Hansard -- Volume 3, Number 21 -- Wednesday, March 6, 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		1531

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1531
	Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 8) Hon. K. Falcon

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1532
	Youth traffic safety K. Krueger Pacific NorthWest Economic Region B. Penner Pulp mill investment in Prince George P. Bell

Oral Questions		1533
	Funding for mental health services J. Kwan Hon. C. Hansen Capital funding for health care projects J. MacPhail Hon. S. Hawkins Hon. C. Hansen Gravel extraction from Fraser River J. Les Hon. S. Hagen Funding for policing in small communities D. Chutter Hon. R. Coleman Lobbyists registry J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant

Point of Order		1536
	Hon. G. Cheema

Second Reading of Bills		1536
	Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9) Hon. C. Hansen J. MacPhail

Introductions by Members		1541

Second Reading of Bills (continued)		1541
	Medical Services Arbitration Act (Bill 9) B. Lekstrom J. Kwan L. Mayencourt

Committee of Supply		1546
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning Hon. S. Hawkins J. MacPhail L. Mayencourt B. Locke R. Visser J. Kwan

Point of Order		1565
	Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail

Point of Order		1568
	Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply		1568
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning (continued) Hon. S. Hawkins J. MacPhail

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1571
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management J. Kwan Hon. S. Hagen P. Bell B. Bennett Estimates: Ministry of Provincial Revenue Hon. B. Barisoff I. Chong R. Lee Estimates: Ministry of Management Services Hon. S. Santori J. Bray I. Chong R. Lee Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General Hon. R. Coleman D. Jarvis B. Penner K. Stewart R. Lee

Hon. G. Campbell: Hon. Speaker, as you've already heard, the government is in possession of a secret New Democrat report which suggests that the leader of the New Democrats is in fact celebrating a milestone in her life. Let me say that all members of this House, I'm sure, want to wish the member for Vancouver-Hastings all the best on this exceptional day and this exceptional milestone. We hope that she has plenty of time for her family and for her personal life. In fact, she can take as much time as she wants for that. [Laughter.]

Let me also say that we also wish many happy returns of the day to the member for Chilliwack-Sumas.

J. Kwan: I, too, would like to join with the House in celebrating and honouring the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

J. Kwan: I must admit it was the NDP caucus leak. Likewise there was a Liberal leak, and today we are also celebrating the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management's birthday. So we, too, would like to wish him a very happy birthday.

Hon. G. Campbell: Thank you, hon. Speaker. I just wanted to point out that our birthdays were bigger than their birthdays.

J. Kwan: I'm sure that on this auspicious day somebody up there was looking out for all of us, because there is now a balance in the House on both sides. I'm sure both members are thrilled to bits that they get to celebrate their special day here with all of us in this Legislature. I must say, though, specifically of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, that she doesn't look a day over 20. And let me tell you, she does not act her age. Happy birthday and many happy returns.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We have four guests in our gallery. Two of them are from Scotland. They are Margaret Mackay and Chrisie-Ann MacArthur. They are together here as guests of Norm and Maureen Morrison. Norm and Maureen Morrison are from North Vancouver, and they are the parents of my executive assistant, Tim Morrison. I would like the House to make them very welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: I am informed that we're joined today in the House by some articling students from the legal services branch, as well as some co-op students who are here to no doubt learn about this particular institution and the marvellous way it functions. The articling students are Bobby Bandechha — I apologize if I've mispronounced that — Debbie Chan, Martin Schmieg, Suzanne Sheena, Jennifer Wispinski and James Chen. The co-op students are Becky Black, Joanne Caen and Joseph Rochon. My goodness, I'm not doing very well. I really do hope that we will all welcome them and George Faddis, who is the senior solicitor accompanying them today.

J. Bray: It's my pleasure to rise and introduce 32 grade 11 students from a local school in my riding that is celebrating its 126th continuous year of service. These 32 grade 11 students are from Victoria High School, and they're accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Brian Bradley. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a very fine friend of mine — in fact, my best friend — Marc Seguin. He is visiting here from my riding of Vancouver-Burrard. By strange coincidence, it is also his birthday. We celebrated today by taking a tour of the Legislature and actually going up to the very top, where Captain Vancouver sits on the top of the rotunda. I'd just ask that the House make him feel very, very welcome.

Mr. Speaker: It almost calls for a rendition of Happy Birthday, except I've heard some of the members sing.

Hon. K. Falcon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that Bill 8, intituled Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002, be read a first time now.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased today to introduce Bill 8, Deregulation Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. Bill 8 amends several statutes to remove nearly 600 outdated or unnecessary regulatory requirements and red tape as part of our commitment to restore British Columbia's economic competitiveness and prosperity.

Bill 8 is but one step towards meeting our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden and red tape

Hon. Speaker, we define red tape as those non-essential procedures, forms, licences and regulations that add to the cost of dealing with government, and anything that is obsolete, redundant, wasteful or confusing and that diminishes our province's economic competitiveness and stands in the way of job creation or simply wastes taxpayers' time and money.

Bill 8 cuts red tape by repealing the following statutes: the Community Regulation Act; the Cultural Foundation of British Columbia Act; the Curfew Act; the Dogwood, Rhododendron and Trillium Protection Act; the Library Foundation of British Columbia Act; the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development Act; the Ministry of International Trade, Science and Investment Act; the Northern Development Act; the Pawnbrokers Act; the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities Act; the Public Service Bonding Act; the Special Enterprise Zone and Tax Relief Act; the Tobacco Fee Act; the Trade and Convention Centre Act; the Universities Real Estate Development Corporation Act; and the University Endowment Land Park Act; and by amending the following statutes: the Dike Maintenance Act; the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act; the Financial Institutions Act; the Health Act; the Livestock Act; the Local Government Act; the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3); the Name Act; and the Wills Act.

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

Bill 8 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.

K. Krueger: Children born in 1986 are receiving their driver's licences in B.C. today. People too young to be prosecuted in adult court for offences are hopping behind the controls of high-performance cars and letting their hormones and blissful sense of invulnerability hurtle them down the road.

In the middle seventies my wife and I started our family in Prince George, and there was at that time a horrific sequence of car crashes where young lives were snuffed out, young bodies shattered and young faces disfigured for life. There is no grief so inconsolable as a parent's grief over a dead child.

The community, the police, the experts, the injured and their families came together. They struck a theme called "Take the Car Out of Carnage" and attacked the behaviours which were killing the kids, and it worked.

ICBC took up the challenge and expanded it provincewide. The people leading the traffic safety initiatives were few but dedicated and talented. Teachers, communities and police pitched in, and it worked. Recognizing that some adults won't change, the program focused in part on curriculum.

When my own children were babies, they always had infant car restraints. They grew up hearing the traffic safety messages. If they thought I was tempted to run a yellow light, they'd yell: "Fools rush in, dad." They'd watch the speedometer and shout: "Speed kills, dad." Once when I protested that it was too much trouble to fasten all the car seats for a half-block trip, there was a shocked silence. Then a little voice said: "Dad, does God say it's okay to break the law if you're just going five doors down to grandma's house?"

In the early nineties a new hotshot executive at ICBC killed the program. The word was: "Elementary school kids don't drive." The kids getting driver's licences today were seven years old when that stupid decision was made. Today they are wrapping high-speed cars around poles, racing in city streets, drinking and driving and ignoring safety equipment in their highly engineered vehicles. The grief of their shattered parents, friends and families cries out to government — a caution to us all. No corporation operating for profit has a mandate to teach traffic safety to six-year-olds, but in 2012 they'll get driver's licences.

B. Penner: Shortly after last year's election the Premier asked me to lead B.C.'s participation in the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, or PNWER for short. PNWER, formed in 1991, consists of five U.S. states: Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska; two Canadian provinces, B.C. and Alberta; and the Yukon territory.

It's been said that if PNWER were a nation, it would rank twelfth in the world among leading industrial countries with a population of 19 million people and a gross regional product of $671 billion (U.S.).

Last year B.C. hosted PNWER's annual summer meeting at Whistler, and it was a huge success. More than 800 delegates attended, including U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Paul Cellucci, two Governors and hundreds of state legislators.

The Premier used this opportunity to communicate key messages to our neighbours, and we are still getting very positive feedback from our American counterparts on his speech. Since then, PNWER has taken the lead in organizing a regional partnership for infrastructure security. Post-September 11 it's become very obvious to all of us in the Pacific Northwest that we have a common interest in protecting our interconnected pipelines, power lines and telecommunications networks. Following a meeting of key public and private sector stakeholders on November 30, PNWER will host a table-top security exercise entitled "Blue Cascades" this May. The Canadian and U.S. federal governments have shown tremendous interest in this initiative.

I'm slated to become president of PNWER at this summer's annual general meeting in Portland. I've already been making efforts to meet with legislators at various state capitals. This gesture has been very warmly received, and our neighbours are glad that B.C. is once again engaged in the region. When I was in Olympia just a couple weeks ago, I was told it was the first time in their memory that a British Columbia MLA had spoken with them and met with them during their session. PNWER is a great vehicle for promoting B.C.'s interests in the region and for reiterating the Premier's commitment to re-establishing B.C.'s presence in the Pacific Northwest.

Mr. Speaker, I'll endeavour to keep members up to date with future progress of PNWER, as time permits. Thank you.

P. Bell: As the Minister of Energy and Mines would say, more good news. Actually, it's great news. Today the Prince George Citizen published an article indicating that a major B.C. forest company is considering the possibility of building a new pulp mill in Prince George with a possible investment of $1 billion.

This isn't even close to being a done deal yet, but for the first time in ten years it demonstrates a willingness by the private sector to invest in our province. We need to do whatever it takes to bring this project to fruition, and I am personally committed to working with this company. Projects like this are key to revitalizing the economy of B.C. This government, through its deregulation initiative, can ensure that B.C. will secure projects of this nature.

It's interesting to note that there was not a single pulp mill or, in fact, any private sector investment of this nature in the nineties in B.C. In fact, this project alone would exceed the entire investment made by the province's forest industry in either 1998 or 1999.

I believe that the willingness of the private sector to consider this type of investment demonstrates their belief that this government is on the right track. With this type of investment B.C. will enter a new era of prosperity — more great news.

J. Kwan: In years previous, including last year, the budget document specifically stated the amount of money to health care, particularly to mental health. Yesterday we heard from the Minister of State for Mental Health a rhetorical commitment from him to fund mental health services at the necessary level.

We know from the government's own document that hospital beds will close and the waiting lists will grow. We know that the health authorities are being forced to make cuts. We know that from the Minister of Health Services, who says it will be up to the regional authorities to decide where they spend the money.

Can the Minister of State for Mental Health tell us exactly how much money the health authorities are getting for mental health services?

Hon. C. Hansen: As part of the redesign of the way health care is working in British Columbia, we're actually giving the authority to the health authorities around the province to make sure that they integrate care.

As the member knows, mental health is very much….. It's very important that care be integrated with other care delivery at the community level. We're doing that, but the one thing I'd like to point out is that in terms of the funding for the mental health plan, this is the first time…. It's one of the few areas where dollars are actually targeted within the performance agreements with the health authorities.

In addition, this is the first time that we've rolled out three-year funding. It's the first time that we have set out targets in terms of outcomes that we expect the health authorities to deliver on.

J. Kwan: Nowhere in the estimates book does it identify the amount of money dedicated to mental health services. Last week we saw the downloading from the Minister of Education of funding and of decisions to cut programs in the areas of school and education, just so she can rise up and say: "Hey, you know what? We didn't make these cuts. The health regions did. The regional authorities did."

The CEOs of the health authorities are accountable only to the Minister of Health. What assurance can the Minister of State for Mental Health give this House that the decisions of the CEOs will be made in the best interests of those individuals and families who need mental health services in their communities?

Hon. C. Hansen: Unlike the previous government, we're not measuring the success of programs by how much money is spent on them. But the money for mental health is protected. The money for mental health has been transferred to the health authorities. The health authorities will be held accountable for delivering on those programs. More importantly, they'll be held accountable on delivering better outcomes for patients.

To answer the member's last question, when it comes to accountability — unlike the previous government, which tried to blame the health authorities — this is a government that's going to be accountable for the improved health service delivery in this province. That's what we will achieve.

J. MacPhail: We have a different story today. Not one single dollar is targeted for mental health in the budget — not one single dollar.

But the budget documents also have a startling message for small communities. The message is that if you want to keep your hospital, you'll have to pay with deep cuts to services. The confidential documents confirm that the health regions don't get any funding for capital expenditures. Some small communities all over the province are right now fighting to save their hospitals. Each MLA knows this.

A question for the Minister of Health Planning. The Minister of Health Planning has completely washed her hands of this problem by saying, "That's not our issue; it's the responsibility of the regional health authorities," just like they did in education. To the Minister of Health Planning: why are British Columbians footing the millions of dollars for her ministry when she doesn't hold herself accountable to anyone for the cuts her government is making?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm surprised that this member has the audacity to ask about how money is spent in health care when they didn't know what they were doing. They never planned for health care. We've inherited a system from them that left a fragmented, uncoordinated, unmanaged health care system. We've done more in the last nine months in planning, managing and setting up the foundation for a system that's going to deliver better health care.

You know what? When we went around the province, what people told us was that they wanted the politics out of health care decision-making. We've given it to good people to look at the needs of their communities and manage and help us make those decisions. We expect them to be accountable for them. We expect them to help us deliver better patient outcomes than the last ten years.

J. MacPhail: So far we know from the government: no money for mental health in the budget. No money for capital expenditures in the budget.

J. MacPhail: The budget documents also lay out in detail every capital project that now won't get funding or will get closed down unless it's paid for with deep cuts in services. The Ministers of Health say: "There's no problem. The regional health boards will make the decisions." Guess what. The regional health boards don't have any local representation — none whatsoever. We know from the Premier yesterday that they're not going to get local representation.

To the Minister of Health Planning: will she commit that she will direct health regions to conduct formal public hearings on the decisions to cut capital programs so that the public can actually be heard, so that local communities can have at least one iota of input into the cuts that are being made in their communities?

Hon. C. Hansen: I find it surprising that this member is going to stand up and criticize our approach to capital spending when, after the 1996 election, the first thing they did as a government — 28 days after the election — was freeze every single health capital project that they had promised.

We are honouring the commitments to the projects that were in construction, which were already committed to by the previous government — whether they were well-thought-out or not — because we have those obligations.

Hon. C. Hansen: …number of promises to voters in this province around capital projects, and those are going ahead, funded under the former model — which is a model that's driven out of Victoria, where the debt-servicing costs are not carried by those communities and regions that are impacted by it but are carried by Victoria.

What the member saw in my briefing documents were projects that the previous government had committed to. They were not proceeding on them. They had not proceeded on them. The member says that "with funding…." That's like saying: "I've got cheques in my chequebook — means I must have money in my bank." That's NDP philosophy.

The list of capital projects that were listed in my briefing books that are not committed to under the old model are being reviewed by the health authorities as to whether they make sense on going forward in the future. There have been no projects cancelled. There are projects that are being reviewed at the health authority level.

J. Les: My question today is to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. I'm picking on the minister today — not because we happen to share a birthday. It's much more down-to-earth than that.

Until a few years ago gravel was removed from the Fraser River. This activity had been going on for many, many decades and obviously is necessary to manage the river so we don't have problems with flooding and seepage. It creates a lot of jobs and also provides a lot of material for the construction industry.

For the past four years, however, this activity has been banned by the federal and provincial governments. During that period of time we've been assured over and over again that this activity would be allowed to recommence. To date, nothing has happened.

Can the minister tell my constituents why gravel is still not being extracted today from the Fraser River?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd like to thank the member for Chilliwack-Sumas for the timely question on a very important topic. It's particularly important to the people who live along the Fraser and the municipalities along the Fraser.

As the member knows, the parties have gone through lengthy consultations and have looked at all of the scientific data. Last fall an agreement was reached to allow gravel extraction to resume subject to a number of requirements, including appropriate permitting and consultations.

In this process opportunities for gravel extraction were found for both the spring and the fall of this year, 2002. It's my understanding that the consultation requirements of the federal government are presenting a challenge for the spring window, and I would refer the member to the article in the Vancouver Sun this morning where it lays out some of the problems the feds are facing. It also quotes the mayor of Chilliwack, who says: "If first nations want to take the gravel out, that's perfect. I don't care who gets the royalties. The gravel's got to come out of the river for flood protection."

I can assure the member that we are working cooperatively with the federal government to ensure that this is dealt with as quickly as possible.

J. Les: I thank the minister for his response, Mr. Speaker. However, the window of opportunity this spring is almost closed. With these missed opportunities mounting, so are the economic costs and, obviously, the potential for flooding.

What steps does the minister propose to take so that gravel can once again be removed from the Fraser River?

Hon. S. Hagen: I understand and I share the member's frustration, believe me. Last fall I was under the impression that we would be able to extract gravel in a substantial manner, with no negative impacts on the environment, beginning early this year. What I can assure the member and his constituents and all of the people who live along that area of the Fraser is that this government will do everything possible to ensure that gravel extraction begins as soon as possible. He also understands that the provincial government has in fact issued the relevant permits, and we'll continue to work with the federal government to ensure that federal permits are issued as soon as possible.

D. Chutter: My question is for the Solicitor General. A number of mayors and constituents in my riding have called my office to ask about the government's plans to change the funding formula for policing in small communities. Could the Solicitor General tell us what changes, if any, have been made and how they will affect policing services in these communities?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the member, there have been no changes made to the policing formula in the province of British Columbia to date. What we did is…. Back in the UBCM convention in the fall, in September, the Premier and I met with 14 communities who were facing the challenge of coming close or going over the threshold of 5,000 people. When a community reaches 5,000 they automatically pay 70 percent of their policing costs. There are 700,000 people in this province living in communities under 5,000 in rural areas, which pay little or no policing costs. We undertook to look at the formula in conjunction with UBCM, come up with a consultative process and move forward through the next year or so to come up with something that might work for those communities.

D. Chutter: Under the previous government, changes were often made to provincially funded local services with little or no assistance to help with the transition. Could the Solicitor General tell my constituents how he intends to help small communities implement these changes through the transition to policing services?

Hon. R. Coleman: The first thing, to the member, is that I would caution him on prejudging the process and what would be required as we go down this path. The reality is that we have sat down with the UBCM, through the president of the UBCM, and agreed that as we come through with a number of options and funding formulas, we will take those funding formulas — after we've had a look at them and the Ministry of Finance has had a look at them — forward to a symposium of smaller communities throughout the province, as coordinated by the UBCM, so that we can have that consultative process take place. When we have completed that consultative process, we will then go forward and find a funding formula that works for communities, one that allows us to engage in our long-range plan for policing in British Columbia, which would be a five-year plan for policing that works for everyone in British Columbia. And as we complete that…

Hon. R. Coleman: …process, we will then come up with a phase-in plan that will work for everyone that would be affected by that funding formula. My concern would be that as….

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago now, we saw the details of the government's determination to privatize health care services in British Columbia. We saw that $700 million worth of services are up for grabs. I'm sure that the private sector is salivating at the windfall of generosity. I'm sure that their lobbyists will soon be beating a path to the doors of the CEOs of the health authorities.

To the Attorney General: last year the Lobbyists Registration Act was passed. So when will it be proclaimed — before or after the coming frenzy that will be hitting our health authorities?

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee B, this House, I call Committee of Supply. First of all, I call second reading of Bill 9, Medical Services Arbitration Act. For the information of members we'll be moving after that, if it passes, into Committee of Supply and be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Planning.

In Committee A, Douglas Fir Room, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be discussing the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, followed by — if time allows — the Ministries of Provincial Revenue, Management Services, and Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, just so we don't have to disrupt the House when 4 o'clock comes, we have an agreement that Committee A will start at 4 o'clock, just for members' information.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of State for Mental Health rises on a point of order.

Hon. G. Cheema: I have an obligation to declare an interest and withdraw from the debate on Bill 9, so that's what I'll be doing.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that Bill 9, Medical Services Arbitration Act, be read for a second time.

On February 8 of this year, an interim decision was handed down by former Chief Justice Allan McEachern in a process of binding-interest arbitration between the province of British Columbia and the British Columbia Medical Association with regard to doctors' compensation issues. This binding-interest arbitration was triggered by a clause in the framework memorandum between the government and the BCMA which had been signed by the previous government.

Yesterday our government responded to Mr. McEachern's interim arbitration decision. Our response is in three parts.

We will provide an increase of $392 million for doctors' compensation in the coming fiscal year and retroactive compensation for the 2001-02 fiscal year.

Secondly, we are introducing this legislation — Bill 9, the Medical Services Arbitration Act — to remove the risk of unsustainable increases in health care cost and inflexibility that prevents us from creating a health system that puts patients first as a result of binding-interest arbitration that could occur in the future between governments and doctors.

Finally, we are making a commitment to strengthen the relationship among government, doctors and health authorities to serve the interests of patients.

Doctors are an important and integral part of our health care system. Our government and all British Columbians place great value on the work that they perform. The actions that we are taking in response to the arbitrator's interim award reflect that value.

As indicated in the provincial budget presented on February 19, government will provide doctors with funding increases worth an additional $392 million for this coming year. This represents an extremely generous settlement, one that is more than fair for doctors in British Columbia, who will continue to be among the highest-paid in Canada.

Among the provinces, currently British Columbia spends the most per capita on doctor service. It ranks second on fee-for-service payments per physician and has the most generous benefit package of any province. We are doing this because we value doctors. We want to attract and retain doctors to give patients in the province the health care that they depend on. We want to ensure that we are providing an attractive and competitive quality of life for our health care professionals, particularly in rural and remote communities.

For the current fiscal year, 2001-02, doctors will receive almost immediately a 6.2 percent payment based on their fee billings for the period from April 1, 2001, to October 30, 2001, and, as soon as possible in the future, a further 11.6 percent payment retroactive to November 1, 2001. Eighty million dollars will be provided retroactively for on-call services in the 2001-02

fiscal year. We will discuss the distribution of this funding with the BCMA and health authorities. These amounts that we are committing to are consistent with the arbitrator's decision.

Although the arbitration decision neglected to allocate any increase to physicians on salaries, sessional payments or service contracts, government has decided to allocate a comparable retroactive increase to those physicians so as not to create inequity with fee-for-service physicians, which leads me to talk about the very significant problems the arbitrator's decision presented for government, doctors and health care generally in this province.

Our first concern is that the interim decision mandated an initial package of compensation and hinted at further increases of a magnitude that the taxpayers of this province simply cannot afford. It did not create an affordable, sustainable framework for the relationship between physicians and government. Health spending has more than tripled in British Columbia since 1985 from the $3 billion that was allocated that year to more than $10 billion in 2002. Health spending now accounts for 41 percent of the total provincial budget.

Health spending in B.C. now absorbs all our revenues from the provincial income tax, federal transfers, MSP premiums, tobacco tax and the recent increase in the provincial sales tax combined. In fact, the increased compensation pressures for doctors and other health professionals in the coming year is greater than all of the new revenue that will be generated by increases to the MSP premiums, the provincial sales tax and the tobacco tax combined. The $392 million increase in physician funding alone represents almost all of the revenues derived from the increases in the sales tax, which was $250 million, and the increase in the tobacco tax, which was $150 million.

We cannot continue to allocate more and more funding in the way we have, because these increases are simply not sustainable. In today's environment the risk of further increases through this arbitration process creates uncertainty for physicians, for patients and for taxpayers. Further increases of this magnitude are unaffordable, and an uncertainty inherent in the arbitration process prevents us from putting the province's financial house in order. Furthermore, the arbitrator's decision did not allocate funding increases in a way that begins to address inequities, shortcomings and the need for health care system redesign and financial certainty.

Doctors have told us that the way physicians are currently compensated is not working for many of them. For example, the interim decision discussed on-call compensation on an hourly basis. This would lead to a piecemeal process where some communities would be left with only part-time, sporadic coverage. Patients need to know that a doctor will be there for them and their families in an emergency. We need to work with the BCMA towards a sustainable on-call model.

As well, compensation increases for doctors in alternative payment situations have lagged well behind fee increases. We want to create greater flexibility in the area of physician services to make it easier for doctors to participate in new ways of working and being compensated.

One of the things that we have made quite clear, Mr. Speaker, is that we're not going to force any doctor off fee-for-service, because there are many doctors in this province that see that as the mode of operation that they think is most important to them, but we certainly want to recognize there are more and more doctors who want to move towards alternative payment arrangements and out of the fee-for-service model. They are looking for new opportunities to provide care in alternative ways and greater balance in their lives than they can find in the fee-for-service system.

The arbitrator's interim decision did not address these structural problems in the ways in which physicians are compensated, and we have been left with the status quo. This will prevent us from managing health care dollars properly and effectively to meet patient needs. That is why we have introduced this legislation, the Medical Services Arbitration Act, to remove the option of binding-interest arbitration from key agreements between the government and the BCMA.

Bill 9, the Medical Services Arbitration Act, cancels the binding-interest arbitration process between the government and the BCMA and the February 8 interim award decision. It removes particular sections and specific wording from key agreements between the government and the BCMA that would permit or require binding arbitration as the ultimate way to settle our differences. Sections of these agreements that provide for a process of rights arbitration to settle differences within existing agreements are not affected by this legislation.

We are going to fund the amount of the 2001-02 retroactive payments in that decision, but for the future we have to work with doctors to reform the system to change the way health dollars are allocated, to make the dollars work for patients and to make health care sustainable. Binding-interest arbitration is also not the best way to build the relationship of trust and cooperation we need in British Columbia to save and renew a public health care system. Doctors are an integral and important part of our health care system, and we need them to be part of the changes we are committed to making in our health care system. The funding enhancements we are providing are an opportunity for government, health authorities and doctors to work together to achieve common goals.

Government will begin immediately to work with the BCMA on the distribution of retroactive payments for fee billings for 2001-02, as well as any changes in fee-for-service rates to take effect after April 1, 2002. We wish to use this new allocation to address some of the significant inequities among physicians. We will

work with the BCMA and the health authorities on the new rates for alternative payment methods: service contracts, sessional payments, salaried arrangements and also remuneration for rural and remote doctors. We will work with the association to consider the best way to distribute and implement the non-fee items of the $392 million increase, including the design of new provincewide on-call programs.

Doctors have been urging us to make these reforms. We need their help to do this. It is time for doctors to share the responsibility of helping us make these new dollars for medical services work for patients. We need to work together to design programs that will compensate doctors appropriately and fairly for delivering the right services when and where patients need them. Our government has made a commitment to British Columbians to create a health system that is sustainable and that puts patients first.

Bill 9, which will remove the risks of binding arbitration to sustainability and flexibility in our health system, is an important step towards that goal. I urge all members to support the passage of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 9 continues with the Leader of the Opposition.

I was listening very carefully to the Minister of Health Services, who I guess has a new responsibility for negotiating with the doctors. I wonder when that changed; it was the responsibility of the Minister of Health Planning, according to their own website. Here we have the Minister of Health Services standing up and literally negotiating through legislation. I was listening very carefully to see whether he was going to describe any recent meetings that had actually occurred up to and including today. Maybe he was excluded from those meetings; I don't know.

Here he is somehow saying if you put velvet over a hammer, that's fine, and that doctors should be grateful because there's what the public may see as a substantial amount of money involved here. In one way, yes, the doctors did get a velvet glove over their hammer. Previous health care workers just got the hammer. Yes, this Minister of Health Services, while bringing in legislation that's unprecedented…. Once again, that's true: the government is a first in Canada. There's no question about it. They can take pride in being first in bringing down the hammer on doctors. There's no question about it. Doctors are supposed to be grateful because they covered that hammer with a glove. They got money; they got a substantial amount of money. We'll talk about that in a moment.

They got a nice letter from the Minister of Health Services. The other health care workers — whether it be nurses or lab technologists, health care aides, housekeepers, laundry workers — didn't get a letter. They got a piece of legislation without any notice whatsoever — a complete shock to them, not even a phone call. Oh yes, I'm sorry. There was a phone call at 11 a.m. when the legislation was introduced at 1 p.m. That's true; they did get that phone call.

They didn't get a nice letter explaining why it was necessary. Doctors got that, and doctors are supposed to be grateful for that, I guess. They're supposed to be grateful for the velvet glove, and they're supposed to somehow be quiet because the minister is out there spinning that each doctor gets an average of $50,000 increase. Lots of British Columbians would say: "Wow, $50,000. That's more than I make in a year." That's what the minister's counting on — that that's where the debate will go.

But what exactly did the minister do? What did this government do, actually? I'm not actually sure whether the minister has direct responsibility for this issue, unless he was part of these very recent discussions up to and including today. I don't think he was.

What exactly did the government do in this piece of legislation? Well, they put our whole health care system at risk. Whether we approve of it or not, physicians are the gatekeepers of our health care system, and that's an issue to be debated. As it stands now, physicians are the gatekeepers to virtually every aspect of our health care system that this government is currently funding. They eliminated funding for the services that aren't physician-directed, such as massage therapy, podiatry and physiotherapy.

Here we have the gatekeepers of our health care system with no avenue open to them for dispute resolution ? none whatsoever. I suppose they could try to come into the Legislature, storm the doors of the Legislature and have a say in terms of what their negotiations should be, what their compensation should be.

Or maybe there are going to be some Liberal MLAs who are actually going to rise and negotiate on behalf of the physicians in their communities, because this is where the negotiations are being done. We just heard it from the Minister of Health Services. He's started negotiating with the doctors in a piece of legislation.

I'd like to know ? perhaps just help me; it's true I'm getting old…. When there is the ability of 76 ducklings in a row to bring down the hammer of legislation on the one hand and doctors' rights to negotiate on the other hand, how could anyone possibly call that negotiations? To date, what we have seen by this Liberal government is their way of negotiating: to slap down the most draconian legislation in the Legislature, ram it through with their unbelievable majority and say: "Well, we tried. That was negotiation. We tried. What do you mean we didn't negotiate? Of course we negotiated. Didn't you see that discussion we had in the Legislature? How dare you say we didn't negotiate?"

That's all doctors have available to them now. That's all they have. What does that do to our health care system, with doctors as gatekeepers? Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear that I am using the term gatekeeper in a very positive way. The physicians in our society take their role as gatekeepers, initially, in

Let's just see what the gatekeepers of our system now have available to them and what that means for our system. I guess they don't have arbitration because, as the minister just said, there are risks to arbitration. Yeah. When you enter into a dispute resolution mechanism where there are two parties, unless you're some sort of bizarre, authoritarian, tyrannical group, you expect there to be give and take, that you don't have the ability to impose your will unilaterally. When you have negotiations there has to be some dispute resolution mechanism. Sometimes there are risks in a dispute resolution process, but unless you're some sort of dictatorship, that's what taking a balanced approach is all about.

It turns out that this government is a dictatorship. That's what we know today. This is the new addition to the extreme Liberal agenda: they truly are dictators. Even though Bills 27, 28 and 29 were unbelievably draconian, this government has actually outdone itself in this legislation by outlawing any sort of dispute resolution. That's brand-new.

Here we have physicians with no dispute resolution mechanism. The government is saying they're going to negotiate and therefore are clearly admitting there are matters unresolved. What may the doctors have available to them? I don't know. I only know what's been reported. Many of them — or some of them, actually…. I won't exaggerate. There's no need to exaggerate on this piece of legislation; it's so extreme in itself. What some physicians are saying is that they'll be forced to withdraw their services. There we have the whole health care system being put at risk because of this legislation. Nobody else is putting it at risk. The government can't stand up and say: "Look what happened in the past. It was the last ten years that created this." I'm surprised the minister didn't actually mention fast ferries. He knows why he can't. It's because this is entirely of this government's making.

Let's just talk about when situations like this have arisen in the past, when previous governments have negotiated contracts with the physicians. Previous governments were actually honest with physicians during an election and said, "If we're elected, we won't be honouring that contract," and then entered into negotiations with the doctors and settled the matter by agreeing to arbitration. That's the difference: honesty during the election about what they were going to do, unlike this government who said, "Don't worry, doctors; we're your best friends," then moments after they were elected said that this arbitration process is good news. Not only is the arbitration process good news, the arbitrator himself is the appropriate person, so…. Misleading during the election, misleading after the election, and then the big hammer of dictatorship — that's what happened today.

Maybe this minister wasn't paying attention in 1991. He could have replicated what happened in 1991, which is when the then Leader of the Opposition said: "We won't honour that contract. It's an evergreen contract with no chance of negotiation. If we get elected we won't honour it, but we'll enter into negotiations with the doctors." That's exactly what happened, and then the matters were put to arbitration, and arbitration continues until today.

I dare any government member to stand up and say that somehow that was bad and this is good. I dare any government member to do that. They won't be able to, because then they'd have to admit that they lied during the election.

They misled the public during the election. They misled the public when they appointed the arbitrator. Today we have the truth.

The Minister of Health Services thinks it should all go away because he's putting $392 million on the table. That's today. Who knows what the heck he'll do six weeks from now? Maybe the Minister of Finance, who's really in control of this file, will come to the Minister of Health Services and say: "I'm sorry. You know what? Our economic agenda is failing even more miserably, and we can't raise taxes again so soon after we raised taxes the last time. I'm sorry. There's no money available. You'll have to go in and renege on what you committed to the doctors." What avenue will the doctors have available to them if that happens?

You know what? I'm not making that scenario up — given what the government's performance has been and what their actions have been today — where the Minister of Finance woke up one morning and said: "Oh my god, I've got to deal with this arbitration. Let's raise taxes." Didn't he say he had 24 hours to think about that? I guess he was cranky. He didn't have a good sleep. He forgot that he knew all very well and good what this arbitration was going to cost. He woke up and said: "Oh, I'm going to raise taxes."

He's taking a lot of heat now for breaking that promise and raising taxes. Who knows? Maybe the Minister of Finance will have another bad sleep and have to come back in and say: "Oh, I'm sorry. I have to reverse myself again. You can't have that money, Minister of Health Services, to give to the doctors. Just go and tell them, will you?" The doctors will say: "But you said you'd negotiate." And the Minister of Health Services will say: "Well, I am negotiating. I'm telling you I don't have any money to give you. What do you think I'm doing? Of course I'm negotiating." They'll say: "But you're not negotiating. Negotiating is give and take and listening to reason and understanding what the pressures are on the system." He'll say: "Well, I've just heard from the Minister of Finance that I don't have money, so thank you very much for coming to negotiations. Goodbye."

What will the doctors be able to do if that scenario occurs? Nothing — nothing legal, anyway. And that's

I expect that as British Columbians understand this and as they get beyond this veil that the Minister of Health Services is trying to put over this scenario by saying, "It's $392 million, and it's an average of $50,000 per doctor. What is your problem…?" As the public lifts that gauze that this government tries to put over every draconian action they take and when they see how our health care system is at risk, they will be even more frightened today than they were yesterday. Believe you me, there are fears about our health care system like I've never seen before.

Somehow the government thinks they can do all this because they have an inability to pay. Well, my gosh. They didn't have an inability to shovel it off the back of a truck to corporations on day one in office. They didn't think for a moment that there would be any problem just taking the big public purse and emptying it onto the desks of the corporations, saying: "Here, take this money. Don't worry. It's only day one. We know what we're doing. But don't worry. We'll be able to fill that public purse up again."

You didn't have any trouble doing that. All of a sudden, now there's no money. There's no money to honour the arbitration. I wonder if those two events are linked. I wonder if there's a linkage between their going into that big corporate boardroom on Howe Street and taking the purse, clunking it down and shaking it so it's almost empty and now opening it and saying: "Oh my gosh, there's no money." I wonder if the government links those two events. Well, the public does.

Do the doctors have any other avenue where they can actually bring their expertise to the attention of the public? Well, no. Yesterday we learned from the Premier that physicians are barred from sitting on health authorities. They're not going to be able to sit on health authorities. The physicians themselves said it was awful during the 1990s, because they had one representative guaranteed on each health authority, but they didn't get to choose; they only had input into.… A range of people could be nominated for that. This scenario of disbarment from health boards was worse. Well, their worst nightmare has come true. The Premier confirmed it yesterday. Physicians will be barred from representation on health authorities. So that avenue is closed to them. Doctors won't be able to go to health authorities and say: "My gosh, the government's being a dictator in terms of how we're treated. Can I make my point at the health authority?" They won't have any avenue there either. So what will doctors be able to do? Nothing legal. Nothing legal.

I remember clearly the now Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, saying during the dispute where the doctors did withdraw their services in northern B.C: "Give them 100 million bucks for that on-call issue. Put a hundred million dollars on the table and deal with that part of the problem." I wonder how that compares with what the Minister of Finance is giving doctors today. But that was then. He was spending, I guess, other people's money. The now Premier was spending other people's money back then. Somehow, when it's his own responsibility he doesn't want to actually take that responsibility. He wants to bring the heavy hand of legislation down onto physicians.

In speaking with the B.C. Medical Association — my office spoke with them just this afternoon — they have some concerns. There's no question. Some of the concerns they've already listed in public about breaking the Canada Health Act and there being no dispute resolution mechanism. They have some questions, as well, and they're questions that should be part of negotiations with the dispute resolution mechanism. But they don't have any avenue here. Certainly, the Liberal MLAs aren't speaking on their behalf and aren't bringing their points of view forward. Or maybe this will be the exception when Liberal MLAs whose health care is being affected will actually get up and speak. They have some concerns that the arbitration had a payment for matters such as on-call and recruitment, and they're wondering…. The government yesterday announced a similar amount of money, but is that for one year? Is it for two years? Is it an ongoing payment? Is it a one-time payment? No answers — none.

Again, as the Minister of Health Services conducts negotiations in this chamber, which he did in his opening remarks, there are questions from the doctors themselves about whether there is a provincewide formula on how to apply the on-call provisions. Will it be a community-by-community negotiation where one community will be pitted against another? Will there be any discussion about levels of service that need to be provided? Agreements that are already in place for on-call and attraction and retention — do they prevail, or are they wiped out by the fiat of this legislation? Are some of them wiped out? Are all of them wiped out? How do those things work?

If the doctors don't agree and go, "Aye, aye, sir," what do they do? Will we now have a situation where Richmond can afford to pay more for doctors on call, and therefore all the doctors from Bulkley Valley–Stikine will leave and go to Richmond? That could be a possibility. Who knows what this government's got in its mind? Who knows, and when will we hear about it? Will we hear about it during some lobbed question from a backbencher to a government minister? I can just imagine it: "Tell me, Minister of Health Services…. My community doesn't have any doctors left in it because you didn't honour the on-call arbitration clause. What are you going to do about that?" Of course that will be after the fact, when all the doctors have left the community. Is that a potential scenario? You bet it is.

As physicians themselves point out here in our conversation with their association, it took the government three weeks to consider the arbitration. Now,

in one day — maybe a couple of days…. I bet you anything that this will have royal assent by tomorrow. I bet you anything that we'll see the Lieutenant-Governor in here rushing through royal assent for Bill 9. It took them three weeks to consider the arbitration, and now they're pushing through their response to the arbitration — that heavy hand of legislation — without any opportunity for the public to absorb what's happening here — none of it.

Such an open and accountable government…. Isn't it interesting? What's open and accountable about this government ramming through a major, major change to our health care system — which is perhaps as debilitating as we have ever seen — by making it illegal for the gatekeepers of our health care system to have any way to resolve their concerns?

There are another couple of points that I need to make, but I need to yield for an introduction.

A. Hamilton: It is my pleasure to welcome to the House a group of exchange students from the city of Quebec, accompanied by teachers Rob House, M. Bruno Audet and Stéphane Gradine, who are visiting Esquimalt high school in my constituency. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: Where is the openness and accountability here? This is why I was pursuing the Premier so carefully in his estimates yesterday about the health authorities and about what community representation there will be on the health authorities, so that communities would actually have some local voice in what's happening to their health care system. The Premier stood up — I was shocked, actually — and said, "We're not having constituency-based health authorities," as if it were a crime to have community input, community representation. We will not be doing representation from communities. So we don't have any physicians, health care workers — health care workers are precluded from sitting on the health authorities too — or community representatives on the health board.

I said: "We now have a health board that stretches from the west coast to the Alberta border, with dozens of small communities in there, and they're not going to get representation on the health board." I guess there's no community input through the health authority, and there's certainly no opportunity for the public to have their voices heard on this legislation. I predict that we'll see the Lieutenant-Governor marching down the aisle here tomorrow. If I'm wrong, I'll be delighted, but I predict she'll be here.

Why is that? To preclude physicians from taking this government to court. Not only do they not like to negotiate, they don't like that messy court stuff where they have to be held accountable through our legal system. They like just to say, by the stroke of a pen: "Oh, we're sorry. You can't bring any legal challenges to this legislation." That's a new and improved…. Actually, it isn't new and it isn't improved. It's the same sort of bar to any court challenge that existed in Bills 27, 28 and 29.

We have an arbitration system here that isn't working, says the government. It was too risky. Oh, I feel so badly that it was so risky. Arbitration doesn't work; job action doesn't work. What does work if someone disagrees with this government, and who gets to determine? Do the physicians now go into negotiations about how the fees are changed as a result of this lift? Is it across the board, or has that already been determined for what the government is doing out of its own playbook? Will that create confusion and trouble? I wonder if there'll be services that the government is saying now won't be listed. Will there be delisting of services? Will MSP now cover only this range of services as opposed to the full range of services that it now covers?

These are questions that I have, but I know I won't get answers to them, and I know the public won't get answers to them either. The best the Minister of Health Services can do is say: "Aren't we nice guys because we gave you so much money? Don't worry. We'll go into negotiations. We won't give you any opportunity to resolve those negotiations, but don't worry. Turn on your TV, and you can see the negotiations as they happen in the Legislature." I predict that this legislation will be law as quick as you can say "breaking a contract."

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I will be voting against this legislation, as we have for every piece of legislation that is another broken promise by this government and that breaks another legal binding arrangement.

B. Lekstrom: I rise in the House today to express my concern about Bill 9 and voice my opposition at this point.

Although I find the decision of the arbitrator to be quite amazing, circumstances were not taken into account in this decision, which has brought about Bill 9. There are sections of Bill 9 where I stand — and I've spoken in this House before — on my basic principles of existing agreements. For that reason — although I believe Mr. McEachern erred significantly in the decision of this arbitration by not taking into consideration the province's ability to pay and the financial situation — the way I read the document, I have grave concern with that.

I do have fundamental principles that I've spoken about before on the issue of existing agreements. For

that reason I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill 9, and I will not be supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker.

J. Kwan: I want to just review for the House a little bit of the record of this government to date on all matters relating to negotiations or agreements — just to see, really, the sorry state that this Liberal government has brought British Columbia to.

Casting our minds back to last year, we'll recall that there was an emergency session called in this Legislature. It was to deal with the nurses. The Liberal government says the nurses are demanding too much, and we cannot honour what you're demanding because British Columbians cannot afford to do so. This Liberal government has demonstrated through those actions that they have no capacity to negotiate with the nurses, the health care workers or the health care professionals in British Columbia — irrespective of the fact that they mouth the words that they value the work of these health care professionals and the nurses in their jobs and the work that they do and how they care for the patients.

At the same time they find they have zero ability whatsoever to engage in, quite frankly, good-faith negotiations with the health care workers, the nurses and the health professionals. What did they decide to do? They decided to bring in legislation in an emergency sitting in this House with a big hammer that came crashing down on these workers who provide for quality care, the full range of quality health care services to patients in British Columbia and to their families.

Then, when we engaged in that debate, I recall asking: "Why don't we engage in the process of arbitration wherein when you have a dispute between parties, you go to a third party, somebody who is not biased one way or the other with any side, and bring this third party in and ask him, her or them — it could be a panel of people — to review the matters and then make recommendations?" If those recommendations were not binding, at least you'd then have a starting point to engage in discussions and negotiations and hopefully bring the parties closer. Well, the government then said: "No can do." They couldn't do that, because the parties are too far apart, and that wasn't possible.

Then we said: "Okay, what about taking the option of a binding arbitration? If you think you cannot negotiate bringing the parties together, then the fairest way to go through the process of a dispute of this nature is to go to a third party and then have a completely independent person — a fair-minded person — go through this process and evaluate the matters and come forward with recommendations that are binding." Well, government then said: "No, couldn't do that either." That was with the health care workers, with the health care professionals, with the nurses. That's what this government did — came in with a big hammer and legislated what they wanted without negotiation.

Then we saw later on the same year, last year, the transit issue where — fair enough — it was TransLink who couldn't bring the matters to resolution. Knowing the relationship of the Premier and the then chair of the TransLink board, George Puil, everybody understood that there would be opportunities for this government to work with TransLink to bring a resolution to the transit dispute. Well, they couldn't do that either — couldn't lend a hand in that process.

What did this government do? It came in with an emergency sitting once again in this Legislature and brought down another hammer, only this time with the transit workers. They couldn't negotiate. They couldn't go through a fair process of arbitration for recommendations for further negotiations. They couldn't go through a process of arbitration with binding recommendations. They couldn't go through a process of working with the partners in the system to bring forward resolution to disputes.

Then this year we have the teachers, the educators in our school system, both K-to-12 and post-secondary, colleges and universities — all of them, even the groups that weren't under negotiations. I guess this government couldn't stand the process of negotiation. So with the teachers, what did they do? They couldn't negotiate and bring in an agreement with the teachers in the K-to-12 sector. They couldn't agree to bringing an arbitrator into the process for recommendations. They couldn't bring an arbitrator for binding recommendations to end the dispute of the educators and bring resolution to the matter.

This government once again, in another emergency sitting of the House, brought in heavy legislation — heavy legislation that tore up collective agreements, which they said they wouldn't do during the election. They forced the teachers back to work, creating hard feelings with all of the sectors — health care and education — that provide essential, critical services to British Columbians.

To the teachers, before they had the emergency sitting, the government said, "We'll bring in essential legislation that will bring the parties in the dispute closer together, and we'll be able to find resolution" — only to find that their own essential services legislation further harmed the process of negotiations. It further escalated the conflict between the two sides to the point where this government called the emergency sitting.

With Bills 27, 28 and 29, not only did we see the big hammer being brought down for educators. Through those bills the government brought down changes — particularly in the health care sector — to the legislation that they had just brought in, in the last sitting through an emergency sitting, by tearing up components of that agreement which they had forced the nurses and the health care workers to take. They've torn that up and said: "Oh gee, that didn't work. We were wrong then." Mind you, it was only last summer when that piece of legislation was brought to this House.

I have to ask: what works with this government? In all of the sequence around negotiations in these sectors, this government has proven that they are not able to

negotiate with anybody and come to a resolution on any of these issues. They did not find that there could be any fair approach, even involving independent people to come into the process. Even then, they thought that couldn't be a fair approach in settling disputes.

Then, just when they finished passing emergency resolutions that were debated deep into the evening, into the early hours of the morning…. No sooner was that legislation passed than we find ourselves in the House once again with emergency sittings, tearing up those provisions that this government had brought forward in the health care sector. "Oops, those didn't work. We didn't know what we were doing then, so we'll now have yet another emergency sitting with changes to the legislation."

Now we find ourselves dealing with the issues with legislation once again, for the doctors. You know what? This Liberal government is very fond of blaming the previous government, the previous administration. But let's just review, for a little bit, the history around the arbitration process with the doctors.

It was in fact this Minister of Health Services that appointed Justice McEachern to the process. It was this minister who said that this justice is fair-minded, has a high level of integrity and has the full support of the provincial government to move forward on this binding arbitration process. It was this minister who said that, not the previous administration. It was this minister who had done that work.

Now, lo and behold, maybe the member for Vancouver-Hastings was right, because one morning the Minister of Finance just woke up and decided: "Oh my god, what have we done?"

He'd had a bad night of sleep — maybe he had a nightmare or two — and he decided that this arbitration decision was one shock. It was all brand-new information; he didn't know anything about it. It was as though he had a mind-lapse of some sort and then decided that the decision from Chief Justice McEachern was a complete surprise and something that this government could not manage, when in fact it was this government that engaged in that process as well. They know full well about the issues the government was faced with around the settlement of the doctors.

The government is demonstrating through this process, quite frankly, that they can't negotiate with anyone on anything at any time at all, whether it be health care workers, teachers, educators or transit workers. They cannot engage in negotiations with anyone. They can't utilize any process other than the big hammer of legislation through the Legislature by bringing the 75 — 75 — trained seals into this House, thumping their desks and bringing through legislation.

I'm glad the member from Dawson Creek has the integrity to stand up in this House and say: "I cannot support this; it's the wrong approach." I think the member understands the signals this government is sending to everybody, whether they're in the public sector or the private sector — that this government has zero ability to negotiate on anything, at any time, anywhere.

Not only can they not negotiate, but even after they bring in their legislation and after they table legislation in this House to say that this is going to work, months later they discover: "Oh gee, we were wrong. That didn't work. Got to bring in legislation to wipe that out." It's therefore breaking legislation that they themselves brought in, tearing up those pieces of agreements — I shouldn't say agreements; those forced agreements — from this government. That's the process this government has demonstrated on all negotiations to date, since they became government — I guess about nine months now.

I worry from the point of view of the message this government is sending. Not only do they tear up agreements — which they said they wouldn't do — not only do they force agreements on people that they cannot engage in negotiations with, they put in the provisions of the legislation to say to people: "When we tear up these legally binding agreements with you, you will have no legal recourse. You will have no ability to sue the government for breach of contract." This is what this government's approach has been on all issues to date.

Yet the process through the justice system is one that we value above all else, I think, in a democratic system, in a democracy: to have our day in court, to have the judge make a fair decision on matters of dispute. The government has even stepped in to prevent that from happening — taking away the right, the authority, of British Columbians to have their day in court. That's been the process, to date, with this government.

When we look at the issues around the doctors and the binding arbitration, which this minister had participated in…. This Minister of Health Services has said he values and honours the work of Chief Justice McEachern and says that this government has the full support of this arbitrator, the Chief Justice, in their work. And only now we find that that, too, was wrong. That was a false statement. This government perhaps never had the intention of honouring the arbitration. Perhaps this government never had the intention of coming to an agreement in a mutually agreeable way with any sector at all, because they know at the back of their minds that when things don't seem to be going their way, all they have to do is call in the House and bring in the trained seals and have the legislation slammed through.

Then all will be settled, with the exception of the damage that will be left on the trail — the damage in relation to engaging in negotiations in good faith, the impression that this government has zero ability, zero intention, to do that; the damage of sending hypocritical signals to the health care workers, doctors and teachers — all the people this government has resorted to this tactic with — to indicate to them that really this government doesn't value their work and their commitment, further harming the relationship with these sectors when British Columbians depend on the expertise of these individuals in providing services; in caring for the patients, the sick and the ill; working with the families to explain to them the illnesses that their loved

ones are faced with and how to manage it; and, in the case of the teachers, with the students in their learning environment.

This, of course, comes right on the heels of the shortage of professionals in all of these sectors. The government, at every turn, has said to these people and is demonstrating in every shape and way they can that they do not value our professionals in these sectors. How does this government then expect that we would be able to attract more doctors, nurses and health professionals into our communities?

Who would come to British Columbia when all they see with this government's action is our contradictory approaches? On the one hand, they mouth the words that they really value these committed individuals. On the other hand, all they do is slam them with legislation that, in fact, the government doesn't even bother to take the time to consult and go through with these different sectors. They don't even bother or have the courtesy to do that. How is this government expecting that we will be able to attract health professionals, doctors, to our communities?

Of course, in the rural communities, the challenge is even greater because of the different geographic demands. Irrespective, the government is just going to move forward and send, I would say, a very negative signal — the wrong signal — to all of these valued professionals in our communities.

Unfortunately, the people who would have to pay for the mistakes of this government since its inception are British Columbians: people who need these services, communities that depend on these services — and in the health care sector, throwing further chaos into our system and further damaging the delivery of health care.

This is all in the midst of a government's budget that came forward and said that hospitals will close, wait lists will grow, MSP premiums will grow, Pharmacare services will be delisted and ambulance service response time will be lengthened. This is all in an environment that has been created by this government to put further pressure on the health care system and further stresses into our communities.

So, hon. Speaker, I will not be supporting this piece of legislation. I think the government's approach to addressing disputes is the wrong one. If the final resort of arbitration cannot be honoured, then what mechanism is there to go through in trying to resolve conflicts and negotiations in a fair-minded and independent way?

The minister's answer to that question is to bring in heavy legislation and slam the people who participated in this process in good faith. The minister's answer is to simply say to all British Columbians that the word of this government, this Liberal government, cannot be trusted and that they have zero capacity whatsoever to negotiate with anybody on any issue at any time, unless, I suppose, you are big corporation representatives or the wealthiest British Columbians. In that instance, the government would not even blink or even step in to take a look at the books before they hand them huge benefits by way of tax cuts — tax cuts that by far benefit the wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations in British Columbia. With that group, there is no negotiation needed or necessary because they have, in my view, already bought the Liberal Party and the government in terms of favours.

I think it is shameful — the direction of this government and their ability or, better yet, inability to engage in negotiations and bring forward mutually agreeable settlements to all of these sectors.

L. Mayencourt: I want to take just a moment to make a brief comment about this particular bill. I've spent a lot of time in the last few weeks speaking with people in my constituency about this arbitration award. I think most people in British Columbia agree that we want to have the best possible health care system and that we want to be able to pay people what they're worth. We've done that with nurses, with hospital employees and with paraprofessionals, and we are now doing that with physicians. I think that most British Columbians have come to the realization that we're in bad shape financially, and it is because of the previous government.

L. Mayencourt: …Minister of Health Services did not say that we are in this problem because of fast ferries or Skeena Cellulose or because of all…. But that is precisely why we're here. The previous government, the government that these two members represented, oversaw a period of time, a decade, when the health care system fell apart. Instead of fixing it, they brought in nine separate Health ministers. That has led to a deterioration of the health care system in this province. It has also led to the deterioration of our ability to pay.

L. Mayencourt: I have talked with the members of my constituency, and they have told me that this is a fair increase. It helps the doctors.

L. Mayencourt: It is a fair increase for the doctors of this province. I have spoken to many physicians in my riding who feel that is the case as well.

I am standing up because I want to make it really clear to the members of this House that I support the Health minister in his efforts to put patients first and to protect the health care system that we have fought very

hard to preserve. I believe this is one more step along the way to helping us get there, so I support this bill.

I do not think that the arbitration…. I have great respect for the Chief Justice who put together this arbitration report, but I think that what he did not do — and I think it is a shame — is consider our capacity to pay for this award. The only way we could pay for this award, Mr. Speaker, is to raise taxes, raise MSP premiums and raise the cost of health care for ordinary British Columbians. These members have spoken against that for the last week, so it rings hollow…

L. Mayencourt: …to me to hear from these two members that they are the great defenders of a health care system, when they oversaw its deterioration over the past ten years.

I support this bill. I respect very much the comments from the member for Peace River South, and I understand. This is a free vote, and I am very glad to be able to stand here freely and support this bill, because I believe that the Health minister has a clear vision of how to make a better health care system for British Columbia. I support him, and I support this government in that effort.

Hon. C. Hansen: I listened very closely to the remarks by the two members of the opposition. I guess I was looking for their answer as to what they would do if they were in government. They didn't actually say this, but if you sort of string all that together, basically what they were saying is: "Just pay everything. Just pay it without any regard as to where those dollars would come from." It was as if money grows on trees. I think part of the problem we inherited is that there were nine or ten years of government where there was that attitude in the cabinet chamber.

Hon. Speaker, I want to give the two members credit. They both raised some very good questions. They raised questions about how the $392 million would be allocated. I've got to be frank with them. I don't have answers to some of those questions that they asked. We can certainly get into that when we get into committee stage, because if you look through the arbitration award that was brought in by Mr. McEachern, it actually generates more questions than answers. That's one of the problems we've got with it. In many cases, the questions that were raised, particularly the questions that were posed by the member for Vancouver-Hastings, are questions that are not answered in the arbitration. They are going to rely on negotiations between government and the BCMA in terms of how we actually implement some of the things he suggested in this award.

I want to just draw everybody's attention to the four points that are in the terms of reference that were given to the arbitrator. First of all, the terms of reference of such an arbitration will include the objective of being consistent with the law and the terms of the master agreement. That's number one. The second item in the terms of reference is that it must be reflecting the financial circumstances of government. Thirdly, the need to provide reasonable compensation to the physicians for the services rendered. And fourthly, the operational and medical resource needs of the health authorities. Those are the four items in the terms of reference.

Maybe I'm going to be too generous here, but I want to give the previous government some credit, because they were the ones that put in place those terms of reference. I would say that even the previous government would not have gone into a binding arbitration process without some protection for the taxpayer, and they did that. One of the terms of reference is quite clear that the arbitrator's decision must reflect the financial circumstances of government. The McEachern report does not properly reflect the financial circumstances of government. And the fourth item in here — the operational and medical resource needs of the health authorities — I would also argue, is not reflected in the award.

We have a couple of options that are there before government. One of the options is that we try to find some way just to pay for this, which is what the members are suggesting. That would mean significant tax increases to government. It would mean significant cuts to health care service delivery in this province. We would actually have to be diverting health care dollars away from patient care in order to fund what the arbitrator is suggesting in this report.

The second option we have would be to appeal the report. Actually, there are grounds for us to appeal, because in our view the arbitrator did not adequately take into consideration two of the four items in his terms of reference. I would like to suggest to the hon. member, who is very concerned about the stability of physician services in the province, that the most destabilizing option that we could have done would have been to appeal this decision. It would have generated months of uncertainty.

Hon. C. Hansen: There was uncertainty among physicians in parts of the province around the retroactive nature and what might come out of the arbitration award.

None of the options was particularly desirable, but the option that we felt was the most desirable was to make sure that we could bring certainty to the compensation issues for doctors, that we could actually put on the table the dollars necessary to fund phase 1 of the arbitration award — which provides for retroactive payments to doctors back to April 1, 2001 — and that we can actually do something that the arbitrator did

not even call for: provide for retroactive payments to sessional and salaried physicians around the province, who have to be dealt with in an equitable way so that we ensure that the right incentives are there for the kind of remuneration program and options that doctors are looking for around this province.

We had in front of us three options, none of which was particularly desirable. I think we chose the option that is the most responsible and is the most in the interests of ensuring that doctors in this province are fairly remunerated, that we can continue to recruit and attract the doctors we need and, most importantly, that we can ensure that patients throughout British Columbia get the care they need where they live.

	YEAS — 67
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 3
MacPhail	Kwan	Lekstrom

Hon. C. Hansen: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 9, Medical Services Arbitration Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. In this House, Committee B, we will be dealing with the estimates of the Ministry of Health Planning and, in Committee A, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's a pleasure to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Health Planning for this fiscal year 2002-03. Before I begin, I have some opening comments, and I'd like to introduce staff who have just joined me. On my right is Penny Ballem, who is the deputy minister, and on my left is Tamara Vrooman, who is the ADM for corporate services and financial accountability. There will be other staff, I'm sure, that will be joining us, and I'll remind myself to introduce them as they do.

I am certainly looking forward to the opportunity of speaking to our plan and our budget for the coming year. As you know, the Ministry of Health Planning was created as an expression of our government's commitment to addressing the immense pressures on the health care system and on health care providers.

The ministry is dedicated to planning for the future of health care. We heard that health planning was desperately needed. It had not been addressed in any real or significant way in the past decade or longer, and we certainly heard the need for health planning from patients, health care providers, unions, union members, administrators and the public when we met with people as we travelled the province over the past several years. We certainly listened, Mr. Chair, and we're committed to ensuring that our health care system is planned in a thoughtful, sensitive way that's responsive to patients and meets their needs.

Our government's vision for health care in British Columbia is to provide high-quality, patient-centred care that meets the needs of patients where they live and when they need it. The Ministry of Health Planning and the Ministry of Health Services have developed three goals for the health care system, and I'll outline those goals. The first one is high-quality, patient-centred care. The second one is improved health

and wellness for British Columbians. The third one is sustainable, affordable public health care.

As the Minister of Health Planning, I was asked to examine all the key aspects of health care and to lead a planning process that was based on sound information and a clear understanding of the challenges we face. Let me say that we know the challenges are numerous.

From the start I knew we had to address some serious shortages in health human resources, a poorly structured regionalized health authority system that had inconsistent levels of care across the province and certainly a lack of accountability within the system — just to name a few of the challenges we were met with when we took over.

We certainly inherited a fragmented, uncoordinated, poorly managed and poorly planned health care system. We began to address some of those challenges by first restructuring the way we governed and delivered health care across the province.

We had 52 health authorities when we first took over. There were seven community health service societies, 11 regional health boards, 34 CHCs — community health councils, as they were called. We had three different governance structures. They had varying budgets and populations. Many of them were unable to meet the needs of patients in their areas or meet the needs of health care providers or even provide the health care providers that were needed in their areas. The system had way too many walls — walls that divided communities, walls that divided health care providers — that certainly kept patients from getting the services they need.

The system, the old ways, encouraged inefficiency and lack of accountability, and we replaced that with six health authorities with budgets and populations that we feel will help us manage our health services in a more efficient and accountable way. The new structure is simplified, it's functional, and it's highly accountable to patients and to government. We feel that it provides a clear mechanism to implement the changes we need to realize our goal of sustainable, quality health care, and it provides that clear logical line of accountability that we didn't have before.

We also recognized early on that our health care providers needed the tools and the support to do their jobs, so last August we implemented a comprehensive $21 million nursing strategy to recruit, retain and educate more nurses and improve workplace conditions. We dedicated $15 million in bed-lifts so that our health care providers could do their jobs more safely.

Our recruitment for nurses is on target. We have more nurses that are requalifying, and more LPNs, RNs and resident care aides are being trained. We added 177 more seats for RNs, LPNs and RCAs in January. That was the hard work of the Minister of Advanced Education and her staff. We're pretty proud of that.

We're also working to increase the number of physicians trained in B.C. and to encourage physicians to work in rural and remote areas by expanding the number of seats at UBC medical school. Again, the Minister of Advanced Education is working hard on that, and we expect to increase the current 128 medical seats to 200 by 2004-05.

We're doing that in order to make sure that we have enough doctors for the long term. We're involved in a number of initiatives to make sure we get there. They include expanding the UBC medical seats to the University of Northern British Columbia and the University of Victoria, so that we're going to have satellite medical schools. We're cooperating with the UBC faculty of medicine strategic training initiative to ensure that physicians get the training they need to work in both rural and urban settings, and we're increasing opportunities at St. Paul's Hospital to help foreign medical graduates meet their Canadian standards for certification. We've increased the number of residencies there. There were four; we've added another two.

We did all this to make sure that we were looking after patients so they had the health providers needed to help meet their needs. On top of all that we made sure that our health care providers are fairly paid. In fact, hon. Chair, we have the best-paid health care providers in almost all the categories in comparison to other provinces.

We not only protected the health care budget, as we promised, but we added to it. It's now up to over 40 percent of the provincial budget. It's now $10.2 billion. When we hear about cutting the health care budget…. We did not cut the health care budget; in fact, we've added a billion or so more to the health care budget.

My ministry has also begun a ten-year health human resources plan. We're focusing on education, recruitment, retention and job design of health care professionals to address the critical shortages across the province. We expect to have that draft human resources plan available for consultation in the spring, along with the health human resources plan.

We're working with the health authorities to develop long-term plans for facilities, for capital financing and medical machinery, for equipment and for information technology. Each of those plans will go a long way to ensuring that we have that sustainable, effective, accountable system that we know patients deserve and want, which will take us into the future.

The health care system we have today certainly worked well to deal with short-term and acute care problems. It was created to treat catastrophic illness, but it's not coping well with the kind of demands that are being placed on it today. Today people are living longer. If you can turn your mind back to about 100 years ago, the life expectancy was around 48. It's now 78, and as we're living longer, our system is trying to cope with more long-term chronic health conditions. We estimate one in four people suffers from some kind of chronic disease — diabetes or heart disease or

Certainly, we're working on primary care renewal. We're applying to Health Canada's primary care health transition fund to access $74 million over the next four years to assist with primary care reform. Through the provincial health officer, we're working to develop a prevention and wellness plan that will include recommendations for addressing chronic disease management and injury and illness prevention, which are areas that certainly impact the cost pressures on our system.

We're also working to encourage British Columbians to take responsibility for their own health care and to responsibly use the system. We want to make sure that patients have the kind of information, the confidence and the skills they need to address their health needs. The continued health of our population depends on these kinds of preventative measures and on access to quality health services.

We need to move away from simply measuring inputs — or how much money we spend, how much money we're putting into the system — to the much-needed practice of linking resources to patient outcomes. We are moving that way. If you look at our service plans, we laid out three years where we have goals, objectives, strategies, measurements and targets that we're hoping to achieve. We've laid them out clearly, and I'm happy to deal with those in these estimates.

The operating budget for my ministry for the fiscal year 2002-03 is $16.6 million. We plan to develop plans that address our commitment to design a patient-centred, cost-effective, equitable and sustainable health care system in this province. That's why the ministry was created. That is what we're planning to do. Staff in the ministry have certainly been working very, very hard. We've had a busy nine months. We are working very hard to meet some of the targets that we're going to be responsible for over the next year. Again, for the first time we've laid them out in service plans over three years.

With that, Mr. Chair, I will close my opening comments. I look forward to the questions in these estimates.

I also want to say "Happy Birthday" to the member across the way. I didn't get a chance to do that.

J. MacPhail: I thought I heard the minister say that the vote was…. It's okay; I've found it. I was looking for the difference between the total vote of $26 million and the ministry ops of $16 million.

Could the minister describe what changes have occurred in her ministry since we last met in estimates?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I was just trying to make sure I had the changes, because I think the last time we met was in July.

What we've done is move the health promotion and protection functions over to the Ministry of Health Planning as we were separating the functions between the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of Health Planning. We've also aligned the programs with the provincial health officer's office for better integration, so that's why we brought them over. The provincial health officer reported to the Minister of Health Planning, so that's why we moved health promotion and protection over to my ministry.

We hired a chief nurse executive. I believe that hadn't been done last time we met. We moved the legislation and intergovernmental relations functions over to Health Planning as well, so they are now under the Ministry of Health Planning. I believe we did have a portfolio for strategic initiatives. It's been developed more over the last six or seven months. We consolidated the deputy minister's office. We now have a deputy between Health Services and Health Planning.

J. MacPhail: It sounds to me like things were moved into the ministry as opposed to out. Yet the ministry operations is down $10 million. The minister's office has had no cut, but as far as I can tell, the operations side of the ministry has $10 million less. Where are those reductions?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We've changed the functions of the Health ministries. We did that to support the consolidation of the health authorities. We, Health Planning, took our share of the 37.7 percent administrative cut. We moved some of the functions from Health Services over to Health Planning. Those were the functions of planning, strategic initiatives and reporting.

We used to support the health authorities with those administrative functions, but because we've reorganized them, they're bigger, and they've got more capacity to support what they're doing. They've got bigger budgets to work within, and we didn't want to duplicate what they do. We took our share of a 37.7 percent cut, and the health authorities are more self-sufficient within the budgets that they were given.

J. MacPhail: I recall that the minister announced that with the reorganization to the six health boards, there would be about $20 million in savings. Is the 37-point-something percent of $20 million booked as savings?

Hon. S. Hawkins: No. The $20 million in projected savings is in the budget of Health Services because that's the health authorities. What I was talking about was the budgets between the two ministries. When we divided, each ministry took a 37.7 percent cut in administration. We took our share of that.

J. MacPhail: That's fine. The $20 million that resulted out of administrative savings has been booked on the Minister of Health Services.

I just wanted to ask one question before we start. The Premier and I had a good discussion yesterday on health issues. The Minister of Health Planning was in the room for awhile. Did the Minister of Health Planning have a chance to review all of the comments that the Premier…?

J. MacPhail: The reason I asked that is only this: we spent quite a bit of time discussing health issues. If we have a break, perhaps the Minister of Health Planning can examine those comments. He referred a substantial number of matters to these estimates.

On the website of the Ministry of Health Planning, I had the last revision as January 7, 2002. Is that the last posting on the website?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's my understanding that there were some new changes to postings on both ministries as of yesterday.

J. MacPhail: That's true of Health Services, but we pulled this off today. The only reason I just want it is because often the government ministers refer to the website. Just so you know, I have examined the website.

I have as the general responsibilities for the Ministry of Health Planning: strategic planning; capital planning; program evaluation; accountability system; provincial health officer; Pharmacare policy; health system structure; health licensing governance; health promotion and illness prevention; health protection; children's health; seniors', women's and aboriginal health; and vital statistics. I'll carry on. The key initiatives are the ministry service plan, the Premier's dialogue on health care, new B.C. health authorities, B.C. HealthGuide, reference drug program consultation panel, physician initiatives and negotiations, and nurse recruitment and retention.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The list is complete and correct except for the physician negotiation that Tamara used to report to my side of the ministry. I believe it was changed yesterday to reflect the current status — that she does report to Health Services.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting. The change that moved the physician initiatives and negotiations away from your ministry occurred yesterday.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I apologize if I wasn't clear. It was an administrative error that it was listed on the website. The ADM for that used to report to my side of the ministry way back when. We made the change yesterday to correct and reflect it, but she actually reports to the Deputy Minister of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: At least the public is aware of that as of yesterday. Has the Minister of Health Planning had any involvement, then, in the negotiations prior to — or, looking forward, will she have had any involvement in those?

J. MacPhail: I note that in terms of the vote, the minister's office expenditures stay the same. I'm having trouble, I'll confess, understanding, in the government, the difference between a minister of state and a full minister. In this particular realm, there are two ministers of state and two ministers. What is it about the realm of the discussion of this vote that creates a full minister that's different than the minister of state?

Hon. S. Hawkins: It's a full ministry because that's what we committed to do. We committed to planning thoughtfully, sensitively and for the future of health care in the province. My ministry is responsible for a whole host of plans, intermediate and long-term, and it definitely requires full-time leadership.

When I start thinking about everything we've done in the last nine months, hon. Chair, it's incredible what we've done. We have fully implemented a $21 million nursing strategy. In that strategy, we have initiatives that have never been implemented anywhere else across Canada.

With the Minister of Advanced Education, we worked on a forgivable loan program that I believe we are having a fairly good uptake on, with nurses and doctors going to rural and remote areas.

We put in more dollars to train foreign-trained nurses so that they could get hospital English, and they could get into refresher programs. We have an aggressive recruiting of nurses that aren't practising in B.C. but want to get back to the profession. We put this all together.

In fact, with the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, we are aggressively looking at the B.C. provincial nominee program. I understand there's quite a few nurses that have got through or have applied through that program.

We gave nurses and other health care providers the tools to do the job they needed with the bed lifts.

Our major announcement around the restructuring — a multibillion-dollar restructuring of health care…. We now have a foundation that is simple, functional, accountable, streamlined and doing the job. It's getting rave reviews from people across the province. We have done an incredible amount of work in the last few months.

We are in the midst of planning for our human resources strategy. We are in the midst of looking at primary care renewal. There is a lot of work that goes into that, and this minister and this minister's office are set up to do that.

J. MacPhail: The reason I'm exploring this is because I was interested in the opening statement of the minister. There's no question that those are the issues

we discussed in our last estimates. I was asking what had occurred in a new way since then. These questions are kind of provoked by what we've already had offered to us.

I've also reviewed the service plans of both the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of Health Planning. In the only internal communications of the ministry, they refer back and forth between the two service plans.

I hope we can use this opportunity to explain even more fully the justification of spending $16 million looking forward and what new work the Ministry of Health Planning is doing, because it's a substantial…. I understand now that we just have one deputy minister, and it's nice to see Dr. Ballem again — very nice. I'm just trying to figure out, in times when we're changing health care spending everywhere else, some positive suggestions about how to spend health dollars, as the Premier asked for yesterday. I hope we can concentrate on new work that the ministry is doing.

The Premier and I spent quite a bit of time yesterday on health authorities and appointments to health authority boards. Perhaps the minister could begin by updating all of us about where we are in terms of moving beyond the six chairs running the provincial health care system.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me just address the member's previous point about why the ministry exists. The ministry exists so that there is thoughtful planning for the future of health care. We made that commitment to patients, to providers and to the public. We're keeping that commitment.

The ministry exists because we recognize that there is a need to do long-term planning. That had not been done. In fact, the Minister of Health Services tells me that when he started and sat down with his deputy at that time, and we looked at how we were going to separate the functions between the two ministries, there was not one FTE — not one full-time-equivalent — that was dedicated to long-term planning in the old Ministry of Health Services.

Now we have the functions separated. I would say that we're getting pretty good value for looking at how we're going to provide and plan for services in the future, considering the amount of work we have to do and the quality of people we have. We have excellent people who are dedicating their time and working on the plans that we have identified as necessary to work on for the long term.

The member asked where we are with respect to the boards for the new health authorities. She knows that six chairs have been appointed. The boards then, we had announced, would have nine members including the board chair. The board chairs are in the process of developing their boards. I understand that those boards will be appointed before the end of this fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: Each regional health authority will have nine members. Is that including the chair? Is it eight plus the chair or nine board members? How is the recruitment process taking place?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I did say that the boards would have nine members including the board chair. We are looking for people with skills, knowledge and abilities. They have to have strong leadership and fiscal management responsibility and accountability. They have to be knowledgable about the region and its population. There has to be involvement in connection with their communities. They have to be able to commit a reasonable amount of time as board members.

We are doing that through our resourcing manager. I understand there was very strong interest in this, and they are working very hard to complete the process. As I said, I understand that the boards will be appointed before the end of the fiscal year.

The recruitment was discussed with the Premier yesterday. I asked him a question about whether there would be community representation. Then I asked him why physicians were barred from representation. On the first, he said the boards were not going to be constituency-based — I'm just quoting him — and secondly, on the physicians, he said there was a legal opinion saying they would be in conflict of interest, I think, and therefore they were barred. Perhaps the minister could outline more fully the thinking behind both of those points.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Physicians are not barred from sitting on the boards. They cannot sit on the board of their own health authority. That would be a conflict.

As the member knows, we want to involve physicians, and there are ways for physicians to get involved in health care. The member knows very well that there are medical advisory committees that advise the board about the quality and the needs and the patient impacts of decisions that are being made.

Doctors are involved, and the Premier is quite right. If they want to sit on their own board, our advice is that this is a conflict.

J. MacPhail: Well, it would be a little hard for a physician to sit on a board other than his or her own, particularly in the north, where a regional health authority covers an area that's larger than a substantial portion of countries in the world. I'm not quite sure how a physician in the Northern Interior health region, for instance, could sit on another health board.

Secondly, what has changed that would require…? Physicians did sit on regional health boards. I'm not aware of there being any issue with that before. What changed?

Hon. S. Hawkins: If I didn't make myself clear before, someone with a medical background is not barred from sitting on the boards. We've had a lot of interest from physicians that are retired and non-practising,

and their names certainly have been considered or have gone forward to the resourcing director. Again, the boards are being developed right now.

Let me tell you that we value the input of physicians, and they have access to the board through their medical advisory committees and through their input in different committees in the areas where they work. Again, their input is valued. We will continue to work with them. That's all I have to say on that.

J. MacPhail: Well, when my question was asked, what had changed beforehand, because of course….? Sorry.

We have made it very clear that when we reorganize, we have six health authorities. They are managing multimillion-dollar — in a couple of cases, I think, multibillion-dollar — budgets. We wanted to make sure we had people on the boards who had the knowledge, the skills, the expertise, the background experience and the leadership, and we wanted to make sure we had a board that would manage responsibly and take on the accountability. That's not to say that the kinds of people the member is mentioning don't have that. It's to say that it is the kind of direction we gave to the board chairs to help develop their boards.

We want to make sure that health care is going to be better managed and that there is going to be accountability, because in the past we've had some experience where it hasn't been. We've had budgets that have been running deficits for years. We've had care that hasn't exactly been that full range of necessary care getting across to different areas of the different health authorities.

We want to make sure that when we put people in place, they understand they are going to be responsible, they are going to be accountable, there are big budgets to manage, and there are services and quality of services to deliver. That is why we are looking for the kind of people who have that strong business knowledge, those skills and abilities, and also the sense to access and consult with the kind of people they need to, to help them make their decisions around patient needs and decisions for patient care.

And you know what? The doctors are in the middle of that process, because they do have representation through their MACs and through the different committees they sit on in their regions. We look forward to working with them and getting that input.

This arises out of correspondence directly from physicians themselves. I can't remember whether it was the Medical Society or the BCMA. The letter was written to the Premier and the minister and actually was copied to me. This was the discussion we had around that letter yesterday.

So, we're dealing with physicians, and we're dealing with practising physicians. We're not dealing with retired physicians, and we're not dealing with physicians who would have to travel halfway across the province to represent another board. We're dealing with physicians who are practising in their own community.

In the past physicians had a dedicated seat on each and every health authority, and they complained about that to the current Premier, saying that it wasn't good enough because they didn't get to appoint that physician from amongst their own ranks. Then they went on to say that they had heard that the situation was going to grow even worse under this government, because they were going to be barred from representation. The doctors themselves know very well that they have medical advisory committees. They know the role they play there, and they are still dismayed that they are being barred from regional health authorities.

What is the legal opinion? Perhaps the minister could table the legal opinion that shows, then, what issues arose to create this dynamic that there would be a conflict. What issues arose in the previous health authorities that gave rise to that view or that seeking of that legal opinion?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me try and explain again. I understand the concern that the member is raising. There are a lot of different providers in the health care system — physicians are certainly one group — that want input. We recognize that, we will involve them, and we are involving them. They do have access to the board and the decision-makers. They do have input on the kinds of decisions we make in order to meet patients' needs, but what we're doing here is looking for governors. We're looking for people who have the kind of business knowledge, the skills, the abilities, the fiscal management and the accountability to govern.

I would remind the member that in the past…. I know the doctors didn't feel part of the system. Perhaps one way the past government dealt with that was to put them on the board, but believe me, the 52 boards weren't working either. It was a nightmare, and that's what we heard all across the province.

What we're trying to do now is set up a system where we do have governors, where they do accept responsibility and where they do have to meet accountability measures.

We are looking for people across the regions who will provide the kind of skills that we know will help us better manage the system to keep it on track. The target is making sure that we're delivering high-quality health services to patients who need them where they live. That is what we're doing. Certainly, the doctors are going to be involved in that. They have access to various processes to do that, and we look forward to working with them.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that there is no legal opinion for this shift of view, that the minister herself created this view that they'd be in a conflict of interest?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I don't know what the member is referring to, as far as the legal opinion. I haven't reviewed the comments from yesterday. I'll take that on notice once I review the comments.

J. MacPhail: I assume that the change, which the doctors are protesting now, from them getting minimal representation, in their view, to now having no representation — because, as the Premier said, it was determined that they would be in a conflict of interest — must be based on something. That's what I'm asking for. I assume, when one is dealing with matters such as conflict, that lawyers would be involved. There was no conflict alleged before from any regional authority or community health council that I'm aware of from a physician sitting on a board. If there is, that's the information I'm asking for.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I did have an opportunity to look at the comments of the Premier, and he's very clear. He's saying that someone with a medical background isn't precluded from serving on a board. As well, he says he's concerned about a potential or perceived conflict of interest, and we've specifically said we would try not to get into that.

We have made sure that our health authorities are working with physicians and that there are structures in place for physician input. As the member knows, there are medical advisory committees. There are medical staff structures. There are different committees in the health regions and in the hospitals. There are doctors who are managers and administrators. There is a ton of room for input.

I would suggest to the member that we have a resourcing office which looks at that. What we're trying to do is avoid that perception of conflict and still include the caregivers that we believe are valuable. We want their input. We want to work with them. That's what we will endeavour to do. As for our boards, we are looking again for governors who have the kind of skills — the knowledge, expertise, abilities, business skills, strong leadership, background of fiscal management and accountability…. We're working really hard to put those together. As I said to the member, a physician who's retired…. We have received, I understand, some interest from those kinds of candidates, and they are being considered for some of the boards.

J. MacPhail: So the message to physicians practising in their community is that they are now barred from health authorities at the whim of this government, not because of any legal opinion, not because of any issues in the past, but because of the whim of this government barring them.

In terms of how it's going with appointing board members, I went to the minister's own community today, in the Capital News. There's some worry, I guess, by the chair of the interior health authority that he may have to make major decisions on health care cuts and restructuring on his own, with the fact that deadlines are looming and no boards of directors are in place. That's from the Kelowna Capital News of today. Perhaps the minister is aware of what's happening in her own community. Is the minister helping at all within her own interior health authority in which she resides? The chair himself seems to be a bit concerned.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think I've heard this argument and these kinds of expressions of anxiety before, that we've got one person out there who's going around and is going to make the final decision and make all the cuts and what have you — all the fearmongering out there. That's not the case. If you actually went to Kelowna or the Kootenays or Kamloops, you would find that this chair is very well respected. In fact, he has met with hundreds of people across the region. The people who work in that health authority have had numerous consultations. They're out on the ground. They're working hard. They're working with caregivers. They're working with doctors. They're working with different facilities and administrators.

Mr. Dolman, who is the chair of the interior health authority, I understand has not refused to meet one person. In fact, when I spoke to a couple of people who had met him, they couldn't believe that he had given his home number. He is so accessible. As far as one person making the decision, it's not one person.

People told us for the last ten years that they were tired of political interfering in health care decision-making. They said: "Why don't you let the health providers and the professionals make the decisions? When we get political interference, then we don't get good health care. We don't get good decision-making." So guess what: we've put some professionals in place. We're actually going to listen to what they're saying. They're out on the ground. They're doing the work. They're around the region. They're looking at the needs of the community. There is a whole bunch of things they have to consider when they're coming up with their plans.

Frankly, the boards will be in place before the end of the fiscal year, and the boards will be in place before the final decisions. That was the Premier's commitment.

J. MacPhail: It's a little early in the estimates for repetition of such rhetoric. These are basic questions that have to be answered. The rhetoric isn't acceptable for what happened in the past. This minister fired hundreds of community representatives from regional health boards and community health councils. I'm just talking about the interior health authority now — hundreds of community representatives. She fired them, and she replaced them with one man. So don't stand up and give a whole bunch of rhetoric about how awful it was in the past. I expect the community is saying: "This is better — one man?"

It isn't about the chair himself. The chair — who I don't happen to know, but he sounds like he's well-respected — maybe has met with hundreds of people.

He's one person. He's one person who is now representing dozens and dozens of communities that used to have their own control over their health. The minister is saying now that they're barring practising physicians from health authorities at their whim and that they've put one man in charge of each health authority, and that's fine. Everybody's supposed to just take it as good will that this is better.

Well, when the cuts start coming, which the chair is worried about in the minister's own community, I expect the chair will be under a lot of pressure that he won't be able to manage himself. That is why I have been pursuing with the Premier and with the minister responsible for this what their plan is and why the ministry exists.

The last time the minister and I met in estimates, she said there would be a public consultation process before restructuring occurred. Could she outline what that public consultation process was?

Hon. S. Hawkins: In the last few years — and I think members who've been here a while and certainly the new members that got elected…. I don't know if any member heard differently, but I heard that the old way was just not working. I don't think there was one community we went to that said: "Gee, this community health council, this health authority or this community health services society is doing a great job." In fact, what we heard was: "Please change it. It's not working. We're not getting the services we need."

We heard of communities getting pitted against each other. We heard of dysfunctional circumstances on different boards. You know what? People were crying for change. We decided that was a commitment we made; we would streamline. We would make sure we reduced the number of health authorities. We would make sure dollars were actually going to be targeted to patient care. We would make sure we would try to reduce duplication and administration so that we could serve our patients better. That's what we heard from communities across the province, and that is what we delivered.

I believe the public consultation process was quite thorough. Our deputy travelled and did consultations in some of the regions. We consulted with the Health Association of British Columbia. We consulted with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. We received letters and representations from municipalities and local governments from across the province. We had a dialogue on health, which was in September. We heard from members there. We had representation from BCMA, and certainly we took into account some of the recommendations they made in their report.

We had a select standing committee of the Legislature, which travelled all fall, that heard from people across the province. The message was loud and clear. Their recommendation was to get on with it. The public wanted to make sure we had governance boards that were actually going to govern, that were going to take the leadership, that were going to make decisions to improve health care and that were going to be accountable. In the few short months we had to do it, I think that was fairly well done consultation.

J. MacPhail: Not one person appeared before the Select Standing Committee on Health and said….

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wonder if the Minister of Health Planning could talk for a bit about the role and activities of the chief nurse executive and how that person is going to fit into the system.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I want to introduce Anne Sutherland Boal, who is our chief nurse executive. She was appointed in September of 2001. The position was created to assist in meeting one of our new-era expectations and commitments — a very important one. That was to help us develop a ten-year health human resources plan for nurses. We knew we needed to have a leadership position for nurses in the province, and we established this two-year position. It's a secondment from the Health Association of B.C., and she has close ties with HABC. Her office is actually located in Vancouver.

She is also very involved in helping us develop education programs for RNs, for licensed practical nurses and care aides. She is also responsible for helping us increase the training and education of foreign-educated nurses and implementing the Ministry of Health Planning nursing strategy. I'm proud to say that we are on target and we are on track. We've done some good things there, and I think it's important that we have…. I think people probably don't realize that four out of five health care providers in the system are nurses, and we know we need them. They're the backbone of the health care system.

Certainly, Ms. Sutherland Boal has been out in the field. She's been on the front line. She's been in classrooms meeting with students, meeting with nurses and certainly meeting with the Registered Nurses Association of B.C., as well, to assist in ways that we can help nurses in licensing, in qualifying, in some of the exciting new initiatives we're taking on. She works with the universities. We are looking at a new position for a nurse-practitioner in the province, and Ms. Sutherland Boal is certainly working with the universities to develop that role as well.

Those are the kinds of responsibilities she's responsible for. She has numerous speaking engagements to raise the profile on the leadership of nurses and to speak for nurses and bring their issues forward. As we plan for health care into the future, we're making sure that their concerns and issues are addressed.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about the telemedicine initiatives we have. I think last week, in private members' statements, the member from Cranbrook raised a new undertaking by the Ministry of Health on telemedicine. I wonder if the minister could please tell us a little bit about how this fits in with the long-term plans for the Ministry of Health Planning.

Hon. S. Hawkins: It was quite an exciting demonstration last week at Vancouver Hospital. As I said, my heart was pounding as we watched the link between Cranbrook and Vancouver Hospital and watched the emergency specialist in Vancouver Hospital advising the family physician and nurses on looking after a trauma patient. I believe it was a logging accident, and it was a chest injury and an actual foot amputation. It was a dummy, but anyway….

I was a little cynical about whether you could actually treat a patient over a TV screen, but it was amazing how the doctor could advise the family physician and give that extra bit of comfort. What happened was that the patient actually got to stay there and was stabilized there. There is a surgeon in that community. The doctor felt comfortable enough having the backup from the physician hundreds of miles away that she could treat this complex trauma patient who showed up in her emergency room. She had to put in all kinds of lines and a chest tube and stabilize a stump wound.

Anyway, our commitment is to make sure that patients have the services they need when they need them, where they live. That is one of our long-term commitments: to make sure that we have the kind of strategies that will help patients get the services they need where they live. And telemedicine certainly helps us do that. We want to make sure that patients have access to health services in rural and remote areas, that we can recruit and retain physicians in those rural locations and, certainly, that we're able to give physicians and health care providers in those areas the kind of professional development they need.

Telemedicine helps us do that. We're linked up to, I believe, Terrace and Cranbrook with this trauma initiative. It is going to be expanding as of December this year to other communities that will receive the support: telepsychiatry, pediatric consultations and emergency trauma specialist support. Those communities will be Powell River, Sechelt, Squamish, Fort St. John, Fort Nelson, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Vanderhoof, Stony Creek, Anahim Lake and Williams Lake.

Again, patients that might have been required to be transferred out of those communities and into an urban area will now be assessed and, hopefully, stabilized and taken care of in their own communities. One thing the nurses and doctors pointed out in the rural areas was: "Well, thank you for helping us do this because the family's just arrived, and they asked if they have to go to Vancouver, because we're airlifting this patient to Vancouver. We've said no, we've stabilized, we're calling the surgeon, and we're able to deal with the patient here." That's good news for families that live in those areas, too, because then we're avoiding their travel, their time, their costs, and they're able to stay and support the patient and their family member in their own community.

It's an exciting initiative. It's being done through a federal grant program — co-funding information technology initiatives to improve patient care. It's helping us fund our four telehealth projects in B.C. In case you're wondering, the total Health Canada funding contribution is $6.3 million, and the Ministry of Health Services contributed $3 million in the past year to this project. It's exciting. We think it is the way of the future, and it will help allow us to meet patient care needs when they need them and where they live.

L. Mayencourt: I'm also very excited by that development. I think that's really quite wonderful. It comes home when you hear about a family that didn't have to have their father shipped down to St. Paul's because they needed some specialist treatment.

I wonder if the minister could talk a little bit about the development of the human resource plan that we have for her ministry. In particular, I'd like to hear about the expansion of nursing seats in the universities — at the UBC medical school, for example. If she could just let us know how that factors into her plans and what she's doing on that score.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I don't want to steal the thunder from the Minister of Advanced Education because that is her role, but we, as part of our ten-year human resources strategy, are considering the need for making sure that we have a nurse population to meet our patient needs and that we have enough seats to ensure a future supply of nurses. Working with the Minister of Advanced Education early on, last summer we recognized that there was an immediate need to add some training spots and certainly to add some programs that would help nurses with refresher programs — nurses that weren't practising — to get back into the workplace. Between the two ministries we developed that nursing strategy to help us get nurses back in the workplace and increase the number of seats.

The Minister of Advanced Education did add 177 seats. They were RN, LPN and resident care aide seats. They started in January. We recognized that we had to do more. We went on a recruitment trip to New Zealand and Australia for specialty care nurses. We certainly had education programs across the province to train specialty care nurses as well.

Last summer, I believe, there were 1,000 vacancies, and we now have reduced that by 20 percent. We've

been able to fill the nursing job vacancies. We know we have to do more. We're certainly working with facilities. Our clinical nurse executive is working with facilities because clinical placements…. If we're adding seats, we have to make sure that we have places for these nurses to train, because they do get clinical training. We're working with facilities to make sure we have a coordinated way of ensuring that there are clinical placements for those nurses.

We recognize that it is getting increasingly difficult to find placements. We are working on a process to make sure that we're finding the appropriate clinical placements in communities and institutions across the province.

We recognize that nurses are retiring in the next five to ten years. We are looking at how we will work to increase our nursing seats and nursing education to meet that need.

We're also supporting the Council of University Teaching Hospitals to develop — when I talked about the clinical placements — an integrated clinical placement system for health sciences in British Columbia. There will be a database to help us plug in for those clinical placements as we start adding those seats and as they start getting into the clinical workplace.

I think that as far as the actual number of seats and how we're going to do that, those may be questions for the Minister of Advanced Education. I know she has been planning with us, and we will look at hard numbers over the next few years to see how many we can plug in and support as far as training.

We are going after that population who already have been registered but are non-practising. We are looking at programs through WCB and looking at nurses who are perhaps injured and cannot work in the workplace, but they have the knowledge, skills and training, and they can precept or mentor nurses. We are putting them into precepting and mentoring programs so they can come back into the workplace and be mentors for new nurses.

We added a whole bunch of funding for refresher programs. We've had a really good uptake on that. It was more encouraging than we had anticipated. I believe we've had over 250 nurses approved for the return-to-nursing funds. They were nurses who were registered previously, were non-practising and needed the refresher program.

We are doing everything we can, because we know the nurses at the bedside need more colleagues to help them meet patient care needs. We are looking at ways that we can enhance the nursing population in the province.

L. Mayencourt: I'm really glad to hear that you've got another 250 nurses who had gone out of the system for a while coming back. I think it's really important that we attract those nurses that have left the system, for whatever reason, back in. It's encouraging to hear that. I congratulate you for that, minister.

I wonder: do you have any sort of stats? The nurses that have come back, the 250 that have come back…. Are they nurses that left because they were injured and we've offered a different program — the mentoring program you've mentioned — to bring them back? Or is it people who have left the system because they felt a little burned out, just didn't want to practise for a while and have come back?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Good question. About half of them are nurses who left the profession to raise families. They stayed at home. The other half are foreign-educated nurses who have come from other countries. We've gotten them into refresher programs — both the nurses who have been non-practising and the foreign grads — so that they meet the qualifications to write the licensure and practise in B.C.

With respect to the ones that were injured, that was a different program. What we're doing is working with BCNU, HABC and HEABC. There's a whole bunch of partners — WCB — and what we're doing is looking at — I believe, if I've got the number right — about 1,800 nurses on the injury list. We think there's a portion of them who probably love nursing and would like to be back in the workplace, but they can't come back and do the heavy lifting.

They certainly have the qualifications, knowledge, skills and training to be preceptors and mentors for those new nurses. You know, we'd hate to lose that experience, because a lot of them are experienced nurses who are injured. We want to make sure that we give them the opportunity to come back, work with new nurses on the ward, pass on that valuable experience and help our new nurses along in the workplace.

That program was designed to do that. There's $1.1 million targeted to that program. We're hoping to integrate those nurses back into the workplace in mentorship roles and preceptor roles, in clinical placement and coordinator and nurse-educator roles. We're quite excited about that, because that program is taking off now as well.

J. MacPhail: There are several government members who have questions, so I'll be rejoining after the recess. I'm not saying what I'll be doing in between.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if the minister could talk for a moment about…. As the minister knows, I've been involved in my community with a lot of people living with HIV/AIDS or with other chronic and long-term illnesses. It seems to me that there has been a need for some time for the Ministry of Health…. Now that we've made some changes, there's an opportunity for us to make some better plans for how to deal with people living with chronic, long-term illnesses. I wonder if that's been factored into her plans and if she could describe how she's approaching that problem.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I know the member is very interested in this issue. I'm hoping he'll get involved in the planning around this as well.

We are working with the provincial health officer on the HIV/AIDS strategy for this province. We're renewing it. We're looking at it in the context of the health authorities, because we have said to the health authorities that they are responsible for the population and the positive outcomes within their regions. They now have the funding for HIV/AIDS in their regions as well.

We are making sure we have a strategy that actually works. I know in the past, in the last ten years, we haven't really defined it or integrated it very well, especially not with the health authorities. We are going to work with the provincial health officer, with our health and wellness promotion division, and with the various groups. We did meet with some of the groups' members over the last few weeks. Certainly, we are hoping to have a new HIV/AIDS strategy which will help guide us in responding to the HIV/AIDS epidemic.

The member probably recognizes that we've got a new rise in the disease in young gay men, and that's concerning. It tells me we're not doing a very good job of getting that prevention message out. I know the provincial health officer is working on that, and he has advised me that in the next few weeks he will be coming to talk to me about the steps he's going to take towards designing that.

B. Locke: Can you tell me what is being done to facilitate the licensing of foreign-trained nurses? Is there any evidence that those programs are working?

Hon. S. Hawkins: This is an issue that I was quite involved in. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and I met with different groups of foreign-trained nurses. As a result of those meetings, we did put into our nursing strategy plan a component for foreign-trained nurses. We had two classes of clinical English that were offered. I believe the uptake was…. There were two full classes. We've had lots of inquiry about the refresher programs. I think we've had about 600 inquiries. Half of them were from foreign-trained nurses. They are applying for the refresher programs. The grants are there. They go through the same process as other nurses to meet the competencies, the qualifications, to get registered in B.C.

I understand one of the English classes has already been completed, and they will get into that refresher program. They're nine-month programs to meet the qualifications for licensure. We do recognize the issue, and we're trying to meet the needs.

B. Locke: We talked about technology, about telemedicine, and I wonder what is being done to incorporate the other technologies into the medical system. Are there steps being taken to ensure that health authorities have compatible computer systems?

Hon. S. Hawkins: In a general way I will tell you that, yes, we are looking at that issue very seriously. I think you know the Premier is very up on technology. Having records that caregivers have access to when patients find themselves in different parts of their community or region or even province is very important.

Certainly, when we had 52 health authorities, it was very difficult for everyone to meet and compare notes and try and get some kind of a consistent plan with respect to information technology. With six, we have our ministry CIO, chief information officer, working with the health authorities, and we are looking at a comprehensive technology plan. The health authorities are responsible for information management and technology planning, and we are working with them to develop that comprehensive plan. We are working with them to develop an electronic patient record.

Of course, this is going to take time. It's going to take investment. We're looking at ways we can develop that plan over the long term. The plan is going to focus on the development and implementation of health information standards. Certainly, we're looking at a coordinated approach among the health authorities to ensure, as you said, that their operations can talk to each other. That is really important. As I mentioned, we're looking to accelerate the development and implementation of an electronic patient health record.

With respect to finding ways to use technology, we're encouraging the health authorities to work to share services, reduce duplication and increase efficiency by using technology. Certainly, we're looking, as you said, at using technology to expand telemedicine and telehealth. We also have a Premier's Technology Council that's very interested in the area of health technology and is also working with us.

B. Locke: In the service plan the minister talks about measuring patient satisfaction. How will this be done?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think it's really important for us to measure patient satisfaction. It's done on a polling basis. We are developing surveys so that we can measure how satisfied patients are with the system.

When you look between the two service plans, the Minister of Health Services is responsible for measuring public satisfaction, and the Ministry of Health Planning is looking at patient satisfaction. We are developing surveys that will measure the individual's satisfaction with the system. They've actually had contact with the system, and we want to see how good they thought their care was or how well they thought they were treated or how satisfied they are.

We've set targets for what we consider is an acceptable limit. I believe that it's 70 percent. We want to make sure that our patients' satisfaction rate is 70 percent. We took those from national surveys. That is the acceptable average.

Public satisfaction — if you want to the know the difference, because I had to think about this myself — is measuring the public as a whole. You do polling and

see how the public responds to questions about the health care system. That's always a little bit more because they might not have had actual contact with the system, but they hear about it, or somebody they know might have had an experience. That's what they're judging that on.

The reason patient satisfaction is always higher than public satisfaction is that patients have actually experienced the system and more often than not have had a good experience, so they have a higher satisfaction rate.

We will be developing the tools to measure individual or patient satisfaction. We will determine on what basis and how often we will be doing that, but we will be reporting that, and we've set targets for what we hope to achieve in that measurement.

B. Locke: The minister talked about patient responsibility. Last year there was a B.C. HealthGuide sent around to all residences, I think. Is the ministry doing anything to encourage the use of the B.C. HealthGuide? I wondered what the outcomes were.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, this is a program we're quite excited about. We can do more. It's a program that encourages self-responsibility and self-care. We have very good, experienced nurses on NurseLine to advise patients, and the HealthGuide was written to provide patients with guidelines on how to responsibly care for themselves and access the system.

I'm really excited about a complement to the HealthGuide. That was developed by the first nations health committee, I believe. It was developed by the first nations. There is an aboriginal guide that is going to be coming out this spring with the HealthGuide so that we are not only looking after one segment of the population, but we're starting to look at other populations that can benefit from information.

We want to make sure we give the public and patients the kind of information that they need to support themselves and to support a healthy lifestyle, and if they need help with care that they have access to it 24 hours from very experienced nurses. If they need to move on, the nurses will guide them in whether they need to access emergency care.

I'm just reading here. We have 72 nurses staffing the NurseLine. We have Teletype service for those who are deaf or hard of hearing. The on-line translation services are available now in over 50 languages including Mandarin, Punjabi, Vietnamese, French and some of the aboriginal dialects. It's a toll-free number, and we have expanded it. We're trying to be culturally sensitive, and it's exciting. I think more and more people know they have to start taking responsibility for their own health, and we're going to do more in this area.

B. Locke: I just want to get a little bit more local to my community, if I could, for a minute. As you know, Surrey Memorial Hospital is one of the busiest hospitals in B.C., and our emergency department is already busting at the seams. With a growth of 1,000 residents per month in our city and a current population of about 370,000, how does the minister propose keeping up with those ER needs and demands?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Thanks to the member for that very important question. Those are the kinds of challenges we are facing not only in your community but in communities across the province, certainly — in the growing communities. We know we have to start doing things differently. That is why this ministry was created: to look at intermediate and long-term plans to manage these kinds of pressures. I can tell you that in the short term, the health authorities are looking at ways to address these issues. In the intermediate to long term, we are looking again at primary care renewal and what kinds of ways we can provide for patients to access the system so it's not necessarily an emergency room or a doctor's office.

We know there are other ways of doing things. We have $74 million over the next four years in Health Canada transition funds that we hope to access and set up different kinds of models. We're looking at other options. We've got some primary care demonstration projects across the province, but we're looking at and open to different kinds of models to help address this.

We're certainly looking at the whole area of scope of practice so that we're not limiting different practitioners from providing care. We know nurses can do a lot more, and we know pharmacists can do a lot more, and we know other professions want to do more. We're looking at that issue and how we can provide patients with access to those kinds of professionals.

We're also looking at something that I think is exciting and, again, something our chief nurse executive is working very hard at. We're looking at the role of a nurse practitioner in our system. I had the opportunity to meet with the director of nursing of Western a few weeks ago. They have a program in their school that graduates 16 a year. She's very up on it and quite excited that we are considering that role.

We went to James Bay Community Project yesterday and were treated to a tour and an introduction to the nurse practitioners there — a role that's very appreciated and valued in that clinic. We are committed to looking at this and to implementing it in the next few years. Certainly, the staff are working to develop the infrastructure to educate and regulate nurse practitioners by the end of this year in 2002.

There are things we can do. I have to keep reminding myself that this is long-term planning. These kinds of problems were not created yesterday. We're not going to fix them in five minutes. I'm hoping that in five years you won't have to stand up and say this, that some of this will be addressed, that all the stuff we are talking about will actually be implemented and that we will see positive patient outcomes because we've been able to encourage other ways for patients to access the system.

B. Locke: I would like to ask a question about doctors — general practitioners, actually. In Surrey and I'm sure in other areas, urban and rural, there just aren't enough general practitioners today. In fact, in Surrey it's doubtful that you can get a GP to take you on as a patient.

How will the minister address the lack of general practitioners for the future for Surrey and, I'm sure, throughout the province?

Hon. S. Hawkins: This is an issue that we're challenged with. We've always been able to recruit physicians from other places to come and live and work in B.C. We require, I understand, about 300 a year. We've been recruiting about half of those, and we've been training about half of those.

We know that we have to do more. We have added medical school seats. By the year 2004-05 we'll be going from 128 seats to 200 seats. Again, this is an issue that the Minister of Advanced Education is working very hard on. We've got the exciting announcement around the life sciences centre at UBC and the two satellite medical schools, one at UVic and one at UNBC. We recognize that we have to train our own.

We recognize that residency spots are essential to training our doctors. We've expanded the postgraduate residency program by 64 positions over a six-year period to address remote needs for medical specialists. We've done that for those areas. It's not just urban areas that are suffering. We've added two more positions to the St. Paul's Hospital foreign medical training program.

We are working hard. It is an issue that our chief nurse executive is working on with HABC as far as looking at recruitment issues. It takes a long time to train a doctor. Again, we're looking at the other kinds of things that we talked about around reforming primary care, expanding scope of practice and looking for other ways that patients can access the system.

We value physicians. We know we need them. We know we don't have enough. In the short term we're going to have to find ways of making sure that patients are getting the care they need, if it means seeing other kinds of professionals to meet their needs.

R. Visser: I wanted to pick up on something she said earlier about nurse practitioners. She mentioned the James Bay Community Project. That concept gets talked about a lot in my riding. Is it something that may have some benefits for rural British Columbia and isolated communities?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Yes, because we're sitting in Victoria and it's just down the street, we seem to hear a lot about James Bay, but there is a rural model that I'm familiar with as well. It's in Chase — a very high satisfaction rate from the public and from the people working in that. We are looking for other options — perhaps the same kind of model if communities want to look at that. It is something that seems to be working in rural as well as urban areas.

If your community is interested, as I said, we have $19 million a year to access from these Health Canada transition funds to promote primary care reform. We're certainly willing to entertain ideas from across the province. My deputy reminds me that we're working on this planning with the health authorities. If those ideas come through the health authorities, they will be looked at.

R. Visser: I wanted to touch on one other issue that's very important to my riding, which is centred around first nations health. We have several communities in the North Island. We know from experience that health issues in first nations communities are often quite different than they are in the neighbouring communities that are not first nations. That presents a whole range of challenges for the system. I was wondering how the Ministry of Health Planning is tackling that issue. What kind of consultations are ongoing with first nations communities now and in the future?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, this is an issue that resonates down right from the Premier. It's something that we expect to address in a very significant way.

We are looking at how we can better address the needs of the aboriginal population, because when you look at health indicators, they lag behind other populations in B.C. We've got high low-birth-weights, high drug and alcohol, high morbidity and mortality rates. We know we have to do a better job.

It's certainly something I have addressed with our federal counterpart as well. The feds know they are responsible. They need to be reminded they are responsible, as well, in assisting with aboriginal health care.

We have four formal policy tables with aboriginal organizations. We have met with the First Nations Summit and the health committee of the First Nations Summit. We've made a commitment to work with them very closely on aboriginal health issues. When we talk about the kind of strategies that we want to engage in for long-term planning in the province, we're doing strategies for chronic disease management. They have a very high incidence of diabetes in their population. We are going to look at specific areas we can work on together. When we're working on strategies for the general population, we can parallel and tailor the strategies for our aboriginal populations as well.

We are expecting the health authorities to be accountable for health planning around aboriginal health needs. There are aboriginal health plans that have been developed and transmitted to health authorities. We will be setting measurements and targets for the health authorities so that we can see that they are actually addressing those needs and working towards positive outcomes for that population.

The First Nations Summits reps also come and meet at a ministerial level. The deputy tells me that they are coming to a leadership council meeting in April.

It is something that we are very aware of and that we are working on. We know we have to do better at it. We will be focusing on that as we move forward.

R. Visser: Thank you for that answer. I just want to change gears and come back to something she said earlier, and that is the new medical seats at University of Victoria. I wonder if she could expand on what we're trying to accomplish by moving some of those training seats over to the Island.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, I think it's quite exciting because the two different satellite schools, one at UNBC and one at UVic, are going to build on the platform of UBC. The two universities have different focuses. Certainly, the one at UNBC is going to have a rural focus; the one at UVic is going to have a gerontology focus.

I can tell you that UVic has a very strong focus on health promotion and primary care. I think those kinds of strategies will benefit the populations across the province. I'm not going to try and say what I think is going to be taught at UNBC, but they have addressed the issues around the aboriginal population. I'm sure those kinds of issues will be addressed and then relayed around the three centres.

J. MacPhail: Part of the documents we received as part of the briefing binders…. I don't know whether this has been made public yet, but we actually have the briefing binder of the Minister of Health, I think. No, I'm sorry. To the minister, my apologies. I think these are the briefing notes that had been prepared for the minister. I know that a lot of members had interest in discussing things with the minister as well. That's the table of contents, I think, from the briefing binder that the minister is working with. If that's the case, we can speed it up by just going through the briefing notes of the minister.

I say that because I know time is of the essence, and my colleague has to be in another House. One of the briefing notes, I think, related to a specific area of her responsibility. We can just work from the list of the briefing notes the minister has. I'm going to turn it over to my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant.

J. Kwan: I'm particularly interested in item No. 32, which talks about the Vancouver agreement, and it lists the overall strategy, the downtown east side women's issues and contact clinic issues. I'm going to first talk about the broader issue around the Vancouver agreement. The majority of the members in this House would know of my strong interest in the Vancouver agreement.

Could the minister please advise what planning process she has in place for the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Just so the member understands, this minister is not the lead on this. We are responsible for working with the minister on some of the health issues around this, but detailed questions should be forwarded to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, who is the lead on this issue.

J. Kwan: I assume that the table of contents in this binder, which has now been shared with the minister, indicates that we're working from the same document. I do see briefing notes in relation to the Vancouver agreement. Surely, as the Minister of Health Planning, she has some involvement around the planning for the Vancouver agreement.

What are some of the things the minister is looking at? Is she looking at anything at all in relation to health planning as it relates to the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. S. Hawkins: If the member has the information, she knows very well that some of the initiatives have been implemented over the last few months. I can read them out for her, but she probably has looked at them herself.

The nature and scope of Health Planning's role has not changed, as far as being involved in the crime and drug strategy. The update was just here because there is a component of the ministry that works with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services with respect to this agreement. That relationship hasn't changed.

J. Kwan: I know what the briefing note says; I know that from previous work on the Vancouver agreement, because I was the minister responsible for the Vancouver agreement. Of course, it is the case that with a change of government, usually there's a change in direction and, perhaps, a change in priority and emphasis. I'm interested in knowing from this minister, the Minister of Health Planning, what her plans are in terms of the strategy for Vancouver's downtown east side within the Vancouver agreement's context.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I know how important this issue is to that member, because she represents a constituency on this issue. I can tell you that our strategy has not changed. We're still working with the parties on the Vancouver agreement. We're still concerned about the impoverished population, the crime, the drugs and the HIV/AIDS population down there. We will continue to work to try and have positive outcomes for the population down there.

Certainly, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services has met with the parties, and

my ministry will continue to work with theirs on the focus that this agreement is working on.

J. Kwan: Can the minister name one specific strategy that she is involved in, in the planning process in relation to the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I know the member is very familiar with the Vancouver agreement, because she's worked very closely on it. Certainly, she's very familiar with the four pillars and the four-pillars approach of enforcement, prevention, treatment and harm reduction. The ministry is trying to link into that. We are working on crime and drug strategies. One of the initiatives — we're trying to be innovative — is certainly working on clinical trials. This is closely linked to improving access to the treatment and harm-reduction elements of the four pillars.

There is some research that is funded through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and I believe Dr. Martin Schechter is leading that. There is the prescribed heroin study that is coming forward, and that is one of the initiatives this ministry is working closely with Dr. Martin Schechter and the provincial health officer on.

J. Kwan: When the minister talks about the clinical trials, is she talking about the heroin maintenance trials? What clinical trials is she talking about?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That is one of the clinical trials. It's the prescribed heroin. Let me introduce Dr. Perry Kendall, who's our provincial health officer.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, then, the minister is in support of the heroin maintenance trials. What funding is being provided from the province to support this trial? I know that Dr. Martin Schechter has dollars from the CIHR for the clinical trials, but I know that it is insufficient in terms of the amount of dollars required to do the heroin maintenance initiative. Is the province contributing towards that initiative, and is this minister in support of heroin maintenance trials?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The funding hasn't been announced yet. I think the announcement is imminent. I understand that there are three cities that have been announced for this trial: Vancouver, Montreal and Toronto. We will be supporting it through infrastructure support. Obviously, there will be university space, hospital space — whatever is needed. That will be supported through the Vancouver coastal health authority, I would think, because Vancouver is a part of that.

The member asked me if I support this. Personally, yes, I do. I'm a former nurse. I worked with addicts. I worked in ICUs. I saw the overdoses. This is a very well controlled clinical trial — prescribed heroin. I know there are going to be a lot of anxious people out there wondering if we're going to have addicts running around. But I can tell you that I've seen studies like this before. I have been involved in a couple in my former life as a nurse. With the right kind of parameters set up, I think there is some good work that can come out of studies like this.

J. Kwan: I certainly appreciate the minister's support for the heroin maintenance trials. I think it's been much needed in our community for a long, long time. I really do thank the minister for her support in this area.

Could the minister please tell the House what the anticipated total cost is for this trial, how many people we anticipate would be in the trial and where is the site? Has a site been chosen for the initiative?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I was just informed a couple of days ago that this announcement is imminent. Dr. Schechter is, I understand, the research coordinator — the primary investigator — for this trial. I will commit to getting the member all of the information she's asked for. I don't have it. Those kinds of details are not part of my information. If the member wants it, I'll commit to getting it for her.

J. Kwan: I appreciate the minister offering to provide that information, as well, once the announcement is made. Perhaps there are other things that might not be in this binder.

J. Kwan: We've had briefing notes ourselves before. It doesn't tell you everything.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The time lines are hard to judge. I understand it's a 12-month trial and then a two-year follow-up. It will just depend when it starts, so there are preliminary things to set up before it starts. Again, I'll commit to get that information for you.

J. Kwan: I assume there had been discussions with the city of Vancouver for the site in Vancouver particularly, because it would be absolutely crucial for the city to actually approve the development permit and the permitting process to allow for this trial to take place.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand the investigators have been talking to the city. I'm not privy to those discussions. I would not know where that's at right now.

J. Kwan: As the Minister of Health Planning, will the minister be getting involved in that process? That is all part of the planning process: to make sure the trial will be up and running, that there's a site that could accommodate the trial, and so on.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Just so the member knows, we have a provincial director general, and he is the desig-

nate on the management committee of the Vancouver agreement. He's the Health ministry's designate on that committee. He's intimately involved in all these issues. I get briefed on what they're doing; I am not intimately involved in that area. I get advice from them now and again. Right now it's not advised to be intimately involved. If there is a need for me to be involved with the city of Vancouver, I will be advised, and at that time I will decide what action I take.

J. Kwan: What kind of health planning activities is the minister involved in, in relation to the Vancouver agreement then?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Actually, we're doing quite a bit. We are working with our provincial health officer. He's developing a provincial prevention strategy. He is starting the consultation. He is working with the different health authorities, talking to the personnel who are responsible for prevention and getting a handle on what's needed. We will be developing a provincial prevention strategy that will obviously link into the kinds of things the Vancouver agreement addressed.

We are looking at our HIV/AIDS strategy, and again, the provincial director general and the provincial health officer have been asked to look at it, to review it and to revise it, because I'm concerned that in the face of the changes in the epidemic we need to address some of the emerging issues there.

In our primary care strategy we're looking to renew primary care and the way people access the health care system. We are looking forward to receiving applications from those who want to work with vulnerable or marginalized populations. We are looking for applications if there is interest from groups that want to work with the population in the downtown Vancouver east side.

We are also looking at our aboriginal health strategy. Each of the health authorities is asked to submit their aboriginal health plans. Not all of them have submitted plans, but we will be reviewing them. Again, that touches on issues in the Vancouver agreement.

We're taking a multi-faceted approach so that the plans we are working on link into the issues in the Vancouver agreement. As far as the ministry taking a direct role, I have told you that we have a provincial director general who is responsible for promotion and prevention. He is the ministry's designate and is working with the management committee on the Vancouver agreement.

J. Kwan: I actually have a lot of questions in a whole range of the different areas that are highlighted in this table of contents of the minister's briefing book. Even within the Vancouver agreement, I've only just begun to ask some of the questions. However, I have to leave this House now in order to attend to other business, and so I'll come back to those questions another time.

Before I leave, I do want to ask this one quick question. One of the items in the briefing binder here talks about the new immunization programs. I noted in the newspaper just a few days ago that in the downtown east side community, the funding for immunization for TB has actually been cut. I know there's briefing material around that.

I'm wondering: how does that make sense, especially within the context of the Vancouver agreement? There were a number of immunization programs that were started up for hepatitis C and TB, and so on, in the downtown east side to stem the health risks that the community members are faced with. Why would the ministry cut this? To the Minister of Health Planning: why would you allow that to be cut?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I am familiar with the issue that the member is raising. It was a program that the health authority had decided to fund and has decided not to. I think that issue can be addressed with the Minister of Health Services. You'll have the opportunity to do that. Let me say that with respect to the strategies and how I can allow this to happen when we're supposed to be looking at health promotion and prevention, that is why I have asked the provincial health officer to work with our provincial director general and come up with a provincial prevention strategy. He is in the process of meeting with health authorities and their personnel so that we can identify priority risks and programs and get a handle on what we need to do out there in the different health authorities so that we can sit down and come up with a provincial strategy.

The member also asked about hep C. My understanding is that we don't have a vaccine for hep C; we do have a treatment. Apparently, we do have some funding to carry out a planning strategy for hep C, but at this time there is not a hep C vaccine. There is a hep B vaccine but not a hep C vaccine.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that the provincial health officer is going to be working on a plan around that. I guess my first question is: when will the plan be ready?

In the meantime, particularly around this issue with TB, as the minister knows and I'm sure the provincial health officer knows, the people in the downtown eastside community are hugely at risk from a health perspective. Of course, we know that TB is also contagious and that it would spread. If one person catches it and if the immunization is not in place, we actually put the entire community at risk.

I would think that from the Minister of the Health Planning's perspective, that cannot be acceptable to any Health minister, and particularly for the Health Planning minister who actually plans the course of action that needs to take place in our respective communities.

Can we expect that there will be reinstatement of the TB immunization program in the downtown eastside immediately?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I understand completely this member's concern around the TB issues in her riding. The medical health officer informs me that inner cities have a high incidence of TB. It's hard to get hold of these folks and treat them, and this was a plan to blitz the area. Again, the provincial health officer informs me it's not a new condition insofar as the incidence in the downtown eastside. I described it as an endemic epidemic, and he agrees with me.

Anyway, this program is the responsibility of the Minister of Health Services because he is responsible for the health authorities, but let me tell you that it is our responsibility in my ministry to track this, to inform the minister of the results.

We do have a TB control strategy in the province. The provincial health officer monitors this. He says that nothing has changed over the past few years. As I say, it's an endemic epidemic; it sort of stays the same. It seems to be higher in the inner cities because it's hard to find these people and treat them.

We will be keeping an eye on that. I understand the medical health officer there is working hard to see if he can find ways to make the program work. We will be monitoring the situation there. I just want the member to know, as well, that the provincial health officer informs me that the prevention strategy I've asked him to work on will have a framework for that, hopefully, at the end of this year.

J. Kwan: The member for Vancouver-Hastings just yielded her time so that I can ask one more question before I run out of this House to other business.

Based on the minister's answer around the TB epidemic taking place in the community…. Of course, previously in the community of the downtown eastside the immunization process and program was done with street nurses in such a way that the people who are there could stop by a community centre, or they could go to a housing project and get their immunization done. It is difficult to find these individuals and get them to the place where they can get access to this. A lot of them actually don't even have doctors, which is why street nurses have done that. Stations have been set up during the flu season to get influenza immunization done, and so on, so one would assume that we can perhaps utilize this kind of method for people in dealing with the TB challenge.

Is the program being eliminated because of difficult access with people, or is it because of a funding issue? If it's a funding issue, will the minister commit today that the funding will be in place to ensure that the people in the downtown eastside community will have access to TB immunization? It is a matter that could save lives.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I just want to emphasize to the member: I know you're concerned about this. I take my best advice from our provincial health officer. He tells me nothing has changed down there. The incidences have stayed entirely the same over the last few years. We monitor the incidence of TB in the province. There is higher incidence in the downtown east side, but the numbers have stayed the same. Nothing has changed.

The program you're talking about, this new program that hasn't been implemented, is something you will have to bring up with the Minister of Health Services. That's under his area. The health authority, I understand from you, was going to implement a program. They decided not to.

We track the incidence of TB. We will be monitoring it. We will be informing the health authorities. We will be informing the minister. But the provincial health officer tells me that nothing has changed. As far as the program you're concerned with, you can talk to the Minister of Health Services. You'll have the opportunity to do that, because the health authorities are accountable to that minister for the priorities in their area and for the funding they give for those programs.

J. Kwan: Before I attend to other matters…. The reason why, over the last few years, nothing has changed in relation to the TB question is because the funding and the program are in place. The program is now at risk. The funding is going to be withdrawn. The people in the community would then be at risk of contracting TB.

Therefore, the question really is around the funding question. Will the minister commit today, from the perspective of the Health Planning minister, to ensure that money is in place and that the lives of the people in the downtown east side community would not be at risk from contracting TB?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, I want to reassure the member that there was no program funding cut to this. This was a new program that for some reason is not being implemented. The funding for what's in place remains, will remain and is stable. This was something new. For some reason the health authority has made a decision that was announced…. Or you read about it; I read about it. Again, it's something I think you need to raise with the Health Services minister. The health authorities are accountable to him.

My reassurances are from the provincial health officer, who says that the rates have not increased. Yes, there is a higher incidence in that population down there. This was something new that was going to be tried. Now, for some reason, it's not. As far as what is usually done and funded, that is still in place.

J. MacPhail: My colleague will return to some of the other issues that concern her tomorrow.

I'm going to carry on with the regional health authority question where we left off. My questions have basically covered tab 19 and tabs 50 through 53, and I really am trying to limit my questions to answers that aren't covered in the briefing notes. I hope the minister understands that.

Before I left the chamber, we were talking about consultation on the restructuring of the health authorities, and I was looking for some costs. Now I want to examine some costs associated with the restructuring, and this will cover salaries for the regional CEOs, compensation for the chairs, if any, and then severance packages.

First of all, what did it end up that the minister spent on the actual restructuring, whether that be the consultation or…? I'd like to separate out severance. Other than severance, how much did the restructuring cost?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The net savings over three years, the projected savings of restructuring the health authorities from 52 down to six, is approximately $20 million.

J. MacPhail: So that's the net savings. All right. Then let's go into the specifics of the costs. How are the salaries determined for the six health regional CEOs? Of course, they haven't been appointed by boards. They have been appointed by the minister directly, so it is actually the minister who established the salary, etc., for the six regional CEOs. I'm also interested in the compensation for the chairs separate and apart from the CEOs, so both of those.

Hon. S. Hawkins: For the member's information, the board chairs are paid an annual remuneration of $15,000. That's on a per-year basis. They also get a per diem of $500 per meeting. I should refresh the member's memory as well. I am responsible for the overall planning. The actual operation is the Minister of Health Services, so if she wants to get into detail about CEOs and stuff and about severance, that would be the Minister of Health Services.

I should tell the member, as well, that when the board members were appointed, I believe we set their annual retainer at $7,500.

J. MacPhail: I'm well aware that the details of health authority expenditure on that are for the Minister of Health Services, but it was the minister who put the structure in place, and the chairs were appointed at the same time. I assume the CEOs flowed from that, because I don't think an individual chair could hire a CEO.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think, again, that is a question that is more for the Minister of Health Services. Again, that's operational.

J. MacPhail: They were all appointed at the same time, so I'm surprised that the minister doesn't have that information. It was all part of the package being put in place at the same time. Of course, I did have some questions about that — about CEOs and the necessity for the change.

Is the minister saying that questions around the necessity for changing some CEOs of certain regions are not her responsibility? Part of that announcement, then, on that day goes over to the Minister of Health Services.

Hon. S. Hawkins: My job was to structure the new health authorities and put in place a model for governance. It is certainly the Minister of Health Services' responsibility, then, to work with those chairs and those health authorities, so the questions she's asking about are in the budget of the Ministry of Health Services. If you're asking about the severance and the CEOs remuneration and that kind of stuff, it's not in my budget. That moved to the Minister of Health Services when that announcement was made.

J. MacPhail: Questions around the severance costs, which are listed by the ministry's documents to be in the range of $270 million, including the change in compensation for the new CEOs, should all be referred…. I'll await the Minister of Health Services.

That was going to be in my next range of questions — this figure of $270 million in severance as a result of health authority restructuring, which includes downsizing of course, but as a result of the health authority restructuring. I was going to ask for information about that.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I had to make sure I had it clear in my mind as well. The member is correct. That is in the Minister of Health Services budget. She'll have ample opportunity to canvass him on those issues. Those are things that the health authorities are responsible for, and the Minister of Health Services is responsible for the health authorities.

J. MacPhail: The other tab I was exploring was tab 19, where it talks about hospital closures and the operation of services that change from 24-hour, seven-day service, etc., and the downsizing in that area.

Can the minister answer just a couple of questions on that, or should I refer that to the Minister of Health Services as well? They're issues that aren't covered by the briefing note, but I thought the fact that it was there.… I should maybe ask her.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I am a little confused. My tab 19 doesn't correspond to your tab 19. I'm wondering what exactly you're asking about. If you can clarify that for me, I'd be happy to answer your question.

J. MacPhail: It's dealing with hospital closures and 24-seven care. That's the briefing note on the downsizing and the change in critical care. I had a question particularly as it relates to the change in CEOs for the Fraser region, the change in perspective on 24-seven

I ask these questions of the Minister of Health Services, if that's appropriate. It was from this document that they arose. That's all.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Any question related to CEOs are for the Minister of Health Services. I'm happy to answer any questions around protecting 24-seven, primary care renewal and restructuring. But, again, I don't have the same tab heading that you do. I'm confused about what you've got over there.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'll probably leave that for the Minister of Health Services. It was particularly related to Delta Hospital and emerging information there.

Let me then turn to another area that we can probably complete before the evening is finished. I had a very interesting discussion with the Premier yesterday in terms of the area of the public affairs bureau and communications. The reason we need to spend a little bit of time on this is because it's creating quite a dilemma within the public service about the restructuring of the public affairs bureaus and how that's affecting ministries.

Just to recap — and I know that the members and the minister can look at the Blues, so I hope I'm doing the Premier justice here…. What he said was that — because we reviewed the performance measures of the deputy minister for the public affairs bureau — her performance measures were very much based on assisting to change the communications within ministries and that one of her primary targets for achieving that change had to be to make sure the minister's office and the ministry communications were changed satisfactorily or met the needs of the ministry and the minister specifically.

Of course, we had that incident, but the minister, of course, has been cleared by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I accept that, as I said publicly.

The conflict-of-interest commissioner's report raised questions about the operation of the ministry separate and apart from the conflict of interest, so I just have a series of questions arising, first of all, on the human resources side of it. I tried to get this out of the Premier, who's responsible for the public affairs bureau, and he referred the questions to the individual ministers. That's why I'm raising them here.

What is the training budget for the ministry's staff, particularly in the area of communications?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We're in the estimates of '02-03, and the money for communications has all been transferred to the public affairs bureau, so I wouldn't have that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: You see, that's the dilemma, which I raised with the Premier yesterday, of him going first in his estimates. He has to answer all of the questions of the ministries if he's going to go first in his estimates, and he referred these matters specifically to the ministers. The government can't have it both ways.

I'm sorry, but I need an answer to this. The Premier said yesterday to deal with the individual ministers on this. He gave me broad-based answers around the public affairs bureau.

Perhaps I should ask again. What I'm happy to do is go through these questions, and if the minister is unable to answer them, we can go at them again tomorrow. I'm fine with that. It doesn't have to be tonight.

The other questions that arose out of that were: where is the minister's communications staff now at in terms of complement, and what recruiting was done to make sure the necessary skills are available in the communications staff there?

Hon. S. Hawkins: As I said to the member, the funds from the ministry are transferred to the public affairs bureau. We transferred $1.18 million to public affairs. Communications is under reorganization. The questions the member has are important to her, and we will undertake to work with the Premier's staff and get the answers to them, if that's agreeable with her.

J. MacPhail: Well, yes, it is unusual. I warned the Premier that this was going to happen — that there would be delegation upward by him going first with his estimates, but so be it. That's what we have right now. We have delegation upward to the Premier's office. If the minister is comfortable with that, it's fine with me.

I'd like these answers relatively soon, and I'll tell you why. If the minister is saying the answers have to be given by the Premier, then I'll need the information to ask the Premier the questions. We're still in his estimates as well.

Are all the cuts that occurred with the communications staff in a ministry to be referred to the Premier as well? What he said yesterday was that nothing has changed within the ministries, except that there's a deputy minister that oversees the policy and the direction. The individual shops within the ministries remain the responsibility of the ministries.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Hopefully, this helps. The money and the reporting for communications are in public affairs. We're talking about the '02-03 budget. The deputy for communications is in the Premier's office. My understanding is that there have been no cuts in the staffing that complement the Health ministries. The staff are in the Health Services building, and they do work with us. My deputy has a matrix relationship with the deputy in public affairs, but we do not have the money, and the reporting is through public affairs.

J. MacPhail: Do the staff of communications report to the executive of the Ministry of Health Planning, or

Hon. S. Hawkins: The line reporting relationship. Let me see if I can get this clear. The staff report to an executive director of communications, who reports to the deputy in public affairs. The executive director of communications — and this is where the matrix thing comes into play…. They meet with the executive from the Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning, and he or she would have a relationship with my deputy minister, who would also speak with the deputy in public affairs over needs or issues in communications.

J. MacPhail: I understand that sometimes bureaucracies get complicated, so I don't take issue with that. I'm just trying to figure out who to ask what questions of. It is unusual that I would have these delegated up to the Premier, but I'm happy to ask the Premier questions about communications hiring and communication skills and training in the Ministry of Health Planning.

Let me tell you why I'm asking these questions, because there was some interesting information revealed by Mr. Oliver. I want to go through it with you to help me understand the purpose of the Health Planning ministry and the degree to which the Health Planning ministry is an autonomous organization.

This I just gleaned from Mr. Oliver. I'll do this slowly. Draft 1 of a cabinet submission dated Monday, December 3, 2001, was prepared by the ministry. Draft 2 of a cabinet submission dated Wednesday, December 5, 2001, was prepared by the ministry. Draft 3 on the same day, prepared by the ministry. Draft 4 of a cabinet submission — it doesn't say who prepared that. A second copy of draft 4 came from a meeting at the Premier's office.

Then it says — and this is from the minister's own evidence — that changes to the presentation dated Friday, December 7 were then prepared by the ministry. Then on Saturday, December 8, Greenaway and Associates prepared communications draft 1. I'm almost finished. On Monday, December 10, Greenaway and Associates Communications prepared draft 2. Then there was a cabinet submission prepared by Greenaway and Associates dated Wednesday, December 12.

I assume that Mr. Oliver was being very careful of his language here in identifying documents, and he was carefully identifying cabinet submissions and presentations. He wasn't mixing up the two. What I was going to use was this as an example of the interrelationship between…. I assume that the Premier's office wasn't actually, like, the Premier's office — the west annex. I assume they meant the public affairs bureau, but maybe not.

Could the minister walk through with me how that occurred and what those documents are? And when exactly did the cabinet submission, which went to cabinet, occur? I'm not asking about the cabinet submission, because I know that's confidential.

Hon. C. Clark: Hon. Chair, point of order. I understand that the budget estimates are an opportunity to examine the way that ministries are spending their money. I'm having difficulty understanding how those questions are relevant to the budget estimates.

J. MacPhail: No, I can understand that. Well, it's because the Premier referred these matters to the minister responsible in his estimates. We had quite a good discussion about the reorganization and how the reorganization was going to help deal with the situation, the case study, the case in point that I raised that happened on December 12. The Premier referred these questions to the minister, so that's why I'm here.

Hon. C. Clark: We're discussing the '02-03 budget of the Ministry of Health Planning. We're talking about how the ministry is spending its budget this year. The member has been through this process quite a bit. I'm sure she knows that her questions need to be very specifically relevant to how we're spending our money in '02-03 in this specific ministry.

The Chair: Members, I'm going to take the point of order on notice and allow the member to continue her line of question but ask her to keep in mind that it does need to be strictly relevant to the Ministry of Health Planning.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and because…. Again, I understand — the fact that the Premier goes first on his estimates — that this is tough. I pointed out to the Premier that we should probably clear away a lot of this stuff first before we go to his estimates.

I'll just explain how it's relevant. The reorganization of the Premier's office really expanded the Premier's office in the '02-03 budget. I was getting from him details about how that was working, how that was going to help solve problems that had happened before and what problem he was trying to correct by centralizing his funding. He certainly said: "Feel free." He said that he understood the questions and said: "Feel free to explore the details of the problem to be corrected with the minister responsible."

Hon. C. Clark: I understand the member has been directed by the Premier to talk about communications matters in '02-03 with the ministers responsible. I'm still not clear how the line of questioning she was pursuing is related to even that. I think until we are clear, perhaps we should move on to a different line of questioning.

The Chair: Members, these estimates have traditionally been used to consider the vote of the ministry that is under consideration, and I'm going to allow the line of questioning to continue.

Again, I would remind the member, though, to be careful that it does relate strictly to the Ministry of Health Planning.

J. MacPhail: Yes. In fact, I'm a little bit taken aback by the Deputy Premier's intervention, because this is actually public information. I'm not sure what's so wrong with this. I've actually, as minister, had to go back five years and explain things through five years — from the very minister present.

This actually is relevant as a result of the Premier's current estimates. Again, I advised the Premier that he should go last, but he didn't want to. Anyway, my questions stand.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm kind of confused where this member's going with the information again.

We have a good capacity in Health for communications. Any gaps will be and have been and are being addressed between the deputies. That's a very public document. The information is there for the member. It's resolved. I don't know what other information the member is hoping to get out of this.

The communications budget for next year has been moved over to public affairs. They are now responsible for the budget, and I tried to explain the relationship between public affairs and the staff access to that stuff through our ministry. I think we did a pretty good job of explaining that relationship.

J. MacPhail: Let me just try to explain it, then. I'm not quite sure why the minister's not willing to answer these questions. I find it surprising, actually. What's to hide?

There was $11,000 of taxpayers' money spent in '01-02. In the budget for this ministry there's a substantial number of dollars — $3.194 million — for professional services. Even though the minister said she had a press release ready to do something, she didn't say that she wasn't going to do this again, so I'm trying to figure out if this kind of situation is going to occur again. Has the restructuring of the public affairs bureau helped to deal with the problem that arose out of there, or is it going to occur again?

There's an allocation of funds in '02-03 for what I assume was the subvote that Mr. Greenaway was paid out of. That's why I'm asking about this.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The restructuring with communications is ongoing. I am confident that under the Premier's direction and under the Premier's office, it will be done well. Hopefully, we won't anticipate any future concerns.

The member is looking at $3.194 million in the line under total vote, vote 60. That is for the total contracts that Health Planning is going to do as far as the initiatives we plan to carry out, the strategies and the contracts we're going to let to experts. That is where that money is going to be used.

I have said before that we're not going to build a bureaucracy in our ministry. As projects come up, as strategies need to be implemented, we are going to put out contracts and find experts and consultants and contractors to help us manage those. That's what that money is for.

J. MacPhail: Well, exactly. With $3.194 million going for professional services, what I'm trying to find out is: was the $11,000 spent on communications, or was it used to draft a cabinet submission? That's what I'm trying to find out with this line of questioning.

The communications budget has been transferred to the Premier's office. There's no question about that. I will ask. It's unusual, but I'll go back to the Premier's estimates. I said: "Mr. Premier, the Minister of Health Planning referred these questions to you, so we've got the upward go; we've got the movement here of delegation upward."

We have a cabinet submission here that clearly…. That's what I'm trying to find out. Was Mr. Greenaway…? Did you contract out the drafting of a cabinet submission? Was the contracting-out of a cabinet submission done, and will it be done in the future? Or has the minister resolved that concern internally? Is the minister saying, then, that…? Let me ask this: did Mr. Greenaway participate in the drafting of a cabinet submission — actually drafting, not shaping it into PowerPoint with maps, but actual participation in the drafting?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The contracts were all done within the rules, within the guidelines. None of the money was spent inappropriately. As I said, with the restructuring I am confident that our needs will be met, and I don't anticipate future concerns.

J. MacPhail: Did Mr. Greenaway participate in the drafting of a cabinet submission?

Hon. S. Hawkins: He did not participate in the cabinet submission. He did in the cabinet presentation.

J. MacPhail: So the conflict-of-interest commissioner is wrong when he says, "Final cabinet submission prepared by Greenaway and Associates," dated Wednesday, December 12, 2001. H.A.D. Oliver is wrong on that.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The conflict commissioner reviewed this. He rendered a decision. The member accepts it. What's written there is written. Those were his words and his decision. I stand by the fact that I'm very confident that in the restructuring of communications, our needs will be met. I don't anticipate any concerns in the future.

J. MacPhail: We've moved on from communications to strategic initiatives. The fact that Mr.

Greenaway…. If the minister stands by Mr. Oliver's report, he says that by reporting her own evidence…. I don't think Mr. Oliver…. He's a pretty good legal expert. He knows that when he uses words, they will be interpreted. He uses three different terms to describe the work Mr. Greenaway did: cabinet submission, presentation and communications draft. What I'm trying to find out here is what work the minister is planning to contract out under professional services. Is it cabinet submissions? What possible reason is there for contracting out cabinet submissions?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The decision by the commissioner is beyond reproach. I accept it; I accept what he writes. We will use our budget as we feel it's necessary. We'll contract out if it's necessary to do that. I have said before that I am not going to build a bureaucracy in this ministry. The money the member is referring to in that line is going to be used for experts, for consultants, for implementation of strategies we're developing. Again, under the restructuring of communications to public affairs, I'm confident we will have our needs met for the projects we need to get done, and I don't anticipate future concerns.

J. MacPhail: Again, it goes back to my original question: the need for this ministry. I'm trying to figure out what the need is for this ministry. If this minister is responsible for health planning, reorganization and future planning of health care, I'm wondering why she has to contract out a cabinet submission. That's what I'm trying to figure out. That's all. Why is it that Greenaway and Associates is doing a cabinet submission? What's wrong with her deputy minister? What's wrong with her executive? What's wrong with her policy analysts? What's wrong with her own colleagues having to do that? Why is it that Steve Greenaway was doing a cabinet submission? And do we anticipate this occurring again in the future?

I must say that if the minister can't answer these questions, then I return to the Premier. I'm not sure that's what the Premier wants to answer, but I will be pursuing it vigorously. Mr. Oliver also refers to the fact that the Premier's office was involved in changes to this draft, so if the minister can't answer these questions, then I have to ask the Premier.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, we are going to do what we need to do to get the needs met. We have staff that are working on projects. They do an excellent job. We contract out when we need work done. In fact, this member contracted out work when she needed work done. This member contracted Steve Greenaway's firm when they were in government. Apparently, $100,000 of work and more was done by that firm for that minister and her government when they were in government.

In fact, when I look at the list of some of the speeches and work this member contracted out, there is a budget speech that was written in 1999-2000 for that member when she was Minister of Finance. Rob Cottingham was the writer, and guess what. The speech was $11,830. When that member needed work done, she went out of house.

In 2000-01, again a budget speech was written. Rob Cottingham again was the writer: $6,812. In 2001-02, again, Rob Cottingham — I think the member is quite aware of who that is — was the writer: $6,290. Again, governments do that. Ministries do that; ministers do that. If we need to do that, we will contract out.

J. MacPhail: Well, I feel extremely badly about the fact that this minister refuses to answer the questions. She's clearly backed into a corner, because she's going on about past activities. She kind of forgot there's a new era here.

J. MacPhail: Oh no, I'm not the least bit upset that she put it on the record. It shows how she's skating the question. We're now going to have to go to the Premier and say: "Was Mr. Oliver wrong when he said, because of the evidence he gathered, that Mr. Greenaway was drafting a cabinet submission? The minister refuses to answer the question, Mr. Premier. Could you please answer it?" I will have to say that to him. I'm fine with that; I'm absolutely fine.

I will then refer to the Premier and say: "She couldn't answer the question. She tried to cloud it with lashing out." We will be going to the Premier and saying: "What is it about your government that when you're doing a restructuring of health care, you contract out the cabinet submission?" That will be the question to the Premier: "Mr. Premier, if you have to contract out a cabinet submission, what have you got a minister for?" That's what the question will be. "What have you got a minister for, and what have you got a ministry for?" is what I will be asking.

We're back to question one that I asked in our estimates. I accept the fact that I will have to ask the Premier those questions.

Another matter arising out of the conflict-of-interest report deals with legislation that will become effective April 1. It's Bill 29. I assume it is. Let me just ask. Maybe I shouldn't assume this is what the minister was referring to. The minister said…. I'll just quote it from page 7:

Is this the legislation that becomes effective for the fiscal year 2002-03 — Bill 29? Is that the legislation to which the minister was referring?

Hon. C. Clark: On a point of order again, the member opposite, of course, is more than welcome to ask questions of the Premier or any member of this House as she sees fit. That's certainly her right as a member of the opposition. But of course all those questions must be relevant to the '02-03 fiscal year. The line of questioning I've heard for the last 15 minutes, and indeed the line of questioning that's continuing, is focused on past spending in '01-02.

The estimates process, as you know, is intended to focus on future spending — '02-03. I'm very much at a loss, and I look to you to help guide us to determine how indeed any of these questions for the last 15 minutes or so have been relevant to our spending in this coming fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: In fact, I did make it relevant, Mr. Chair. I knew the Deputy Premier would be up, trying to assist throughout these questions.

My questions are going to the restructuring changes that will occur as a result of the restructuring changes this minister is responsible for — regional health authorities and the effect of Bill 29 on those restructuring changes — which are actually referred to in her own briefing notes, of which we have a copy. I'm not sure why anyone's trying to protect from asking these questions. The minister is prepared for these questions. I'm not quite sure. It's affecting exactly the estimates of '02-03. In fact, Bill 29 doesn't affect '01-02; it affects '02-03.

The Chair: Members, certainly the questions are getting a bit repetitious. I'm a bit concerned that they may be, to some extent, reconsidering a report that an officer of the Legislature has prepared. I'd ask the member to be careful that her line of questioning does not recanvass what the conflict-of-interest commissioner has already decided.

The question does, however, relate to — or the estimates involve a consideration of — the operation of the office, the vote of which is being considered. Certainly, the practice of the House in the past has allowed that question to proceed. I will allow the member to continue with this line of questioning but ask her to be mindful that she's not reconsidering or recanvassing issues that the conflict-of-interest commissioner has already decided upon.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Bill 29 actually was an initiative of the Minister of Labour, and she's free to canvass the Minister of Labour around Bill 29.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure why the minister is avoiding answering these questions. I honestly can't figure it out. This is public information. She referred to being heavily involved in the drafting of legislation.

Let me put the question as to how it's relevant to '02-03, Mr. Chair, because your guidance is welcomed on this. For the life of me, I cannot figure out why the minister won't answer this question. I'll paint the path. I asked who she had consulted with in terms of restructuring of the health authorities. We did that before supper break. She said there had been wide consultation. She referred to the deputy minister consulting widely. The minister said there had been huge involvement in the restructuring.

Bill 29 arises in order to facilitate the restructuring of the health regions. It exists for no other reason. That was discussed during the debate of the legislation. This minister was involved in drafting that legislation, knowing the consequences of that legislation as early as November 25. The legislation was introduced January 25, two months later. When did the minister consult in the restructuring process, in which she said had wide consultation, with the unions and the union members who would be affected by that legislation, and what feedback did she get?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, to the member: any questions around Bill 29 are better reserved for the Minister of Labour. My responsibility around that bill was around restructuring of the health authorities — the governance and the structure of the health authorities.

Certainly, I can tell the member that the flexibility that Bill 29 gives the health authorities is there to provide patients with better and higher-quality patient care. My role around that was to make sure the governance and the structure of the health authorities were in place.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting how many times the minister is going to delegate responsibility to other parts of the executive council. I think the minister has to be careful because there is an examination of her role within government that's being considered very seriously — $16 million. I'm not sure it's actually in the interest of the minister herself to delegate responsibility to everyone else.

Let me try to draw the line, then, between Bill 29 and her restructuring. Her restructuring changed the nature of employee-employer. That's what it did. There were 52 health authorities, and now there's six.

Bill 29 assisted the minister in her restructuring in the area of flexibility. The minister would not, I assume…. Maybe she can explain that she could have done her restructuring without Bill 29. Actually, that is a good question. Could the minister have done her restructuring without Bill 29?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The restructuring was announced on December 12, and that was before Bill 29.

J. MacPhail: Exactly my point. The minister was involved with the legislation as early as November 25.

She designed her restructuring on the basis of the knowledge of that legislation — exactly my point.

What I'm trying to figure out now is who she talked to in terms of the employees affected by that legislation before she did her restructuring. I put it to the minister that she would not have been able to put in place this restructuring of the health authorities without the prior knowledge that Bill 29 was going to be put in place. That's fair enough. That's what government's all about.

The minister is allowed to do that. That's not a bad thing. I'm not suggesting that somehow that was evil. I'm just holding the minister accountable to that. That's all.

The minister is exactly right. She had full knowledge of Bill 29 when she did her restructuring. All I'm trying to find out is who she talked to amongst the employees that would be affected by that in the restructuring. That's all.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The member is trying to draw a connection between Bill 29 and the health authorities restructuring, and there wasn't a connection there. The health authorities were restructured independently of Bill 29. The restructuring was about accountability. It was about cohesion. It was about fixing a system that was in chaos.

We had 52 health authorities. We had fragmented care all across the province. We had three different governance models. We had very little accountability, and the restructuring was designed to make sure we streamlined. We brought accountability into the system. We went from 52 health authorities down to six. That was done within the legal confines of the Health Authorities Act, not anything to do with Bill 29.

Within the six health authorities, we have a very unique structure called the leadership council. For the first time ever in Canada we have a provincial health services authority that looks after those high-level tertiary programs. We designed those unique kinds of structures so that we'd have accountability, so that we'd have a system of governance that was more coordinated and would help us reduce duplication and administrative costs.

That really didn't have anything to do with Bill 29. Bill 29 was brought in at the end of January to assist the health authorities with the challenges they faced in bringing quality care to patients. The two were done independently of each other.

J. MacPhail: Frankly, I don't accept that, and I don't believe the minister. I do not believe the minister. Here's why. Bill 29 provided the minister with doing away with successorship. That's what it did. It also provided the minister with the ability in her restructuring to reassign employees beyond 50 kilometres. Bill 29 exists for the minister's restructuring of health care. It busts collective agreements, and it allows for the ability to reduce wages at the same time.

The minister doesn't even understand the legislation, then, if she is somehow suggesting they're independent of each other. All right, let me ask the minister this question. If they're independent of each other, why did the government have to do away with successorship that is covered by every other person under the law of the Labour Relations Code, if it wasn't to accommodate her restructuring? The Minister of Labour said that was what it was for.

The Chair: I would remind the member that the eighteenth edition of Erskine May does provide that the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation are not to be part of the discussion.

I think, certainly based on this last question in particular, the member is delving into legislation specifically.

I was just trying to help the minister through as to how they are linked. My apologies. I will just assume that the minister doesn't know what she's talking about, and I will carry on with my questions. They are linked. The minister is wrong; they are linked.

The legislation provides the minister with the ability to restructure her health authority. If that's not correct, maybe the minister could stand up and tell me how she could restructure without that legislation and how she could do it within her budget.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I recall two restructurings that that government and that minister did without a Bill 29.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's true, because we were living under the law of the land called the Labour Relations Code. That's true. We gave successorship to workers. I can't believe this. We gave successorship to workers. We gave them their employer, as per the Labour Relations Code. We protected their benefits; we protected their seniority. That's right; we did do the restructuring according to the law of the land that existed then. This restructuring had to be done with a different law.

Is the minister embarrassed to admit that she worked on this legislation? Maybe it was the education legislation she was working on.

The Chair: I'd ask that this line of questioning in respect of the specific need for legislation…. I have quoted Erskine May. It's very specific that the questioning is not to involve the need for specific legislation.

I'd ask the member to go on with a different line of questioning, separate from specific questions to do with that legislation.

J. MacPhail: What costs would have been incurred in the budget '02-03 if Bill 29 had not been brought in?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think I answered that question before. We said that over the three years we anticipated a $20 million savings from the restructuring.

J. MacPhail: Well then, could the minister document what that $20 million is about? My view is that the cost without Bill 29 would have been much, much higher.

Hon. S. Hawkins: When we went from 52 to six, obviously there were going to be savings. Those savings were in corporate salaries, decreasing audit requirements and decreased board expenses. Frankly, we estimated that those kinds of savings would be in the realm of around $20 million over three years. All that $20 million, as we said, would stay with the health authorities and would be directed to patient care.

J. MacPhail: What did the minister do with the savings that were calculated as a result of the employees not longer having access to successorship?

Hon. S. Hawkins: That is not in the calculations of the $20 million at all. It was the kinds of things I mentioned, and that wouldn't be in the budget of Health Planning.

J. MacPhail: I understand that it wasn't included in the $20 million, but there would have been expenditures. Let me just put it this way. There are expenditures that are incurred in a restructuring of an employer for the provision of successorship. The minister must have calculated…. It's called an opportunity cost. The minister must have calculated that this would have been the cost for successorship by moving from 52 employers to six. Therefore, you must have calculated that cost. I don't understand how you couldn't have in order to do your planning. That's what I'm asking for.

I understand that it's not part of the $20 million. Opportunity cost is the term that you use to say costs prevented as a result of, for instance, legislation or administration changes.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Again, the $20 million that is projected over three years does not include that. I'm advised that we did not do a costing on that. It was not required. That is not why the restructuring was done. The restructuring was done to make sure we had a platform or a foundation for providing better service to patients. We have health authorities now that make sense. They're the right size to provide a comprehensive set of services from prevention to public health to acute care. We now have governors and chairs that are responsible, that are accountable. We are going to have performance that is planned and monitored. We're going to have performance contracts with our health authorities. Our ministry can work efficiently with these. Those are the kinds of things we determined around the restructuring. Bill 29 did not factor into that decision. Within the three-year projection for cost savings, that was not costed.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm afraid to say, then, that the minister must have known about Bill 29. If the minister didn't do a costing of successorship on a restructuring, then she must have known that there wouldn't have been a cost. She must have known about Bill 29 when she did her restructuring. Otherwise, her savings wouldn't have been $20 million. When one moves from one employer to another and one carries a collective agreement, there are costs. If that collective agreement is going to be applied to the new employer in the way it was applied to the previous employer, there are definitely costs in this restructuring.

Let me just try to help the minister with an example. Under a health authority's collective agreement that existed prior to Bill 29, the health authority couldn't move an employee 50 kilometres away, the way they can now, without penalty, because it wasn't required with the smaller boards, the regional health boards, etc. That's what happens. The law of the land says that when you get a new employer, your collective agreement goes with you if that employer is doing the same business. There would have been a cost that should have been calculated. The minister just said she didn't calculate that cost, so she must have known that the legislation was coming.

I'm not trying to say the minister is evil for having known that. I don't know why the minister's thinking that. I'm just saying…. In fact, now I think the minister is. I'm wondering why she's denying that she knew about Bill 29. Actually, I'm wondering greatly why she's denying she knew about Bill 29. She admitted it to the conflict-of-interest commissioner. She hasn't to date stood up and said yes, she knew about Bill 29. Stand up and say that, then, if that's what she's…. I mean, stand up. Are you uncomfortable with the questions?

An Hon. Member: Are any of them relevant? Every question has to be relevant.

J. MacPhail: Well, actually, this is relevant. I'm wondering why she didn't calculate the cost. That's very poor planning. She should be out of her job.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think I have said that I was involved in the review of the legislation and was there to make sure the health authorities had the tools to make sure that patients were going to get quality health services. That was my involvement. I said that twice.

J. MacPhail: The minister's job is health planning. As far as I can tell, her major initiative in the last

months has been this presentation to cabinet about restructuring. At that presentation she made an announcement of $20 million of savings. I ask the minister: what was incorporated in the planning for those savings? She didn't mention the collective agreement costs related to restructuring.

I guess the next question is: what else is missing from her planning that could be a cost pressure in the future now that she knows about Bill 29? Let's pretend she didn't know about Bill 29, and that's why she didn't consult with anyone. Let's pretend that the minister believes they were irrelevant. Then Bill 29 didn't exist for her. Her restructuring costs would have included, then, the cost for relocating employees for up to a month — every four months — outside of 50 kilometres. What was the cost of that, in her estimation?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We did not need Bill 29 to do the restructuring. There's been two or three restructurings. There's one collective agreement across the province. There's different certifications. The government itself restructured a couple of times. The certifications moved within the new boundaries of the health authorities, so they didn't require Bill 29 to do the things that she's saying we required to do for restructuring. No, we didn't need that. We implemented Bill 29, and we did the restructuring to make sure we could provide patients with high-quality care. We did it for patients.

Noting the time, hon. Chair, 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.

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

J. Kwan: Normally, the minister actually rises and makes some opening comments before questions are asked, and normally he also introduces his staff. I wonder if the minister is planning on doing that before we venture into a long list of questions.

Hon. S. Hagen: I would like to, and I had planned on introducing my staff and saying a few words about this great ministry. I have with me today my deputy minister, Jon O'Riordan, who's the Deputy Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. To my left is Dana Hayden, who is the assistant deputy minister for corporate services for the ministry. To her left I have Bill Valentine, who is the president and CEO of Land and Water B.C. Behind me I have Mr. Kirk Miller, who is the chief executive officer of the Land Reserve Commission.

I'd just like to go through a few of my notes before we get to the questions. First of all, I want to take a moment to express my appreciation to all of the staff in my ministry and in the agencies that report to me. We have faced significant challenges over the last several months, and the level of hard work and commitment from staff has been very impressive and bodes well for the future of the province.

I'm very happy to undertake a discussion here today of our role in promoting a vibrant economy through the sustainable development of our province's natural resources. This is an exciting time of change for my ministry and agencies, as it is across government. Change inevitably causes some discomfort for the people affected by it. What we are striving — and in my opinion, succeeding — to do is turn change into opportunities and opportunities into successes.

This ministry was created nine months ago. Make no mistake: it was created by the Premier to bring about change. This ministry is all about finding new ways to strike the balance between economic development and environmental integrity. It's about finding new ways of delivering land use planning and resource inventory information services. It's about building new partnerships with industry, communities, first nations, academia and other groups that care about our environment and our economy. It's about providing increased certainty for people with good ideas for economic development and improved decision-making for all of us.

By this ministry's very nature we also deal extensively with other ministries on resource matters. I would like to extend a very sincere thank-you to the staff and ministers of those ministries who have worked cooperatively and patiently with us. This is very much a team effort in the resource ministries. I believe sustainable resource management is viewed as a positive development for our resource sectors.

As a partner in the resource sectors, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management exists to provide leadership for sustainable economic development of the province's land and water resources. The ministry's work is guided by six overarching principles.

Sustainability. Manage our natural resources to ensure that the needs of present and future generations of British Columbians are met by balancing economic, environmental and social values.

Integrated resource management. Minimize conflicts over the use of land and resources through coordinated decision-making that takes all resource values into account.

Science-based decision-making. Use the best available knowledge and technology to support consistent decision-making.

Shared stewardship. Exercise our stewardship responsibilities in a consultative and collaborative manner, to address diverse interests and build strong governmental, industrial and environmental partnerships.

Public and client consultation. Provide opportunities to contribute to decision-making and improvement of service quality.

Intergovernmental harmonization. Partner with all levels of government to harmonize policies, legislation and standards, and establish clear accountabilities for results.

All of this is in support of achieving our ultimate vision: a vibrant British Columbia economy that supports the social and environmental values of British Columbians.

In addition to the activities of the ministry and its staff, I am also responsible for several other agencies. These include Land and Water B.C., our new agency that licenses and allocates water resources and takes on the former responsibilities of B.C. Assets and Land Corporation. To provide integrated planning, my ministry has the corporate policy responsibility for the delivery of Crown land and water management.

The environmental assessment office is a neutral agency that undertakes environmental, economic and social reviews of proposed major projects.

The Land Reserve Commission, which looks after the ALR and the FLR, is being restructured to be more regionally responsive. The B.C. Assessment Authority produces uniform property assessments that form the basis for local and provincial taxation and provides real estate information to the public.

My comments today primarily cover the activities of the ministry and these four agencies. Other agencies, boards and commissions that report to me as the minister include the B.C. Heritage Rivers Board, the Fraser Basin Council, the Muskwa-Kechika Advisory Board, Clayoquot Sound central region board and, as of April 1, the property assessment review panels and Property Assessment Appeal Board.

As the honourable members are aware, all government ministries and agencies released service plans earlier this year. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, Land and Water B.C., the environmental assessment office, the Land Reserve Commission and the B.C. Assessment Authority all released service plans at that time.

My ministry's service plan sets out our goals and broad-level strategies for the next three years. The budget estimates that we are here to discuss today are focused on enabling the first year of those activities.

In planning for 2002-2003 and beyond, we recognized several key realities: a high proportion of our province's land, water and other resources is owned by the province and by the people of the province and developed by private interests; the demand for effective land and resource use plans is growing; concern for the environment remains justifiably high, requiring consistent science-based decision-making; many resource-dependent communities face significant dislocation as a result of the broad trends, and many of these communities have opportunities to strengthen traditional sectors and diversify their economies; first nations are seeking access to provincial resources for economic opportunities that will provide long-term jobs within their communities; the overall demand for my ministry's services is increasing; we are working in times of tight government finances so we must take advantage of opportunities to deliver services more effectively through the use of technology, public-private partnerships and other service-delivery approaches.

The plan that we've developed, the basis for my ministry's budget estimates, takes into account these realities.

I'd now like to briefly outline each of my ministry's five broad goals for the year, what we've accomplished so far and what we're doing in 2002-03 to achieve them.

Our first goal is sound governance, the principles, policies and legislation that are required to guide sustainable resource management. A critical part of sound governance is the need for transparency in our work. Whether it is land use plans, land and water allocation decisions or integrating data systems, our clients should have input into what we're doing and be able to see the results of the monitoring.

During the last several months, my ministry has developed draft sustainability principles to ensure that natural resource ministries have clear and consistent direction on how to balance economic, environmental and social objectives.

Our second broad goal is sustainable development of land and resources, resource-based economic development through timely and certain access to land and resources. Several months ago our government approved a strategic shift in land use planning, one that will ensure sustainability, accountability and responsibility. This new focus on land use planning will ensure economic prosperity, environmental quality and social responsibility. We will continue to work towards this goal by completing and implementing land and resource management plans through a quicker, more flexible process. To that end, the Lillooet and Kootenay plans will be completed within the next few months. Work is also underway on the central coast, the north

coast, the Queen Charlotte Islands and the Sea to Sky plans. We will also be setting standards for land and resource use planning and monitoring and reporting on the results this monitoring reveals.

We will work with local governments and others to protect the agricultural land base. My ministry will develop and implement the working forest initiative, and we will have a discussion paper out of this later this spring. We will also continue work with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to develop and implement an integrated living rivers strategy for protection and restoration of watersheds. We will work with other agencies and regional groups to identify local economic development opportunities, with summaries completed and approved for three of the province's six regions by the end of the next fiscal year.

Our third broad goal is effective delivery of integrated science-based resource and geographic information. Over the last several months we have made significant progress towards integrating all provincial land and resource information into a single-window format. We will continue consolidating registry and resource-information processes and establishing common data and information standards over the coming fiscal year. For example, up to this point there have been five separate registries that record rights the province has granted to Crown land, water, forests, minerals and oil and gas.

We are consolidating these separate registries into one single source, and by 2005 users of that source will be able to submit documents electronically and make fee payments online. Already we have made a great deal of progress in this area, significantly reducing the number of separate data systems from over 200 that we inherited. Now many users are able to effectively use our data systems in their businesses instead of spending all their time hunting for the data.

We will ensure the public has easy access to information on Crown land application processes and decisions, including filing applications on the Internet. B.C. Assessment will also provide greater electronic access and input to property information. We will develop and implement professional standards for conducting land surveys in British Columbia.

We will begin to implement a plan to ensure that private landowners are notified of any archaeological sites registered on their lands, and we will work towards partnership agreements with the private sector that are in the public interest. An example of such a public-private agreement is a partnership we have entered into with utilities and local governments to develop provincewide property and ownership mapping. So far the capital regional district and the Cowichan Valley regional district have been completed.

Our fourth goal is streamlining land and water management through fair, efficient and timely allocation of land and water resources. Such streamlining is essential in improving the province's competitive position and providing economic and market security through sustainability. Over the past several months we have worked towards this goal by realigning our regional delivery system, estimating the backlog of Crown land applications, reducing the backlog of water licence applications by 30 percent, redesigning our land and water application processes and improving Internet access to the Crown land application process.

Over the coming months we will further this goal by completing the integration of land and water allocation functions into Land and Water B.C., reducing the backlog of water applications by 90 percent by the end of 2002-03, providing better service to clients and being more responsive to new economic opportunities through open and understandable application processes, providing greater access to the land and water resource base through land use plans and sector-specific plans, expanding the marketable inventory of Crown land, and working with regional and local governments to review the province's role in regulating private water utilities.

It is important to stress that these activities will be undertaken with strict adherence to my ministry's principles of sustainability. I will hold Land and Water B.C. fully accountable to those principles in all decisions that it makes on water and land use.

Our fifth broad goal is organizing excellence, creating an organization that encourages efficiency, innovation, responsiveness, accountability and clear communications in delivering services for the public. I fully support PSERC's initiative on public service renewal and will ensure that it is applied to my ministry. Our government has made a firm commitment to accountability and transparency, and these principles are being firmly applied in my ministry.

During 2002-03 we will make progress by developing and implementing a comprehensive performance management system to meet all of the requirements of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act and by developing effective communication regarding sustainable development using the Internet and other means.

Other key projects for the coming fiscal year include implementing the new, regionally responsive structure for the Land Reserve Commission that I announced in January; extensively reforming the Environmental Assessment Act; streamlining the major project assessment process to provide for more efficient and effective reviews; and improving the delivery of property assessments through the B.C. Assessment Authority to be more efficient while maintaining customer services.

We have an ambitious agenda for the year, and it follows through on several of this government's new-era commitments. The Premier has tasked this ministry with an important job: to provide leadership for sustainable economic development of our province's resources. I believe that the activities I've outlined today, which are consistent with our service plan, will allow us to get that job done.

This is an exciting time for my ministry, which brought together functions and staff from nine other ministries less than a year ago. We've got an important mandate and a clear sense of direction. We know the

importance of what we're setting out to do: ensuring economic and environmental sustainability of our province for today and for future generations.

I look forward to discussing my ministry's plans in detail as this estimates debate continues. We'll be debating my ministry's budget for the fiscal year 2002-03. Net operating expenditures will be $117,770,000. We anticipate revenues of $352,942,000 in the coming fiscal year. Our projected FTE utilization for the coming fiscal year is 1,385.

Each agency and board under my portfolio has separate budget and FTE allocations, which we can discuss in further detail if you wish.

I'm particularly interested in the comments that the ministry will be looking at the issues around balance between environmental sustainability concerns and economic activities. I'm pleased to hear that the minister has focused on the notion of sustainability.

In the 2001-02 service plans it is stated that the ministry was created to help build the provincial economy and to renew investor and public confidence in resource management. I wonder if the minister could advise the House how that will be done, especially in light of the fact that some 40 percent of his budget is being cut this year.

Hon. S. Hagen: One of the best ways we can do this is to finalize the land use planning process that the province has been engaged in over the last number of years. We've changed the process, putting in tighter time lines which really fit with the downsizing of the ministry and the budget reductions. By completing those plans in an orderly and efficient manner, I believe we will send a message of certainty out to investors who are looking at investing money in British Columbia. We will also provide certainty to coastal and other communities around the province who have been in a state of flux and concern over the last number of years. We will meet those objectives in our service plan and within our budget.

J. Kwan: The minister is suggesting the ministry would be able to meet these goals in spite of the reduction of some 40 percent from the ministry's budget and the loss of the FTEs. I see the minister is nodding.

Given that part of the objective of the ministry is to achieve the end result in a far quicker turnaround time in order to achieve these decisions, would the minister be able to guarantee that the information the ministry is able to produce would be accurate and also well thought out, especially in the areas around environmental integrity considerations?

Hon. S. Hagen: That's one of the really positive things about the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. We work in partnership with the other ministries — for instance, Water, Land and Air Protection; Ministry of Forests; Ministry of Energy; Ministry of Agriculture. We can combine the resources we have with their resources to make sure we meet these responsibilities in a timely manner. I'm very confident in the staff I have, and I'm confident in the staff they work with in the other ministries that we can bring resolution to some of the challenges we have in front of us.

J. Kwan: I'm interested in this question. I have no doubt staff will work very hard. In my own experience I've seen that with every ministry and every administration. I have no doubt they will work very hard. However, given that there will be enormous pressures on staff because of the reduction by sheer numbers, the inability…. Let me tell you: in the opposition, I know what it is like not to have the numbers, the resources and the people to assist in doing the research work and making sure the information is accurate and so on.

I worry from the ministry's perspective and because of the cuts in terms of services. We won't go into the other ministries' cuts, because those other ministries are faced with cuts as well. Given that every ministry across government is faced with enormous cuts around staffing, I'm interested in whether or not this minister, with his responsibility in this area around sustainable resources management, would be able to stand in this House and give his personal guarantee on the accuracy of considerations, especially around the area of environmental integrity.

Hon. S. Hagen: I appreciate the question. I think it's a good question. It's a very legitimate question.

I mentioned in my preamble that we were doing things to make government operate more efficiently. One of the things we're doing is integrating 200 information and mapping systems into a very small number. I'm unable to say what that number is, but I understand we're going to be able to get it down to maybe ten that talk to each other.

In the past, as ministries have set out to do their jobs, they would not have had the benefit of having all of those services in one ministry. They would have had to go to maybe nine different ministries to get the information they need. We have now brought all of that information-gathering and mapping capability that's so important to what we do into one ministry. As I said, we're bringing it from 200 systems that don't talk to each other. I'm hoping we can get it down to about ten that do talk to each other, which I think will increase efficiency and the use of staff time considerably.

J. Kwan: Am I right, then, in understanding from the minister's response that he is prepared to guarantee the environmental integrity work that's being done and that he's prepared to guarantee the accuracy of this work being performed by his ministry? Just a yes or no would suffice.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm sure it would. Certainly, the environmental aspect of the balance in our ministry is important to every person that works in the ministry, from my office and myself down into the ministry and the agencies we deal with. There's no question about that, and I think we've demonstrated that. We've demonstrated that at our land use table discussions. We've demonstrated it in the decisions that are made with regard to land use. I can stand here today and say to the member opposite and to all members that the balance of the environment and the economy and economic growth is critical to this ministry. I know that the staff and I will do everything we possibly can to make sure that the integrity of the beautiful environment we have in British Columbia is there for future generations.

J. Kwan: Let me just tighten my question even more. The question is around the information and the work that's being done by the staff. Is the minister prepared to guarantee the accuracy of that work in the area of environmental integrity — yes or no?

Hon. S. Hagen: I do appreciate the question. I have absolute, full confidence in my staff and in their scientists and researchers — we're outsourcing to universities — that the information we get will be the best possible information we can get.

J. Kwan: Thank you, minister, for that answer. It's good to have that confirmation of your personal guarantee around the accuracy of this work. I appreciate that.

Could the minister please advise the House on the streamlining he's referenced? How would that occur? What will the decision process look like around the streamlining, and how would that work be funded?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm sorry. How will the work be funded? The work will be funded through our budget.

The streamlining occurs by doing things in tandem instead of doing things sequentially. Before, where approvals would be given on an application sequentially, it would drag the time line out. We're now doing them in tandem so that we're working on an approval for ministry A and an approval for ministry B and an approval for ministry C at the same time. We achieve the same standards and the same information, but we do it in a shorter period of time.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned outsourcing. Could the minister please advise the House what services are being outsourced, to whom and how much?

Hon. S. Hagen: Well, on the topic we're talking about, when we find that it's necessary, we will go outside to the universities of the province to seek information and scientific data on whatever the subject is that we might be dealing with.

We're also outsourcing to the University of Northern British Columbia to do some monitoring on some of the land use plans that have been done in the past, which we have a responsibility to monitor to see how they're working. I felt that would be a more objective way to assess them rather than have our staff assess them, so we've contracted with UNBC.

J. Kwan: How many contracts have been contracted out? What are their terms of reference? Who's been awarded specifically, and how much with each of the respective contracts?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't have a total, but I'd be pleased to provide you this in writing.

J. Kwan: I would certainly appreciate it if we could get the list that outlines all of the contracted-out services from the ministry, what work is being done, if the work is completed, the outcomes of the work and, of course, the dollar amounts attached to it. I would also appreciate it if the minister could provide the process that was followed in terms of the contracting and outsourcing of the work from the ministry. Of course, time is of the essence as well, so I would appreciate receiving this information — I see that the information is already prepared — in the next week or so. That would be great. If the minister could confirm that, I would appreciate it.

J. Kwan: I appreciate the cooperation from the minister. The minister's 2002-03 to 2004-05 service plan states that science-based decision-making is one of the guiding principles. How can the minister assure this House that the best available knowledge and technology will be used when the time frame on these decisions would be shortened? Can the minister advise the House that he can provide his personal guarantee around these decisions and that they are indeed scientifically based decisions?

First of all, my deputy minister is an outstanding scientist in his own right — a biologist, I believe. Is that right?

I have to tell you that one of the things I've been impressed with, as I meet the staff from my ministry — and you've commented on this yourself — as I travel around the province and meet the people here in Victoria, is the quality of education that a lot of the people bring to the job. I have a lot of confidence in the scien-

tific people we have in the ministry. As I mentioned before, what we've decided to do as a matter of policy, when we need to, is to go to the universities and talk to the deans of research at the universities. We'll go to the universities in the particular field that we're interested in to get the best scientific information we can.

J. Kwan: I want to make it very clear: it is not my belief that the staff within the ministry are unable to do the work. I don't believe that at all. The staff, in my own experience in the last five years with all ministries — and I know in previous administrations as well — do a very good job. There's no doubt about that.

Where I do come into concern around the pressures on staff, of course, would be the lack of resources and time-frame pressures. I haven't been a minister when staff were asked to produce information. If they don't have the resources to do it, if they don't have the time to do it, then sometime, somewhere along the way, something is going to have to give.

I'm glad to hear the assurances from this minister that he'll be relying on a variety of different resources to make sure that the information he'll be receiving would be scientifically based and that it would be the best available knowledge and technology. That is good news indeed.

Before I move on to my other question, I just want to go back on the contracts I mentioned earlier. Could the minister also provide, along with that list, a percentage? What is the total percentage of the contracts that are being outsourced, relative to his entire budget?

J. Kwan: We're actually going through fairly quickly with the minister. I'm eager to ask questions.

The universities that are going to be receiving, and those who have received, these contracts: do they receive extra funding to complete such consulting work for the ministry, especially in the areas of the science technology?

Hon. S. Hagen: To date, the only other university we have contracted with is UNBC, but we have held discussions with the deans of the other universities.

J. Kwan: The list the minister held up, it seemed to me, is a big long list — so that's not in this area? It's the variety of areas involving the ministry, I take it.

J. Kwan: My other question to the minister is around the applications for water or land tenure. Will the minister commit that there would be vigorous, scientifically based analysis on all these applications?

Hon. S. Hagen: The applications vary in difficulty, I guess, or in the complexity of the application. A lot of those applications can be dealt with in-house with a considerable amount of ease. Then there are the more difficult ones that take longer, where more is necessary to make sure we are doing our due diligence. Certainly, on those ones that are more complex, I have no difficulty in saying we will do the scientific research or diligence that's necessary, whether that's done in-house or whether it is contracted out.

J. Kwan: Why wouldn't the ones that are easy…? One would have assumed that on the ones that are less complicated, you would be able to apply the same standard. Can I assume that the ministry will be applying the same standard, whether you have to contract out or otherwise, in terms of scientifically based analysis on these applications?

J. Kwan: I can assume that on that basis, then, even if the time line is to be truncated and shortened, the application of the standards and the scientifically based analysis would not be compromised.

Hon. S. Hagen: I can say to you categorically that the standards, the scientific information, the environmental standards will not be compromised.

J. Kwan: The service plan for Land and Water B.C. comments on this proposed commitment to ecosystems. However, the same service plan says that Land and Water B.C. has a commitment to use Crown land and water resources to: "create economic growth"; "transform British Columbia into the leading provincial economy in Canada"; "attract the highest levels of private sector investment of any North American jurisdiction"; "grow a private sector economy that creates employment opportunities for all provincial residents"; and "give communities greater influence over the use of undeveloped Crown land."

These are very — shall I say? — lofty goals, minister. I'm sure everyone wishes to see our economy grow. I don't doubt that either. Even the opposition wishes to see the economy grow, in spite of what I know some member believes otherwise, but it is clear that the environment and its protection take a back seat to this government, especially in relation to the private sector interests. I hope that's not the case. I hope this minister will rise up and say: "No, absolutely, that's not the case." What specific plans is this ministry proposing to ensure environmental integrity?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm glad you asked that question, because that's very, very important. It's important to the management and the staff at Land and Water B.C. as well. I just want to read, under the principles…. Maybe I should start with the vision. This is the vision of Land and Water B.C.: "A vibrant economy supporting the social and environmental values of British Columbians." To me that's key, because I believe that all

British Columbians are concerned about the environment. I think environmental concerns are very high on the priority of British Columbians, so we've certainly taken that into consideration in the vision.

The mission statement is: "Allocate Crown land and water resources to stimulate British Columbia's economy through balanced economic and environmental decision-making." Then the principles under which that will happen…. Land and Water B.C. is committed to the following principles to guide its activities and delivery of public services:

I can say that the meetings I have as a minister — I can't speak for the staff — are very balanced between meeting with environmental groups and meeting with industry and community groups and first nations groups.

The next principle is public and client consultation. Actually, I think I talked about these in my speech. "Provide opportunities to contribute to decision-making and improvement of service quality." Then there is intergovernmental harmonization. I think you can see from that that the environmental concerns are balanced with the economic concerns that we have.

J. Kwan: I wish I had as much comfort as the minister does, but unfortunately I don't. I do worry about the issues around environmental integrity. The minister just read out, I guess, some broad approaches in terms of the environmental integrity question. But does the ministry right now have any specific, detailed plans around an approach for any one particular area in the ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: Certainly. An example that's close to my heart is the issue in the Kootenays, where we are planning water, land and air protection guidelines dealing with wildlife together with the economy that we're trying to bring back in the Kootenays. Secondly, we will in the very near future be releasing our sustainability guidelines that we've developed for the ministry, which I think you'll be impressed with. Those should be released in the next month or so.

J. Kwan: One example the minister has brought forward would be the guidelines he's mentioned, and those will be ready in about a month's time. Are there any other detailed proposals in the ministry dealing with this issue? When I say "this issue," I mean the overall, broad issue around environmental integrity.

Hon. S. Hagen: Another example would be the work we're doing with the Water, Land and Air Protection ministry with regard to independent power projects and the concern for fish values on those rivers. I think the other thing to bear in mind is that every land use plan we're doing, or the land use issues we're doing, always are looking at the balance between the environment and the economy, whether it's Lillooet, the Central Coast, the North Coast, the Queen Charlottes– Haida Gwaii or Sea to Sky. It's all part of the equation of making sure we can offer, in the case of the coast, coastal communities economic development opportunities while, at the same time, balancing off that we have to look after the environmental issues.

J. Kwan: It would appear that there may be a variety of areas or proposals or plans in place within the ministry. Will the minister commit today to providing the opposition with a list of these proposals that are now underway and also the information associated with it so that the opposition, too, can participate in this process, in the specific details around the plans of this government in protecting our environment and ensuring environmental integrity?

Hon. S. Hagen: Sure, I'd be pleased to do that. A lot of the information is on our website, but I'd be pleased to list out the areas that are underway with land use planning processes and some of the upper-level planning stuff that we're going to be doing.

J. Kwan: I'm hoping to get information that's a little bit more detailed than what's on the website. The government actually has a lot of websites out there around the ministry and the areas of work the ministry's involved in, but when you look into these websites, you actually don't really get very much substantive, detailed information. It sends you into a wild loop of not getting the information you really seek. I'm hoping the minister would actually commit more than what's available on the website — rather, the working documents that are now in place in the proposals around protecting our environment and environmental integrity issues.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd be pleased to do that. I want to mention, also, that the LRMP processes that are underway are open to the public — unlike in the past — so any member of the public, including MLAs, are welcome to come to…. As a matter of fact, our MLAs do go to those meetings, but anyone is invited to attend those meetings and hear the discussion that sort of goes on around the table between the various stakeholders.

J. Kwan: I assume that this information that's going to be forthcoming from the minister would also arrive in a timely manner?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. I would say within the next two weeks maximum — something like that.

According to the services plan, the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management is the agency that makes the decisions about who can do what and where, especially around land use. In what specific ways will the ecosystem integrity be protected by the ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, that information comes into our ministry from the Ministries of Water, Land and Air Protection and Forests and is built into the plans.

J. Kwan: So the minister's going to rely on information from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection around protection on ecosystems. This ministry, then, would not be taking the responsibility in ensuring the ecosystem integrity?

Hon. S. Hagen: We get the technical information from WLAP, and Forests, and then we build it into our plan. It becomes our plan, which we work with the communities in getting, but we get the technical information from other ministries.

J. Kwan: Yet decisions are ultimately made, of course, by your ministry, while the supporting documents could come from the other two ministries, WLAP. Actually, that's an easier way of saying "Water, Land and Air." I always think earth, wind and fire for some reason, when I think of that ministry. What if, then, the information coming forth from these two other ministries conflicts with the direction that your ministry wants to move forward? Which overrides?

Hon. S. Hagen: Great question. That's what the sustainabilities will lay out. When we roll out our sustainability principles, you'll be able to see the principles that have to be met when we're working on a plan. All of the information that will come in as technical information gets rolled into that plan and will have to meet the sustainability principles.

J. Kwan: Having been in government for a while, as well, I know that information which comes forward for decision often poses a challenge. It is often not black and white, as we all perhaps would like it to be sometimes. Therefore, the interpretation of the information poses a challenge as well. One could interpret the same set of data one way, and another could literally have different conclusions another way.

In that instance, I'm seeking assurances from the minister, especially, I guess, the mandate to ensure that there is equal system integrity and protection, which the minister advises falls under the Ministry of WLAP. When the technical information and the interpretation of the technical information is such that it is perhaps contrary to the direction the minister might want to move forward on, will the WLAP ministry's ultimate decision then override the decision of this ministry?

Hon. S. Hagen: The nice thing about this ministry is that it's the ministry of balance. It's the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. We have been involved in a number of instances since the ministry was created on June 5 last year of conflicts between one use and another. Maybe the conflict is between snowmobiles and caribou.

In all of the cases where there has been a conflict, our ministry, working with the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and other ministries that might be involved — maybe Energy and Mines — has always managed to have the bureaucrats sitting around the table exchanging information.

By exchanging information, looking at the data, looking at the statistical information and looking at the scientific information, they have in all cases managed to come up with a plan that worked to achieve the end result and at the same time maintain the environmental integrity we know we have to maintain.

J. Kwan: Would the other ministers who provide information to you for the decision-making process…? I am assuming that maybe this is not the right question for you and that I would need to ask the other ministers as well. Would they have to sign off on your decision as well? Is that the process that's being followed?

Hon. S. Hagen: It may, depending on the issue, but the other place we have a chance to discuss it as ministers is in the Cabinet Committee on Economy and Environment. It involves the WLAP ministry; Forests; Mining; Agriculture; the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise; and my ministry. I chair that committee.

When we're working on an issue and there may be areas of disagreement or areas where we have to talk it out, that's the table it would come to. Each of the ministers has a chance to input, then we try to arrive at a solution, at a resolve, around that table. Every minister has an opportunity to put their concerns on the table.

J. Kwan: In the interests of balance, then, the ecosystem integrity, as an example, could be compromised from land use decisions from the ministry.

Hon. S. Hagen: The biodiversity and the ecosystem issue is very important to any of the decisions we make. We would attempt to not compromise biodiversity or the ecosystem part of it unless there was an opportunity for mitigating it afterwards. To date, we haven't had that kind of issue.

J. Kwan: Okay, so the minister just said that he would not compromise the ecosystem on this issue unless there is an opportunity to mitigate afterwards. Then in the process of determining that you will give

approval now, knowing that it would compromise the ecosystem…. Perhaps there may be measures later on that could address some of that, but perhaps not.

Am I right to understand that the minister is saying they would compromise the ecosystem then? I think he just said they would compromise the ecosystem and that perhaps at a later date the compromising of the ecosystem could be redressed in some other way.

Hon. S. Hagen: If there is an issue with regard to the ecosystem and that comes through to us with the scientific information that we get from the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, it becomes part of the standards that have to be met by the applicant. If the applicant doesn't meet those standards, then we go back and talk to the applicant and say: "You're not meeting those standards."

J. Kwan: On the issue around compromising the ecosystem and being able to redress it later…. That's not correct, then? The standard has to be that you have to meet the standard that's been established on protecting the ecosystem and the integrity of the ecosystem.

Hon. S. Hagen: There are two ways of dealing with this. One is that the applicant has to be able to meet the standards set. If they don't meet the standards, we have to go back to them and say that they haven't met the standards. They have to mitigate any harm that's happened during that time.

J. Kwan: You would give them the approval, then, knowing that they have not met the standards? Am I interpreting this correctly, or is it that you would give them the approval with the understanding that they're not to compromise the ecosystem, and when they do, then the ministry will go after them and make sure that they mitigate and redress the issues that have arisen?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes. That's a clear understanding. They have to meet the standards that are set out. If they don't meet them, they have to mitigate them, but they have to meet them after that. In other words, they can't go on not meeting the standards.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm confused, but I'm not getting it. What the minister said is that…. One would have assumed that if an application has come through and has not met the standards — it violates and puts in jeopardy the integrity of the ecosystem, as an example — that application would be rejected. Then, if the application is rejected and they want to reapply, they have to meet that standard again. The question around mitigation…. There isn't even a question of mitigation if the application is rejected — am I not right?

Hon. S. Hagen: First of all, when somebody makes an application, they haven't violated anything because they haven't been granted the application — right? A year down the road after they've been granted the application, if they've done something wrong, they have to mitigate that and they can't do it anymore. If in making the application, our staff says that we can't grant the application because there's going to be damage to the environment, as in the case of the Bluewater Lodge decision, we don't grant the application. They don't get the approval.

J. Kwan: Thank you for that clarification. Just so I understand it clearly: if an application comes forward and it does not meet the standard and it shows that it has potential for compromising the integrity of the ecosystem, that application would be rejected.

If an application comes forward and meets the standards, and it illustrates there is no risk of ecosystem integrity jeopardy issues, then that application proceeds. If, through that process of application and the work carrying forward, it shows that the applicant has violated the principles that have been established, then in that instance mitigating work would have to take place. Would the minister contemplate, and in those instances actually….

Aside from mitigating and depending on the extent of the damage and so on, sometimes maybe mitigation cannot redress all of the problems that have been created. What will the minister do in that instance?

Hon. S. Hagen: If they can't meet the standards that were agreed to in the application when the application was granted, then the licence has a good chance of being cancelled and probably will be cancelled.

I'd just like to point out that in applications for land use in BCAL, 40 percent of the applications are rejected.

J. Kwan: Thank you, minister. I know that there are members who have other questions. I'll just finish up with this one question and then I will yield the floor to the other members to ask questions. I have a series of others to follow through. I don't want to hog the floor.

Minister, the ministry has committed to what appears to be, I think, an ambitious land use planning agenda. It is my understanding that the government has committed to completing 90 of the 120 to 150 planning units by 2005.

Committing to the completion of these several land and resource management plans as well as coastal plans, a working forest land base and a Living Rivers strategy is a very, very ambitious agenda. How will the minister be able to carry out this work, especially, once again…. The ministry is faced with a proposed 36 percent reduction in staffing levels. Will this work be carried out in-house or would they be outsourced?

Hon. S. Hagen: Primarily in-house. When we did our core review and set our budget, we did it on the basis of the business plan. The business plan is what is outlined and what I outlined in my speech. I'm very confident that with the staff we have and the quality of the staff we have, we'll be able to meet those objectives.

As a matter of fact, I have no doubt that we'll be able to meet those objectives.

P. Bell: Minister, I'd like to change the line of questioning for a few minutes if I may. I'm wondering what your ministry has done and what you intend to do this year in terms of developing the working forest process or the working forest concept.

Hon. S. Hagen: We've been working on this for a few months. We plan on putting a working paper out in April to get a response from the public, and then we'll assess that response and look at the responses that come in. I think it requires legislation, so we'll probably be looking at next spring for legislation.

P. Bell: I wonder if the minister can give us an indication of objectives in terms of percentage of land base. How are we going to view it? Is the existing AAC going to be developed into a model that will look at it in terms of the working forest land base? Are there some general objectives, or are we really in the preliminary, exploratory process?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a little premature to be that specific. The objective is to make sure that British Columbians and people outside British Columbia know what the working land base is for forestry. In other words, we know where the parks are. We know where some of the special management zones are. We want people to be able to look at a map of British Columbia or a smaller map of an area and see the land that's available for a working forest.

P. Bell: Is it fair to say, then, that the intent is to try and develop a tree farm concept or a concept where there's a multi-generational approach to forestry that establishes a strategic plan where we will harvest — you know — three, four, five, six generations of crops off that land base? Is that the intent?

Hon. S. Hagen: When this comes out ? and I haven't seen it yet ? my anticipation is that you'll see a number of zones, which would encompass a number of different types of forestry. I should say ? because I know your colleague next to you is sitting there thinking, "What about mining?" ? that this is going to be good news for the mining industry as well, because while we're calling it a working forest, the land designated as working forest will also be available for mineral exploration and oil and gas exploration.

P. Bell: I think it's an incredibly exciting opportunity, actually. I'm looking forward to having an opportunity to take a look at the working paper, hopefully in April, then. I do think that the process in terms of recognizing that forestry is a significant contributor to our provincial economy and actually developing a land base around that process as opposed to…. As you know, we have 13 percent of the province set aside for parks. To actually have a specific area set aside for forestry I think is a great opportunity.

I'm wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to look at any other models in other parts of the world that are suitable. I know the Scandinavian countries have been operating under different programs for a number of years. Have you had an opportunity to take a look at any other models anywhere?

Hon. S. Hagen: The furthest I've been allowed to travel is Fort St. John. I haven't managed to get over to Norway or Sweden yet, although I wouldn't mind. Last time I was over there, I was planning the University of Northern British Columbia, by the way, and saw a lot of resource-based communities, which are very similar to our resource-based communities. That's really what convinced me to put the university into Prince George.

Something else I'd just like to mention is that I intend to get a committee of MLAs involved in this working forest process. I know there are a lot of members of our side of the House that are really, really interested in resource aspects of British Columbia, and we can certainly make use of their expertise and their involvement.

P. Bell: Well, I would suggest, minister, that if a simple trip to the Scandinavian countries resulted in a university in the north, then perhaps we should apply for more Speaker funding for further trips for the minister. I think that was an incredibly good use of the money. Certainly, I would be eager to serve on such a committee if there is an opportunity in terms of developing the working forest land base.

One of the discussions that we had ? or, I guess, a new-era commitment ? was to grow the annual allowable cut. Now I know this is kind of stretching out of your ministry perhaps and into Forests, and maybe I should be asking this question of the Minister of Forests, but do you have any thoughts as to how the working forest land base might tie together with an increase in the annual allowable cut?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's a question more apropos to the Ministry of Forests, but one of the things we're looking at is the ability to grow trees faster in a particular zone. I'm way out of my field of expertise here, but it would seem that something which would come out of that is the ability to increase our annual allowable cut. But it's an area that I'm going to leave to the Minister of Forests.

B. Bennett: I wanted, first of all, to get on the record by saying that as an elected representative from one of the rural areas of the province, we're very excited about this new ministry, what it can do and what it is doing, in fact, to the process of land use planning, which in the rural areas of B.C. can be a blood sport.

The move to get away from these individual ministry silos, which often don't speak to each other, and develop a more integrated approach has already

shown benefits. In the riding of East Kootenay, where I come from, there are two processes under this ministry that are taking place. I'll just describe what they are, and then perhaps the minister could just give an update on how those processes are working.

One is a commercial back-country recreation planning process that's taking place across the Cranbrook forest district. From what I can tell and the feedback I've received from the constituents who live there, the process is working quite well. Folks sometimes get a bit anxious about a new process and a new ministry, but generally speaking, I think the process seems to be working well. I wanted to congratulate both the minister and his staff, particularly his regional staff up there, on that process.

There's a second process taking place right now in the area, in the Flathead and Elk Valley area that I think we refer to as the Southern Rockies plan. That's, I think, an overarching land use planning exercise that's taking place. I wondered if I could get just a brief report on that initiative as well.

Hon. S. Hagen: Thank you very much. I'll take any compliments I can get because, as you know, you don't often get them.

The East Kootenay, of course, is a very unique and special part of the province, just like a number of unique and special parts of this province. It's been a real challenge to try and come up with a process that will work, where we can make sure we get all the stakeholders giving input so we can then assess that and try and make some decisions.

I don't want to prejudge what's going to happen there. I'm quite happy to wait until the work is finished. I don't want to prejudge it, because I may have to make a decision at the end of the day. I'm hoping I won't have to. I'm hoping the decision will come out of that area. I'd much prefer that. I think it does show that sometimes if you can remove the emotionalism out of land use planning and sit down and deal with the scientific facts and the scientific proof, you may come up with a better decision than trying to divide and conquer or have one side winning against the other side.

When we're dealing with the environment, we can all be winners or we can all be losers. From my perspective as the minister I want us to be winners — every British Columbian and every person who visits British Columbia. I'm very pleased with the way things are progressing in the Kootenays and other areas of the province. I'm hopeful we'll come out of there with a decision the local communities are happy with, at the same time recognizing that we do get focused on a lot by people outside the province. I think that as British Columbians we (a) have to accept that and (b) have to come to grips with it. As I've said many times in my speeches, I think that if we do things right in British Columbia, the people who are looking at us and analyzing us from outside the province will see that, and we can get away from some of the struggles we've had in the past.

B. Bennett: I have three short questions. I think they're quite short. I'll just go ahead with them one at a time, if that's all right.

First of all, I just wondered, with respect to the Land Reserve Commission, if we know when the regional panels will be in place.

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm just going through those now. We just extended the interim board by one month, I think, to April 30. I certainly plan on having it done before April 30 — but hopefully before that time.

B. Bennett: I would like some clarification from the minister, if possible, about the division of duties respecting water licences. We have the present water branch, and I think the minister mentioned that both this ministry and Water, Land and Air Protection will have some involvement in that whole water-licensing process. I just wondered if I could receive some more clarification of how that's going to work.

Hon. S. Hagen: The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection deals specifically with water quality. My ministry or Land and Water British Columbia deals with the water allocation.

B. Bennett: A final question from me. I would be remiss, I think, if I didn't ask this question on behalf of my constituents. With respect to the Crown corporation — we used to call it B.C. Assets and Land; it's now Land and Water B.C. — is there a process within the application process for wildlife biologists within Water, Land and Air Protection to be consulted prior to a decision being made in that application process?

Hon. S. Hagen: We have wildlife guidelines, and if those guidelines are being met in the application, then we don't consult. If they aren't being met, then we'll consult with the biologist.

J. Kwan: I have questions around the working forest land base as well, but I think I'm going to finish my area and just sort of move through section by section to different areas.

I was asking questions of the minister around a reduction in staff, particularly with the very ambitious plan around land use, land base planning and the agenda of the government. The minister confirmed that he is confident that all of that work will be done in spite of the reductions in FTEs. Of course, I think the

minister will be complementing his work, not just through the in-house but by outsourcing, to get that work done as well.

Does the minister have any sense of how much outsourcing of work he would be relying on?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'd just like to comment before I answer the question directly. If you look at our business plan, I think I mentioned that we will be downsizing our staff as we complete our business plan, complete our work. There's actually a plan that we have thought out to do this. I'm told that a very small, fractional amount of our budget would be outsourced — less than 10 percent.

J. Kwan: How many staff right now would be dedicated to this planning work? Does the minister have any sense of that?

J. Kwan: The scale of the reduction. Government's plan is to complete about 90 of the 120 to 150 planning units by 2005.

For the first year, how many plans does the minister expect to complete — and then for the second year and the third? What kind of scale is the minister anticipating in terms of reduction in staff levels, respectively?

Hon. S. Hagen: I don't have them down here, but I think I can go by memory. They will be in the information we send you.

The land use plan completed by the end of March of next year includes the Central Coast LRMP. Oh, it is on here. "The Central Coast completed by the end of 2003 and North Coast, Queen Charlotte Islands–Haida Gwaii, Sea to Sky and Morice by the end of 2004."

J. Kwan: And the question around staffing levels and the corresponding reduction as the minister anticipates this work would be done? You're starting off with 263. What would be the scale of reduction over the next three years?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have those numbers broken down by function of what they do, but I can give you the totals. The FTEs in 2001-02 — in other words, the year we are presently in — are 1,520. By the end of next year we'll be down to 1,385. By the end of the following year, which is 2004, we'll be down to 1,210, and by March 31, 2005, we'll be down to 972.

J. Kwan: Will the minister be able to provide the breakdown in terms of staff reduction in this area and all of the staff reduction areas to my office when we receive the other information?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that information yet. The ministry hasn't done that yet, but I can give you our operating expenditures for those years. You'll be able to see from this that there is a very slight decline until the last year, when all the plans are finished. So from 2001-02, which is what we're in now, we have $31.496 million. Then in 2002-03 we drop to $29.762 million, and the year after that, which ends March 31, 2004, $26.279. Then at March 31, 2005, and during that time all of the planning functions will be finished, we drop to $14.43 million.

J. Kwan: The reason why I'm asking this question, of course, is that I'm trying to get a sense of the staffing levels within the ministry and to ensure that it's sufficient for all of the work to be completed — and especially for the work to be completed in such a way that does not compromise, I think, one of the most important goals for all British Columbians, not just for this generation but for many generations to come, which is our environmental protection.

If the minister doesn't have this information now, could the minister provide that information? I'm particularly interested in how the staff reduction levels would break down in the different areas in relation to the ministry. Of course, you'll be able to get those numbers, I assume, because you have some sort of projection on once this plan is completed — for the Central Coast, let's say — you're moving onto the next on, and so on. You'll get a sense in terms of what staffing reduction levels would actually be occurring in these respective areas within the ministry.

Hon. S. Hagen: As we have those numbers, which will be tied into the budget process each year, we'll certainly be more than willing to share them with you.

J. Kwan: Thank you. Yet in the estimates book the projection is actually a three-year plan. The minister already has the numbers in terms of what the budget is going to be and what the reductions are. He just read them off earlier. One would have assumed he already knows that information. He may not know exactly what the numbers might be, but one would have assumed they would have that mapped out somewhere within the ministry. Can the minister provide that information in terms of what they have now?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, I think that's a very reasonable request, and we'll get you those numbers.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much, minister. I appreciate the cooperation. Another compliment for the minister.

The issue around written commitments to science-based decision-making is in place with the service plans. The minister also just recognized the importance of the scientifically based decisions that the ministry will be embarking on. Can the minister tell us to what extent the scientifically based information the ministry will be receiving will have a role in impacting the ultimate decisions around applications around land use decisions?

Hon. S. Hagen: We actually stated in our New Era document that our decisions will be based on scientifically based information.

J. Kwan: One hundred percent of the decisions will be based on scientifically based information?

Hon. S. Hagen: If the decisions are related to anything to do with the environment, then they'll be based on scientific information.

J. Kwan: It's a commitment from the minister that 100 percent of these decisions are based on scientific information. I see the minister nodding his head. I take that as a confirmation on that.

Hon. S. Hagen: We unfortunately don't have that information, but we will get it to you in writing.

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that answer, but we'll get it to you in writing.

J. Kwan: How about hydrologists in the ministry? Of course what I'm trying to get at is a sense of wealth of resources that now exists in different respective areas in the ministry.

Hon. S. Hagen: We'll get you that answer in writing as well. I can tell you this: when the ministry was structured, in my view, we got the best biologists and hydrologists and forestry people out of the various ministries. We have a collective pool of talent that is pretty impressive.

J. Kwan: I would certainly appreciate that information with the package of information that the ministry's going to be sending to us within the next two weeks.

The service plan which the minister has also outlined…. The total number of FTEs that would be reduced is from 1,520 to 972 by 2004-05. Of those FTEs that would be cut, how many would be qualified science officers?

Hon. S. Hagen: We don't have that answer yet. Although we have our budget, we have not translated the budget number to people at this point in time, so we don't have that answer. I wouldn't be able to get you that answer in the two-week period.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry; did the minister say that he would be able to get us that information or would not be able to? What kind of time line is the minister looking at?

Hon. S. Hagen: We can provide this year's number, but the next year's number won't be ready until we do next year's budget. The year following won't be ready until we do that budget.

J. Kwan: Certainly, I would appreciate the number for this year's downsizing. I guess the same logic would apply. Would the minister be able to even give an estimate of the downsizing of the science officers within his ministry, given that he is projecting the amount of work that needs to be done and that so much work will be completed by a certain time, etc.? One would assume — because he already has the bottom-line figure of what he's anticipating his budget to be in the next three years — that he would have some sense of where those cuts are going to be forthcoming in terms of FTEs in this area of science officers.

Hon. S. Hagen: If it's possible for us to do that, I'll make a commitment to do that for you. I just don't know whether it's possible.

J. Kwan: The answer to the question around how many science officers are being cut for this fiscal?

Hon. S. Hagen: Yes, we'll include that in the information package that we'll send you within the next two weeks.

J. Kwan: I assume that the minister, while he's anticipating cuts, doesn't know exactly what the numbers are. Is the minister confident that he'll be able to complete his mandate without the set of qualified people in his ministry to gather the scientific information? Would it put in jeopardy the information that needs to be gathered so that an informed decision could be made?

Hon. S. Hagen: I'm pleased to tell the member opposite that I'm very motivated to reach the objectives of the ministry. As you may be aware, my ministerial salary gets cut by 20 percent on April 1, and in order to earn that back again, I have to reach my objectives and balance my budget. That gets me half of it back. I don't get the other half back unless every other minister and the Premier meet their objectives and balance their budgets. So I'm very, very motivated.

J. Kwan: On the question around meeting objectives, of course the budget transparency act talks about meeting the objective of a balanced budget. The minister is now committing in this House that if he does not get all the land use plans completed within the time frame that this government has set out, he will reduce his budget. Is that his commitment also?

Hon. S. Hagen: I was trying to figure out where you were going on the first question. No, I won't make that commitment.

J. Kwan: I just wanted to be clear. It sounded from the minister's answer as though he was going to be committing his salary on the line to achieve the objectives he set out in his accountability plan and services plan. Actually, it's just a bottom-line question, so it's not tied to the work that is required for the ministry.

This actually drives the important question, I think, because it seems to me that this government's approach is all around the bottom line. The minister's salary is actually tied to the bottom line, so even if it meant that sometimes you're going to have to jeopardize, in this instance, sustainable environmental integrity — but it could be the ecosystem, could be the water, the land, could be a variety of areas — then it seems to me there could be situations whereby the other equally important long-term objectives for our environment could be jeopardized. The driving force around that is focused on finance and the bottom line.

It worries me. This is why I'm going hard at these numbers and this line of questioning, making sure that there is some sort of assurance from somewhere around the environmental protection integrity that needs to be protected for all British Columbians into future generations. I wish the minister could actually rise up and say: "Yes, I will tie my salary into protecting our environment, and I will tie my salary into ensuring that these plans are met in such a way that it would guarantee environmental integrity for British Columbians." But that's not the case. Most unfortunate.

The minister's website says that the geographic information system…. Oh, I'm sorry, actually. I have whole long list of questions around this, and I'm noting the time. Minister, would you prefer that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again?

J. Kwan: Until 6:30? Oh, okay. I'll keep going, then. I have lots of questions.

On the minister's website, it says that the geographic information system operations from the former Ministries of Environment, Lands and Parks; Forests; Energy and Mines; Transportation and Highways; and other ministries were being combined into the new Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. How many GIS specialists — the geographic information system specialists — does the ministry now employ?

Hon. S. Hagen: We'll include that information in the packet we're sending you.

J. Kwan: Well, I need to take a break, because I have to come back. You may not need to, but I do, unless this committee is adjourning after 6:30. Am I right?

The Chair: I was going to suggest that if that's the case, we would continue until 6:30 and then recess from 6:30 to seven, if that is easier for you.

J. Kwan: My apologies. I thought I'd be able to get through the estimates process a lot more quickly. However, I do still have a long list of questions I would like to ask the minister. Of course, some of the other members in the House had asked questions today, and I presume they will have questions later on as well. We will come back to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, I guess, tomorrow at this time, then.

Hon. S. Hagen: I move the committee report progress on vote 41 and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. B. Barisoff: It is my pleasure to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Provincial Revenue for the fiscal year 2002-03. Before I begin, I would like to introduce Chris Trumpy, who is here with me today. I

The Ministry of Provincial Revenue performs two main business functions for government. We are the province's primary tax administrator and collector. We administer and enforce various tax statutes, which are the responsibility of the Minister of Finance, and also administer and manage various royalties, taxes, levies and fees collected under the forestry, mineral, oil and gas–related statutes.

In 2001-02 we will collect roughly $9.4 billion in revenue from income, consumption, resource, property and other taxes. This ministry is also in charge of debt administration and collection and provides accounts receivable and loan management services to government. We haven't officially closed the books for the fiscal year 2001-02 and still expect to recover millions from student loans, B.C. Benefits overpayments, Medical Services Plan, ambulance service and other outstanding debts and receivables. These revenues support the delivery of all government programs.

While we are less than a year old, we are looking and planning for the future. Our vision for the future: we want to be the centre of excellence and of revenue and debt collection in government. We plan to do this through quality customer services and through new technology that makes it easier for people to voluntarily pay their taxes.

Our three-year service plan sets out the steps we will be taking and how we will be measuring our progress. My service plan establishes five goals.

Our first goal is to maximize voluntary compliance. The state of the economy has important implications on the ability of the ministry to administer and collect tax and debt owed to government. When the economy is healthy and thriving there is a greater voluntary payment of the amounts owed to government, but during economic downturns non-payment of taxes and debt tends to increase. Today in British Columbia over 90 percent of British Columbians pay their taxes and pay them on time. While that's encouraging, the 10 percent who aren't paying their taxes are contributing to our problems with revenue shortfalls. Obviously, this must be addressed.

We plan to increase compliance in a number of ways: first, by improving the quality of information taxpayers and clients receive and by being more timely in responding to requests for information — our ministry is continually updating bulletins and notices so taxpayers can stay updated on changes to tax laws and regulations — and second, by maximizing use of new electronic technologies to increase access to information. With the introduction of the Internet, our clients can access information 24 hours a day, seven days a week — not at our convenience.

The third is improving educational services that increase taxpayer acceptance of their responsibilities to pay money owed the provincial government. Staff from my ministry routinely hold informational seminars for interested business groups and organizations. For example, last month consumer taxation branch representatives met with tobacco wholesalers and manufacturers to provide information on new branch initiatives. In December the same branch presented a half-day seminar to the members of the St. Mary's band near Cranbrook on a variety of issues.

The importance of voluntary compliance cannot be overstressed, as these revenues pay for the important services British Columbians rely on, like health care and education. We will measure our progress in this area by the percentage of on-time payments, use of our website and the number of audits performed.

Our second goal from 2003 to 2004-05 involves increasing our efforts to collect all outstanding amounts owed to government. Changes in trade patterns and flows resulting from an increase in border security present an opportunity for the ministry to capture taxes on goods imported in the province. In fact, over the last few months, with the increased security at the borders, we've seen an increase in revenues because of the extra enforcement. At the end of December year-to-date tobacco tax revenue was $373 million, compared to $356 million the previous year, a 4.6 percent increase.

How do we plan to continue increasing revenues? We will increase the net amounts of revenues collected through audit collection and enforcement activities. Over the next three years we plan to hire over 100 auditors, inspectors and collectors, who collect the money owed to government. We will also reduce the key overdue accounts receivable ratios. We plan to do this by centralizing collection, making it more uniform and consistent. Over the past three years we have seen overdue accounts go up by 40 percent. This figure has grown because the collection function wasn't given the priority it should have received in ministries that faced bigger pressures on the service side.

One of the reasons the Ministry of Provincial Revenue was created was so that government could pay more attention to collecting revenues it was owed. Along with hiring more auditors, we will increase the annual assessment per auditor from the current $500,000 to $525,000 by the year 2004-05. Lastly, we'll increase revenues by continuing to improve collection tools and strategies.

One of the ways of increasing revenues is through expanding our use of the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency tax set-off program. With this program, if a taxpayer is owed a tax refund, the province is notified and all or part of their refund goes towards the debt that is owed to the province. We will chart our progress in increasing the collection of outstanding amounts owed us, increasing the amount of incremental revenue we receive each year, measuring our auditors' annual assessments and improving the ratio of overdue tax accounts receivable to the total tax accounts receivable.

Goal number three involves ensuring taxes are administered fairly, efficiently and equitably, while at the same time measuring taxpayers' needs. Taxpayers and clients increasingly expect high-quality, responsive

service, including 24-hour, seven-day-a-week availability. We plan to do this in a number of ways.

First, we will consolidate debt administration across government. We will start this process by consolidating government's accounts receivable programs. Currently, there are over 40 accounts receivable systems in government. Clearly, this is unacceptable to a government which is committed to responsibly managing public resources and tax dollars. Over time we will bring this figure down significantly.

Another way we will continue providing fair and equitable administration is by improving the appeals process for administrative fairness and due process by the waiting period for appeal decisions. Right now waiting periods are ten months. By 2004-05 we plan to have that figure down to a minimum of six months, a reduction of over three months.

Lastly, we will eliminate unnecessary regulation, as in our new-era commitments we promised to reduce regulation by one-third across government over the next three years.

In our ministry we currently have 16,100 regulatory requirements. Over three years we will work to reduce this figure by one-third to 10,700. We will measure our progress in ensuring that taxes are fairly, efficiently and equitably administered by monitoring our progress and consolidating the government's accounts receivable program, developing, testing and completing a corporate accounts receivable system, measuring how long the appeal procedure is taking and counting the number of regulatory requirements we have at the end of three years. Developments in information systems present new opportunities for the collection, payment and processing of revenues. Our world is changing at an incredibly rapid pace. This change is best illustrated in changes in technology.

The fourth goal in my ministry's service plan involves improving our performance and accountability. Over the next three years we plan to increase the percentage of business done electronically. We also plan to determine if alternative collection strategies are more cost-effective. We expect to increase the use of collection agencies as debts are increasing and consolidated in the ministry.

Our progress in determining whether or not we are meeting the targets in this area will be determined by the percentage of receipts made electronically. We hope to increase this number from the current 28 percent to 46 percent in the three years. Currently we receive 58 percent of our revenue electronically. By '04-05 we hope that number will be around 64 percent.

The Ministry of Provincial Revenue's fifth goal is to ensure that we retain our highly skilled, motivated and innovative employees and recruit other talented professionals as needed. To do this, we plan to create a growth-oriented work environment that attracts skilled and motivated employees. We will use learning and development plans that focus on core competencies and skills that all ministry staff should have.

We will also manage staff composition and succession carefully to ensure that the ministry continues to operate smoothly. Critical positions will be identified, and succession plans will be in place for those positions. In measuring our progress in this area over the next three years, we will keep track of the percentage of staff with learning and development and successions plans in place.

In conclusion, in addition to meeting the responsibilities I've been charged with, the Ministry of Provincial Revenue will also provide support to ensure that our government vision for this great province is realized. That vision is that the Minister of Provincial Revenue will provide support to ensure that a thriving private sector economy that creates high-paying jobs and opportunities becomes a reality. One of the ways we'll do this is by treating all taxpayers and business fairly and equitably. In doing so, we'll level the playing field and give all business the same opportunity to succeed. We will also ensure a thriving private sector economy by reducing regulation and administration requirements for the business and citizens and by phasing out the corporation capital tax. This tax, which was introduced in 1992, has been a serious impediment to investment from overseas. By this September it will be gone.

Our ministry will provide support to ensure better services for children, families and first nations people. We will do this in a variety of ways: through low-interest loans under tax deferment programs, which help qualifying homeowners pay their annual property taxes; the B.C. family bonus and B.C. earned income benefit programs, which provide tax-free monthly payments to low- and modest-income working families; and the homeowner grant program, which is available to qualifying homeowners occupying their homes as their principal residence.

We will also help ensure that B.C. has the fastest-growing technology industry in Canada. Our contribution will include developing the use of electronic services that assist in filing and paying taxes and debts and in delivering educational information on the Internet services to both government and industry.

Lastly, the ministry will continue to responsibly manage taxpayers' public resources and tax dollars through a wide variety of performance measures, some of which I've already mentioned.

I'd like to conclude by thanking the staff throughout my ministry, especially those officials who come face to face with taxpayers on a daily basis, be they auditors, refund clerks, staff working in call centres answering inquiries or collectors working evenings to contact debtors. Their professionalism and dedication are essential to achieving the goals we have established. In the short time that I've had the pleasure of being in this ministry, I've been impressed by their dedication and determination.

I. Chong: I just wanted the minister to have an opportunity to ensure all his staff were properly introduced and recorded for the Hansard transcripts.

First of all, I want to thank the minister for offering an overview of his goals, objectives and service plan. I do have some questions on what he's provided and then particular questions that have arisen as a result of concerns raised by my constituents.

Firstly, I want to express to the minister that I did pull the June 25, 2001, letter written by the Premier to him as the new Minister of Provincial Revenue, and that letter, or a similar letter of that nature, was given to all ministers. I think it's important to go back to that starting point to ensure we haven't lost our focus.

Contained within that letter from the Premier to the minister were three bullets that listed what the Premier's expectations of this ministry would be. One of them was to "integrate major sources of resource revenues"; the next was "maximize revenue collection within principles of fairness and equity"; and the third was "examine cost-effectiveness of collection methods and, in cooperation with the Chief Information Officer, seek opportunities for electronic transactions."

I note that the minister has given us a brief overview of how that does fit in with the service plans, but I'm wondering if the minister can share with us, specifically, what integration of major sources of resource revenues his ministry is working on, such that it was identified as a goal or objective by the Premier's office. Was this not previously dealt with or done in the previous administration?

Hon. B. Barisoff: Member, the first one — they integrate the major resources from resource revenues — is taking over the stumpage from the Ministry of Forests and taking over oil and gas from the Ministry of Energy and Mines. With these, we've found it's created…. It all comes focused into one ministry, the Ministry of Provincial Revenue, of course. We've focused our thoughts and our collection. We're able to do better auditing programs that take place with these resource revenues. Over time we expect that those resource revenues will increase substantially.

The second one, to maximize revenue collection within the principles of fairness and equity, is along the lines that we're looking to the technological world of making sure we collect taxes in a fair and equitable manner and all people are treated equally. As I mentioned earlier in my speech, we have a voluntary compliance of roughly 90 percent, but there's ten percent out there that aren't paying their taxes. What we're focusing on there is to make sure that all people are paying their fair share of the taxes.

The last item, the cost-effectiveness of collection methods to seek opportunities through electronic transactions, is something that's an ongoing program. We did have a program in place that was called the RevNet Program. We've actually since dropped that because of the cost and where it was going, but we're certainly focused on making sure we have electronic transactions throughout government to make it easier for taxpayers to pay their accounts, even if they're sitting at home at their computer.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister giving some clarity to that. The first area that he spoke of was the integration of the major resource revenues and two of those, in particular, being forestry and oil and gas. I guess over time the royalties revenues that have just been approved through the Ministry of Energy and Mines are a new kind of tax that will be collected, once we get royalties from that. Can the minister advise whether that has now been fully integrated into his ministry? Are we going to be able to start tracking from April 1 onwards? I realize there's been a lot of transition in these last nine months: programs and systems being established. At what point are we going to be able to start to benchmark and track, to compare one year to another? These are three-year service plans. Can the minister advise on that?

I'll put a few questions to allow the staff, perhaps, to think about this. The one area, as well, that hadn't been brought up, and this isn't to do with resource revenues, but in integrating major sources. I didn't know whether there were other ministries that would require the integration. For example, in Health we have the MSP premiums. I understand some of that is now going to come into this ministry's responsibilities. Whether there are other ministries that have revenues which aren't what we call resource revenues…. Maybe the minister can provide that. I'll let the minister answer that first, before it gets too complicated.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The first one, the consolidation of the forestry and the oil and gas, was actually done as soon as the ministry took over. That was on June 5. We'll have figures from there till April 1, and then from this three-year plan we'll actually be able to go over those few months and then keep going forward — for years to come, I hope — so we can keep track of what was collected and what wasn't collected year over year.

I. Chong: The other area which the minister spoke of was the RevNet program, which I understand was the idea of electronic transactions — having that streamlined and saving government money. The minister has indicated that that's now been cancelled. Are there plans to implement a new RevNet program or a somewhat similar program? Or is the ministry going back to the drawing board and just saying: "Well, we'll allow a year to see what new electronic possibilities are there, before we move forward"? Maybe he

can update us with what he's planning on doing, in terms of electronic transactions.

Hon. B. Barisoff: First of all, I'd like to introduce Greg Reimer and Ian Forman.

Member, the RevNet program was a great, big, giant program that we thought would encompass everything that we thought we were going to. We've actually moved away from that into smaller programs to make sure we can start addressing the individual needs of government. As you know, the technology is changing as fast as we're standing here and talking. The more important thing is to make sure we have some of these programs on the go, and that's what we're in the process of doing right now.

I. Chong: The other bullet I indicated, which was in the Premier's letter, is about the maximizing of revenue collection within the principles of fairness and equity. That raises an interesting concept, because philosophically, I think everybody would agree with that. The difficulty is that that goal sometimes is achieved as a result of what is determined as fairness and what is determined as equity. Within all rules, sometimes there are exceptions. That's why there are appeal processes. That's what I would like to find out: whether in ensuring that the principles of fairness apply, there is also an opportunity, where a taxpayer has felt that fairness hasn't been applied, that there is a good appeal process or whether there are changes in the appeal process.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We have consolidated all the revenues together. When appeals come forward, we're trying to…. We've divided up the people that are collecting the revenue and the people that are actually doing the appeals. It's separate people doing that now, which makes it more unbiased, I guess, in the biggest sense of the word. Ultimately, they have the appeal to myself as the minister, and if they're not happy with that appeal, they can actually go to the courts for final arbitration — if they're not happy with the decision made by the minister.

I. Chong: That would be a new process that has now been implemented by this ministry. It's similar to what the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency, the CCRA, does,. They have the auditors who do the auditing. Then the notice of assessment comes out, and of course, if people don't agree, it goes to an appeal process. From what I understand, that wasn't in place before in terms of the Ministry of Finance. As a result, the Ministry of Provincial Revenue has implemented that kind of system, similar to what CCRA does. Is that correct? I just want that confirmation on the record.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The structure is actually still in there. As I mentioned before, what we have done is divided the two, so it's much more transparent now. The people doing the collections are on one side, but the people doing the appeals are separate from the people doing the collections. They're the ones that make their recommendations to the minister. It's much more transparent in the fact that it's not the same person, or coming out of the same office kind of thing, where they're making that decision. It's much more transparent the way it is now. The structure has always been there; the appeal system has always been there.

I. Chong: I guess that's really the thrust of what I'm getting at. I was aware that there was always an appeal process, but it perhaps was not as transparent. I appreciate that. That's the shift that has been done in the ministry.

Going into the service plan, I'm just going to pull out some things from the service plan summary that was tabled with the budget. The strategic shift mentioned there is moving from a decentralized collection and multiple accounts receivable system to a centralized corporate accounts receivable system. I guess it sounds as if we do have quite a lot of work to do there. I understand, as in the minister's opening comments, that there are over 40 accounts receivable systems in government now. That is what I would call a fractured decentralized system.

Moving into a centralized corporate accounts receivable system. Can the minister advise to what extent…? Is it going to be one accounts receivable system, or will there still be five, perhaps, rather than 40, to look at lumping together different kinds of, I guess, revenues? You've got your resource revenues. Perhaps you've got revenues from the health sector. You have revenues from fees and licences from the business side. What kind of centralized accounts receivable system is the minister contemplating?

Hon. B. Barisoff: There's absolutely no doubt that we will have considerably fewer than 40. The idea of having one lends itself to some problems with confidentiality. When you're dealing with the tax system, as the member knows full well, confidentiality with taxes is one of the major criteria in how things have to be looked at. We'll certainly be moving that down. We don't have an idea what the number is. It will be more than one, and it will be less than 40. We're certainly working towards the lowest number possible and to putting as many things into as few silos as we can possibly put them into to create the efficiencies in government. Forty different accounts receivable systems is just unworkable to maintain a proper system.

I. Chong: I would agree that 40 systems is more than inadequate for a government to operate efficiently.

The other question I have related to the accounts receivable system is that also contained within the service plan summary is, in the category of debt administration and collection: "The ministry will develop a corporate accounts receivable system to support all non-tax receivables." This is where I imagine those other things are, like loans or other non-forgivable

grants — I guess loans, more than likely — that were provided and have become uncollectable, and it is now the minister's responsibility to collect them.

In developing that corporate accounts receivable system — which I guess is separate from tax revenues, because it says here "non-tax receivables" — what kind of system is the ministry planning? Can you give us an idea of what kind of costs would be associated with that? Is this something new, based on this being a part of the service plan?

Hon. B. Barisoff: As we talked of earlier, part of that 40 is reducing the number of accounts receivable. We do have what we call our collection and loan management branch, headed by Janet Baltes. In itself that system is working fairly well, actually. We're still looking at consolidating all of the bad loans, bad debts, to bring them at least into that system for the time being, and then consolidating that to bring it all down not to one complete system but to one where there's a tax system and the other where there's a collection and loan management branch system.

I. Chong: The other area — just very quickly, if the minister can advise — is the use of outside collection agency alternatives versus house service deliveries. When that occurs, when outside collection agency alternatives are looked at, I would imagine that would be tendered out. Is that correct? A simple nod would do, if that's the answer.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We actually do use outside agencies already. It is tendered out to people who put in RFPs for how they're going to do the collections.

I. Chong: Just a few other very brief questions. I just wanted to state for the record that there are two areas I receive concerns about throughout the year. One is the PST and the other is the property purchase tax. If staff require more information, they can receive that after this evening, but I just want it for the record.

The PST issue has usually arisen as a result of the due-date situation. Generally speaking, people can file by the 15th and have their payments in. I know electronic transactions and payments will make it easier, but there are still going to be people in other areas who will not want to. Whether they're in rural areas or just for the sake of personal reasons, they don't wish to use electronic services. They're still going to mail in their cheques or take them to a bank.

The odd time there's a problem encountered and a person can't get to the bank before it closes, and there's no government office where they can put it through the mail slot, or it's just too far to get to. They've actually written out the cheque, and everything's ready to take it into a bank. They're late, literally, a day.

It was my understanding — I realize there is a policy in place — that if that happens once, on occasion, the penalty won't always be imposed. The cases I've usually heard about were ones where it only happened once and, of course, the penalty was imposed.

Is that an area the ministry is looking at? From an MLA's point of view, that's the area of concern that I mostly hear from.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The policy with the Minister of Provincial Revenue is that they have a grace period of once every year, and it's a rolling year. If you didn't pay it by the 15th of April, 2001, and you didn't pay it again on January of 2002, you would be subject to the penalty. I think, from our facts, that we're one of the most lenient in the country. Ontario, I think, just passed legislation. If you miss once in four years, then you're subject to the penalty.

I've had lots of calls since taking this over from different people who say we can't have that 15th deadline as being the cut and dried day. Some are saying we should have it on the 20th and we should have it on the 17th and whenever else. I think in all fairness to government, to bring the revenues in, the 15th was the day that was chosen. It could have easily been the 10th or whenever else. I think we must stick to it, because if we don't, then people are going to say: "Well, I was only two days late. What's wrong with that? The guy that was one day late got the break."

I think it's extremely important that people understand that the 15th is the 15th. For rural areas, if it's postmarked on the 15th, it's something that is acceptable. Over time, as we get into electronic filing, I'm sure we'll start looking at Internet filing where if it was Internet filed on the 15th it would be an acceptable time too. That hasn't come yet, but over time I'm sure it will.

I. Chong: I appreciate that, because I do know it is a concern for some people. When the e-filing starts to take place, as it has with Revenue Canada, that will probably alleviate some of the concerns.

One final area. The property purchase tax is something that has been brought to my attention ever since I was in my first year in opposition. I just would like the minister to advise whether there are any changes contemplated there. I know future legislation is going to be brought about, but my question is really about the fairness of that act more than anything.

What I encountered when I was in opposition was complaints about the inconsistency of when properties are transferred, especially in cases where a common-law situation or a marriage takes place. If you were to be married within six months of meeting someone and transferred the home into the other person's name, there was no property transfer tax, whereas if you lived together for 13 months and decided to transfer it, that was not legally recognized. It seems to be an inconsistency there.

If someone made a mistake by transferring it, and they contacted the previous Ministry of Finance and said a mistake was made, there was no way to reverse that and avoid paying a property transfer tax. That, to me, seemed unfair, and I had mentioned that to the three or four previous Ministers of Finance when I was

in opposition. I still hadn't heard whether there were any changes contemplated there.

Again, I realize that could be future legislation, but I just want to say for the record that if the ministry would consider it, then I think we would have accomplished another goal of looking at things fairly and equitably.

Hon. B. Barisoff: We will be talking with the Minister of Finance on the policy. We're expecting to do that sometime this summer, and we're looking at what can be done on the property transfer tax.

I. Chong: The last item I wanted to pose, I guess, depends on whether there is a substantial or significant amount of outstanding debt in the ministry's books right now. I don't know what we inherited from the previous administration and whether there's several million dollars' worth of debt that's outstanding and has been outstanding for three, five or six years or 90 days. The longer you have a receivable being aged, we all know, the more difficult it is being collected.

I'm wondering whether the minister has considered any kind of initiative that would at least clean up some old debt — whether some sort of a tax amnesty is possible to clear those and start fresh. I know some other jurisdictions had looked at it. I didn't know whether that was something this minister would consider. If our outstanding debt isn't as great as it is, then it may not be something that's necessary to look at. I just wanted to put that on the record for the minister, and he can answer that today or think about it.

In closing, I want to say to the minister that I appreciate the fact that his office has always been open to suggestions and thoughts. I have had a good rapport with his staff. I do appreciate him putting the 16,100 regulatory requirements on the record. I think the problem is that none of us knew what the regulations were that hindered businesses. Getting to the goal of 10,700 is very laudable, and I wish the minister and his staff every success in reducing those regulations. That will make our economy move a lot more quickly.

Hon. B. Barisoff: The member is absolutely correct in the fact that overdue accounts are a real concern of ours. Over the last three years the overdue accounts have gone up by 40 percent. That 40 percent represents $700 million that we have outstanding over 90 days. That continues to climb as we delve into the different ministries and find out that there's more and more outstanding debt that we don't know about. Over time we'll get a handle on this and start to bring it under control.

R. Lee: Just a simple question to the minister: in estimates, under debt collection, last year it was $4 million dollars more than it is this year. I think the $4 million is from government transfers. I would like to see what kind of services are provided by that $4 million. This year you don't have that $4 million. What kind of services have been cut by this action?

Hon. B. Barisoff: It was enlightening for me also. There actually is no change. There's no cut; it's actually an accounting change. It's the retroactivity in the homeowner grant. The money that isn't collected is brought forward. It's actually an accounting change to make sure everything's done properly.

R. Lee: So the $4 million is just an accounting transfer, not an operating expense in the department. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Santori: At this time I want to make the Chair aware that the Crown corporation and representatives from BCBC are also here for the information of the Chair and members.

I'm pleased to present the spending estimates for the Ministry of Management Services for the fiscal year 2002-03. I'd like to introduce staff members at this time. To my left, my deputy, Catharine Read, and to my right, Brian Mann, who was introduced earlier.

The Ministry of Management Services as it is today was created in June 2001. It comprises divisions and branches from a number of ministries and previously existing departments of government.

The central organizing principle behind the creation of this new ministry is to bring together programs, resources and staff to enable government to move ahead on a number of new-era goals. These include: developing a framework for shared common service delivery for a range of support services across government, increasing open tendering and providing greater flexibility in procurement practices, providing more government services offered online, and increasing access to high-speed electronic infrastructure.

The ministry has four operating divisions: corporate and ministry support services, procurement and supply services, corporate and information programs, and common IT services. In total, the ministry service plan currently shows 1,200 full-time-equivalents, not including PSERC. Several program and service areas of the ministry are carried out on a cost-recovery basis where costs are fully recovered from ministries and other agencies that use their services.

This is the first budget for management services since the core review and our re-engineering of the ministry. The gross operating budget, including PSERC, for 2002-03 is $698 million, with estimated re-

coveries of $650 million, leaving a net operating budget for the ministry of $47.8 million. The total capital budget for the ministry is $28.3 million. Total FTEs for 2002-03, including PSERC, is 1,336.

Corporate and ministry support services provides the ministry, as well as a number of other agencies and ministries, with financial administration, personnel management, information technology management, staff development and training and other related services. Included in this area are the minister's office, corporate services and the Public Service Appeal Board subvotes.

Procurement and supply services. Its basic function is to provide value-added supply solutions to government, largely on a fee-for-service basis. These include such things as acquisition of goods and services; provision of printing, publishing and mail services; and warehousing and distribution of office and specialty products as well as the responsibility for Government House. It also disposes of government surplus assets, manages intellectual property and operates the B.C. Bid system to post opportunities for government contracts. Included in this division is the product sales and service subvote. Government House is shown as protected funding, as is Enquiry B.C. and the corporate and information programs division.

Corporate and information programs provides a range of corporate government programs, including records management; corporate privacy and information access; B.C. Stats; B.C. archives and records services; B.C. Business Connects, including Enquiry B.C.; waste-busters; and B.C. Internet Services.

Common information technology services provides common information technology services to government ministries and some public sector organizations. Some of those services include voice and data networks, workstation support, information technology help desk services, shared data processing, electronic mail, common application software support, security and anti-virus protection.

These four core business areas comprise the Ministry of Management Services programs and services, each of which contributes directly to the ministry goals:

1. Ensure taxpayers get value from the way the government runs its internal operations.

3. Make government procurement of goods and services and public tendering of government business opportunities and contracts fair, open and competitive.

4. Build public confidence in the way government and regulated bodies manage the information they hold.

In achieving these goals and evaluating our progress, we are committed to measuring our performance and ensuring proper and regular accountability. As our IT services are consolidated into the shared service delivery model, the common IT services organization will expand by absorbing some of the staff who have been performing similar functions across government.

Establishing a new support delivery model, an agency will require initial investment in the new organization, its processes and new computer-based infrastructure.

With respect to our shared service initiative, this initiative was approved by Treasury Board in December 2001. It is a particularly exciting strategic shift in government's approach to the delivery of support services and the opportunity it gives us to develop and implement a new organization focused on exceptional client service.

The objective of the shared service initiative is to lower the cost of delivered transactions and administrative services through economies of scale, streamlined processes and consistent policies. This new approach means we can remain responsive to our clients as well as citizens and businesses across British Columbia. The move towards shared services stresses the view that our clients don't care which organization provides them with service delivery as long as the service is there when they need it.

There are two major components to the shared services initiative. Support services is created to enable the provision of certain transactional and administrative services to ministries, special offices, officers of the Legislature, other agencies and special accounts on a full cost-recovery basis. Planning is well underway to determine specifically what services will be delivered to which client groups.

Shared service planning provides for the planning required to implement and administer shared services across government and to investigate opportunities to expand shared services into the broader public sector.

There are some key challenges ahead for the ministry. Support services will be dependent upon client service standards that are competitive and transparent, providing quality service that meets clients' needs while remaining affordable, effective and flexible. Client groups are diverse, and requirements will vary from group to group.

Our initiatives play a critical role in providing important infrastructure to support e-government, and we are working closely with the CIO's office and other ministries to develop electronic services.

In conclusion, our performance targets reflect the ministry's commitment to continuous improvement. We are committed to achieving results as laid out in these estimates and making effective use of the resources provided to us. Thank you.

J. Bray: First of all, I'd like to congratulate the minister on the service plan and the performance plans presented. They're excellent documents. I certainly encourage my constituents to go to the web page to look at these documents, because I think they're extremely informative.

As the minister knows, Victoria is the seat of government. Certainly, my riding is the seat of government, and so I will have some questions on his minis-

I was pleased to hear in the minister's opening remarks some discussion on shared services and the whole project. I think it's a very exciting initiative for government. I'm wondering if the minister could give us an update beyond his initial words as to where shared services is at this point with respect to his ministry.

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, let me begin by expressing my thanks to my staff, who have done a tremendous amount of work in bringing forth something that I feel is extremely creative, something that is new to government — let's just say a culture change and a whole new way of how we do business in government.

If I can just go back briefly, I believe we can honestly say that we are not going into a shared service model blind. We have done our homework in terms in looking at other jurisdictions and what their successes and failures were. Staff have met with other jurisdictions to ensure that we don't make the same mistakes twice.

In terms of the progress we have made now, I believe that we have concluded which services will be more conducive to the shared service model. We are now working on the process of what services will in fact be under the shared service model and determining how governance and the service delivery will be separated. We have brought in an outside consulting firm to assist us in developing the framework that will ensure the separation is there and the model is in place to carry out those services in terms of dealing with individual ministry service agreements. This is so that we know upfront and the ministries feel comfortable with the services they expect from us at a price they can afford, and we can afford them the choice they are going to need to find the efficiencies they require within their ministries.

J. Bray: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I notice in the estimates for the shared services office there is some operational cost associated with that. I'm wondering if the minister could elaborate what some of the operational costs would be for the shared services office.

Hon. S. Santori: The initial cost to implement the shared services for this fiscal year will be approximately $1.3 million. Most of that cost will be with respect to identifying systems to be in a position to re-engineer. It could include new software, consolidation…. I guess the biggest cost would be towards consolidating and standardizing processes, which would mean possibly software as well as hardware to be able to consolidate and standardize processes.

J. Bray: That answer certainly makes sense for me. Is it fair to say that these costs may not be permanent costs but that they're associated to some extent with initial startup over the first few years, and ultimately, as shared services are fully implemented, many of those costs may no longer be permanent?

The other question: perhaps the minister could clarify with respect to the figure offered for internal recoveries for the fiscal '02-03. There's a $1.35 million figure there. I'm hoping the minister can expand on where that number comes from.

Hon. S. Santori: The question that the member poses…. This is an allowance that has been put forth for internal recoveries which may or may not occur, depending on what services come into the ministry. An allotment has been projected. It is an estimate. It may even not occur, but a portion of that is…. As I said earlier, that's dependent on services that come in and then are recovered back as we charge them out to the respective ministers.

I wonder if I can move to another topic, very briefly, from your service plan. That's with respect to the waste-buster website. I'm wondering whether or not the minister can update us on the progress of that with respect to the ideas that might be coming forth, the ability of government to act on some of those and if we're seeing any recoverables from that.

Hon. S. Santori: To date, approximately $900,000 has been identified where there are savings that will be realized. We are also finding, with a lot of the suggestions that have come in from the submitters on the waste-busters website, that through the changes that have taken place through the core review and the restructurings, a lot of those issues and concerns were being addressed in that.

Now, having said that, to bring you right up to date on waste-busters, we are in the process now of analyzing the feasibility of continuing on. We're finding that we are now starting to get some submissions that aren't in the spirit that was intended in terms of making contributions towards identifying waste.

In terms of the future of the waste-buster website, that's yet to be determined, but approximately $900,000 has been identified to date.

J. Bray: Actually, I find that still very encouraging. That has been a very positive initiative, recognizing some of the challenges that you're now facing, because it is an open portal.

I'm wondering whether or not the minister can comment on the access of that, in the spirit in which it's intended, from members of the public service who may have suggestions that they've been wishing to put forth

Hon. S. Santori: Could I ask the member to clarify the question one more time?

J. Bray: I was just trying to ascertain if members of the public service have been making use of the waste-buster website in the same way as the public would be, in identifying issues they've seen, as opposed to some of the other routes that are more traditionally available, which is through supervisors and other avenues. Has this been seen as another tool for the public service to identify issues?

Hon. S. Santori: Yes, it has. I would suggest that it was used considerably by staff. Also at this time I want to say that regardless of what the vehicle will be, we will continue to encourage suggestions from the public service.

I'm going to move on now, if I may, to some discussions around the workforce adjustment. Obviously, that's been a significant issue in my riding, and I've had some good discussions with the minister. I'm just following up on a few of those.

The first question is whether or not there's any reporting on what has been happening in the public service with respect to the early retirement packages and the voluntary buyout packages. What has the uptake been like by members of the public service?

Hon. S. Santori: If it's possible, and if the member is in agreement, I have another vote under PSERC. I'd be more than happy to answer it now, but it may be more appropriate when I do the estimates for PSERC.

J. Bray: That'd be fine with me. If I could just get clarification, is that vote also happening this evening?

The next two questions were with respect to that. The final question, then, on this vote would be…. I was unable to find — and it may not be listed specifically — the actual budget amount for Government House and whether or not Government House has been required to submit three-year service plans in the same way as other areas in the ministry have.

Hon. S. Santori: The gross is $1.6 million, the net $1.5 million. It's a protected expenditure, and service plans were not required for or requested of Government House.

I. Chong: I just have two very quick questions for the minister. First of all, can the minister advise what percentage of government tenders is posted on the B.C. Bid website? I don't imagine all tenders are, but can you give us an idea of what percentage is and whether he has a goal to reach a full 100 percent?

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to actual percentages, I can get that information to you. I don't have it on hand, but I am pleased to announce that since the changes we've implemented earlier in the year, the use of B.C. Bid has been increased significantly. Our objective is that 100 percent of all government bids will be posted on BC Bid in the future.

I. Chong: That's great news, because I think it's a goal that's worth striving for and achieving.

The second and final question is regarding the equal opportunity secretariat. I noticed that the minister, in his service plan, indicated that it was a non-core program area. I understand that the agency has fulfilled, I guess, its initial objective.

What I was curious to note was the comment made that similar services are provided by the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. I'm wondering if the minister would just advise for the record what those similar services are, just for the benefit…. People continue to raise questions with me. Other members, I know, have received similar questions. I've assured them there is still that opportunity to receive assistance. If the minister is able to elaborate a little bit more on that and just have it for the record, that's my final question.

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to the equal opportunity secretariat, it was deemed not to be core. The ministry felt it had fulfilled its mandate.

We also recognized that diversity in the workplace should be as diverse as the population in this province. We also feel very comfortable that through human resources and our hiring processes, the understanding and realizing of the importance of diversity is entrenched in the hiring process. We do recognize that we need diversity

With respect to the services provided in PSERC, I would say, once again, it's entrenched in the hiring process. We recognize it. It is taken into consideration when hirings take place.

R. Lee: Just one quick question on the Provincial Learning Network. There's a budget for $22 million to maintain the network and also probably some enhancement. I just want to see how much is enhancement in terms of hardware improvement and how much is for maintenance — salaries and benefits for human resources.

Hon. S. Santori: Just a point of clarification from the member. He made reference to salaries and benefits. I just wanted you to clarify in what area you were specifically requesting that.

R. Lee: I imagine part of the $22 million budget is used for hardware improvement: the length between the sites and the network or purchasing of computers — that kind of thing — and software, for that matter. What proportion is used for human resources and manpower? I want to see what the proportions are approximately.

Hon. S. Santori: If the member was asking specifically on PLNet, the actual salaries and benefit cost was $809,000, and the operation of the hardware, the replacement of hardware and the building of new systems works out to $19,760,000.

R. Lee: The majority, over 90 percent, is on hardware development. Is that part of the provincial initiative to narrow the digital divide?

Hon. S. Santori: Once again, 90 percent of the cost associated with PLNet is not related to…. Ten percent is related to salary costs.

With respect to your question on bridging the digital divide and what part it will play, it is being looked at to see what role the PLNet can play in bridging the digital divide in the province.

R. Lee: Future development is not factored into this budget. Is that correct?

Hon. S. Santori: No, it's not. You're asking how much capital is going into the 2002-03 budget directly related to PLNet for this fiscal year — right? The amount budgeted for capital for PLNet in this fiscal year is $500,000.

Hon. S. Santori: Hon. Chair, with your permission, if I don't need to go in numerical order, I would like it to be vote 36. It falls within the same ministry.

Hon. S. Santori: As part of my ministerial responsibilities I have the responsibility for the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. The commission is covered under vote 35. The work of the commission is to provide service to the managers and staff of our provincial ministries. Its role is particularly critical now, as we transition today's public service to meet our future challenges.

Ultimately, we want to be seen as a first-choice employer. That's why we are working to restore a professional public service. We are pursuing a vision of creating the best public service in Canada. Our goal is to revitalize and renew the public service, retaining its long traditions of service to citizens while building its capacity to meet the changing and diverse needs of government and the citizens it serves.

At this time, I'd like to introduce staff members who are present today and will assist me in the estimates process for PSERC. They are Vince Collins, PSERC commissioner and deputy minister; Martha Kenney, ADM; and Roseann Whitton, manager of corporate services.

I'd like to focus now on some of the accomplishments and challenges of the past year. Our government made a commitment in our New Era document to pursue greater opportunities for openness and fairness. We established the office of the merit employment commissioner to support and promote the establishment of a professional public service. We are meeting the commitment with staff processes and procedures that are now in place.

As you know, Mr. Collins has assumed the role of the merit commissioner, and his first report is to be tabled in the Legislature on May 31, 2002.

With respect to workforce adjustment, our province's fiscal challenges have forced us to re-examine our core services programs and the staff that support them. In response, we have developed and managed the workforce adjustment program to quickly transition the public service into tomorrow's business practices.

We have done that through voluntary early retirement and departure programs and a series of advisory and support functions to assist both managers and affected employees in adjusting to the effects of these changes.

To date, over 2,000 applications have been processed for the voluntary departure programs. While final figures won't be known until at least March 31, it is possible that our original estimate of 2,500 taking up the program may well be exceeded.

Public service renewal. While elected officials can set the direction and vision for transforming government, in the end it is a vital and energetic public service that will deliver the vision to the public. We've developed a strategy to rebuild and sustain a professional public service capable of providing quality services to meet the needs of citizens. This strategy will ensure that the province can remain an employer of choice to be able to attract, develop and retain a highly motivated and talented workforce.

We are engaged in a transformation within government, looking for new approaches and ways of doing business that are cost-effective, efficient and responsive to the public's needs. This calls for new approaches to how we manage the human resource practices and processes within government. Toward this end, we are commencing to develop a consolidated

human resource organization in order to share these common services between ministries and thereby cut administrative costs while still providing quality human resource services to client ministries. Implementation will be completed by December 2002.

I have outlined the activities and funding priorities for PSERC to support our government as it moves forward on its delivery of a new era of prosperity for British Columbia. I would be remiss if I didn't take the opportunity to reinforce how critical the forward-looking activities of our employee relations commission are to achieving our common aspirations. In the end, it comes down to valuing the people who are the public service. They are the most valuable public service. They demonstrate day in and day out their commitment to the people of our province, their professionalism and their energy and willingness to take on the challenges today and in the future.

J. Bray: I congratulate the minister and his staff on this portion of the service plan as well. I think it sets out some exciting things for the public service, notwithstanding the difficult times some are dealing with now. I think there are some really exciting opportunities in the future.

I am wondering if I can start with just having the minister again clarify with respect to the uptake on early retirement and voluntary buyout — if the minister could talk about both and if he's expecting to exceed estimates on uptake for both of those categories.

Hon. S. Santori: If I may, I'll start with the early retirement incentive program. Our projection was 1,700, and to date, expressions of interest have met that projection. With respect to the voluntary departure program, we had projected 800, and to date, we have approximately 1,400 expressions of interest. Given those preliminary numbers — again, as I said earlier in my remarks, it won't be conclusive until at least the end of March — that would total 3,100 expressions of interest compared to the 2,500 we had estimated. At this time, I would say it seems quite possible that we will exceed our projections.

J. Bray: Thank you to the minister for that answer. The other half of that, too, was the estimates with respect to how many unencumbered positions were already in the ministries. Given that it's always hard for ministries to quantify those numbers at any given point, can the minister comment on the estimates of unencumbered positions that were out there in the overall civil service and if those numbers seem to be about the same at this point?

Hon. S. Santori: The original estimate was 1,000. That has been reduced to 700. To the best of our knowledge, 700 would be accurate.

J. Bray: This may not be a question the minister can answer with respect to how the collective agreements work and the bumping provisions, etc. Is it a fair statement — if the minister can comment — that if the number of voluntary departures increases, the potential is there for the number of people receiving layoff notices over the course of three years to be reduced accordingly?

Hon. S. Santori: That is precisely what the intent of the program was. It was to try to minimize those employees by coming forward with that incentive. That was the original intent.

J. Bray: On another area of the same topic, I'm wondering if the minister could just provide information on the percentage with respect to redundancy notices that have been issued to date. Can he quantify the percentage of excluded employees, within the total number of excluded employees who've received redundancy notices, and the same for included positions, as a percentage of their overall component?

Hon. S. Santori: With the permission of the member, we don't want to take a guess. We have a ballpark figure, but I would rather give you a more precise answer. If it's okay with the member, I will get that information to him.

I'd like to move to a couple of the other areas in the PSERC plan. The first is that there's some significant mention in the service plan with respect to the changing demographics within the public service — the aging workforce — and the ongoing need for succession planning. This is certainly something I know a lot of my constituents who are in the public service are very interested in, because it does provide for some opportunity.

I'm wondering if the minister can expand a bit on the information in the service plan with respect to what the plans are for succession planning generally and how members of the public service might find out more information in their own worksite as to what types of things they should be looking for to enhance their opportunities within succession planning.

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to succession planning, it will in fact be part of a very comprehensive human resource strategy for probably the first time. If I could say, we've never had a comprehensive human resource strategy in the past, and we will put one in. It's in the process of being constructed now. The succession planning is a very integral part of the human resource plan. What PSERC's responsibility will be there is to establish the guidelines to assist the ministries in establishing succession planning within their own ministries.

I want to further comment on a question I think you asked. We do realize how the collective agreement works in terms of the last person in usually being the first to go. We do recognize that it does create some challenges for us with respect to having the best and

We have committed, I believe, the amount of $8 million to go directly into training to give people the tools they're going to require in order to be part of future opportunities and to be able to take part in the succession planning each ministry will administer.

J. Bray: I have had constituents who, in fact, although they've understood the direction the government has had to take with respect to that, are some of the people the minister did mention: generally closer to their education, younger in age, more mobile and feeling confident in themselves that they'll find other opportunities. They are in fact some of the people that, over the long term, I think the public service would like to attract.

Is there anything within the succession planning that may be dealing with a reach-back for some employees who did not have their three years for getting into the bumping process so we may try to encourage them to reapply as new opportunities open up over the next couple of years?

Hon. S. Santori: Member, the answer to that is: absolutely. We feel it's critical that we do have a labour pool we can rely on when the time comes that we need to go back. It is our hope that those people who did possess the knowledge of the public service will be there as a pool for us — most definitely.

J. Bray: I'm pleased to hear that, because I certainly know that although the public sector is filled with very skilled and talented people, there are some who, because of the collective bargaining agreement, simply didn't qualify for any of the bumping provisions. We do want to encourage them to remain committed to the public service, to view the public service not just as a stepping stone in their career but in fact a career end and a career goal. I'm pleased to hear the minister talk about recognizing future opportunities so that those talented younger people will choose the public service and will choose it as a lifetime career. I'm very pleased to hear that.

I apologize: I have to go back to one other question with respect to the workforce adjustment. Some constituents have indicated to me that they are having difficulties sometimes within their ministries getting a sense of information with respect to what's happening with bumping, layoffs, redundancy notices. I'm wondering whether or not PSERC is providing some general direction to managers in ministries on how to disseminate information as effectively as possible.

Hon. S. Santori: Member, with confidence we can say that extensive consultation has taken place. There has been in excess of 200 meetings. A website has been developed as an information centre. I can say with a great deal of confidence that there's been a tremendous amount of consultation during this process.

J. Bray: I'll remind my staff about that website. I'd actually forgotten about that. It is a good resource for employees.

My final question is just if the other section in the service plan dealt with the revitalization, which is sometimes forgotten to be the other half of the workforce adjustment. It was actually the whole revitalization of the public service. I'm wondering if, although it's early in the three-year plan, the minister can make comment on where the revitalization is coming along in that plan.

Hon. S. Santori: Member, as I indicated before, the comprehensive human resource strategy that is being developed at this time will deal with leadership skills and opportunities. I believe that is in direct response to the question you asked and that I commented on earlier.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all I'd like to introduce the staff that are with me: Alison MacPhail, my deputy minister; to my left, Jim Crone, the ADM of management services; and behind me is Barbara Kaiway, director of the resource planning and analysis division.

I also have a number of staff who are glued to the audio in my office this evening. I didn't mention there was a hockey game on for them. I just wanted to thank them tonight, because they're taking their time to be here tonight. I've got a pretty good group of staff that have helped this ministry achieve a number of successes today.

I'd like to just introduce you to the ministry very quickly. Public safety is our key priority in this government. People need to know that they live in safe communities. We have a fundamental duty to protect our citizens and maintain the law and order. At the same time, we face great challenges to public safety in this province. The nature of crime has changed. Today it is more complex and often more serious. Violent offenders or sophisticated criminals and organized crime are what we're dealing with.

Like every ministry, we're working in the context of a projected $4.4 billion structural deficit. We have clear direction. We'll find ways to reform public safety. We'll get spending under control and make sure we maintain the services needed to support and improve public safety. It is our goal to have an enhanced, sustainable public safety system and to improve the public's perception of the people, institutions and organizations that make up that system.

Over the last nine months, my ministry has undertaken a comprehensive review to identify essential

services and develop strategies for delivering those more effectively. At the same time, we're also developing a three-year plan containing strategic shifts — a first in the history of this ministry and, I'm sure, every other ministry of government — which will help guide us in a very clear mission for government.

The first thing my ministry did was honour its new-era commitments. We acted quickly to eliminate photo radar so front-line police could get on with the business of public safety. We also passed the Parental Responsibility Act, fulfilling our commitment to hold parents of children who commit property damage accountable for that damage. Finally, we acted on the new-era commitment to stop the expansion of gambling.

At the same time we were taking care of these commitments, we were examining our basic ministry functions. We began a detailed review of what the ministry does, why we do it and should we do it, and if we do, could we do it better? A key outcome of this review was a series of strategic shifts, changes in direction and focus that will guide this ministry for the next three years.

These shifts include a move toward greater integration of policing services and a greater focus on the role of provincial police to respond to complex criminal activities; a plan to increase efficiencies in crime prevention and victim services by consolidating service delivery and encouraging community ownership of community-based programs; a plan to increase efficiencies in liquor licensing by eliminating unnecessary regulation and moving toward self-regulation; and a restructuring of the way we manage the gaming industry. We have now introduced a bill to provide the legislative framework for these changes. This will mean that for the first time in B.C. there will be a single, comprehensive gaming law. Other areas of responsibility of this ministry are available for view on our website or by contacting the ministry.

We've also taken a look at our budget. We're committed to maintaining essential services while we reduce our budget by 11 percent over the next three years. This will amount to $57 million in savings by year three.

At the same time, we are committed to maintaining police funding to ensure the safety of British Columbians in their homes and in their communities. The year ahead will see us put a plan into action for policing. Policing will be one of our main priorities. Over the next 12 months we will maintain provincial police funding, ensure equitable enforcement and aggressively target organized crime.

We're working with all our police agencies, including the RCMP and municipal forces, to find ways of integrating and sharing police resources to reduce administrative overlap and to enhance effectiveness of specialized teams.

We’re focusing resources on technology, like PRIME-BC, an electronic records management system that will link all police department information across the province and allow police to significantly improve their ability to solve major crime.

We're also trying to create an equitable and level playing field for taxpayers when it comes to the issue of financing policing. To accomplish this, we are developing a new funding formula for policing of communities under 5,000 and rural areas. We are working with the Ministries of Finance and Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to review the costs of funding for policing. This spring, through the Union of B.C. Municipalities we will be consulting with the municipalities and regional districts with the populations under 5,000 that are affected.

All of these things will be contained in the five-year plan, which is well underway.

Corrections. We are streamlining and enhancing Corrections in British Columbia. Specifically, we will ensure that we have effective rehabilitative programs for offenders. We will use risk-based management that identifies and focuses resources on offenders who pose the greatest risk. We will also consolidate correctional facilities, which will give us greater efficiencies and reduce costs. We are rationalizing probation services, which will reduce administrative costs while maintaining services. We're also lowering the cost of the keep-of-prisoners program and reducing the overall number of prisoners in local police lockups.

In the area of gaming we've taken steps to streamline the administration and operations of the gaming sector. In September we announced that we would consolidate the five agencies responsible for gaming into two. In December we announced changes that make it easier for charities to acquire and spend gaming funds. This week we introduced the Gaming Control Act, which provides, for the first time in B.C., a single legislative framework to ensure fairness, consistency and accountability. The net result will be that the gaming sector will be better operated and there will be improved gaming facilities for charities, communities, gaming companies, employees, players and taxpayers.

We are taking similar action to streamline and reform liquor control and licensing. We will soon reduce the number of categories of licences and focus staff resources on enforcing public safety issues, such as service to minors, illegal sale of liquor, overcrowding, over-consumption and inducements. We will also strengthen the role of local government in determining the number of bars and pubs based on the needs of individual communities while retaining the licensing authority with government.

Finally, we are taking significant action to reduce the regulatory burden that has been overwhelming people and businesses in this province. We're modernizing the Residential Tenancy Act and rewriting it in plain language that everyone can understand. This will create balance between landlords and tenants and en-

sure that everyone has a clear understanding of their rights and responsibilities. Our regulatory highlights over the next months will include new legislation to reduce red tape in the marketplace and allow for self-regulation in certain sectors, such as motor dealers, travel service and private investigators.

We have a lot of work to do, but we also have a clear vision of where we want to take this ministry and what we need to do to enhance public safety in this province. We've done our homework. Now we're ready to take the action to make sure our streets are safer, our homes, schools and communities are more secure and our businesses have the flexibility and protection they need to thrive.

D. Jarvis: Minister, I'd like to ask a few quick questions here, ostensibly on the search and rescue aspect in the outback and what it's costing the government to handle search and rescue, say, for all of British Columbia and if you have given any consideration to privatizing it or reviewed any other system that's better than what we have. Why I say that is that I have a member of my riding that contends that there's a system that the Swiss government is using now in which they're charging anyone going into the outback a certain fee. It's required by law, and it's worked very well. It becomes a self-supporting system.

Hon. R. Coleman: The operating budget for basically what is our provincial emergency program, which this is caught within, is about $6.479 million. Privatization of search and rescue in the province is actually not a function that you could really apply to the way we do search and rescue in British Columbia. Our search and rescue program is actually, given the experience of September 11, one of the best in the country, if not in North America, and it is largely run by volunteers.

We have an exceptional group of people out there in every community that regularly put their lives on the line and take the risk to save people's lives. They get equipment supplied and funding from the ministry for training and that sort of thing, but in fact, the actual delivery of the service is mainly volunteer. I don't know whether we could ever replace the value of the volunteer by privatizing search and rescue, because frankly, I think we have a very successful program in British Columbia.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate what you're saying, but this system they're using is using all volunteers. If I bring you this program, you'll give it consideration, I assume. I don't need an answer on that, Mr. Minister. I assume that you will.

Hon. R. Coleman: Any time there's a new idea that can work for the government of British Columbia…. We have always been capable of thinking outside the box in this government and will continue to do so, so I welcome the member's information.

D. Jarvis: Another question. Today the police in Vancouver areas have come out and said they now want to restart and re-instigate photo radar. This is ostensibly, I guess, because of the rash of speeding cars and the deaths and carnage that's being caused by it.

Are you considering bringing back photo radar? Where are the existing photo radar machines now? Are they still in the hands of the police? Are they able to start photo radar on their own within their own municipalities?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, it was a New Era commitment that we would scrap photo radar in British Columbia. We did that as part of our commitment in the first 90 days. The day that was done in open cabinet, the vans were returned to their local detachment along with the equipment, which was returned to ICBC, who owned the equipment. The police do not have the equipment. We maintain the red-light camera for intersections because that's where most accidents are taking place.

We actually believe that the higher visibility of police in the community has a bigger impact on reducing accidents than by taking a picture and not having an immediate impact with the relationship of the driver of a vehicle relative to their driving habits.

The answer to the member is: no, we will not be bringing back photo radar. We will continue to work as we have been towards an integrated traffic system within our law enforcement agencies across the province so that long term, we'll have the solutions for prevention and management of offences within our traffic sector.

D. Jarvis: Last question, minister. I understand that you've now taken the B.C. Racing Commission into the B.C. Lottery Corporation for the gambling aspect of it. As you know, the racing business across this country and across the States hasn't been having good years until such time as most of them have gone into the slot machines. The Ontario Jockey Club and various other jockey clubs have now found themselves quite successful as a result of having slot machines at their tracks.

This business does, we know, bring revenue and jobs into British Columbia through the farming and boarding and breeding of horses, etc. Has the ministry given any consideration, or will the Lottery Corporation give any consideration, to perhaps bringing some slots into an already established gambling vehicle to perhaps make sure that the racing industry in B.C. is thriving again?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, we made a commitment to British Columbians that there'd be no expansion of gaming in this province under this government. We are standing by that commitment. We dealt with the infrastructure in and around gaming relative to slot

machines in open cabinet in January in Fort St. John. I think that decision is pretty clear, and it's final. There's no intention of introducing slots at either of the race tracks in British Columbia. The city of Vancouver, where one is located, does not allow slots, and the second community, which is Surrey, to date still does not allow slots, so even if they were, they wouldn't go into those communities anyway.

Having said that, there's not any slots available to go there, because we're not going to have an expansion of gaming. We think we've moved towards an integrated model in the gaming sector with management assistance from the B.C. Lottery Corporation in conjunction with the thoroughbred and standardbred industry that will allow us to stabilize that industry. We're also in final negotiations with Woodbine Entertainment Group relative to them taking over Hastings Park raceway and also how the teletheatre market in British Columbia will be managed in the future.

I'm comfortable with the moves we've made to protect the 6,000 to 7,000 jobs in that industry. I think the industry today has to — in this province, anyway — come to the acceptance that we're not in the business of expanding gaming through slot machines and that now it's time to concentrate on the business plan that works for British Columbians with the professional organizations that we have running horse racing today and the one that's coming into the marketplace.

I've got a couple of areas I'd like to canvass with the minister. The first involves our commitment as a government to reinstitute a form of an armed auxiliary police program in British Columbia. I suspect it's taken longer than the minister hoped to get a new program off the ground. I wonder if the minister can bring us up to date with his efforts in that regard.

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the auxiliary issue was not in the 90-day plan, so we do have time within our mandate to work this out. I looked at this program when I became the minister. I looked at the new community volunteer program that's being dealt with for auxiliaries and am actually in discussion with the member, who has a very successful one put together in Chilliwack that's working quite well for that community.

I've sat down with the commissioner of the RCMP and the deputy commissioner for E Division, which is British Columbia, and discussed this very issue about the level of training required in order to have somebody in the field with a firearm to basically know when they could use that firearm and what their powers were in and around it and also how we would build the infrastructure of policing long term to backfill and support our organizations.

Right now, we're looking at maintaining the community volunteer program as auxiliaries and then adding on another level, which we're actually referring to now as reserves. There is power under the RCMP Act for a reserve force to be constituted anywhere in Canada.

We're looking at a reserve force using former RCMP officers and former police officers — people who have a higher level of training through the Justice Institute or what have you to carry firearms — to backfill and support our law enforcement community long term so we can build an infrastructure, so we can deal with seasonal policing and issues around the PNWER conference, for example, and the G-8. Those things are all going to be taking place, so if we can build a team of people behind our law enforcement, we can support them with not just one level of auxiliary but another level plus the existing police force.

B. Penner: Does the minister have any idea of when he'll be in a position to formally roll out this new program?

Hon. R. Coleman: It'll roll out as time permits. We have already started the work. The RCMP have been working on their end for a little while now. I'll probably be meeting with the commissioner and speaking to him now and again within the next month or so and see how it's going back east as far as what they need to do in order to put the structure in place. Because this idea sort of started in British Columbia, it may be something that they want to look at on a larger level. We'll sort of walk through a business plan that'll work for everyone, as we go through it.

B. Penner: Different topic. It has to do with the consolidation of correctional facilities in the province. I've received a number of inquiries from people in the community and from outside the community interested in utilizing properties that are no longer going to be needed by the Ministry of Solicitor General. Does the ministry have a process in place to handle these types of requests, and is the minister in a position to tell us what will become of the unused properties, specifically in the Chilliwack area — Mount Thurston in the Chilliwack River valley and the Chilliwack correctional centre in downtown Chilliwack on Rowat Avenue. Those are two properties that I've been asked about specifically.

Hon. R. Coleman: The properties that the ministry occupies in corrections are not owned by the ministry and neither are they managed by the ministry. The titles are vested with the B.C. Buildings Corporation, which will be given the transitional job of disposing of the properties, finding other tenants and having other arrangements made.

I do know that you have a service club in your community that has a longstanding relationship with children's camps that has shown some interest. I would recommend that they contact the member to contact

BCBC to see how that can be done. If you have any difficulty whatsoever, I'm sure — being BCBC's biggest client — we can assist you in raising their focus to have those discussions with you.

B. Penner: Last topic — mostly in the form of a bouquet. I'd like to just comment on the experience I've had dealing with the minister and the provincial emergency program responding to a crisis in the Chilliwack River valley affecting Baker Trail trailer park. That was a situation which occurred earlier this year — I think it was in January — during excessive rainfall. Two particular creeks, Guy Creek and Tank Creek, essentially overflowed their banks and threatened the people that lived in that small community.

Thanks to the effort of the ministry and the provincial emergency program, it looks like we're going to be able to access in excess of $100,000 to do some remediation work, building some berms and some protection for the people in that trailer park. I wonder if the minister can bring us up to date on where the provincial emergency program is at in terms of getting that work started on the ground.

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the preliminary work is already underway. There have been some preliminary discussions.

I want to thank the member for attending the meeting of the trailer park owners, the people who are living in this particular community, and clarifying for them this opportunity so that they could actually come to a resolution within the park as to their participation in the program.

We've identified the funds this year and next year that can remedy the problem. The solution's been identified. As I understand it, a couple of properties will have to be purchased, which is also part of the program. I would expect that work would get underway as soon as weather permits and all that engineering or surveying, or whatever has to be done, is done.

B. Penner: Do you have a cost estimate at this time for what the total amount of provincial funding will be?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have that at my fingertips, and I would have known the figure after the meeting I had with the provincial emergency program people and the estimates we talked about, relative to the layout. It's substantial, frankly, for a property this size. But that's the commitment of the provincial emergency program: to mitigate these hazards and to protect people whose properties have, frankly, in this case, been built in the wrong place. The regional district didn't identify these issues relative to soil erosion when that property was put together.

K. Stewart: Two quick questions, if I can. First, to the minister: under the auspices of public safety we've already talked about the provincial emergency program. My question, having been long involved with that program, is with regards to training budgets for the funding for the provincial emergency program. I understand there's been a change in the training component for this program. I just wonder what type of effects and changes that's going to have on this program and what opportunities and challenges are going to be the outcome as a result of that.

Hon. R. Coleman: We have reduced the training budget in the provincial emergency program, from $350,000 to $250,000 next year. That was based on a number of things, obviously budget pressures. We tried to keep it as minimal as possible within this particular area, but at the same time, there's been ongoing training within this sector for many years. We do have a pretty mature volunteer force that operates within this and can actually take on some of the training capacities at the local level rather than having to bring them into a central area.

The upside for them is that we changed some rules, before Christmas, relative to casinos and lotteries, where we can have donations from people that have licences in volunteer groups. Volunteers can donate back and forth. They're no longer restricted by two groups having a lottery licence. I think the volunteers, the senior people, we have are trained. They can help train the people in the field, and the $250,000 left in there, I think, will be fine.

K. Stewart: With your responsibilities as Solicitor General, the member from Chilliwack asked the question with regard to correctional facilities. As you're aware, there are a number of correctional facilities in the riding adjoining mine, Maple Ridge–Mission, although these programs that are operated through the correctional program include a number of hatcheries and other ancillary programs. They are on a river that runs through my riding, which is very important to our riding. A number of groups, including the Alouette River Management Group, are heavily involved in this hatchery. Can you tell me what the plans are for these hatcheries, and what effects the program changes at Alouette River Correctional Facility and some of the other camps to the east will have on these programs?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess my first response is that the corrections system isn't in the hatchery business. It's a relationship between a particular facility and the community. In your community there are three facilities, as you know: the Fraser Regional Correctional Centre, which does not have a program in the community relative to this, and the Alouette River Facility, which is going to be closed and then house our female population within the corrections system. I would anticipate that as that goes through, there will be a programming relationship back to the community relative to that particular hatchery. There's been a longstanding relationship, and we have found some benefits in the programming and the work experience for our people.

The other facility is Stave Lake, which is a camp. We're closing Stave Lake. Therefore, we won't be participating in any other programs at Stave Lake, but we will work with the community on the two programs that exist. One of them, I believe, is a small fish-fry facility. They put those back into the hatchery system, as I understand it. The other one is where we bring in some endangered species–type birds and what have you that have been injured. That is a community program already, in conjunction with that facility. We will go back and work with the community so they can maintain it within the community.

R. Lee: I have a couple of questions. One is related to auto theft. Are there any plans to reduce the crime rate in that aspect?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are always concerned about the level of crime. Auto crime has a number of factors in and around it that we deal with: one that actually blends into organized crime and another which is petty crime and joy riding. On that side, I think we will have a lot of success with B.C. crime as we integrate our system relative to the information in real time, what's happening on our streets.

The federal and provincial justice ministers are also working on issues relevant to auto theft on a national basis to see if we can come up with some programs to work on together.

R. Lee: My second question is on SkyTrain. There may be some SkyTrain stations open in the summer in the Burnaby area. There are always concerns about crimes around the SkyTrain stations, according to previous experience around Metrotown and those areas. Are there any measures to anticipate public safety concerns around those stations?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, the communities that have received SkyTrain should recognize the economic benefit that particular facility brings to their community and shouldn't always be looking to somebody else to police a line within an existing policing infrastructure. Having said that, we've been working with SkyTrain to look at having an integrated relationship where the law enforcement in the community is in a relationship with SkyTrain rather than thinking about creating another separate SkyTrain police, which I'm not in favour of and not supportive of. We would look for secondments or a relationship with SkyTrain back into the community on a funding arrangement.

The people who have received SkyTrain in Burnaby, etc., have a billion-dollar-plus facility that's being

paid for by the taxpayer of British Columbia. They will see enhancements to their shopping and to their housing activity which, frankly, is a benefit to that coming in. They should work with SkyTrain to work out how they're going to police that internally to the communities.

R. Lee: Another question on the amalgamation of the police forces. There is some talk about joining forces in the Lower Mainland. Are those plans going ahead? What's the advantage of those plans?

Hon. R. Coleman: Contrary to some of the public stories you've heard, there is not a plan for the amalgamation of police agencies on the lower mainland of British Columbia. There is a lower mainland police study which deals with the integration of specialized services and other relationships within our police forces so that we have a seamless relationship between all our communities. That will go ahead. We support that from the Solicitor General's point of view.

There's been a working group of mayors on the lower mainland relative to that integration of services and how we can improve policing across borders. We will continue to work that through. It's certainly an initiative we're going to support and continue to support.

We will see some other innovations in policing in B.C. For instance, the Peace country is looking at actually amalgamating all their RCMP detachments into one policing hub in a relationship up there. That's an initiative that's come from the grass roots, from all the regional districts, smaller communities and larger communities in that area, to us. We certainly support that because it will bring efficiencies to policing in that area, and we're quite comfortable that that could work too.

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