of those.

We want to have measures that are in place. That's why the service plans are there. The measurements, I think, are relatively clear. Some are fairly general; some are very specific. We will enhance those as we move through the term of office.

J. MacPhail: Well, it actually isn't something the Minister of Finance can address on his own because these performance measures…. The auditor general was addressing the issue of across-government services, including Crown corporations' performance measures.

Of course, the whole initiative had arisen out of some yeoperson work by the now-deceased, greatly missed member for Delta South, Mr. Fred Gingell.

Yes, I understand that the Public Accounts Committee doesn't report to the Premier, but it was by clear direction from the chair of the Treasury Board that the government members of the Public Accounts Committee rejected the recommendations of the auditor general.

It's in this context that I'm trying to figure out how we determine, in a process that to date has been fairly closed — the core services review process has been fairly closed and internal — what the government itself will use as a measuring stick for success or failure.

I note that the Progress Board report has performance measures and targets, and they're very, very specific. I was pleasantly surprised at how specific those performance measures and targets are.

For instance, let's just deal with the service plan of the office of the Premier. I'm actually trying to find out…. Well, let me just give you an example of why I'm a bit confused. "Measures and Targets" — this is under "Goal": "To accomplish the new-era agenda in an open and accountable way." Then it says the measures will be "public expectations as defined by survey." Survey and targets developed — that's the target for this year. Then it goes: "To be established; to be established." Can you help me here?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me try and help in a couple of ways. First, I know there has not been a government in British Columbia that has set out as many measures and targets which they're willing to be held to account for as this one.

First, let me take the member to the strategic plan 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005. If you look at page 7 of that plan, you'll see that one of our objectives and key measures is that we want British Columbia to have a skilled workforce — I'm not going to read this, but just to give you an idea. The percentage of the labour force with post-secondary certificate or diploma — that's the measure. The target is to increase the percentage of the workforce with a post-secondary certificate or diploma from the 2001 baseline of 32.4 percent. That's how we're going to measure. We've said we want to increase it. I think that one of the things people will tell you as you start to put these processes in place is that you have to have measures that are both achievable and reasonable. We've tried to do that.

Now, say for some reason this year we were able to increase that by 37 percent. It's not going to happen, but say that happened. You'd probably say that was a pretty good result. We will know over time when we're actually exceeding standards that others are meeting, etc. That's what the Progress Board has tried to do for us. We said: "Let's have an independent group out here set up some measures for us. We want to be number one in social issues. We want to be number one in environmental issues; we want to be number one or two in the economy. Let's do that."

I would refer the member to the strategic plan. There is a summary at the back of the strategic plan of objectives and key measures that we're going to use to tell — and the member opposite can tell: "British Columbia will have a skilled workforce….percentage of…labour force with a post-secondary certificate or diploma…." You'll be able to look at that and if we're failing in that, you'll be able to say: "Well, you're failing. You'd better figure out something different to do." Or if we're succeeding, the member opposite might say: "Gee, that seems to be working out okay." So that's one area of measures and targets that we have.

A second one is in the service plan that we have. For example, if you look at the service plan, you'll see goals and strategies to meet the goals — measures and targets. Let me go back to the general statement: "Give citizens in business better on-line access to core services, increase access to information, etc."

How do we measure whether or not we're doing that? Well, we're going to survey, and targets will be developed. In the second two years, yes, we're going to establish that. We're trying to set a base for this to actually build from. That's what the first year is about. The second year will be better, as I've said before, and the third will be better than that, etc.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's helpful for the Premier to point to that; that is helpful. Then, of course, in each service plan there are measures and targets as well. I'm sure they'll be fleshed out more in this rolling three-year plan.

One of the things, I guess, in terms of a government that prides itself on being the most open and accountable, that one needs to address is: who gets to judge the success of the measure? One of the areas where we were in contention — the members of the opposition and the government members on the Public Accounts Committee — was: who does get to measure performance? We had assumed that, given the priority of an open and accountable government, there would be no problem with independent review of that. That would have been the auditor general. That was defeated by the government members of the committee.

Who does the Premier see will judge the success or being in-progress of this government? Will it be self-judged, self-regulated?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think, at the end of the day, it's the public that judges whether we're making progress or not.

Let me give an example again, hon. Chair. One of the measures we have with regard to the CIO is that we want to make sure that the number of government services delivered electronically increases. We've said we want two additional services per ministry over the next year, two additional services on top of that over the next year and two on top of that over the next year.

I understand there will be political, editorial differences on whether or not we are meeting our goals. In fact, that's a pretty easy measure. Have we added two services per ministry or not? Which ministry have we

Awareness and use of government Internet services. These are very explicit measures that the member opposite has called for. We've suggested that hits to B.C. Connects are increased by 4,000 per week. That's our goal for 2002-03. For 2004 — 10,000 per week. Hits to B.C. Connects — 25,000 per week. So that's a 500 percent increase overall in three years. Those are explicit, specific measures. You know, they're either there or they're not there. Yes, we will be providing that information, and people will hold us to account for it.

The short answer is that at the end of the day, we have StatsCan statistics; we have government-developed statistics. All of those will be available as part of the service plans. One of the things that I think will happen is that the public will hold us to account for what we're doing. The B.C. Progress Board is an independent board. They have external means of measurement that they're bringing. The legislative committee, the Legislature itself, our estimates process and our service plans are ways that we can be held to account. The public will be, the Progress Board will, reports will, and the Legislature itself will. The information that we provide will be provided so that we can actually see our progress.

Let me just finish this comment by saying this: I don't expect that we will be able to deliver on all of the goals and objectives that we set for ourselves. When we don't, then we have an opportunity in the Legislature to say: "Well, maybe we should do it this way, and we will deliver those services." How do you create a world that is safe and secure for kids? We all share that objective. Let's look at what measures we may use to define whether that happens or not. Then let's make sure that we're delivering on that. That's the goal. Those are the objectives that we have.

J. MacPhail: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and to the Premier. I think we've had a really good discussion on core services review. If the Premier is suggesting, with the sincerity that I actually fully accept, that this is a major part of the forum for examining the success of the performance measures, what would help in the future — and it is incumbent upon the public and therefore us because, frankly, we're no different than the public, given our circumstances — is to have as much information as possible about how the government judges itself in terms of success or failure. That means information. That means service plans or the process by which service plans were derived — the series of guidelines, the questions, etc.

I actually consider myself increasingly technologically proficient. It's a very steep curve. I access the government websites on a very, very regular basis. I will say that in order to have a useful debate internally, more information is required than just what's on the government website in terms of a program-by-program examination of the consequences of the core services review. Anyway, I do think we've made good headway in terms of establishing what the guidelines and the rules are for future use.

I'm going to turn it over to my colleague for a bit. Unless there are other MLAs wishing to enter the debate, I think my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant will enter the debate.

J. Kwan: The area that I'd like to delve into would be in relation to the legislative programs and government policies. Let me start with the government's new-era vision, as it is listed under the core services plan of the office of the Premier.

There's a chart on it that lists ten items that the government's new-era agenda is wanting to materialize. One is in relation to it being the top-notch education system for students of all ages. Tying into that is the better services for children, families and first nations. I'd like to just get into the government policy issues around that.

As the Premier knows, in our communities throughout British Columbia, particularly in the inner-city schools, many children are very marginalized. They face multiple barriers, and inner-city school funding has been established to assist those children. Yet the funding for inner-city school kids is being eliminated — $5.4 million in total. That falls under the equity envelope component. I'd like to ask the Premier: given that this funding is going to be eliminated, how would that help students of all ages achieve the top-notch education they need? How would that better serve the children and families of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Chair, just so the member opposite understands, the government is committed to maintaining those services. As we said in January, we're also committed to working with school boards to make sure that those services are delivered in the most cost-effective means possible. That will be undertaken over the next months with school boards, with the Minister of Children and Family Development and with the Minister of Education.

J. Kwan: Actually, I have a letter here from the Vancouver school board written by the chair there, Barbara Buchanan, raising these issues with the Ministers of Education and of Children and Family Development. I'm going to read this letter into the record, because it is the perspective of the Vancouver school board, who raise these issues and who feel that the loss of that funding would jeopardize the educational needs of their students in Vancouver. And, of course, Vancouver is not the only area that has inner-city school funding. I have a list, which I will also put on the record, of all the different schools that would be faced with this challenge. The letter reads:

The Vancouver school board has raised the issue around the importance of inner-city school funding. The funding was in the envelope of social equity — not just the three pieces but the four pieces inclusive. That includes the inner-city school funding.

To suggest that the government is protecting this funding is simply false, because the government, as I understand — unless there is a change, and I would welcome that change; I'm ever hopeful that there would be a change…. The funding is actually not going to be given to the school board for this program, but rather, under the social equity envelope, the school board is to make do with existing funding but also provide for the program for inner-city school kids.

That is to say: "Here's an amount of money. It's not enough, because $5.4 million has been taken out. School boards, what you have to do is rob Peter to pay Paul." If that's the case, it simply doesn't work. I hope the Premier will rise up and say, "No, that is in fact not the case," and that the government will fund the inner-city school funding in its entirety and that that program that is being asked to be delivered by the school boards will be funded in full by this government.

Hon. G. Campbell: I listened carefully to the letter that the member opposite read. I think, actually, the letter was agreeing with what I said. We have said that we are going to keep those services. We've said that the Minister of Education and the Minister of Children and Family Development are going to work with school boards to make sure that those services are provided in the most cost-effective way possible. I think that's responsible. It's what we're going to do over the next year. Let me reiterate and underline that those services are going to be made available.

J. Kwan: Actually, the second-last sentence of the letter reads: "Please ensure that these moneys are maintained within the Ministry of Children and Family Development or transferred back to the Ministry of Education with funding attached." This is in reference to the inner-city school program dollars that have been eliminated, as far as we know, by the ministry. Is the Premier now saying that that funding will be attached and given to the school boards for the inner-city school programs — specifically for the inner-city school programs?

Hon. G. Campbell: What we have said — we said it on January 17; we've said it since then — is that these services will be provided for. The Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Education will work with school boards to make sure those services are being provided in the most cost-effective way, but the services will be provided for.

J. Kwan: The suggestion that the government will provide for the programs…. The reality, of course, is that the funding has been cut from the budget. Is it not the case that the funding has been cut from the budget for inner-city school funding?

Hon. G. Campbell: In terms of the ministry service plans, I invite the member opposite to discuss the matter with both the Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Education. We have said quite consistently that the services that are provided for inner-city kids are going to be there. Funds will be attached. We will be working with school boards to make sure we're delivering the services in the most cost-effective way possible not just for the Van-

J. Kwan: I think the Premier is trying not to provide full information. Or maybe he is, but he is unclear in giving the certainty that I'm seeking from the Premier around the inner-city school funding.

The social equity envelope provides for four areas of funding. These are the school meal program, the community school funding, and the youth and family workers. The other component that the social equity program funding is to provide for is the inner-city school funding. There are four pieces. Earlier the Minister of Children and Family Development advised and announced that the three components within the social equity program funding would be in place but not the inner-city school funding — not the inner-city school funding.

I ask the Premier again: is he suggesting that the inner-city school funding component will now be funded? That is to say, the $5.4 million that was dedicated for the inner-city school funding would now be in the Education budget, and those dollars would be transferred to the trustees for them to deliver that program so that they wouldn't have to rob Peter to pay Paul, so they wouldn't have to take moneys away from the school meals program or from the community schools funding or from any other educational program in order to fund the inner-city school program.

Hon. G. Campbell: Services are going to be provided. Resources are there to make sure the services are provided. The Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Education will be working with school boards across the province to make sure those services are provided.

Hon. G. Campbell: Details of the funding should be reviewed with the ministers. The services will be provided. We've been very clear about that. We've been clear with the school boards about that. That, in fact, is what the school boards have asked us to be clear with. We're going to work with them — the Minister of Children and Family Development as well as the Minister of Education.

J. Kwan: How much is the funding that would be dedicated for the social equity envelope funding programs?

Hon. G. Collins: Point of order. I've listened as that member has asked the same question about six times, and I've also listened as the Premier has answered the question about six times.

The question is out of order. It doesn't deal with the Premier's estimates. The member will have the opportunity to speak to the Minister of Education, I believe, starting tomorrow. The Children and Family Development minister is available to answer detailed questions about their budget. This is not the time for detailed questions about particular ministries. I think the Premier has been more than generous in answering the question and giving a complete answer to the question the member has been asking.

The Chair: I'll remind the member not to be repetitious and to pose the question once.

J. Kwan: Earlier today my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings opened the estimates for the Premier. She noted that it was irregular that the Premier would actually be the first set of estimates to come before the House and because of that change in terms of the approach and because ultimately all of these programs would be the responsibility of the Premier — the head, the CEO, if you will, of government in the delivery of these programs — it would be very appropriate for questions to be asked pertaining to government policies and government programs this government is intending to deliver or not deliver.

On the question around whether or not it's relevant, I do note that under the office of the Premier, in his service plan, page 2, on the government's new-era vision, there are two boxes that pertain to services related to children and education. One is the government's commitment to "a top-notch education system for students of all ages." The other is box No. 5, which says: "Better services for children, families and first nations."

My question in relation to the educational opportunities for students, particularly those in our inner-city school areas and for children throughout British Columbia who are faced with multiple barriers, is: how will they be able to access this top-notch education system that is meant to be there for all students of all ages, as they pertain to making better services for children, when inner-city school funding is being eliminated? The school boards themselves have raised the issue with the respective ministers around that.

Hon. G. Collins: I understand that the member wants to ask all the questions about all the ministries in the Premier's estimates, but that's not going to happen. She can ask them if she wants, but eventually she'll be out of order. What we're doing here today is the Premier's estimates. The Premier has answered that question, I think, at least six or seven times now — I guess six — and has answered the public policy question. If the member wants details about the individual budgets in individual ministries, if she wants details about individual programs in individual ministries, then the appropriate place to do that is in those individual ministries.

The fact that the Premier's estimates are coming first is, I think, as the Premier said earlier, a bit of an innovation to try and lead and do it a little differently. If the member doesn't like that, that's unfortunate, but that doesn't allow her now to ask every question about every ministry and every detail about every ministry to

the Premier. She should restrict her questions to the issues that deal with the Premier's ministry, the Premier's office. While yes, he's the Premier of the province and ultimately is somewhat accountable for everything, that doesn't mean that we do all of the government's estimates in the Premier's time.

I think the member is becoming repetitive again. She just asked exactly the same question she opened with, which has been answered about six times by the Premier.

The Chair: The point of order is well taken. I'd urge the member to make sure her questions are relevant to the estimates before the committee.

J. Kwan: I am asking these questions under the general responsibilities of the office of the Premier, legislative program and government policy. Particularly, I am referencing the needs of inner-city school kids. I know the House Leader would like to say the answers have been given, but, hon. Speaker, the answers are unclear to me in terms of how this government is meeting the need of the children in accessing a top-notch education system for students of all ages. It is unclear to me how the services would be better for students and for children of British Columbia, especially as it relates to inner-city school kids.

Let me just put this onto the record, in terms of the community's perspective. These are the questions that the communities have asked me to ask the Premier to respond to, because he promised during the election that he would protect and enhance education. What the communities are finding out now, after the election, is that indeed education has not been protected, nor has it been enhanced. In fact, a case in point is relating to younger children, the most marginalized children, who the Premier continuously says are their top priority — that they would work to protect them in terms of the services that they need. The reality is something different.

Under the heading of "Legislative programs and government policy," I am very curious to know how the government and how the Premier would be able to justify these concerns that have been raised by our community. On February 14, 2002, there was a release that was put out from parents to the provincial government. It reads:

So what's at stake? What's at stake as it pertains to the top-notch education system for students of all ages and better services for children and families? Well, the proposed cutting of these funds for inner-city schools is funding that is used to overcome some of the major obstacles — including poverty, transience, substandard housing — associated with Vancouver, but not just Vancouver's inner-city school neighbourhoods. Funding is focused both on academic support — children living in poverty have a disproportionate level of learning disabilities — and behavioral emotional support through counselling and programs that improve self-esteem and social skills.

Some of the vital benefits of this funding which will be lost if the provincial government cut proceeds are youth and family workers; direct counselling for children in need; Nova, which is a stay-in-school program for youth at risk of dropping out; learning assistance; literacy programs; curriculum resources; activity programs; support for first nations students; anger management; anti-bullying programs; ESL support; KidSafe programs — a program that provides a safe place in

schools after school hours and on vacation for children at risk; junior kindergarten; and recreational activities.

What are the schools at risk? Mount Pleasant, Strathcona, Nightingale, Macdonald, Britannia, Seymour, Queen Victoria, Grandview, Hastings, Tillicum, Queen Alexandra, Carleton, Thunderbird, Laura Secord, Lord Roberts, Robertson Annex; Selkirk, Dr. A. R. Lord, Britannia Secondary, Templeton, Van Tech, King George and Tupper. These are the schools in Vancouver. Outside of Vancouver you have Blanshard, Burnside, Craigflower, George Jay, Hampton, James Bay, Lampson, Macaulay, Quadra, Rockheights, Tillicum, Victoria West, Central, Esquimalt, Shoreline, Spectrum, Victoria High. These are some of the other schools that would be impacted. It's not just in Vancouver, although Vancouver does take the brunt of the cut.

When we talk about those programs being cut and the funding not being reinstated, I was hoping that I was wrong. I was hoping the Premier would say no, that funding would not be cut. No, the minister has changed his mind, and the Premier has changed his mind to ensure that inner-city schools would be funded. But that is not the case, irrespective of the fact that the Premier rises up and says, "Don't worry. Those programs are going to be provided for," yet there's no funding attached to these programs.

I hesitate to say I don't know how these programs will be funded and, given that the funding for these programs will be taken away, how the government would be able to meet its new-era vision — the vision of ensuring that there is a top-notch education system for students of all ages and that there are better services for children, families and first nations. In my view, by taking the funding away, those programs would not be able to be provided for the children and families in our communities.

As the experts themselves — the parents and the educators and the school board trustees in the system — have already said, when this funding is eliminated, the success of the children in these communities will be compromised. Given the statements from our community and given that I believe them to be correct, I don't know how the government will be able to meet its new-era vision.

In case I'm confused, I just want to make sure. This is a letter that's been written by a parent in an inner-city school. The letter actually asks the question around inner-city school funding. It starts off with: "I am a parent of Strathcona Elementary School, one of the 23 inner-city schools in Vancouver. Our parents are extremely concerned about the discontinuing of inner-city school funds after June 2002 by your ministry. I presume you have read all the letters faxed into your office from Strathcona parents."

I'm just going to digress for one moment from this letter. Earlier last week I presented in this House over 600 letters in the form of a petition sent to the respective ministers around inner-city school funding. It's not just the Strathcona parents who have written but parents from all through British Columbia. In fact, letters are still arriving in my office now, pertaining to this issue, urging government to change its mind on inner-city school funding.

The letter then goes on to say: "However, I am confused. A fact sheet from your office stated that inner-city school programs within the social equity funding envelope 'will continue to the end of this school year, June 2000.' [The Minister of Education] said very emphatically to Vancouver parents at a meeting at King George Secondary School on January 31, 2002, that funding would definitely not be continued. When asked about inner-city school funding, [the Minister of Finance] said on February 13, 2002 in an interview with Vaughn Palmer on Shaw TV that all of the social equity funding would be transferred to the Education ministry, which would consult with the school districts to determine how best the services can be implemented. He stated that services would continue, although they may not be exactly how they are now."

We have a discrepancy here. On the one hand, the Minister of Finance is saying, "Don't worry. We'll provide for those programs," which is what the Premier is now saying. On the other hand, you have the Minister of Education saying: "Absolutely not. The funding is not there." So which is it?

J. Kwan: My question to the Premier is: which is it? Which minister is right? [Laughter.]

Hon. G. Campbell: This is not funny. This is a serious matter, and I want the member opposite to know that the services that are provided to inner-city children will be provided. The Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Education will be working with school boards to make sure they are provided in the most cost-effective way.

There will be a committee of representatives established, as I understand it, which will include the B.C. School Trustees Association, the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the Minister of Children and Family Development, the Minister of Education and the Treasury Board. I accept that the member opposite is actually concerned about this. I am sure she will be pleased to know that this government has added $11 million to early childhood development expenditures this year to make sure that young people from ages zero to three get the kind of support they need, so when they enter the education system, we've already started to deal with any hurdles that they may have to face.

I don't know how else to say this. The services will be provided. The Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Education will be working with school boards across the province to make sure the services are provided in the most cost-effective manner.

The Chair: I have listened to the questions from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with great care and with great latitude, because the questions are not

related to the office of the Premier. I urge the member to keep her questions relevant to the estimates currently before the committee; that's vote 9, the office of the Premier.

J. Kwan: I am once again referring to the government's new-era vision, under the office of the Premier — in the ministry service plans for 2002, 2003, 2004 and 2005 and in Budget 2000. This plan references the government's agenda around legislative policies and program policies. It talks about how it is the government's intention to provide for a top-notch education system for students of all ages. I'm canvassing questions about the most vulnerable children in terms of their needs.

I have with me a series of mapping systems that has been developed. It talks about issues around social competence and the percentage of students that are in the bottom 10 percent. It reviews the percentage of students that are in the bottom 10 percent in emotional maturity, physical health and well-being, communications skills, and language and cognitive development. The list of maps goes on to illustrate the rates of unemployment in Vancouver; the median household income; the percentage of families led by single parents; the amount of transience that occurs, illustrated by way of changes of address; immigration to Vancouver; and so on.

There's a series of these maps — percentages of low-income families and single parent families and where they live, two-parent families and where they live, parents who are on social assistance, and so on.

These maps review, I think, a very important piece around the need for education and better services for students and children and families in British Columbia. If you look at these maps, a consistency is reviewed. The maps actually show consistently, by and large, that the east side of Vancouver has families and children who are struggling, whether it be poverty issues, whether it be issues around emotional maturity, whether it be social competence or whether it be low-income families on income assistance. These maps show the geographic breakdown, if you will, around the needs of families and coincidentally, of course, that the funding being eliminated or put in jeopardy around educational funding that would help enable students of all ages to achieve a top-notch education program and would help children and families achieve better services…. They are being targeted, by and large, by the actions of government that would compromise their access to a top-notch educational system and better services from government in the areas of children and families.

When I raise these questions, I wonder whether or not the Premier has received this information. How does he explain or justify educational pressures that have now been put on particularly the most marginalized communities, who are faced with multiple barriers?

I know the Premier would like to say he's going to be asking the minister to work with the school trustees, but the reality is that the Education budget has been reduced. It has been frozen for three years, and as a result of that, educational programs would have to be cut.

In a leaked document that I think Michael Smyth of the Vancouver Province received, he reviewed very clearly that the government's aim is just so they don't have to make the cuts to educational programs. Therefore, under this new funding formula, the responsibility is going to be transferred to the school trustees so that the school trustees would have to cut the programs and the government can shirk their responsibility for it. In transferring that responsibility from government to the school boards just so the Liberal government wouldn't have to cut educational funding and educational programs for the students in British Columbia, how is the government being accountable in their New Era document that also says they will be open, transparent and accountable?

Hon. G. Campbell: First of all, the government has protected education funding in the province. Secondly, the government has, as of last Friday, presented to school trustees from across the province a funding formula that does exactly what school trustees have asked the government to do, which is provide more flexibility for them to focus resources on students in classrooms. Thirdly, we intend to continue to work with school trustees to make sure those resources are focusing on students in classrooms so that we do have a top-notch public education system.

There are a number of issues that will have to be reviewed over the coming years, I'm sure, with school trustees as we struggle to get sound financial footing for the province, but I can tell you that parents and trustees alike called for a more flexible funding formula. We have provided a more flexible funding formula that is based primarily on student populations. I think this is a step that…. Far from saying the government will not be accountable for the budget they apply, we will be accountable for assuring that school trustees can actually carry out the task they run for office for.

Previously we had a school formula that had 60 specific programs which were applied almost at random. School districts could not tell from one year to the next what their budgets were going to be. They could not plan out. Indeed, they didn't get their budgets by this time of the year. It was often far later in the year that they received them.

One of the ways you develop a top-notch education system is to provide stable funding, as we've done — three-year stable funding, which we said we'd do. You recognize the contribution that can be made by school trustees. You value their input. You say to them: "We accept that you are in the best position to make decisions in the best interests of your students." You provide them with the flexibility to do that. That's what the government has done.

I'm sure there are many details with regard to the Education ministry's plan that the member opposite

may wish to pursue. I believe what we are doing is establishing a framework for a top-notch public education system for students of all ages in British Columbia.

The Chair: Once again, I have to urge the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant to make her questions relevant to the issue before the committee. I refer her to standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." We are currently considering vote 9, the office of the Premier.

J. Kwan: Let me ask this question of the Premier: could he tell the House what the first item is under his service plan, listed in the box entitled "Government's New-Era Vision"?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm surprised the member opposite didn't read it. She's been reading everything else. "A top-notch education system for students of all ages."

J. Kwan: Question to the Premier: what is the fifth item in the same box, "Government's New-Era Vision"?

Hon. G. Campbell: "Better services for children, families and first nations."

J. Kwan: Given that these are the two items listed under the new-era vision, the agenda of the government within the office of the Premier on the education issue as it pertains to children who are in greatest need, who are most marginalized, who face multiple barriers, I canvass the questions in this broad context of the government's new-era vision under the Premier's responsibility, the general responsibility around legislative programs and government policy.

The government's policy, as I understand it, is to ensure that every child gets the education opportunities they need. With loss-of-funding pressures in the education system by way of funding, is it not the case that because of those pressures, programs inevitably would be lost? Is that not the case?

Hon. G. Campbell: That would depend on how the member opposite defined "program." We have protected the funding for education in British Columbia. The member opposite knows that. We have provided a more flexible funding formula to make sure that school trustees are able to meet the needs of their students in their part of the province. We've reflected on the diversity of the province, and we believe that we have provided a framework to deliver a top-notch education system for students of all ages.

J. Kwan: The truth is that the Liberal government has frozen the Education budget for three years. Freezing the Education budget for three years amounts to a reduction for educational programs for people, for British Columbians. That's the net effect of a budget that's frozen for three years. Does the Premier disagree, then, with the assertion from the school board chair, Barbara Buchanan, who says: "These moneys are critical to ensure education equity for all children"? The money she's referring to is the funding for inner-city school kids. Does the Premier disagree with this statement from Ms. Buchanan?

Hon. G. Campbell: The province has protected funding for education. We believe it is important that access to services be maintained. As I've said to the member repeatedly in the last 40 minutes, those services will be protected. Access to those services will be protected. The Minister of Children and Family Development, the Minister of Education and school trustees from across the province will work at making sure we deliver those services in the most cost-effective way.

J. Kwan: Is there additional funding, then, to the system to provide for this area? The chair of the school board states that there is no doubt that any reduction in this funding will have significant impacts on the educational programs of these children and youth. The inner-city school funding was the Ministry of Children and Family Development's commitment to ensuring this equity and access for students in our inner-city school neighbourhoods.

Hon. G. Campbell: These services will be provided. The Minister of Children and Family Development and the Minister of Education will be meeting with school trustees to determine the most cost-effective way of providing those services to the students of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Would there be new moneys, then, from the ministry dedicated for inner-city school funding and the other three social equity envelope programs?

Hon. G. Campbell: The member opposite is welcome to deal with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Children and Family Development. As I've said, these services will be provided. The Minister of Children and Family Development, the Minister of Education and school trustees from across the province will be discussing how those services can be provided in the most cost-effective way.

J. Kwan: Then it's clear. What I take from the Premier's words is that there is no new money for the inner-city school program. Of the social equity envelope funding, three components will be funded until 2003, but the inner-city school funding component would be eliminated. That's $5.4 million. Those moneys are now lost in the education system.

Yes, the government will say: "School boards, you're responsible, though, to deliver inner-city school funding programs, irrespective of the fact that the funding will not be attached to it so that you can effectively deliver those programs and so that you don't

have to steal from Peter to pay Paul." That's what I take it the Premier's answers are.

He is very clever, I will say, at trying to mask the reality and the hidden agenda of government, which is to off-load the responsibility of educational funding onto the school board and to off-load the responsibility, when the funding is not there, to cut the programs. School board trustees are now charged with that responsibility, and yes, at the end of the day, the children of British Columbia would be hurt by that.

From that point of view, the government's new-era vision, as stated in box 1, "A top-notch education system for students of all ages," is only applicable to the children who are not most in need — perhaps to children with supports from their families but not for the children who are most marginalized and most at risk.

On the issue around better services for children, families and first nations, the government is also going to fail their new-era vision of ensuring that those children and families who are most in need…. The inner-city school fund that provides for and helps these children to stay in school and helps the parents to participate, to overcome literacy issues, to get counselling and so on — those supports will now be gone, because the funding simply would not be there. This government has just simply off-loaded that responsibility to the school boards and washed their hands of their responsibility for the people and the children of this province who are in greatest need.

J. MacPhail: Let me perhaps just expand a little bit on the theme that is important here to other areas beyond just inner-city school funding. This is directly the Premier's responsibility, because it's decided across government. There's no question that this is a trend across government — that is, to give various agencies that deliver public services greater flexibility and choice. There's no question that's a theme. We saw it in this particular example, where there's a move from targeting funding for particular programs to giving greater flexibility to the delivering agency, whether it be a school board or a health authority, and then they make the decisions.

We saw it today, despite the protestations of the Minister of Finance. There is no funding for mental health in the whole budget — none. There's $15 million in the secret document. In the Health budget — and I'll be very brief on this — there's a transfer of about $6 billion to the regional health authorities, and with that $6 billion they have to do everything. They have to decide what they do with that $6 billion.

All of the previous estimates, including the last set of estimates that this government brought in, in July, had targeted funding for various programs, and the ministry and the regional health authorities were held accountable for that. The Minister of State for Mental Health doesn't even know that this occurred. There's been a change in their own estimates. Where there used to be a guarantee of $400 million for mental health, now there's no guarantee — like none.

That's the same situation that's been faced here in terms of this. By the same token, the Premier has said the regional health authority will have greater flexibility in delivering those services, but when there's competition and pressure for those services and no targeted funding, then regional health authorities — who are accountable to no one, as far as I can tell, in terms of answering to the people who collect the taxes — will make decisions based on immediate need, I would assume. I was shocked that the Minister of State for Mental Health didn't understand that; nor did the Minister of Finance, as a matter of fact.

The Premier must be held accountable for this information, because it's a governmentwide policy of shifting responsibility to an authority other than the ministry and then giving global funding so that targeted programs are gone. One of the reasons why Bill 28 was brought in — it was called the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act — was so that school boards could have greater choice and flexibility in class size. Again, that's a trend that I have to assume came from the Premier's office.

It's very interesting and timely to have this discussion, because right now there's a California primary going on — tonight, as a matter of fact. I'm sure that the Premier doesn't watch American television, but I do. I confess; I do. It's very interesting. There's a whole series of television ads amongst political candidates about who's trying to outdo the other in reducing class size — legislated reduction of class size. It isn't the Democrats, interestingly enough, that these ads are being…. It's the Republicans.

I was curious to know that given this trend of off-loading the responsibility onto an agency other than the government, we now have another example of where the determination of class size in K-to-3 is going to be the responsibility of the individual school boards. Does the Premier predict that there may be a variance of class size district to district, school board to school board?

Hon. G. Campbell: I have no predictions about what will happen in terms of school boards except this, and I think this is a fundamental difference between the members opposite and me. I actually believe that school trustees have as their primary interest the well-being of the students that are in their charge. I actually believe that school administrators have the best interests of the students at heart. I believe that when you provide school trustees, administrators and teachers with the tools, they will make sure that children are at the centre of the agenda and are dealt with as the primary objective of the education system.

I do not believe this, because I've talked with school trustees for a decade who told me that the previous government did not in fact focus their resources on the needs of students. They focused on their political agenda, and they focused on a whole series of other things. My goal in creating flexibility for school trustees is to recognize that there are hundreds of people

across the province who want to commit themselves to making sure their children get the best education possible. We have to give them the tools to make the best possible judgments they can. That in no way eliminates our responsibility for providing funding. We've done that. We've provided funding, and we've provided a framework that allows trustees to make the best decisions in their part of the province, in their school district, for the children they're there to serve.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to ignore the cheap shot, actually, because I believe every school board has the interests of students at heart completely — absolutely, completely. I believe every single person in our education system — principals, vice-principals, teachers — has the students' best interests at the heart of their deliberations. But when one is given increasing pressures on an education system, the best interests can be delivered best in a context of recognizing those increased pressures and providing money for them.

The reason I was asking about this situation is this. Does the Premier think there will be different class sizes per district? That's a resource issue. I related it to the California situation, which I think is the most progressive education district, second to British Columbia or maybe ahead of British Columbia. They're all fighting, whether they be Republicans or Democrats, to reduce class size even further. It's not a pedagogical issue here; it's a resource issue.

One of the things in the cabinet submission that we managed to read was a footnote saying that there may be changes in the ways school districts raise funds. If one particular school district is unable to keep its class size at a level that makes pedagogical sense, does the Premier foresee, given what was said in that cabinet submission, that there would be a change in the way that school boards could raise funds back, say, to the days of the early eighties and seventies where they had the ability to tax directly?

Hon. G. Campbell: No. Indeed, I think the pedagogical evidence is clear. What we do want to provide, we have provided in legislation for class sizes. We have also provided for some flexibility, and we have also provided for the children's interests to be put at the centre of the agenda. I think one of the issues we have to deal with as we move forward is to recognize that while we are protecting education funding in the current provincial budget, we are protecting that funding in light of a reduced student population. We are protecting that funding in light of increased flexibility which both parents and trustees have asked for so that they can deliver the education services to students in different parts of the province in different ways because they have different circumstances. I think that's one of the things that's important here.

We want school trustees to be able to make decisions about how to do the best for the children in their communities. I believe they are best able to do that, particularly when the province is, for the first time, establishing accountability contracts with school districts and, for the first time, establishing standards.

Just as with health care, for the first time we are establishing standards, and for the first time we're going to be requiring accountability from the authorities to the provincial government. That is no way removes our accountability for the improvements in our public education system or our public health care system. It is a change in how we achieve those improvements. It is recognizing the power of ground-floor advice as opposed to assuming that the best decisions are always made from the governing institution on the southern tip of Vancouver Island. It is a reflection of a principle which we have enunciated consistently. That is that one-size-fits-all solutions do not work in a province with the size and the diversity and the geographical expanse of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Some of the school board trustees are not thrilled or happy with the plans of the government. I know Surrey, as an example, is very concerned around some of the funding they'll be losing — the buffer grants they'll be losing — as a result of the new funding formula approach.

I know that just today, I believe, on CBC…. A trustee from Vancouver, Barbara Buchanan, is going to invite all the Vancouver MLAs to come to a meeting on issues around educational funding for the Vancouver school district. Is the Premier planning on attending that meeting?

Hon. G. Campbell: I can't tell you whether I will be attending that specific meeting. I don't know what time it's been set for. I can tell the member opposite that I've met with the Vancouver school board every year that I've been an MLA. I intend to continue meeting with the Vancouver school board, and I would expect all MLAs will meet with school boards. They'll meet with school boards because one of the primary goals and objectives we have is to deliver a top-notch public education system.

That's exactly what the Minister of Education is intending to do through her ministry in terms of K-to-12. In fact, it's one of the things that the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development is trying to assure — that we can provide for the kind of education system we need by providing additional resources for early childhood development in the province for the first time.

Will I be meeting with the school trustees? I'm glad to meet with them. I'll do my best to meet with them at the time everyone else is. If I can't, I'm sure that Ms. Buchanan and her colleagues would be glad to meet with me on another occasion.

J. Kwan: I hope the Premier can meet with the school board trustee chair at the same time that all the MLAs would be able to meet with her. Certainly, my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings and myself would make ourselves available, because I think it is important.

I think there are some concerns with respect to the issue around funding and the funding pressures. In spite of the fact that the Premier would like British Columbians to believe he's protecting education, the fact of the matter is that because of funding pressures, educational programs will be diminished for British Columbians. I'm particularly worried that those who are in the greatest need will be hurt the most by this.

I have another question for the Premier. We get a lot of moneys from the federal government. I think one point where we would agree is that we don't get enough from the federal government. On the question around transfer payments from the federal government dedicated for the social arena, are all of those funds put into the areas they are dedicated for? Or are they put into general revenue?

Hon. G. Campbell: If the member is asking if the funds that come to the province from the CHST grants from the federal government are going to the areas they're designated for , the answer is yes. In fact, all the federal CHST funds are consumed by those critical services that we're providing in concert. If there are earmarked funds for infrastructure or other activities, those also go specifically to the areas that the federal government has agreed to fund.

J. Kwan: Take as an example the funding for child care and the federal dollars for child care. Are all those funds that have been earmarked for child care being put forward to child care programs, or are they being put forward to other programs within government?

Hon. G. Campbell: The Minister of State for Women's Equality and the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development have been working with the federal government on the allocation of resources for those child care initiatives. They will assure that the federal dollars available for children and focused on children will go to children.

J. Kwan: My question is not whether or not those funds will go to children. If funds are coming forward in terms of being earmarked for, let's say, early childhood development, are all those funds dedicated to early childhood development programs? Or are they going somewhere else for some other child-related programs?

Hon. G. Campbell: Yes. If funds are dedicated to early childhood development, they go to early childhood development.

Hon. G. Campbell: Child care services cover an array of services. The Minister of State for Women's Equality and the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development have been working with the federal government to determine where those resources will go, but the federal government has to be in agreement prior to our allocating those resources.

J. Kwan: So then on the question specifically around child care funding, is the Premier saying the funding may not necessarily go into child care? It might go somewhere for funding programs for children generally speaking, but not necessarily for child care. Is that what he's saying?

Hon. G. Campbell: No, I am saying the funding that is available for child care from the federal government has been subject to discussions between the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development and the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Before any of those federal dollars are allocated, they will be allocated on the basis of federal approval. I'd recommend to the member opposite that if she has specific items she wants to deal with, she deal with the ministers of state responsible.

J. Kwan: I actually have a lot more questions around the overall thrust of the government's new-era vision around education and around services for children and families, but I note the time.

Noting the time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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