Hansard -- Volume 5, Number 5 -- Tuesday, April 2, 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		2349

Tributes		2349
	HM Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Hon. G. Campbell

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2349
	Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 18) Hon. C. Hansen Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 19) Hon. S. Hawkins

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2351
	RCMP commendation awards D. Hayer Parkinson's disease awareness G. Trumper Smithers ski resort development D. MacKay

Oral Questions		2352
	Impact on aboriginal rights of referendum on treaty negotiations J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant Cost of referendum on treaty negotiations J. Kwan Hon. G. Plant Referendum on treaty negotiations K. Krueger Hon. G. Plant Impact of air travellers security fee on northern and rural residents W. McMahon Hon. J. Reid Hon. R. Thorpe Lobbyists registry J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant

Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling)		2354

Motion on Privilege		2355
	Referral to committee: disclosure of Education Committee draft report R. Masi J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant

Petitions		2356
	Hon. S. Hawkins

Committee of Supply		2356
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen K. Krueger D. Jarvis S. Orr I. Chong S. Brice R. Hawes J. Les B. Lekstrom

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2378
	Estimates: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries (continued) V. Roddick Hon. J. van Dongen B. Belsey Estimates: Ministry of Human Resources (continued) J. Kwan Hon. M. Coell

Hon. M. Coell: In the House today there are 13 members of the Victoria Newcomers Club, the graduate club from Sidney. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I think these people are members of a renewed newcomers club. They're the Malahat–Juan de Fuca NDP club: Kevin Logan; Christine Heal, who is Kevin's wife — and they have their six-month-old daughter, Eileen; Herb Strom; Manuel Roussy; Evelyn Roussy; Richard Hughes; Don Cropp; Faye Kemmis; Lorne Tomalty and Peggy Tomalty. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I rise today to introduce to this Legislature a large group of farmers and ranchers from all parts of British Columbia. They're here today to tell us a little bit about their industry as part of Agriculture Day.

Before I do that, I also want to mention the good news that, having been locked in a trade dispute with the United States on our tomato shipments for the last year or more, we're very pleased today to have an announcement by the U.S. Trade Commission that by a 4-to-1 decision they're issuing a finding of no material injury to the U.S. industry and no threat of material injury. Effective ten days from now, there will be no duty on tomatoes going to the United States. I truly want to congratulate all those in the agrifood industry who worked very hard on that case to ensure that the interests of British Columbians, Canadians and consumers in North America were well represented. On that happy note, I want to ask the House to welcome all of the farmers and ranchers here from all over B.C.

J. Bray: Joining us in the members' gallery — and I can't actually see him from my vantage point — is Mr. John Sanderson, who is the president of the Victoria Harbour Authority. Mr. Sanderson is here today to talk about some important issues on Victoria's harbour and making it a better and more environmentally, aesthetically and economically viable harbour. I ask the House to please make him very welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: As members of the House know, Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother died this Easter weekend at the remarkable age of 101 years. It was with sadness that we learned of her passing, for hers was a remarkable life. She passed away peacefully at the end of a long life that touched us all. Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon was born on August 4, 1900. Imagine that, Mr. Speaker: before the advent of the airplane, before automobiles were ubiquitous, before many of the challenges that we face became commonplace.

She was born a commoner, the ninth of ten children. She witnessed a century of unparalleled change and unheard-of calamity. But when we needed her, when England needed her, when the Commonwealth needed her, she was there.

The Queen Mother will be remembered with great affection for her unflagging sense of duty, her strong and constant support of her family, her wonderful charm and sense of humour. She was indomitable. In fact, the Queen Mother didn't decide that she was going to marry the Duke of York until he'd asked her three times. She was concerned that perhaps she didn't know enough of the royal protocols that would be required for someone in her position. That's when she was going to marry the Duke of York.

After the abdication she became the Queen. Then came the war. For many it was the Queen Mother's strength, it was her sense of duty, it was her commitment to the common people of England that made her, in the eyes of Hitler, "the most dangerous woman in Europe." Dangerous to Hitler. The foundation upon which victory was built.

It was her spiritual strength and, as I mentioned earlier, her commitment to family that reflected herself in the strength of England as they went through that incredible period. As we reflect today on her life and times, we know that through the tumult of a century of change her example was a beacon of calm in the turmoil. The Queen Mother's courageous leadership and support of her husband, George VI, during the dark hours of the Second World War should never be forgotten.

Here in Canada we were very fortunate because the Queen Mother loved Canada, and Canadians returned her love, as did British Columbians. Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother was the embodiment of grace. We shall not see her like again. I have conveyed to the Queen and the royal family the deepest sympathy and feeling of loss from the people and government of British Columbia. Members of the Legislature and the public are invited to join me in signing our book of condolence, which is on the main floor of the parliament buildings today.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Health Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. C. Hansen: This bill makes several minor amendments to two statutes: the Hospital Insurance Act and the Medicare Protection Act. At present the Medicare Protection Act provides flexibility for the Medical Services Commission to grant coverage to individuals who would not otherwise be eligible for medical services — for example, individuals who are close to meeting residency requirements. The Hospital Insurance Act contains different definitions and does not have that same flexibility. This legislation amends the act to adopt the more flexible definitions of residency and beneficiary, and thereby ensures consistency between the two statutes.

This bill also contains a number of minor changes to the Medicare Protection Act that are related to the powers of the Medical Services Commission. Specifically, it eliminates the commission's power to de-enrol physicians at age 75, a power which may be deemed to be unconstitutional. It also allows the commission to charge interest on inappropriate or fraudulent billings by medical practitioners as determined by a commission review panel.

The bill amends the Medicare Protection Act to allow for broader and more equitable coverage of supplementary services for people on premium assistance who have access to private insurance. Currently, private insurers cannot provide any coverage for supplementary services to individuals on premium assistance, because they are covered by the Medical Services Plan for up to ten visits per year. This prevents those patients on premium assistance with private insurance from being reimbursed when a practitioner charges more than what MSP will pay. The amendment will allow private insurers to cover additional amounts that may be charged by supplementary providers.

The bill also improves the efficiency of the Medical and Health Care Services Appeal Board by allowing panels of one to sit in the case of very minor issues and the dismissal of cases in which a complainant has not further pursued the appeal.

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

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

Hon. S. Hawkins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Health Planning Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm pleased to introduce these amendments. This bill demonstrates our commitment to ensure that health- and safety-related acts are efficient, up to date, and genuinely meet the needs of British Columbians.

I'm introducing seven amendments today. They will strengthen public safety, improve the governance of health professions, modernize or eliminate outdated regulations and use resources more efficiently. All the savings that will be realized from these changes will be directed back to patient care.

The first amendment is regarding the Health Professions Council. It was appointed in 1991 to advise on self-regulation of health professions. It submitted its findings and recommendations last March, and the changes to the Health Professions Act will transfer the remaining functions of the council to the minister effective December 31, 2002.

We are also making amendments to the Health Emergency Act, which will establish a new college for the regulation of emergency medical assistants, giving emergency medical assistants the authority to effectively regulate their own profession.

The Hearing Aid Act will be repealed, and a new arm's-length governance structure will be established for hearing-aid dealers and consultants. This new self-regulating structure will replace the existing licensing board, making them consistent as well with other health professions.

The Seniors Advisory Council was established long before the creation of the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care, who now acts as a voice at the cabinet table on issues that affect seniors. To reflect this change in cabinet priorities, the Seniors Advisory Council Act is repealed, and the council is replaced with a special adviser for seniors in the Ministry of Health Planning, who will work with all four health ministers and the seniors groups across the province.

The bill also amends the Name Act to require adults applying for legal name change to provide documentation of a criminal record check. Upon approval of a name change, the Vital Statistics Agency will forward the information to the RCMP, who will check it against the national database of criminal records. I want to thank the Solicitor General for helping to close this loophole in the legislation so that people with criminal records can't change their names and hide their criminal pasts.

As well, there are amendments to the Survivorship and Presumption of Death Act and the Vital Statistics Act to make it easer for families and executors to conclude the personal and business affairs of a person who is presumed dead but whose body can't be found.

We're also making changes to the Vital Statistics Act. It will be further amended to include the particulars of a father on a child's birth certificate, where there is a court order declaring the child's paternity, unless the court orders that the father's particulars are not to be included.

Lastly, the bill will repeal a redundant requirement for the director of vital statistics to provide a list of recent deaths to the district registrar of voters and local government officers. The chief electoral officer already performs this duty.

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

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

D. Hayer: I rise today to speak of courage, of duty and of selfless acts that have made our province and our communities a better place to live. I want to speak today about individuals who have risen above fear, who have done the right thing and who in some instances, by putting their own lives at risk, have saved others.

I speak of those individuals who on March 27 received certificates of appreciation and commendations from Jamie Graham, the chief superintendent of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police at the Surrey detachment. I attended the ceremonies along with Mayor Doug McCallum of my city of Surrey, my MLA colleagues from Surrey–Green Timbers and Surrey-Whalley, and many others to honour these brave people and to recognize their heroic deeds.

Many of these people put their lives at risk to save the lives of others. One young lady is accredited with saving the life of a stabbing victim. Another woman put her discomfort aside at a vehicle accident and rendered CPR in the pouring rain until the ambulance crew arrived.

It was not just the general public who were honoured. There were RCMP and municipal police officers and Canadian customs officers. These officers acted in a manner that was above and beyond the call of duty. In effect, one officer, Constable Scott Marleau, received three separate citations for commendable action.

The people recognized in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead last week are just a few of the unsung heroes who walk our streets every day. To them I would like to say, on behalf of all members of this chamber, a grateful and very appreciative thank you.

G. Trumper: The month of April is dedicated to Parkinson's awareness. Parkinson's disease is a neurological disorder which causes involuntary movement of muscles, gradually affecting one's ability to walk, speak and swallow. It is not contagious, and its cause appears to be a combination of genetic disposition and environmental triggers. It is progressive, degenerative and presently incurable.

This cruelly debilitating disease appears to be affecting more people every year. Although it is mainly an illness of middle age, it also affects younger people. Parkinson's can develop slowly, or it can move quickly. For 10 percent of Parkinson's patients, there are some very difficult complications such as personality changes and dementia.

Although Leonardo da Vinci first described the symptoms of Parkinson's, this disease was identified by a Dr. James Parkinson in 1817. Today, almost 200 years later, there have been giant steps in treatment for Parkinson's, but we are still a long way from a cure. Well-known individuals who have suffered from Parkinson's include renowned artist Bill Reid, the Pope, Muhammad Ali, Katharine Hepburn and Michael J. Fox.

For those living with Parkinson's, keeping active is important to well-being. I want to read an excerpt from a paper which was written by my late husband, a physician who suffered from Parkinson's: "Learn a new truth at least once a day. Smile inside and out. Never give in or give up or give out. Life is still worth living." As you read and write, particularly this month, about Parkinson's disease, remember those individuals and their families who need understanding and assistance. Until a cure is found, we need to be generous in our support of further medical research.

D. MacKay: Today I am pleased to announce what I feel is one more good-news story for the province. This good news is a result of our government's commitment to attract private sector investment back to the province with tax concessions, a reduction in regulations, faster access to Crown lands and, most of all for the people in the northwest, new employment, new job opportunities.

Today I am pleased to announce that Canadian Rocky Holdings, a wholly owned subsidiary of Cliffs Communities Inc., has entered into an agreement with Hudson Bay Mountain Adventures, also known as Ski Smithers, for the future development of the ski area in Smithers. The first phase of the agreement provided that Ecosign Mountain Resort Planners of Whistler, B.C., complete a ski operation study and assessment. Developers expect the master plan to be completed within the next six months for presentation to the provincial government. Approval will allow the companies to proceed with upgrades such as new ski runs, new ski lifts, additional on-site lodging and new amenities.

This speaks highly of the course we have now set for the province: long-term sustainability, long-term jobs, new opportunities, new private sector investment. That's what we committed to. I'm pleased to report that this project has the makings of a new world-class ski resort in the province. I am proud to support the pro-

ject and excited for all those who live in the Bulkley Valley and, more specifically, the residents of Smithers.

J. MacPhail: To the Attorney General: does he agree with B.C. Treaty Commission representative Jack Weisgerber that the land claims referendum is increasing tension and may handcuff the treaty process?

Hon. G. Plant: It's a great day for democracy in British Columbia. For the first time in over a decade of treaty-making, the government is bringing all British Columbians directly into the discussion about what their vision is for treaties in British Columbia.

I think it's a great opportunity for people to see and experiment in how we can expand our conception of democracy to engage people in a discussion about issues. In the treaty context, it's vitally important that we engage people in a discussion about the issues that are on the table so that for the first time the province's negotiators will be at the table informed by a public mandate that will allow us to move forward and put an end to uncertainty in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting, because B.C.'s Supreme Court ruled against the now Attorney General and the current Premier in their suit against the Nisga'a treaty. The case established that the Nisga'a have a constitutional right to self-government under section 35 that extends beyond municipal government. Will the Attorney General confirm that in seeking a mandate to negotiate municipal-style self-government, he's really attempting to take away rights from aboriginal people that they won when the B.C. Supreme Court ruled against his own court case?

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, treaty-making is a political process. It's entirely appropriate that we involve the people of British Columbia directly for the first time and ask them the question: when the province's negotiators sit at the table, what is the model, the principles of self-government, that they should be advocating for to ensure that aboriginal communities can control their lives and have authority over the decisions that affect them but also that there are in place systems of democratic accountability and that there are appropriate delegations of authority?

These are important issues. There are choices involved for the people of British Columbia, and there are choices involved at the treaty table. I think the referendum engages the people of British Columbia in the discussion about those choices, and I look forward to the next six weeks as we hear from the people of British Columbia on their vision for negotiating treaties in the twenty-first century.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General said that he would protect and respect aboriginal people's constitutional rights. That's not political. The Attorney General abandoned his appeal of the Nisga'a decision. What possible rationale, then, does he have for seeking to diminish aboriginal constitutional rights that were established by the failure of his own court case?

Hon. G. Plant: As the member knows and as all British Columbians need to know, nothing in this referendum will undermine constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and titles. In fact, as the member knows, there was an argument made to the contrary last week in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and the argument was completely rejected.

I intend, as Attorney General and on behalf of a government that intends it, to protect aboriginal rights and title as we are required to do by law and as we ought to do as a matter of common morality. But treaty-making is about negotiating among the choices to ensure that treaties give effect to constitutionally protected aboriginal rights and title in a way that's workable, affordable and promotes certainty, finality and equality for the benefit of all British Columbians.

J. Kwan: It's costing British Columbians roughly $9 million to destroy the treaty process through this stupid referendum — money that could be spent fixing health care, improving child protection or maintaining legal aid.

Can the Attorney General tell the vast majority of British Columbians who don't want this referendum how much money taxpayers will save on every ballot that is not returned?

Hon. G. Plant: Earlier today I heard the chief electoral officer say that as a result of the work he's done with his budget, the original number that he put forward for his responsibilities of $9 million may in fact be reduced by a million and a half dollars. I think it's a great day when all people who are part of the government of British Columbia recognize that we can deliver on the important services and spend less money than we have to.

Mr. Speaker, this referendum is a new way of doing democracy, and democracy does have a price. This referendum will cost significantly less than a general election, but what's far more important is this: if we spend $10 million on this referendum, as against the

billion dollars we have spent on treaty-making in British Columbia with only one successful treaty to date, I think it's a very small price to pay to ensure that we have a process that works, that is affordable and that produces good agreements for all British Columbians in the years to come.

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

J. Kwan: Again to the Attorney General: will he commit to British Columbians — who think that the referendum is a dumb idea, that it's a huge waste of money and that it sets back the treaty-making process when treaties have never been more important to our economic future — that every penny British Columbians will save the province by throwing their ballots in the recycling bin be spent on more pressing priorities like health care for aboriginal children?

Hon. G. Plant: I have so much more faith in the people of British Columbia than the member opposite. The people of British Columbia want this opportunity to be included directly in a conversation about the future of treaty-making. We have embarked upon that conversation at a relatively modest cost.

You know what I think is going to happen? I think that across this province people are going to get their ballots; they're going to sit at their kitchen tables; they're going to have a conversation with their family members about their vision for reconciliation and respect with the province's aboriginal people; they are going to fill out that ballot with pride that they live in a democracy that gives them that voice in their future.

I think the citizens of British Columbia will participate with enthusiasm. They'll participate out of duty. They'll participate because they know this referendum will help reinvigorate a treaty process that's urgently needed in the province of British Columbia.

K. Krueger: Again, to the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. The preamble to the referendum on treaty negotiations launched by the minister states that the government is committed to providing — as the minister said moments ago — certainty, finality and equality. At the same time, however, the government admits that it cannot guarantee specific outcomes at the treaty table based on the outcome of this referendum.

Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell us how he reconciles those two statements?

Hon. G. Plant: I think all parties in the treaty process are committed to negotiating agreements that will produce certainty, that will give and create finality, and that will lead to equality. Of course, all parties to the process bring to the table their own set of visions, their own set of outcomes that they want to work towards and their own set of principles.

It's time for the people of British Columbia to be brought into the debate around what those principles should be, recognizing that the province's negotiators will go to the table and do the best they can on behalf of the people of British Columbia to achieve agreement at a table that has two other parties that will also be working hard to represent the interests that they're there to represent. With three parties at the table working from a principle framework, we hugely increase our chance of creating workable, affordable and just settlements.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kamloops–North Thompson has a supplementary question.

K. Krueger: Many of my constituents welcome the opportunity through this referendum for greater clarity on matters respecting aboriginal self-government. However, can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell us why the government has chosen to define self-governance as having the characteristics of local government when some people argue that the Nisga'a model of self-governance seems to provide a better understanding of the definition of aboriginal self-government?

Hon. G. Plant: We campaigned in the last campaign on a platform commitment to negotiate self-government according to a vision, a model, that saw that aboriginal self-government would have the characteristics of local government with powers delegated from Canada and British Columbia. We think that is the most workable model for aboriginal self-government.

There are other visions of what aboriginal self-government as a political exercise should involve. They include the Nisga'a model.

People who think that the government of British Columbia should be at the table with a broad sense — a virtually unlimited sense — of the potential models for aboriginal self-government may want to vote no, whereas people who think that aboriginal self-government will be more practical and more accountable if it has the characteristics of local government with delegated powers and local accountability will vote yes. That's a real choice, and once made, it will guide the province effectively as we move forward with treaty negotiations.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Many people have expressed concern over the implementation of the federal government's air travellers security charge which came into effect yesterday. This added tax not only hurts the travelling

public but also is a serious detriment to British Columbians who live in isolated and rural communities where air travel is not a luxury but a necessity.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell me what the government is doing to convey these concerns to the federal government?

Hon. J. Reid: While I agree that security is an important issue, I am concerned about the flat fee that has been imposed. I have written to the federal minister requesting that this be re-examined. It is a detriment to not only the smaller airports but also the short-haul carriers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Columbia River–Revelstoke has a supplementary question.

W. McMahon: My supplementary is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. The flow of tourism dollars into my region is dependent on competitive prices for air travel, and this flat fee has serious implications for smaller airlines and short-haul operators. Can the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise tell me if he thinks this fee is fair?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, security is a top priority for everyone in our government. We are working together with British Columbia's tourism industry. On March 15 I sent a letter to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Martin, pointing out some pitfalls that we thought were there. On March 25, together with nine other ministers of tourism across Canada, we wrote Minister Martin and Minister Collenette pointing out some issues of concern.

We are very concerned about the impact on small communities, small airports and small carriers. We are working hard. We have put forward solutions for the federal government to consider, and we're going to continue to work on behalf of the tourism industry, small communities, small airports and small carriers across British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Last year the Attorney General said that he expected the Lobbyists Registration Act to be proclaimed and operational by March 31. Last month the Attorney General said he was working on it. In the meantime, the Premier and ministers are moving ahead with the privatization of health services and the privatization of ICBC and B.C. Hydro. We're seeing the expansion of private liquor sales. We've seen the government back down on the smoking ban. That's just to the benefit of special interests. What we can't see is just who the government's meeting with, whether in their offices or in the Premier's living room.

J. MacPhail: Did you meet your deadline, or are you still stalling until after the government…

Hon. G. Plant: We are, as I said the last time I was asked this question, working on it. We have identified one issue that we believe will require a minor change in the legislation to ensure that the legislation works to achieve its purposes. We're moving forward on that. We are also, I think, very close to the end of our discussions with the information and privacy commissioner about making sure that he has…

Hon. G. Plant: …in place in his offices the protocols and the processes that will be required to ensure that when we bring this bill into force, it will be a leader across Canada as this government continues to keep its commitment to be the most open and accountable government in all of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, on Monday, March 25, the member for Delta North rose and reserved his right to raise a matter of privilege relating to a purported leak of a draft report from the Education Committee. On Wednesday, March 27, the same member rose and presented a matter of privilege for consideration by the Chair.

I note that the member has meticulously followed the practice of this House in presenting his matter of privilege in that he briefly stated the matter, tabled the newspaper article which disclosed the possible breach of privilege and tendered the motion he proposes to move should it be found that a prima facie case of breach of privilege has been established.

On Wednesday, March 27, the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant stood in her place and advised the House that she had shared the draft report with a group

of people, prior to the report being tabled in the House, on what she understood to be a confidential basis. To her credit, the member went on to express her regret and apologized to the House for her part in the matter.

Before turning to the merit of the presentation of the member for Delta North, let me briefly observe that the Chair considers matters of privilege and contempt and alleged breaches in the most serious vein. It is a tradition as old as parliament itself that members are entitled to conduct their deliberations without inappropriate harassment or intimidation being brought to bear on their work.

Let me further observe that the release of a draft report from a parliamentary committee prior to that report being tabled in the House has been held to be a breach of privilege many times, particularly where the release of the report interferes directly or indirectly with the committee's deliberations. See Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, page 51.

I have examined with care the material laid before me in this matter, and it would appear that the leaked report was used in such a way as to attempt to intimidate members of the Education Committee. Among the materials filed was an extract from the Vancouver Sun of March 18, 2002. If the allegations contained in that article are substantiated after an examination of this matter by a committee of the House, the Chair would consider that a serious offence has been committed.

The precedents are clear. It is not within the Speaker's authority to make a final determination, but rather I must satisfy myself that the materials and arguments presented are sufficient to constitute a prima facie breach of privilege or contempt of this assembly.

The Chair finds that the materials submitted, combined with the admission of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, establish a prima facie case. Accordingly, I invite the hon. member for Delta North to move his motion.

R. Masi: In view of your decision, Mr. Speaker, I propose the following motion.

I move that the matter pertaining to the premature disclosure of the Select Standing Committee on Education report be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Mr. Speaker: You've heard the motion. Debate on the motion, the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: The debate will be on the advisability of referral, as I understand it. Before proceeding to vote on the merits of this motion to refer this matter to committee, I believe it's important to consider some of the observations about the practice of drafting reports in committees and the jurisprudence that has evolved over the years.

Mr. Speaker, you referred to some of that jurisprudence, but there is much more to it. Firstly, I do want to recognize the gravity of the matter as reported to this House by the member for Delta North. Certainly, the committee members — and indeed all members of this House — must continue to have confidence that the contents of draft reports remain the property of members until published by the committee.

While various investigations into so-called leaks in parliaments throughout the Commonwealth continue to uphold the notion that publication of draft reports prior to presentation in the respective House is a violation of privilege, it is also not uncommon for members of committees to at times, on a confidential basis, seek advice from experts on matters included in draft reports.

There are many cases in parliamentary law dealing exactly with that point. Indeed, the Committee of Privileges in the United Kingdom, in its second report of the 1984-85 session, found that members "naturally discuss the work of their committees with other members, with their own staff or with others who may have relevant advice or experience without intending publication." That's parliamentary law as it exists today.

Of course, the report also found that some of those experts who may be consulted, after being consulted, may not have had the appropriate respect for the information they'd been made privy to in such an exchange. We don't deny that.

Mr. Speaker, we have already had the benefit of receiving a full and, I say, an unprecedented apology from the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant regarding any part she may have played in this incident. Although the Government House Leader may not have had the grace to recognize the significance of that event in his response here on the floor, I know that many of the members of the public that I spoke with over the long weekend certainly did.

Unless, Mr. Speaker, the members opposite believe that there may indeed be other sources who could have potentially become a source of the remarks made by Mr. Chudnovsky, which then found their way into the Vancouver Sun, then it does seem rather odd to now refer the matter to a committee. There is nothing to be achieved unless there is other information that any member in this House has about someone other than Mr. Chudnovsky receiving information through what the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has already admitted and apologized for.

Therefore, it's my view that the matter has been sufficiently canvassed both in this House and in the hallways and in the media, and the motion should be defeated as being now irrelevant.

The issues raised by the member in her presentation of a moment ago are as much issues for the committee that would be charged as a result of the passing of this motion as they are issues for debate now. Indeed, the purpose of convening the committee is to undertake an investigation into both the specific issues and the context for those issues.

It is rare in this House — certainly unique in my short experience — for an issue of privilege to be raised and for a Speaker to determine that a prima facie case of breach has been established. These are circumstances in which, to protect the privileges of this Legislature, my view is that the appropriate next step — not perhaps the final step, but the next step — is for this House to adopt the motion and move to a process that will ensure that the very questions and issues raised by the opposition leader are given the airing, the investigation and the analysis they deserve.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I seek leave to table a petition from concerned constituents who oppose the use of animal leghold and body-hold traps.

Hon. R. Coleman: In Committee B, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, followed by the Ministry of Human Resources and, if time, the Ministry of Attorney General.

The Chair: The committee will stand recessed for another two minutes so the opposition can enter the House. We have been in recess and have delayed this for a previous five minutes.

The Chair: The committee will come to order. I'd like to remind the member that when they ask for a recess of two minutes, we expect it to be two minutes, not a 15-minute delay.

J. MacPhail: Chair, I greatly respect your advice. I didn't ask for a recess, though. I said I'd be back in two minutes. I assumed, given that this is the third hour of estimates with a ministry budget that's $10 billion, that other members of the chamber would have questions. I'm not challenging your ruling, Mr. Chair, but that's specifically why I didn't ask for a recess. I said I'd be back in two minutes. I wasn't — that's true — but it is unbelievable that with 75 members in this chamber…

J. MacPhail: You know, I have to tell you something. I had decided to conduct these estimates in a way that would just get information out, but I find it absolutely shocking that unless I'm here in this chamber, there is no examination of a $10 billion budget. It's not as if people aren't sitting here doing something. It is unbelievable. Once again, even though there are two of us and this government is trying to do everything to make us one — why would that be? — there is no examination of any of these issues. If I just sat down, it would be very interesting to know what would happen here. What would happen in this chamber?

J. MacPhail: I was absent. I was absent from the chamber. That member was sitting there, and he said nothing — absolutely nothing.

Whatever this government tries to do to silence opposition, to silence any questioning of their agenda, it is left up to only my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me to ask the questions. And yes, it does put me in an extremely cranky mood — extremely — and quite unnecessary, if you ask me. Quite unnecessary.

On the issue of health authorities, in terms of budget-making, is the minister satisfied with the range of questions we've already had on that? If he is, I'll move on.

Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly want to apologize to the member if there was a misunderstanding around the delay in the start. Clearly, there are many other members in the chamber that do want to participate.

The tradition we've had in this chamber, certainly in the six years that I have been a member, is that the opposition — and the Leader of the Opposition, in particular, or the appropriate critic, as the case was in years gone by — gets the opportunity to lead questioning.

I was certainly trying to defer to that tradition rather than encouraging other members to participate. We recognize that the task she has in providing oversight for a budget for the entire government, and particularly a $10.2 billion budget for the Ministry of Health Services, is an enormous challenge. We're trying to accommodate that in whatever ways we can.

If the member would like us to go to other private members and some of their issues, I'd certainly be prepared to do that. It was only out of respect for her position as Leader of the Opposition that we wanted to give her the first opportunity in leading questioning around these estimates. That's the intention.

J. MacPhail: In the last six years there was a critic for every single portfolio. The fact is that there are now two opposition members and 76 Liberal MLAs. To somehow say that we carry on with the same practice is ridiculous — absolutely ridiculous. My colleague and I stand every day in this House and do our duty — every day, beyond the call of duty.

Government members here say nothing — rise up and say nothing. Well, I'll tell you what. I find this exercise completely unhelpful. I've asked my questions on the budget for the health authorities, so I'll be moving on. If any other private members have any questions, or any other members, feel free.

K. Krueger: I've been listening to the debate, of course, and if the member would like government private members to do some of our questioning at this point, I'm sure we can do that. We all assumed she would like to cover her questions first, and as the minister said, normally we have waited to allow formal critics to ask questions of government before members of government — indeed, her government — asked their questions.

If the member would like me to, I have a number of Kamloops issues and issues from up the North Thompson Valley that I would like to canvass. If she'd give me a nod, I'll proceed with those if she would prefer, or she can continue with her line of questioning.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, we agreed on an order. I'm fine to deviate from the order, but we agreed on the order. The first order that I outlined this morning — this is for information, for the member for Kamloops–North Thompson — was that we agreed on an order. We would discuss health authorities, and in that context we would discuss health authority budgeting and then health authority appointments. What I'm saying is that I'm finished my portion of the agreed order on budgeting for health authorities, based on this process that is ridiculous.

So if you want to change the agenda and the member wants to go in and ask about local issues, fine.

K. Krueger: Well, certainly there are some issues around health authority budgeting for our interior health authority that I and probably other members would like to raise. We don't want to interfere with the flow of the member's agenda. I could do that now. I think it would probably be less of an interruption to her preparations and order of delivery if we allowed her to carry on. However, we are perfectly willing to have our private members step in and do their questioning whenever the opposition member needs some time to reorganize or attend to other duties.

One of the questions that has come up repeatedly in our area — it's quite understandable, with the change of organization and the beginnings of the major project of the tertiary psychiatric facility in Kamloops — is the question as to which budget pays for the tertiary psychiatric facility and which budget pays for the operations of the tertiary psychiatric facility after it's established. I've seen the minister answer those questions publicly, and I think I know the answers, but I would like to have them on the record.

Hon. C. Hansen: It is a very good question from the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. The new TOKO psych facility, as it's being referred to, is made up of two components. There's the acute care, which is 44 acute-care beds that will be located on the property of Royal Inland Hospital. The actual operational costs of that facility will be borne out of the budget for the provincial health services authority. The operating dollars for the residential component, which is the two 20-bed units that would be located elsewhere, is also going to be funded out of the provincial health services authority.

In addition to that, there is money that is part of the targeted moneys vis-à-vis the mental health plan. Some of that targeted money will be spent through those facilities. There is money that will be flowing to the interior health authority as a direct result of these targeted dollars.

If you look at the mental health dollars in total, the ongoing budget for adult mental health as well as the mental health plan dollars that are specified, those will flow to the health authority for their ongoing programs as well as the new mental health plan programs. The operating dollars for the two facilities that we're talking about in the specific question the member asked will come out of the provincial health services authority.

K. Krueger: I understand, then, that on an indefinite basis, the funding for service of the patients who make use of the tertiary psychiatric facility to be lo-

cated in Kamloops will come from the provincial health authority. It sounds like not any of it is from the interior health authority itself.

We have a brand-new hospital almost finished construction in Clearwater. The people of Clearwater are tremendously grateful for this. It was longed for, for a long time. It was probably one of the last hospitals in British Columbia where the bathrooms actually weren't heated. Of course, the winters in Clearwater are such that that could cause freezing of plumbing. Doors had to be left open so that the plumbing in the bathrooms wouldn't freeze. Cellophane had to be put over the windows.

This was a good hospital from the point of view of the service provided by doctors and nurses and other health care workers there. It's just the physical facility itself that was something of an embarrassment and, worse, potentially a risk. People there are thrilled to have this facility nearing completion.

Again, there have been some rumours in the community that the budget concerns of the government are such that the hospital may never open. I'm confident that that isn't true at all, but I'd like to give the minister a chance to answer that question on the record.

Hon. C. Hansen: My understanding is that this is a facility where the construction and the capital cost are absorbed under the old model, which means that the provincial government centrally will carry the debt-servicing costs because this is a project that is already, as the member pointed out, close to completion. Those projects that are either underway or are contractually obligated to are going to be funded out of the old model, which means that the debt-servicing costs will be paid for by the provincial government.

The operating dollars will be covered by the health authority itself, which is consistent with other projects of this nature throughout the province in years gone by.

K. Krueger: Since the new facility is replacing an old facility which had an operating budget, my information from the new chair and the CEO of the interior health authority, Mr. Dolman and Mr. Ramsden, is that operating funds will now be applied to operation of the new facility, and there is no threat whatsoever that it won't open as has been rumoured.

K. Krueger: Under the new scheme of things where funding follows the patients, insofar as that's possible, there's a question in my constituency and probably in many where constituencies include a lot of highway. People from all over British Columbia travel those highways and frequently, unfortunately, come to grief on them and end up in local health facilities. The question is whether some of the funding that accrues to those British Columbians in their home constituencies will then be transferred to the local health authority — in our case, the interior health authority — for the time that they spend in facilities within that health authority's domain.

We have very willing and able volunteers right through to the best health care professionals to deal with these people. We have wonderful people from the community who show up at motor vehicle crashes on a volunteer basis and extract the victims with the Jaws of Life. They willingly give of themselves, their time, their resources and their community resources to equip the emergency vehicles that are used. Frequently, they themselves are injured in their efforts to deal with the victims of motor vehicle crashes. All of this, of course, people are more than willing to do. I was called to Clearwater on one occasion where a doctor was meeting with a number of the emergency volunteers who had been cut up while extricating people from a motor vehicle crash and then had learned that several of the occupants of the car had hepatitis C. They were very concerned that they may have been exposed themselves. That's just one example of the things that local people do in providing this service to victims of highway crashes.

I wonder if we could have some enlightenment on whether funding that follows those particular patients will be transferred to the health authorities which dealt with the care of the victims.

Hon. C. Hansen: It is certainly our intention to move towards a system of dollars following patients in a more direct way.

As an interim step, what we have in place as part of the funding formula that we were talking about this morning is a system that reflects the volume of demand that has been put on our health care system from the previous year. If we see, for example, referral patterns that may cross a health authority boundary change in one particular year, then that would be reflected in the funding that would flow the following year.

I certainly feel that a more direct system of dollars following patients will actually produce better results and better accountability within our health care system. It's not something that we can simply snap our fingers and make happen tomorrow. There is a fair amount of work.

One of the biggest challenges is around how to cost cases. We do not do a good job of determining, for example, how much an appendectomy costs or how much a multiple fracture would cost to set. When you talk about the dollars following patients and the dollars being transferred from the health authority where the individual is resident to the health authority where the service is provided, we have to be able to determine what is the appropriate dollar value for services. It's something we do not do a good job of, and a lot of work is being done now to try to determine how to put a proper value on particu-

lar medical procedures. We're working towards it. That change is not imminent, but it's my hope that we will get there over the next number of years.

K. Krueger: There's tremendous angst in Kamloops about a long history of services, jobs, organizations and people that have migrated down the valley to Kelowna instead of staying in Kamloops — which, we're convinced, is a much better place for people to live and enjoy life. There has been some real anger in the past about decisions that have been taken.

At one time it was decided that Kelowna was to be the location of a cardiac excellence facility. That predated my time in Kamloops, but I'm told by many medical people that there was a deal, actually, between the two groups of medical people. Since Kelowna would receive that facility, the cancer treatment facility, when it came to the interior, would go to Kamloops. Indeed, there was an announcement by the two Social Credit cabinet ministers of the day in the late eighties that the cancer clinic would be built in Kamloops, and a sign was erected on the lawn. Then the Social Credit government fell to an NDP government, and during the election campaign the people with the NDP, as they campaigned, promised Kamloops that they would go ahead with those plans and that the cancer treatment facility would be built in Kamloops. In fact, it wasn't. It was also built in Kelowna. There was a real outcry about that — and justified in my submission.

Now, with the decisions as to who would be the chief executive officer and the chairman and the chief financial officer, for that matter, for the new interior health authority and with all of them being resident in Kelowna, a lot of fears have been expressed that we're going down that road again.

Royal Inland Hospital is the third-largest trauma referral centre in the province, and that's because it is force-fed that work by the calamities that happen to people on the highways and in heavy industry. We're confident in the level of expertise that we have and the service that's being provided, and — with the fact that the work comes to us by nature of our location and the location of the people when they receive those unfortunate traumas — that we will continue to have the status of regional referral centre. Yet, there has been so much concern in the community that again I would like to put it on the record to the minister that Royal Inland Hospital is a centre of excellence for trauma care in British Columbia.

We believe that by virtue of all those things I discussed, it should be the second major hub of the interior health authority with regard to referral of patients. We have a critical mass of medical expertise — a body of very well qualified health care professionals. We're anxious that we not lose any of that and that we continue to attract medical expertise to Royal Inland Hospital.

I'd like to have the minister's views on this ongoing concern about the status of Royal Inland Hospital.

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member knows, we have asked all of the health authorities to review all facilities in the province. Every hospital should be challenged in terms of where it fits into the delivery of health services for British Columbians. As I mentioned this morning, that is really what is driving this agenda. It's not how to best utilize the facilities we have but rather how to deliver the programs that are expected of us and services that are expected of our health care system.

I do not know yet what specific recommendations will come from the health authority with regard to Royal Inland Hospital, other than an acknowledgment that Royal Inland has always been a major hospital in this province. It's an important part of the network of health care facilities in this province. I have every expectation that it will continue to be so as a result of the service redesign that's currently underway.

K. Krueger: I appreciate the minister's answer and the fact these decisions have been delegated to the health authorities themselves. Being that this is a time of transition, I hope he'll continue to indulge us with his patience in dealing with some of these issues that really concern local people.

One is the fact that the radiology and emergency room areas of the hospital are significantly outdated. They were built for a much smaller population a long time ago, with different equipment. I'm advised that the interior health authority has told our doctors and many people in the interior health authority region, including our health service delivery area, that the reconstruction of those facilities is the number one capital project for the interior health authority. Yet, they're unable to commit as to what that means insofar as the dates that construction for those renovations is likely to commence. I wonder if the minister would update the House on how he sees questions like that being resolved and how he sees such matters unfolding.

Hon. C. Hansen: As we went at some length this morning talking about the change in how capital dollars will be allocated, this is a transition time for us in terms of a new way of approaching capital projects. I think the good news for people in Kamloops is that finally they're going to have the ability to make those decisions regionally to meet their priority areas. In the past, hospitals and health authorities generally had to come begging Victoria to put their projects on a priority list. Now, under this new model, the health authorities themselves will be able to determine their priorities and allocate their capital dollars as they see fit, which gives the ability to get on with the projects in a much more timely way compared to the last number of years.

K. Krueger: Prior to the reorganization of health care, I was receiving lobbying letters from medical people, including doctors in the Revelstoke and Salmon Arm areas, essentially saying they expected we were going to reorganize health care and that when we did, they did not want to be obliged to refer their patients down to the Okanagan Valley. They would like to continue what they consider to be the natural and

historical method of referral to Kamloops along the Trans-Canada Highway, which we all service.

Since the health care reorganization, the doctors in those communities are understandably keeping their cards a little close to their chests because they don't know where they're going to end up. My understanding is that they still wish to do their referrals in the direction of Royal Inland Hospital. This is deemed to be an important question in our health service delivery area because we understand the 200,000 population number in the catchment area to be significant in the question of regional hospital referral status. I wonder if the minister can give his views on the matter of which direction patients will be referred by their doctors.

Hon. C. Hansen: We are not going to be telling doctors where they have to refer their patients. Clearly, in the past doctors have used their discretion and their knowledge about where they think their patients can best get access to the care they need. In some cases you would have doctors who would refer patients to Vancouver. In some cases it might be Calgary, Edmonton, Kamloops or Kelowna. There may even be cases out of Revelstoke where a doctor would think it appropriate to refer a patient to Prince George if that's where that patient's family network is, for example, and support.

In all of the redesign we're doing, we're not going to change that prerogative of the doctor. What we are going to do is look at how we can ensure there is stable provision of core specialty services. Too often throughout British Columbia now, you will have a group of maybe fewer than five specialists in an area. They can't provide consistent coverage. If you only have three specialists in an area, they may try to provide the one-in-three on call, which is pretty draining on a specialist. In some cases where you've got only three specialists, they've said they'll only do one in five, which means there will be two nights out of five where there will be no coverage at all. When you get a physician from another community wanting to refer patients into that specialty group, the big problem we then get is the uncertainty as to whether that specialty group is available in a stable, 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week manner.

Part of the redesign is to say: how do we ensure that these core specialties are going to be provided in a consistent way 24 hours a day, seven days a week? Part of when they're looking at where these specialty services should be located is to ensure that there is a critical mass of specialists to ensure that we don't get the physician burn-out we've seen in the past, but we also give a certainty to the GPs who are referring their patients that in fact there is the competency there 24 hours a day, seven days a week. This, in many cases today, is inconsistent. That's part of the redesign that's going to be coming forward.

K. Krueger: Just one more question, and then I'll defer to some of my colleagues across the way who wish to ask some questions.

The Speaker of the House and I have received a very concerted lobby by a number of employees of Royal Inland Hospital who have been employed in the finance area. They have presented a very well reasoned proposal establishing their argument of why centralized billing and accounts receivable functions for the interior health authority should remain and be located in Kamloops. Essentially, the argument is: "We are your resources. We're fully trained. We do this job already. It's largely done electronically. It can be done anywhere within the interior health authority. We have the equipment; we have the offices. Everything's in place. It costs nothing to allow us to continue to do the work here."

They have been alarmed by some statements by the financial officer, Mr. Mazurkewich, and there have been some suggestions that people who wish to retain that type of work will have to be relocated to Kelowna. There has been discussion of leasing a building in Kelowna to put all these people in one place, and so on. Of course, that has played right into the fears I discussed earlier as to Kamloops losing jobs, economic activity and indeed expertise to Kelowna.

I know that Mr. Dolman and Mr. Ramsden are working through that, and I'm confident they'll make the best possible use of all resources and be very respectful of families' needs, and so on, and not do unnecessary moves. If it does work out that there is some need for an arbitration — using the term in a very generic sense — of disputes like that between Kelowna and Kamloops, is there any provision for that as far as appealing to the ministry if, within health authorities, there is significant dissension over decisions that are taken?

Hon. C. Hansen: Part of the challenge we've given to the health authorities is to find the most cost-effective way of providing the services necessary, first of all, in terms of patient care but then, secondly, in terms of the support services the health authority needs to make sure it operates efficiently and effectively. Those are the kinds of decisions that are clearly not political decisions. These are administrative decisions around cost-effectiveness.

I know the management team in the interior health region is aware of the issues that have been put forward by staff in Kamloops, and at the end of the day they're going to have to make their determinations on how to run the health authority most cost-effectively. If they can do that with the existing configurations, then they have the authority and the flexibility to do that. Also, if they feel that in order to deliver good patient care, it is necessary to consolidate services, then they also have the power and the responsibility to do that. We're not going to dictate those kinds of decisions from the ministry, but we're going to basically ensure that they make good decisions based on the best use of every health dollar available so that we get the most cost-effective provision of services possible.

D. Jarvis: I want to ask the minister a few brief questions in regards to structuring in our hospital sys-

tem. As you know, I am from the North Shore. We are now included in the large health authority of Vancouver coastal — North Shore, Coast-Garibaldi, along that vein. Also, just recently there was a supposed document leaked with regards to certain particulars as to how the North Shore region was being handled. I appreciate the fact that this document, which was supposedly released, was really just a working paper on the part of the health region, but my following questions are necessary so that I can get some clarification on the situation.

As you know, the North Shore health region was rated by Maclean's magazine as the number one health region in Canada for the past two or three years. So, I guess, a lot of people in my riding are real concerned at the fact that it's now being taken away and included into a big behemoth running from Delta almost up to Prince Rupert or up into the Bella Coola area. One of the questions is: what is going to happen to our area?

Then, all of a sudden, we find we have a pseudo-leaked document coming in which states that they are going to refocus the direction of care in my riding specifically, all the North Shore. They're going to reduce the intermediate care beds by 200 and some odd. I was told by one of the directors of the region that this was being done so that they could give more quality home care. Then you go further down on the "leaked memo," and you find that home care is being reduced as well. It doesn't jibe. It doesn't fit.

First of all, I wanted to know: the funding for the area that you have absorbed — the North Shore, now absorbed into the Vancouver coastal, North Shore, Garibaldi, etc., etc…. I don't know what the exact name is really, because on one of the papers I have here it says Vancouver coastal health authority, and then another one says the Vancouver, North Shore, Coast-Garibaldi, Vancouver and Richmond authority. It does get confusing for a layman. I'd like to know how the funding is going. Are we going to be short of funding now that we're part of a large group or several different health regions that have been combined? Or are we looking at equivalent funding to what we had before, with an additional amount? That's my first question, if you wouldn't mind.

Hon. C. Hansen: Every health authority in this province has seen an increase in their budget from what was there last year. Actually, the correct term is the Vancouver coastal health authority. Just to give the member the restated base budget, last year for the Vancouver coastal health authority it was $1.536 billion. In this fiscal year, which is just starting, that increases to $1.647 billion, so we see an increase of about $110 million over what was there last year.

That's not to say that's the panacea to all of their problems. They still do have cost pressures that they are going to have to manage. There's not enough money to continue with the status quo the way we were doing things. What we have asked of all authorities is not to…. You can't look at the health care system as being a collection of isolated and disjointed programs and facilities. There has to be an integration and a determination to make sure the facilities and the programs meet the needs of those living in the region. That's the challenge we give them.

I am aware from the news reports of the leaked document that the member's referring to. I have no idea yet whether that is or is not — or whether part or parts of it have been — accepted by the health authorities in their recommendations to come forward, because I haven't seen what their recommendations are yet.

The bottom line is that throughout all of these changes that we will see, we will be holding the health authorities accountable for the delivery of better health outcomes. There may be changes in home care, changes in terms of home support, but what changes in one area may be enhanced in another area. The Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care is looking at some of those innovations, as to how we can better provide for those needs.

But at the end of the day we are holding the health authorities accountable — it's in our service plan; it is a measurable item — to ensure that we actually get better home care for more people in all of the health regions throughout the province. At the end of the day that's what they're going to be held accountable for. It's not just about balancing a budget. It's about ensuring that we actually get better health outcomes at the end of this change process.

There is change, and I have no doubt that the residents of the North Shore will continue to have the best health outcomes in Canada. What it speaks to, which comes out of the World Health Organization, is that the biggest determinants of health outcomes are not so much the provision of acute care facilities or things that you would actually consider health services, but the biggest determinants in terms of health outcomes are around economic status and education levels. Those are the things that really are drivers of better health outcomes. I think that in the North Shore you see longer life expectancy and better health outcomes partly because we do have a good health care service, which we're not going to compromise, but we also have those other socioeconomic factors that drive better health outcomes throughout the world.

D. Jarvis: If you have increased the funding for Vancouver coastal health authority, are they the ones that designate now whether the North Shore coastal area has funds reduced there that they have to make up by making adjustments? When you say they have to be accountable, on whose authority? The minister says that they have to be held accountable. You've given them directions as to how they're going to operate, but what if they don't operate their system the way that you feel is accountable or that the citizens in the North Shore feel is accountable — whether they still have the same level of service? Do we come back to the Vancouver coastal

health authority, or do we come to the North Shore coast region, or do we come back to the Minister of Health?

Hon. C. Hansen: What we are putting in place, which is the first time in Canada that any government has done this, is measurable outcomes when it comes to the difference that health care services make in individuals' lives. In the past the only measurement was whether or not a budget was balanced, whether there was a deficit or no deficit. This is the first time that we've gone beyond that to say there are measurable outcomes.

For example, we will be measuring the number of seniors with high medical needs who are being properly supported in their homes, and the reduced reliance of long-term care residents on the acute care system, to ensure that they have stability in their healthy lives. Those are measurables that we have built into the service plans. The service plan for the ministry as a whole is there on the website. We are currently working on the performance contracts with each of the health authorities to make sure they assume their share of that responsibility in meeting those health outcomes.

It is a fundamental shift. We're not simply going to measure the success of health care in British Columbia by how much money you put into the system, how many programs you have or how many employees there are in the system. For the first time we're actually going to start measuring and reporting to the public the outcomes of those in terms of how it actually results in healthier lives for British Columbians. Those are measurables, and those are items that the senior executives of the health authorities will be held accountable for.

As you may know, there is a salary holdback for the CEOs of the health regions. If they don't achieve their targets, then they're going to face the consequences when it comes to their own pocketbooks as well as the ability of the ministry to give them the latitude with which to manage their affairs. If they show that they're delivering on their outcomes, that they're living up to their expectations, then first of all they're going to be given the latitude to manage with less oversight and less interference from the ministry on a day-to-day basis, because they will have demonstrated that they're meeting the needs of the population. We're going to give them the latitude to continue to do that.

D. Jarvis: I just have one quick, short question, and that'll finish my questions for the moment. Maybe it's a softball question to you, but it is loaded. There's a reason for it being loaded in the sense that I can now go back to my constituency and tell them that although we may have had a lot of services before, some of them were superfluous. We're going to move them aside because we can't afford them anymore, but the overall service to the patients in North Vancouver, whether they be emergency or long-term or acute patients, will be better than it was before.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would be reluctant to call any health service superfluous. Although there may be examples, I think they're probably few and far between. I don't think you'll find any doctors or other health care providers in this province who are providing services that are superfluous, but I think it is a question of priorities. We have to make sure that the health dollars we have available are going to priority areas. We have to make sure that we deliver on the needs of residents of all communities throughout the province, whether it's the North Shore or northern B.C. — that we deliver on those services in a way that ensures they get access to the urgent and emergency care they need and that elective surgery is organized in a way that ensures that people get timely access.

What is not realistic is to say we're going to be providing that service on every street corner in every community. We have to ensure that we provide those services in a way that is sustainable; that can be counted on 24 hours a day, seven days a week, if that's what's needed; and that no resident in British Columbia, regardless of where they live, is going to go without necessary medical care. That's what I think we see happening too often in British Columbia today. That's what we will change. I believe that you're on firm ground in giving your constituents that kind of assurance that the health care system will be there for them as and when they need it where they live and that we're going to build on the successes of the past.

S. Orr: I first of all want to say that I just want to make a comment on the member for Vancouver-Hastings's comments. I actually, as a rookie member, was being polite. I was waiting to ask my questions, but I'm very happy to ask questions on a budget of $10.4 billion. It is a very large budget, and it is of great interest and concern to all of us.

Where I want to ask…. A lot of the questions have already been asked previously, but where I'm coming from is…. Now that we've consolidated and restructured the regional health authorities, what I would like to ask you is: could you clearly define to me what the ministry's relationship is going to be with the health authorities in their performances and their contracts? I'd like to see that picture, if you could explain that to me.

Hon. C. Hansen: What we will be putting in place — and a lot of this work is now already done, but we're sort of putting the finishing touches on it — are the provincial standards of care that we expect to be delivered anywhere in British Columbia so that regardless of whether you're in Dawson Creek or in Saanich, you will be able to expect a minimum standard of care that will be consistent throughout the province. Those standards of care have been delivered to the health authorities. As they go through their redesign process, they will have to meet those minimum standards of care.

There are many parts of British Columbia where that will mean they will have to provide an enhancement to the existing levels of care. In many small com-

munities, they may have health services provided but not for a consistent 24 hours a day, seven days a week. As everybody in this chamber knows, health emergencies happen at all hours of the day and all days of the week. It's not something that fits into the convenience of Monday to Friday, 8 o'clock to 5 o'clock.

The other dimension of what goes to the health authorities is performance contracts. There are certain requirements and certain guidelines that are being set out for them there. When I talked earlier about our own service plan for the ministry and the goals we have set of how we want to achieve better patient outcomes for the next three years, that will be constantly extended by a year, so we're always working on a three-year horizon. Those objectives, those measurable outcomes, will be built into the performance contracts for the health authorities. They will have to deliver on their share of those obligations so that we can meet the provincial targets.

What is changing is that we will no longer be micromanaging every single decision the health authorities make. They are going to be given an envelope of money, and they now know what those budgets are going to be. They're going to be given flexibility to meet their regional priorities within those budgets. If that meant reallocating dollars in the past, they would have had to come to Victoria and ask permission, and there was a delay there. By the time it all got sorted out, the problem got worse in many cases.

The health authorities will have flexibility without us hanging over their shoulder. At the same time, they're going to be held accountable at the end of the day for the health outcomes everybody wants to see, which is an enhancement of better health outcomes for individual British Columbians.

S. Orr: On the consolidation of the health authorities, could you tell me what the savings were? Do you have that figure?

Hon. C. Hansen: At the time we made the announcements of the restructuring in December, some of the preliminary work that was done by the ministry indicated we would get administrative savings in the neighbourhood of about $20 million over a three-year period. That took into consideration severance payments we felt would have to be paid for administration staff and senior executive staff. This obviously has been in the news, but if we're going to restructure and save money, sometimes it costs money to save money.

What the number doesn't include is the ability to consolidate services. There has been a lot of work around shared services. We have also given the health authorities the ability to consolidate services, particularly around support areas, and the ability to contract out, if they think that's the way they can get the cost savings, so there's another whole level of cost savings that will flow from the restructuring announcements.

That will be considerably more than the $20 million of direct savings. Clearly, I think, it depends on how many years you want to go out. Initially, there are upfront costs around severance payments that will be quite expensive, but by going through that restructuring, it will allow us to save considerably more money in the long term in ways that will allow those dollars to be refocused on direct patient care.

We're not talking about reductions in patient procedures. What we're talking about is changes in how support services are provided, how administrative services are provided, so we can get the most cost-effective support systems for the delivery of direct patient care.

S. Orr: I have just one more question, and I would be remiss if I didn't ask a question that was directly related to my area. I happen to be privileged to live in an area where we're well facilitated by hospitals, specialists and doctors. This is the Vancouver Island health authority. I don't hear a lot of complaints about the health care system in Victoria, because we have facilities, but I want to take this a bit further. I want to take this up-Island.

We have a patient now who is up in Tofino or Ucluelet. If that patient requires a specialist or requires medical attention, can you give me a picture as to how that will change from how it is now to how it will be now that we've restructured? Somebody in Tofino has had a serious injury. Where do we go with that patient? Before, they would have probably gone to a local hospital. I'm not quite sure how many hospitals there are up there, but with the restructuring, what will happen now to that patient? How will it be more beneficial to him or to her?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, first of all, I just want to say to the member that I'm very reluctant to talk about any particular community. I have yet to receive the recommendations from the Island health authority with regard to their restructuring and their plans for any facility on the Island.

If we can take that sort of one step back and talk about a hypothetical remote community, our commitment is that when somebody's involved in an accident, we want to make sure they can get access to emergency care as close to where the accident occurred as possible. They need to be stabilized. We often hear about the golden hour that people have if they're in any kind of a trauma situation, whether it's an accident or something like a severe heart attack. They need to get access to emergency care.

What is the case today in many smaller communities in British Columbia is that they don't have consistent 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week coverage. We are asking the health authorities to ensure that 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week coverage is there. That is, it has to be a priority for them. Then they have to have the ability to stabilize the patient, to do the assessments, to do whatever diagnosis is within their capacity. My hope is that within a few short years, we'll be able to expand the amount of telehealth that's available so that diagnosis around trauma can be rolled out into

more smaller communities. Currently, it's being piloted in Cranbrook and Terrace, but clearly there's an opportunity to put that technology into many smaller communities around the province as well.

The next stage is to ensure that the physicians who are attending that accident victim or that heart attack patient know exactly, on a consistent and dependable basis, where they can refer that patient to get the next level of care that's required. That has to be within a radius of only a few hours in terms of what's appropriate for them to get into an appropriate level of care for more serious injuries.

As the health authorities are doing this redesign, they have to make sure they can provide emergency care, they can stabilize, they can begin diagnosis, and they can then refer the patient to an appropriate facility they know is staffed with the appropriate specialists 24 hours a day, seven days a week with consistency. In fact, they would have access today to what's called B.C. Bedline, which is an innovation brought in by this government last September I believe it was, where physicians throughout the province can actually determine which hospitals have beds available that can provide the specialized care that may be required for that particular individual.

What we're trying to move away from is a very disjointed level of care we've had in the past where doctors would spend hours on the phone trying to find a hospital that can receive their patient. Many times they can find a hospital that has a bed, but they don't have the specialists on call who are required for that particular need.

What we want to do is ensure that the new, re-designed health care system is in fact one that is integrated and is truly a system, a network of dependable, predictable, reliable, 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week services so that the accident victim you refer to is going to get the care they need within the time they need it. I think people will see it as a significant improvement over the unpredictable, disjointed system that we have today.

I. Chong: I want to begin by thanking the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, for yielding the floor to many of us private members who do have questions to ask.

Having been in opposition for the past five years, it was always a time where opposition members were able to ask questions. Other members timed them so that we could engage in the categories that would flow and make it relevant with the minister's staff to be here at the time so that we didn't have too many staff people here. Having heard that she yielded the floor to those of us who would like to ask questions, I do want to thank her for this opportunity.

I want to also follow along the lines of asking about the regional health authorities. As the member who spoke just before me represents the same area that I do — Vancouver Island health authority — I first of all want to say that I do appreciate the fact that the new structure, the new model of governance, is going to provide a better health care system for our constituents. I represent a riding that is heavily populated with seniors, so in particular I am concerned because their needs are much more demanding on the health care system, in addition to the fact that they will be the ones most interested in knowing where we are headed in terms of the long-term community care beds.

Before I move on to that, I also want to say that for those constituents of mine who may be paying attention to today's deliberations, they can feel assured that the structure is now in place where ministers have been very receptive to members bringing issues to their offices. The accessibility to ministers — all ministers — that the Premier has instilled in all of us has been very fortunate indeed. Many of the cases that come to my office, and indeed to many of the members here, we are able to raise with the minister's office as opposed to dealing with constituent after constituent in estimates debate, which used to be the case in the past. However, I will have a couple of issues with constituents' concerns that I will raise.

First of all, I'll talk about the Health Services ministry and the service plan. I was curious to see that a number of programs and services are being discontinued — in particular, ministerial advisory committees. I have received some concerns about these, and I'm wondering if the minister can advise how these are going to be transferred where there will be a more direct responsibility.

As noted in the service plan, the advisory committees on HIV/AIDS, the seniors advisory committee and the women's health and injury prevention advisory committee are being transferred so that regions will be directly responsible. I am getting questions on just how that direct responsibility will affect the constituents in my area. In the context of those advisory committees, could the minister advise how that responsibility will flow through to our local areas?

Hon. C. Hansen: Just to back up a little bit, I think it's important to define the framework in which a lot of this work is being done. The Ministry of Health Services itself is getting out of the business of direct provision of health services. It is the health authorities that have to take responsibility for that.

Over the last number of years there has been a significant transfer of responsibility from the ministry to the health authorities. With our restructuring of the health authorities, there's even a greater capacity now with the six health authorities to assume full responsibility for the administration of the delivery of health services. That provides for a much better integration of health services at the regional level instead of the stovepipes that we had before.

We have found that a lot of the issues these various advisory groups in the past had been focusing on were

operational issues in terms of the delivery of services. That is now rightly in the purview of the health authorities. We are asking the health authorities to establish the appropriate advisory committees that they think are needed in their regions. Some health authorities are further along in that process than others. That's really where a lot of these groups would want to make representation and have influence around how services are actually delivered.

When it comes to the provincial perspective around women's issues, which the member mentioned specifically, there is an excellent policy capacity around the Children and Women's Health Centre of B.C. in Vancouver, which falls under the provincial health service authority. They have that capacity there.

Also, if you start looking at the policy issues, the policy framework and the accountability mechanisms that are needed in the longer term, we now have at the cabinet table a minister responsible for intermediate, long-term and home care who is actively ensuring that voice is heard around mental health issues. Obviously, the minister of state there is actively ensuring that those voices are heard when it comes to the policy development.

There is a separation between the advice we would be taking on the policy front, which is being championed by ministers at the cabinet table, and the operational health service delivery issues, for which we are looking to the health authorities to ensure they're getting those inputs.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that because I think there were concerns in our constituencies and certainly in mine, when there was the announcement that a number of these advisory committees were being discontinued. The fact they can still exist more focused in whatever region is much more important because, like so many things, not all regions are the same. The entire province is not identical in their cost pressures and their health demands. In those areas and in my area where seniors are very important, I'll expect that they will go and see their health authority and health regions to request they have input in that area. That's very, very helpful. I think it was important to put that on the record so people know that they still have a voice and that their issues will still be brought forward.

In terms of the restructuring and regional health authorities, I again want to thank the minister. His staff have been very helpful in providing information to me. In particular, a week ago I asked about funding to the capital health region, which has now been rolled into the Vancouver health authority. I wanted to know how their budget has fared over the past few years, because we were hearing through the media and some fearmongering that was going on that the health budgets had been cut and everything had been slashed.

To express to your constituents that a $9.3 billion budget has climbed to over $10 billion, that over $1 billion has been put into the health care budget…. That message seemed to have been missed. I've been wanting to ensure that my constituents are aware and have it communicated to them that in fact we have put more money into this area.

Your staff — through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister — were very helpful in giving me a breakdown of every year, and indeed health care funding had increased every year for the capital health region. With the new Vancouver Island health authority, I think there was still a misunderstanding about whether or not the combined dollars from the upper Vancouver Island health region and the capital health region — whether those two amounts, when combined — still created an increase in that health region funding. I'll let the minister answer that first before I follow up with a few other questions.

Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is yes. If you take all of the budgets that were in place for the capital health region, the Central Vancouver Island health region, and add into that the Comox Valley community health council, the Mount Waddington community health services society, Campbell River — all of those different health authorities that have come together to make up what is now known as the Island health authority…. If you combine all those budgets together and add in the additional dollars that we put in during the year last year, you come up with a restated base of $880 million for what was in those budgets last year. What flows to them in this coming year is a budget of $974 million. There is a fairly significant increase to the Island health authority over and above the combined budgets of those various health authorities.

I. Chong: That's great news — in fact, wonderful news. I appreciate that for the record. Constituents can now look at our debate and know that health care funding in this area was certainly protected — in fact, enhanced.

The other part of the restructuring is such that health authorities will now get three-year funding, as I understand it. I think that also was a good move. All too often, when I was in opposition, I would get calls in August and September — sometimes frantic calls — asking what I could do as an opposition member to get Ministers of Health to release their funding so that they could better plan. It was always a problem for the health authorities, particularly in this area anyway, that they were not able to know what secure funding they would have. This process now allowing for the three-year funding envelope is indeed a good move forward, a very positive move forward.

The minister has already responded to a number of questions by other members in the House regarding performance measures and performance contracts. I'm wondering if the minister can share with us how performance contracts — and performance measurements and performance targets — will be measured in light of the three-year funding allocations.

Will one year pass where an evaluation occurs and then a determination is made whether that funding envelope has to change again — either increase or de-

crease? Essentially, how often will that evaluation take place in the health region? How are these performance contracts going to be evaluated? In fact, how are they going to be developed, if the minister can advise, and how soon does he expect them to be signed off? There's still some confusion, I know, amongst my constituents about that.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, with regard to the three-year budget, it's a very good question that the member asked. We do want to bring that kind of certainty on a three-year horizon, so we will be constantly looking three years out.

It's not to say that's locked in stone. We will want to reflect if there are significant changes in patient referral patterns — for example, as we talked earlier, the need to reflect when patients are crossing regional boundaries. Unfortunately, that is still an after-the-fact adjustment that we make in the following year's budget. I'd like to move to a more sensitive case, which is what will be worked on over the next couple of years. We also have to reflect significant demographic changes in regions.

So there may be some adjustments from year to year, but generally we want to give stability to those three-year budgets so that health authorities can plan with certainty on that three-year horizon instead of the sometimes five- or six-month horizon that they're reeling from in the past.

With regard to the targets, they will be reported on annually as to the progress the health authorities are making towards achieving those targets. We will not be punishing the residents of a health authority if targets are not met, but we will certainly be holding the executive and the individual CEOs accountable. One of the things that's in place is a salary holdback for the CEOs. If they don't meet their targets, it's going to affect them in the pocketbook in terms of what their remuneration is.

With regard to the signing of the performance agreements, we are in the final stages of trying to work them out now. They're not something we're going to unilaterally impose on health authorities; this is a negotiated agreement. They have to be willing to accept those obligations before we sign them. We're in the final stages of putting those in place, and I hope they will be signed soon. As soon as they are signed, they will be made public and posted on the websites.

I. Chong: The minister did mention earlier, and just confirmed again, one of the ways to hold health authorities accountable. That has always been a concern in the past. Certainly, when I was in opposition, constituents would always wonder how they would be held accountable. One of the ways the minister indicated was by salary holdbacks for the executive and the CEO in particular. That is certainly not information that was well known, and those following these debates will find that there is definitely a monetary consideration there.

Can the minister advise whether there are any other similar kinds of accountability measures in that? Is this the only one, or are they still being developed as to what kinds of things? If they are still being developed, how soon might we know about that? Again, we hear a lot about wanting to hold these health authorities accountable, but our constituents will ask us just what that means. How are we going to hold health authorities accountable if they are not elected? In my case, I'd like to be able to go back to my constituents and show them a list of things that health authorities, CEOs and boards are going to have to adhere to.

If that's all in the performance contracts, I guess I'll have to wait for that, but if the minister can advise if he has a few others, I would find that helpful.

Hon. C. Hansen: This whole move toward performance contracts and accountability measures is a real innovation that hasn't been tried anywhere else in Canada. Many provinces have already approached us with interest as to what we're doing and how it's unfolding.

The performance measures that are in our service plan, which are now on the website, are a first cut at accountability measures. There is always the opportunity to add other measures if we think there's something particularly poignant that would be of interest to the public. We want to be careful doing that, because we don't want to wind up with just an exhaustive list of accountability measures that everyone starts to ignore because it becomes too complex.

There is certainly the salary holdback for the CEOs that is an important incentive, I think, but it's also not the be-all and end-all. I think the most powerful incentive for a health authority to ensure they get good outcomes is the fact that this is all going to be public information and that health authorities and individuals around this province will be able to compare how their health authority is doing, compared to a neighbouring health authority, on any one of those accountability measures.

That's not to say there's a magic number indicating that one health authority is doing a good job and another one is doing a bad job. What's important is the relative difference. We may realize that if one health authority has lower health outcomes that are publicly reported, we can then go in and start asking why this is happening. Is it that they're not putting enough resources there? Do they not have the right programs? Do other health authorities have better programs that are getting better results?

So how can we learn? Let's make room for innovation. Let's make room for success in health care, but let's do it in a way that we can actually identify success when it happens so that other health authorities can learn from those programs.

I. Chong: Just for the benefit of the minister, in case he needs staff, I'm going to move on to some other ar-

First of all, I'll bring in Pharmacare, because within the service plan I know there are some changes planned. One area in the service plan regards the income testing that will come into effect January 1, 2003. Can the minister advise what process we're going to be going through on that and how information received from the Select Standing Committee on Health fits into that, where there's going to be some input?

I've had some questions in my riding. I've spoken to a number of seniors regarding this, and there generally has been a wide acceptance of that — that this was long overdue. They just wondered how that process was going to work — what kind of inclusion would there be for their input, if any, and what groups may want to make presentations? — or whether that is being worked on at this time. If the minister can give us a little bit of an idea on how that's going to work, I would like that.

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, at the start of estimates debate this morning with the Leader of the Opposition, we determined a sequencing of issues. We're going to try to deal with the health authority issues first; then go on, I believe, to appointments and particularly the appointment process for health authorities; then go on to public health, Medical Services Plan, Pharmacare, B.C. Ambulance and health information systems; then deal with wait-lists, aboriginal health, women's health and tobacco. That's the sequencing.

If you don't mind, we can certainly try to deal with those when we get to those subject areas. I will remember the questions, and even if you don't get a chance to re-ask them, I'll make sure they get addressed.

I. Chong: That was perhaps part of the difficulty that some of us were having in following the debates and participating in the debates. We weren't clear — and I wasn't able to listen in this morning to follow — on the relative order that the Leader of the Opposition had requested. Perhaps then, because I do have those areas and those questions to ask, as does the Leader of the Opposition, I will try to watch the proceedings and make sure I attend at those times and ask my questions.

There is one thing I would like to ask, and I don't know if this fits in that order. It's regarding radiology services. Is that considered in order? The minister is shaking his head. It's in the order, so I have to wait for that too — or no, he's acknowledging that I could ask that question now. Thank you very much for that.

I wanted to ask about that, because I did have a constituent — in fact, a doctor — who had asked about radiology services and the fact that a number of doctors may be housed, for lack of a better word, in one building where they are all desirous of radiology services. They cannot have prompt access to radiology services because they are required to attend at another location where they would send out for those radiology services.

Of course, the question that came back to me…. There were a number of these doctors in this building saying: "Well, why is it that in our building, which has 20 or 30 doctors, we have to go out to this other location where there are only two or three doctors and they have a radiology lab set up there? Wouldn't it make more sense for them to relocate to our building?" There seemed to be some confusion as to how radiology services would be permitted to be provided and how they would be paid for through the health authorities and whether the ministry would have some direction or control over that or whether those things would also be delegated to health authorities.

Again, where doctors are looking for economies of scale and convenience, as well as to their patients, it would seem to make more sense that a building with 20 or 30 doctors…. As you may well know, it occurs quite often. They try to put as many services in one building, whether they're pharmacies or whatever, on the ground floors and have all their doctors' offices above so that everyone can take advantage of better service for their patients.

It didn't seem to make sense, and I was hoping that the minister can shed some light on this dilemma that doctors in my area, actually, are facing. I had actually made a call to his office, and there was a response back that there was a review being undertaken. Still, I would like to know if the minister can provide any additional information either about the particulars of that or whether the review has started and how long we might expect that to take.

Hon. C. Hansen: When the member indicated a question around radiology services, I indicated that it was appropriate at this time as it pertained to health authorities. Then she went on a slightly different direction which I didn't anticipate, but I will try to answer it at this stage, even though it would probably fit better under a discussion of the Medical Services Plan.

This accreditation of facilities is one that is driven by the Medical Services Commission. Those decisions are not made by government directly but rather are made by committees of doctors, so basically it's their own peers. Certainly, any doctors that are looking at ways of better rationalizing the way services are provided…. As you outlined, for this group of doctors who think that radiology services may be better provided in a different facility, the opportunity is there for them to make representation to the Medical Services Commission. This committee would certainly look at the logic of that. As I say, it is a committee of doctors, and it would be their own peers that would be making those kinds of evaluations.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister answering that question, although it jumped out of the queue.

Back to the health authorities, then. I just wanted to also confirm that for any savings found through ad-

ministration or whatever corporate reorganizations that occur, the health authorities, I would imagine, would have to identify those savings. But after so identifying, they would be permitted to redirect that back into patient care and improving and bettering health care for our regions where — unlike in other organizations — when savings are found, those are generally scooped up. I would certainly like to have the assurance that if, within the context of performance measures and targets and accountability, those kinds of savings are identified, health authorities know they definitely remain within their budgets and that their next year's budgets aren't necessarily going to suffer the consequences of good, sound management and best practices.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member has my 100 percent assurance that that is the case. I think that is very much the beauty of the flexibility we're giving to the health authorities. If they can find savings in an area of administrative support, they've got all the flexibility they need to move those budget dollars out of administration, where it's no longer needed, into direct patient care. Also, the funding formula that's in place provides them with a fair share of the health dollars for their region, given the demographics of their population and the cost-drivers of their population. If they can find more cost-effective ways of meeting the needs of patients, then they will be able to use the money saved to expand programs and to ensure that there is in fact better patient care. Even better than that, we're going to measure those outcomes so that the success in one region can be replicated in another region.

In relation to the provincial board, again, I think there has been some confusion as to how that is linked with our regional health authorities. Can the minister give me an idea as to what kind of input the Vancouver health authority, for example, would have into this provincial board? What responsibilities does the provincial board have that would not be duplicated or replicated in a regional board? Again, that is the last thing we want to see. We want to know that there are clearly defined roles. There is some confusion as to what that is, so if the minister can provide more details on that, I would appreciate it.

Hon. C. Hansen: The provincial health services authority is responsible for the tertiary programs and the programs that are clearly of a broad provincial nature and not specific to any particular region in the province. There is a very close working relationship between the five regionally based health authorities and the provincial health authority. They meet as part of the leadership council which I was outlining earlier.

Also, on the board of the provincial health services authority there is at least one person from each of the regions in the province to make sure there is that liaison there. The provincial health services authority has direct operational responsibility for a number of agencies and facilities, including Children's and Women's Hospital in Vancouver, the Cancer Agency, the Transplant Society, Riverview and the forensic facility. In addition, there is a series of programs that they are also responsible for. You've got your cardiac program, your renal program, which are administered out of other facilities that may be under the direct operational responsibility of a regional health authority. But they would be doing that on a contractual relationship with the provincial health services authority. The dollars would flow from the provincial agency to the regional authority for the delivery of some of those programs where that's appropriate.

It is a very close working relationship. So far there's been excellent cooperation and, we think, a mutual sharing of responsibilities in a way that will ensure that patient needs are getting met.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise whether this provincial body is also required to develop a performance contract to be signed? Will their accountability measures be similar to the health authorities' — for example, the salary holdback? Are they subject to the same kinds and terms that the health authorities are, in terms of a performance contract?

Hon. C. Hansen: The principle and the approach are the same — that there are specific measures for the provincial health service authority. There are measurables. There is the same kind of salary holdback for CEOs if they don't meet those objectives, but clearly there are different kinds of measures that are going to be put in place.

The ones for the five regionally based health authorities will be focused on the programs they're responsible for, and those five will look similar. We want to be able to make the same kind of measures and compare them region to region. With the provincial authority there are going to be different types of measures put in place, but with the same general philosophical approach and the same intent, to make sure they're publicly reported and that those executives and CEOs are held accountable for them.

I. Chong: One final area in terms of the service plan. One of the highlights or key projects in the service plan is to develop a response plan for non-performing organizations. I'm not familiar with that or don't have much detail on that. I'm wondering if the minister can shed some light on that project and when its due date for release might be.

Hon. C. Hansen: That particular objective was very much driven by a theme that goes across government: to ensure that there are accountabilities in place. When we look at non-performing agencies and health authorities, there will be consequences. Part of it, as I mentioned earlier, is a salary holdback for the CEO, but there's also the ability for the ministry to step in and restrict the independence of a health authority if it's not

performing up to the standards that have been set out and mutually agreed to in the performance contracts. We will be holding them accountable for delivering on those.

Health authorities today are being given a considerable latitude in managing their affairs. Part of the consequences — the response to a health authority that does not live up to that obligation — is the ability of the ministry to step in and take more direct responsibility for the day-to-day operations. That's not something that we or the health authority would want to see, but it's clearly an option that's available to us in the case of non-performance.

I'm not fearful that we will ever have to exercise it, because I think we have very good people in place in terms of the CEOs and the senior executive teams. I think we also have very good people in terms of the chairs and the new boards that have been put in place. I have every expectation that we will not only see performance up to a standard that we expect, but I also expect that every one of the six health authorities will exceed those expectations, because that's the nature of the personalities that are providing leadership at that level.

I. Chong: I appreciate that. I guess I just wanted to know about the development of a response plan for my benefit, so that I can relay that to my constituents. Is there a time line for your ministry for that to be out? I would imagine, like everything else, it will be posted on the website so that we can all refer to it as well.

Hon. C. Hansen: In response to the member's specific question, this is not a specific document that's going to come out. It will be incorporated into the performance contracts that will be signed so that there are consequences for non-performance, in other words.

We have a division within the ministry that's been set up to monitor performance of the health authorities because we see that the primary responsibility of our ministry is to put in place provincial standards, to put in place the performance contracts and then to hold them accountable for it. We're not going to micromanage. We're not hanging over their shoulder telling them how to do their job. They don't have to come to us cap in hand for every administrative decision that they need to make, but we are going to be evaluating the performance of the health authorities on an ongoing basis.

This is not a capital-P plan that's going to be tabled. It will be a plan and an approach that will be integrated both into the performance contracts but also into the operations of the ministry. It's an ongoing project. It's not something that's going to have a start and finish date to it.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister for that clarification. I did misunderstand what it was, so that helps. I want to thank the minister and his staff for answering my questions. I will attempt to pay attention to which sections come up, and as they do, I will return to this chamber to ask the questions that I have on MSP, Pharmacare and wait-lists. At this time I'll yield the floor to the Leader of the Opposition or other members who have questions.

J. MacPhail: For the benefit of the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, we will be announcing as we move on to other sections.

I'm moving to the area of the appointment of health authorities. How much money is budgeted this year for the payment of chairs and board appointees?

Hon. C. Hansen: Those individuals who will be serving on these boards will be receiving a retainer, as it's referred to. The chair will receive an annual amount of $15,000. The directors, the individuals sitting on the boards, will receive an annual amount of $7,500. If you do the arithmetic on that, the total for that compensation would be $450,000 per year.

J. MacPhail: How much does each member and/or chair get for each meeting they attend?

Hon. C. Hansen: In addition, they would be receiving a meeting fee of $500 for meetings of the board and committees of the board. For other meetings that they're required to attend, they would be receiving $250.

J. MacPhail: What has the government budgeted annually for remuneration to the health authorities for these meetings?

Hon. C. Hansen: We don't do that budgeting centrally. Each individual health authority has to determine how many meeting days a year they would anticipate. There is also, for example, travel costs — the day of travel — that we cover in that, so some health authorities are clearly going to have differing expenses when it comes to travel just because of the diverse geography they're covering. Each individual health authority is going to have to ensure that they have incorporated into their respective budgets the amounts necessary to cover off not only the remuneration but the meeting and travel expenses as well.

J. MacPhail: I've done a quick calculation. I've brought my calculator with me. Let me ask this question of the minister: is attending a subcommittee, like a finance subcommittee meeting of the health authority, classified as a health board meeting where one is paid $500 a meeting?

Hon. C. Hansen: That is possible. I know that in many cases with organizations of that nature, they would wind up with committee meetings being done in conjunction with board meetings, particularly when people have travelled. I don't think anybody wants to travel back and forth for more meetings than abso-

lutely necessary. I have no doubt, knowing the nature of the individuals serving on these boards, that they will probably extend their one meeting day into the evenings or start earlier in the mornings in order to get their committee meetings out of the way.

J. MacPhail: That may be the minister's point of view, but that isn't even the business practice of these people in the companies they actually work with. That's not how business practices are structured even in the corporate world. Given the ordinary course of business, I have calculated that the cost could easily approach $2 million a year in terms of board fees. My understanding is that prior to the appointment of these health authorities, chairs of health authorities and the volunteers who were appointed were paid nothing. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's right. Under the previous structure we had 52 different health authorities, each with their own boards, each with board expenses. We identified that even though the individuals were not remunerated for the time they spent, there were certainly considerable meeting expenses around those boards. Our estimation is that this is a net benefit in terms of the cost, even though we are now providing remuneration to the individuals serving on these boards in terms of their annual retainers and the meeting expenses. This is still a net saving to the health care system, given the cost of meetings and board expenses that we had under the previous system.

J. MacPhail: Then perhaps the minister could reveal the calculations. I just asked him whether he'd done those calculations, and he said he hadn't. If the minister has determined a net benefit, what were the previous costs, and what are they now that he's saying there would be a net benefit?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have the detailed calculations. I know that those that are quite familiar with the costs of running board meetings, the complexity and the travel costs that were incurred under the previous structure ….. Their sense of going from 600 members on these various health authority boards down to the current model, which is about 50 to 60 board members across the province — I think it's actually about 54 board members in total — is that even with the remuneration that's being paid, it would mean a net saving. I don't have the detailed calculations of that, but those whose advice I rely on that have looked at this have indicated to me there would be a net saving.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, I'm going to disagree with the minister. There isn't a net saving here. The minister is saying that even though he doesn't have the facts available. There are no facts available to prove this minister's point — none. We looked at this issue as a government over and over again, because board members were absorbing so much of the costs themselves. We determined not to change it.

The minister is not speaking the facts. It would be important here in this discussion for us to speak the facts. There's going to be in excess of about $2 million paid in board fees. Over and above that, there's also the travel costs and everything that the minister is talking about.

What was the logic behind firing 600 community volunteers and appointing 50 paid people?

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the board expenses, there were some detailed calculations done. We took all of the board expenses from the 52 health authorities, which was derived from their financial statements. The total amount that boards incurred under the old model for their board expenses was $1.4 million over a three-year period. What we're saying is that under the new model, we believe it will be less than that, so I stand by what I said earlier.

J. MacPhail: By the minister's own admission, the honorarium each year is more than that over three years, let alone taking out the meeting costs.

I'm afraid the minister, if he stands by his own statement, is being silly, is being absolutely ridiculous. The costs of just paying the honorarium regardless of the regular per diem is at least as much or more than the entire expenses of every aspect of the previous system. On top of the honorarium we have to add the per diems, which I calculate will probably add about another minimum of $750,000 per year, and then travel and meeting expenses on top of that.

The minister's system is far more expensive. I ask the logic, and then I'll yield the floor. One of my colleagues here wants to ask a question about health authorities. What was the logic behind going to a paid system for appointees?

Hon. C. Hansen: We are demanding a lot of the individuals serving on this board. It is a huge commitment of time. We believe that should be properly recognized.

The other thing is if you start comparing the responsibilities that are undertaken by these boards, with budgets in some cases in excess of a billion dollars a year for a couple of the health authorities, that is a level of responsibility that should be properly compensated.

We looked at other Crown corporations in terms of what the remuneration for board work on those other Crown corporations was. We felt that the remuneration in these positions should be comparable to that second tier of Crown corporations.

S. Brice: I'd like to pose some questions to the minister. I've got, over the time of your estimates, a number of areas I'd like to touch on — unaware of how the bundling should go for these questions until I heard the game plan a few minutes ago.

The questions I'd like to just raise at this point are questions that have been put to me. Sometimes when we meet our colleagues at the municipal level, because they share our interest and concern for the health of their communities and sometimes because of my caucus responsibilities, I am approached and questions are put to me. One of the areas our municipal colleagues are interested in is the capital health planning. I would be interested in hearing from the minister how that is envisioned, how any of that might change as a result of the new health authorities and perhaps any role municipal governments might be playing in that.

Hon. C. Hansen: As we had a chance to get into this morning, the way capital dollars flow will change in that capital will no longer be considered a free good to the health authorities. First of all, they're going to get more flexibility in choosing their priorities, but they will also have to ensure that they can cover their debt-servicing costs out of their operational budgets, to ensure that there is a direct connection between their capital priorities and their operating budget priorities.

With regard to the relationship with municipal bodies, we do not anticipate that changing. For all of the regional districts outside of the greater Vancouver regional district, there is a cost-sharing of 60 percent from the health authority and 40 percent from the hospital districts in those regions. We don't anticipate that there would be any changes in that relationship in the years to come. The only reason the GVRD is outside of that arrangement is because of the provisions for transit funding that the previous government brought in, so they operate in a different model.

S. Brice: Could you elaborate a little bit on the transition you see where the health authorities will be called upon to take on, as you say, a fuller responsibility to lay out their priorities in terms of their capital expenditures?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, in the past what would happen is a health authority would develop a capital initiative. They would come to the provincial government with that idea. It would typically be in the planning process for years and years. Often what would happen is that the urgent priority capital needs of the health authorities would not be met in a timely way.

Under the new model, they will in fact be able to choose their priorities. They can come to government for assistance with financing. If the provincial government, through the Ministry of Finance, can get the best possible rates on financing, then that's obviously the route we'd want to go. If they have other avenues to get financing, then we'd want to encourage that as well. We're not going to lock them into a model that says that all the capital priorities have to be dictated and financed directly out of the provincial government operations. The health authorities will be able to choose their priorities.

The other side of it is that they also have to ensure that they can cover their debt-servicing costs for those new projects to be initiated in the future. Anything that is already underway or was contractually committed to or was part of the new-era commitments that we made — those very specific projects — would be covered under the old financing model when it comes to debt-servicing costs.

S. Brice: Other areas that are, I know, of interest to our municipal counterparts involve the Ambulance Service. I know there were some questions earlier in this debate this afternoon regarding the Ambulance Service. Under the health authorities, will there be any sort of additional responsibility for organizing the ambulance services within their authority? Perhaps you could tell me what that might be.

Hon. C. Hansen: I know we will get to a more substantive discussion around ambulance services later on in this estimates process, but with regard to the relationship between the Ambulance Service and the health authorities, I think it is a very important question.

There are a couple of things happening. First of all, the Ambulance Service is going to be going through core review. We will be asking the big questions about the Ambulance Service and what its relationship should be to the delivery of health services. One of the big strengths I think we have in British Columbia is the fact that we have a provincial ambulance service that is not chopped up regionally. On the other hand, it's also problematic in that we're trying to ensure that health services are delivered in a cohesive way within regions so there is that continuum of care. I think there's nothing more important when it comes to emergency services than ensuring that our ambulance service is integrated with our emergency rooms and the provision of those emergency services. There needs to be that relationship.

I wouldn't want to prejudge what will come out of the core service process. I do know that we don't want to compromise on the tremendous strength that we have in our ambulance service, because we do have one of the best ambulance services certainly in Canada. If anything, we want to build on it. The health authorities themselves recognize the importance of a strong and reliable ambulance service to make sure that they meet their needs.

As we go through this redesign process, even in advance of core review, we're asking the health authorities to ensure that they take into consideration how ambulance services are delivered and where they should be delivered to ensure that the continuum of care is there from the time that someone first needs medical attention until they actually get the care they need.

S. Brice: For my benefit and the benefit of others, could you explain in terms of the Ambulance Service just exactly where the financial responsibility rests, both directly from the authority and if there's any pro-

vincial funding where the individual is involved? I know it is complex, but perhaps just a bit of a primer on it. I would find that helpful.

Hon. C. Hansen: I want to keep this discussion in the context of health authorities at this point. We will be getting into a discussion around ambulance service later on in the estimates. I guess the quick primer is where the dollars fit in. This is still one of the services that are funded centrally out of the ministry budget. Even though it is a front-line health service, it is not delivered by the health authorities. Those dollars come out of the core ministry budget. That's one of the questions we'll be asking: should that continue after the review?

As I say, I wouldn't want to second-guess where that's going. Clearly, there are strengths with both models that are under consideration.

S. Brice: I'd like to thank the minister for the answers. There are some other questions that I've had an opportunity to discuss with our municipal counterparts as well. I'll try to dovetail those in at the appropriate time, and perhaps I'll find out from your staff just exactly what order the groupings are going to come in.

R. Hawes: Just to follow on my colleague's line of questioning, she started by talking about the regional hospital districts and the 40 percent share.

I'd like to ask you a couple of questions about how it's going to work now in the Fraser Valley — first and foremost with the Frasers health region, part of it not taking part in the capital portion and part taking part. If facilities are built that are a joint facility across the region, has there been any thought as to how that's going to work now? Is the government going to pay for part of the area that's in TransLink, and the area that's not in TransLink will have to pay its 40 percent? How exactly will that work?

Hon. C. Hansen: With the existing projects that are underway, the model we have known continues. There's certainly a mix now of some projects that are 100 percent funded out of the provincial treasury, whether that be the old model of directly through the provincial treasury or whether it's through the health authorities. That will continue.

If you look at, for example, the MSA hospital, part of that facility would be 100 percent funded. Other parts of the facility would be under the 60-40 split.

Those are things that we have to sort out with the individual hospital districts as we move forward. There's not a one-size-fits-all answer to that question. Clearly, there's some work we have to do to work out with the hospital districts vis-à-vis any particular project that's going to be proposed in the future.

You mentioned the MSA hospital — if I could just ask about that, then. With the possibility that it could be built under a P3-type situation and with the 40 percent that's already being accumulated by the taxpayers in the Fraser Valley, can the minister explain what happens with that 40 percent and how it would be applied in a P3-type situation?

Hon. C. Hansen: The whole possibilities around P3s are really new territory for us. I know the Ministry of Finance is working on guidelines as to how that would work. I don't have a specific answer for you.

If we were to go to a P3 model for the MSA hospital, which is not something that has been determined, then clearly we would have to sit down with the hospital district and sort out what the ramifications are for that.

There is a policy group within the Ministry of Finance that is working on that policy framework. We're looking forward to their recommendations. Particularly, we're looking forward to how it might affect projects such as the MSA hospital.

R. Hawes: One last question, then, and I think I can predetermine what the answer is. It's around minor capital projects. When minor capital projects were funded with the 40 percent within hospital districts in the past, it was for equipment that was going to go into hospitals in their region, I guess. Now, with the expanded regions, I'm not sure how, when there's going to be benefits that cross regional lines…. Are minor capital projects going to be eliminated, then, and worked a completely different way? Will there still be a list coming to the regional hospital districts every year from the authorities for the minor capital projects that they want to see funded, or has that been worked out at all?

Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the new model will give more flexibility. In the past, whether it was the hospital district providing funding for equipment or whether it was, in many cases, the hospital foundations that wanted to fundraise for a portion of the cost of new equipment that was needed, they still had to come with those proposals to Victoria and that whole process of approval.

Now those decisions can actually be made at the regional level so that the regions are in a position to make the commitments and make their obligations, whether it's to the hospital district or to the various hospital foundations, with regard to how that equipment would be used and what encumbrances would be put on it in the future.

I think the new system's going to streamline it, give much more flexibility to the regions and allow for bet-

ter, faster decisions to be made to meet the needs of patients in those regions.

J. Les: I'm very pleased to be able to get up and engage in the discussion on Health estimates. First of all, I want to commend the minister and his staff for the, I believe, excellent job they're doing in tackling an area that's rife with challenge. We're talking about a budget of $10.4 billion and, arguably, the area of public policy that is nearest and dearest to the heart of the taxpayers that we serve.

I think it's fair to say that in some sense the Ministry of Health is one that was nearly out of control, and I'm not sure we have it completely under control at this point. Certainly, I think there is light at the end of the tunnel, and there is reason to hope today.

As the minister indicated earlier, there are certain performance measurements and other indicators being put in place today that will allow us to measure how well we're doing. We'll be able to measure the value for money that we're going to achieve in the years going forward. It's around the area of performance measurement that I'd like to ask a question. There are many performance indicators and objectives and outcomes in the documents I have here before me, and that is absolutely a terrific management tool that we will, I'm sure, want to utilize in the several years ahead. However, when it comes to the public, the performance measurement they really appreciate looking at is: how long do they have to wait to get their particular service?

I see, for example, that we measure a number of different things, but when it comes to specific things as they apply to the patients…. We talk about things like radiotherapy and chemotherapy, but there are other procedures such as a hip or knee replacement or cataract surgery or heart bypass surgery and those kinds of things. Once the patient has arrived at the point where they've been diagnosed and they need this particular procedure, if there's one complaint I've run into time and again, it is this: "Look, I've been scheduled for surgery. I'm going to be waiting a month."

I recently had a case in my riding of someone who needed heart bypass surgery and waited a month and took up a bed in ICU at the same time at a cost, I'm told, of about $1,000 a day. We have great expense attached to those long waiting periods, and I would suggest, as well, that patients' health suffers while they wait those extended periods of time. It's not only to do with heart surgery. I know elderly patients who need cataract surgery, for example, who currently wait about eight months to get those procedures done.

What I'm looking for is something slightly more specific in terms of how over time — not tomorrow; I know it's going to take some time to get there — we see ourselves being able to deliver those procedures more efficiently and quickly, once the decision has been made that a particular procedure is required.

Hon. C. Hansen: It is a very important and very complex question, as the member indicated as he was posing it. Clearly, we have to make sure we have a structure in place that addresses the priority needs. Somebody getting the surgery that they may feel is necessary is not just a case of who's been on the wait-list the longest. We do need to rely on doctors to prioritize patients. Those that are in the highest need should make sure that they get it in a timely way.

It would never be possible to eliminate wait-lists. In fact, many people say it would be a huge waste and an inappropriate use of resources if we were to try to have a zero wait-list. That would mean you'd have a whole infrastructure and staff that are standing around waiting for someone who may need surgery where it is appropriate to wait.

There is a project underway called the Western Canada Waiting List Project, which involves the other western provinces looking at, first of all, what are the protocols necessary to prioritize an individual patient's need. It's a tool for doctors to use to assist them in giving the right priority to a patient in certain circumstances and then to ensure that they wait an appropriate length of time and not longer for whatever their particular need is.

Part of our challenge in trying to deal with this is that it's not just a case of saying: "Let's ensure that operating rooms are open longer to get the wait-lists down." We have to make sure that the staffing requirements are met. It's no secret that we have a shortage of operating room nurses in this province. We're getting better. We actually have fewer shortages today than we did even last September, but it is an area of need. Too often we see surgeries that are being cancelled after someone's been on the wait-list too long, surgeries being cancelled not just because someone of a higher priority presents themselves but often because of staffing difficulties, which we're trying to deal with.

There's not an overnight solution to this — I think the member indicated that in his question — but we are putting in place performance measures that will allow us to track this. We do have today some of the best data in Canada when it comes to measuring wait-lists. We will be holding the health authorities accountable for showing steady and consistent improvement in our wait-lists as time goes on. There's no one simple solution; the solution is multifaceted, to use a word that too many people use and that I don't like myself. Certainly, it's going to require a bunch of different approaches before we can really get a grip on the wait-list challenges that we have before us.

J. Les: Thank you to the minister for that explanation. There are no easy answers; I'm quite aware of that. In a previous life I spent seven years as a member of a hospital board in Chilliwack. I think in about 1994 I gave it up, as I saw hospital boards losing their autonomy and their relevance. Certainly, I think the health authority boards that are in place today will have a great scope of authority and autonomy and ac-

countability to take their responsibilities for their particular regions to new levels of achievement.

We have today the emergence of a number of private clinics, some that have been in place for a bit of time and, I gather, as recently as the last several days, where we have an announcement that there's a new private clinic emerging in Vancouver. I think these private clinics are a good thing. They can certainly take some pressure off the health care system by providing some of the more elective types of procedures, but I think they can also provide a safety valve, if you will. For example, if publicly owned facilities are overtaxed and procedures are urgently required, I see these clinics as being the vehicle through which the government can contract for services, much as some government agencies now do. The Workers Compensation Board, for example, is known to use these clinics.

I'm wondering if the minister could perhaps tell us whether the Ministry of Health Services would be prepared to contract for those services and, maybe to take it even a step further, where an interest is indicated by the private sector to establish a clinic and where we have some rather large allocations of surplus space within our publicly owned facilities, whether we would be prepared to rent or lease out some of that surplus space to the operators of private clinics so they could in fact be located within these surplus facilities and perhaps be integrated as part of our overall health care system.

We could go on for a long time discussing those areas. Perhaps if the minister could elaborate on just those two thoughts…. I'll leave it at that for now.

Hon. C. Hansen: Let me answer by pointing out that — I don't know how far it goes back, but certainly for at least the last ten years — there has been the ability for surgeons to contract the use of operating rooms in the province. I know of cases with plastic surgeons, for example, who can essentially rent the use of an operating room with staff and facilities for cosmetic surgery. They pay a good price for that, which is a revenue source to the hospital involved.

It's not to say that what the member is talking about is something that doesn't exist today, because in some contexts it does. I would also want to respond by saying that I don't think the use of private clinics is somehow going to be the panacea to our problems in health care. There may be some limited opportunities in ways we can ensure that patient needs get met within a publicly funded health care delivery service with the use of a private clinic.

I know that health authorities have come to us and asked if they could explore this. We said: "Let's look at the business case and make sure that it is in fact more cost-effective." We're certainly not going to go down the road of using a private clinic for surgical procedures for some philosophical or ideological perspective. It has to be better use of tax dollars.

One of the difficulties we have today is that we don't know how to cost the existing services we're providing — the public surgery provided in publicly owned and operated hospitals. We don't know how to cost those, so we don't have a benchmark to compare what may be offered by private facilities.

We're looking at it, but we're looking at it very cautiously. I know of one health authority that looked at the opportunity to contract out a surgical procedure. They came back and felt it was not cost-effective and that, in fact, they could provide a more cost-effective service themselves. That was their choice. It was the right decision, if that's what the numbers told them at the end of the day.

I think the bottom line for us is that we want to make sure patient needs get met. If the most cost-effective way of doing that is with our existing publicly owned facilities in the way we do it today, then we should continue to do that. If there are more cost-effective ways of meeting the needs of patients within the Canada Health Act, ways to save dollars that could be redirected to other parts of health care, then we have an obligation to explore those. As I say, I don't think it's the wholesale panacea to the challenges before us.

J. Les: I would agree with the minister that there are no silver bullets or panaceas out there that can lead us to the health care promised land overnight. However, let me just make the point that sometimes with the existing service delivery models that are out there…. I would grant you that it's difficult to find benchmarks against which to compare these other models, but that doesn't trouble me too much.

I think there is great opportunity to develop competitive situations where the magic of the marketplace can work in our favour in delivering health care better in a more timely way to the patients we hope to serve. I grant you that it's very difficult sometimes, in a fully publicly run sector, to develop those business cases and those models and indicators that would give you a clear picture of what the cost is of doing business in the private sector.

As a rule of thumb, it's often the case that in the private sector you do get more efficiency because of competitive forces, but this isn't some ideological rant on my part. I think we need to ensure that all of us are looking for the best outcomes for patients. If that's in the public sector completely, so be it. I'm quite happy with that. If there is an element of private sector and market dynamics that can be brought to bear…. Let me point out that there already is a lot of private sector involvement in the health care system. When we go to see our doctors, for example, at their offices, then those are essentially private sector businesses where the government contracts with them for service.

Again, I agree we need to proceed with caution, but let's not be too troubled by the fact that we can't accurately develop the comparables in the current public sector. I appreciate the opportunity, Mr. Chairman, and I'm happy to cede the floor to someone else.

B. Lekstrom: Just a couple of questions to the minister regarding the issue of health authorities and their

relationship with our hospital foundations, which are very important tools that our communities use. A question to the minister would be: with the redesign of health services and the new health authorities now looking at that, if there was a piece of equipment that's been purchased by a community, by a hospital foundation — I will use Dawson Creek as an example, my hometown which goes to work and puts in hours and hours of dedicated volunteer time to raise money for a capital asset for the hospital — and given to that hospital and for some reason their redesign shows that maybe that service would be better delivered — I'll use the North Peace as an example — in Fort St. John, is there any plan within the health authorities to compensate or look at some kind of situation?

I know it's going to be very difficult for communities that have…. You know, many of these people have been there for many decades and worked very hard to raise some money and dedicate this to the hospital. If there's a shift, do we have a plan to deal with the hospital foundations through the health authorities should this arise?

Hon. C. Hansen: We don't have a specific response to individual concerns of that nature. We're trying to deal with them, basically, as they arise. Because we're just at the stage of speculation around what this redesign may look like, a lot of it is going to be difficult for us to tackle until we have specifics. We will be expecting the health authorities to deal with that almost on a case-by-case basis as those issues arise.

I think there are two ways of looking of it. First of all, we value the work of the hospital foundations. I think there are things we can do to strengthen it to make their jobs easier in the future. Having that community involvement is really an important part of making sure that the community is directly involved in meeting health care needs — not just the community's but also the region's. What the redesign is all about is trying to ensure that individuals, wherever they live in the province, are going to have access to the care they need. If it's not care that can be provided in their specific community, then let's make sure it's in the next community or that at least it's on a regional basis that's accessible within a reasonable period of time, instead of individuals having to fly to Vancouver or, in the case of the Peace-Liard region, to Edmonton, for example, to get access to care.

We want to make sure we work with the foundations so that we can build on the strengths they've had in the past. When it comes to the allocation of any particular piece of equipment, if there are issues around that which are of concern to individual foundations, we'll be expecting the health authorities to sit down with those foundations and work out exactly what's in the best interests of the communities.

At the end of the day the individual health authorities have the same objectives as everybody else does, and that is: how do we enhance the work of the foundations? I can't envision a situation where any health authority is going to go out and do something in direct opposition to their local foundation. Clearly, they are going to want to work with that foundation to build on the needs of the community and the region in the future.

The other thing to point out is that some of the foundations really do take a very broad provincial perspective. I know the Children's Hospital Foundation has beneficiaries from throughout British Columbia who don't give a second thought to donating to meet the equipment needs of children, even though it happens to be based in Vancouver. I know there are some of the other hospital foundations. One of the changes made recently was to allow them to market things like their lottery programs throughout the province, because many of these facilities are trying to meet provincial needs and are there to serve British Columbians regardless of where they may come from.

I think there's a mix of approaches, and there's not sort of one particular policy framework that says to the health authorities, "Thou must do this," with equipment that's been purchased as a result of the work of foundations in the past. We're asking them to work with their foundations on a one-by-one basis.

B. Lekstrom: I'd like to thank the minister for that, because I think it's vitally important that our authorities do communicate with our foundations. As you indicated, they're of vital importance to the well-being of our hospitals, and they're a huge part of our communities throughout this province.

One further question regarding the authority of the health authorities. This may or may not be in place. I know the ambulance issue is one that's going through a core review. My question to the minister is: will it be within the realm and the authority of a health authority, after seeing what the core review comes up with, with the ambulance service, to look at a delivery model as far as dispatch goes? Right now in the north we do have some struggles that take place through ambulance dispatch not coming from within our region and some of the dispatchers not being that familiar with the northern part of the province. We run into some real logistical problems, and it creates some near life-and-death situations for us. I'm just curious as to whether our health authorities, upon reviewing what the core review has to say, will have the ability amongst themselves to make a determination whether ambulance service, ambulance dispatch, would be better offered within that region.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, we will get into a full discussion about ambulance service as it affects the health authorities. We clearly have challenges. I know the member has come to talk to me, as other members have, about specific issues and stories of unfortunate incidents with confusion over dispatch. We've got to resolve those. I guess the good news is that they are very unusual. We have a really good dispatch system. We've got good people working there. We've got a good ambulance service generally. Those

challenges, with those odd exceptions — those times when the system doesn't work to perfection — will be there regardless of what the structure is, whether that would, as a result of core review, be administered by the health authorities or whether we continue to do that on a provincial basis.

I wouldn't want to second-guess what the core review committee will recommend for the structure of the ambulance service, but I think that regardless of that structure, we have to ensure that challenges around dispatch are met. I think those challenges will be there regardless of what the future structure of the ambulance service will look like.

J. MacPhail: There are some very interesting answers that the minister has given. For instance, I was very curious as to the answer he gave to the member for Maple Ridge–Mission about the sharing with the municipalities. I think the government actually may be in violation of the agreement between the province and the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority by their refusal to pay for capital costs directly. The agreement said very clearly that the government would vacate the tax room for hospital building and turn that over to TransLink on the agreement that the provincial government would replace 100 percent of that financing. We'll have to look at that agreement and see what agreement this government's breaking in terms of the people who are in the greater Vancouver regional district.

Of course, behind all of the questions by these members, which are very appropriate questions, is the high state of anxiety by municipalities that this government is off-loading costs onto them. I'm particularly concerned about this government breaking the agreement between the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority and the province.

Then, I might also note that the member from Chilliwack thinks his life is better now, even though his community has zero representation on any health authority. But I guess that's what the member from Chilliwack thinks is great.

Can the minister tell me what legislative changes are going to occur as a result of the reorganization of the health authorities?

The Chair: I remind members that in Committee of Supply, we're not to discuss legislation or the need for legislation. If the member perhaps wants to reconsider the question or rephrase it.

J. MacPhail: I am not quite sure why this Legislature feels they have to come down so hard on the opposition.

My question, for the minister's benefit, is that he is announcing substantial changes, and who's being held accountable for health care spending? I would assume that would require some legislative authority. I'm fine to wait for it, except that we are going to get into a great deal of difficulty when I'm going to be questioning the minister around performance contracts and accountability — hence my question.

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, all of the restructuring that is done is provided for under the existing language in the Health Authorities Act. There is not a requirement for any changes to legislation either to do the restructuring that was announced in December or to facilitate some of the redesign that health authorities will be coming forward with.

We will look for an opportunity in the future to try to clean up the Health Authorities Act. There is now in the Health Authorities Act a provision for the community health councils and the community health service societies, which no longer exist. Even though it's not necessary for us to amend the act to facilitate the changes we've made, there are now a whole bunch of redundant clauses in the act, and at some point it would be desirable for us to try to clean those up. But that's certainly not in the immediate future.

J. MacPhail: In the health authority board members' announcement made on March 22 — this is related to the accountability around fiscal matters, Mr. Chair — it says: "Members have been chosen for their leadership skills, decision-making abilities and willingness to be accountable through performance contracts setting out in detail how patients' needs will be met."

When we get to the performance contract discussion later tomorrow, I would like the minister to cite the legislation that holds these authorities accountable, please. I'm not denying that he's correct. I'm just not aware of any legislative accountability that would uphold this particular paragraph in this release.

Here's why I'm going in that direction, so that the minister and his staff know. If this chamber isn't accountable for the decisions made by health authorities, then the health authorities are accountable for real spending. We have all sorts of ways that we hold ourselves accountable. You can't have a dime without debate, so to speak. You can't raise fees without debating it in here or going through executive council, which then debates it in here.

That's why I asked the minister earlier on what options were available to health authorities to cope with lack of funding. One of them was to look at revenue opportunities. Well, there has to be some legislative change, I put it to the minister, in order to allow health authorities to do that.

I guess maybe it's not performance. My apologies — it won't be discussion under performance contracts. It'll be discussion under accountability in terms of the legislative authority that now exists giving health authorities accountability for both expenditure and revenue.

Back to the issue of paying board members, I noted that two-thirds of the board members come from the corporate world — not the small corporate world, but the medium and big corporate world. That's what they do for a living. Fair enough. It's a bit lopsided — sub-

stantially lopsided. The government has made a decision to have business people without any health experience in the majority. I've also calculated how many have health experience as well. Two-thirds are business people who will now be running our health care system.

Did the minister ask these business people who were so anxious to have this government elected whether they would do this job for free? And if so, what was the answer?

Hon. C. Hansen: One of the things we looked for in trying to recruit members to serve on these boards was to find individuals who have experience around decisions of the magnitude that we're asking them to make. These are organizations with hundreds of millions of dollars a year in their budgets and in a couple of cases in excess of a billion dollars a year.

We wanted to have people who had experience with providing a governance framework for a structure of that magnitude. I don't apologize for that at all. I think it's vitally important. When we come to the actual expertise around health care delivery, we rely on people who have clinical training and clinical expertise for that. When it comes to providing governance and administration, we are looking for other skill sets on those boards. I think the individuals we have found to serve on these boards reflect that.

If you look at the remuneration we're putting in place for these board members, it is consistent with Crown corporations and the tradition in this province of providing remuneration for individuals serving on Crown corporations.

I don't want to underestimate to these individuals the amount of time and responsibility they're going to be saddled with. We think it's appropriate that they be compensated appropriately for that responsibility and the time commitment they're going to be making.

J. MacPhail: Is the answer to my question that the minister never asked these corporate business people to do this work for free?

Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct, because we think they should be properly remunerated for the time and the responsibility they're undertaking, just as board members who are serving on other boards such as our Crown corporations are provided with that remuneration, and nobody asks them up front if they would be willing to do it for free.

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, there's a mix in this province — and there always has been a mix — of pay or no pay for people who do governance in this province.

I recall very clearly being hammered day after day by this government when they were in opposition about us usurping the work of volunteers in the province — firing volunteers, taking over the work of volunteers, doing away with all of the hard-earned contribution that volunteers have made to the community. That's one.

Two, I recall having a discussion amongst the community where there was a tradition of volunteerism in the health care field. This will be the very, very first time anybody who is not delivering a direct service in health care is paid for health care governance.

My curiosity about the business community is this. The business community, the corporate community, has said over and over again that the previous government catered to special interests, just handed money to special interests. Frankly, the previous people who governed our health care system were trade union people, social services people, doctors, nurses, some business people, community leaders and municipal councillors. They all did it for free.

Now for the very first time, when the business community, the corporate community, actually has something to give to this province, they get paid. They're the first people ever to be paid. Two-thirds of the health authority appointments are big business people — all right, medium and big business people. All of a sudden the volunteer model is thrown out the window, and they're getting paid what will probably be tens of thousands of dollars a year.

I just wanted to know whether the minister ever put it to the corporate business community: "There are huge cuts in services across the government. Now is the time for you to step up to the plate, people, but could you do it in a voluntary way?"

Hon. C. Hansen: I want to put it in perspective of the magnitude of the operations that we are asking of them. The Fraser health authority has a budget of $1.34 billion. The interior health authority is just under $1 billion. The northern health authority is in excess of $300 million. The Vancouver coastal is $1.622 billion. The Island health authority is just under $1 billion. The provincial health service authority is $765 million.

These are huge, complex operations. When it came to finding individuals to sit on the board, we were looking for individuals that could provide the leadership and governance for operations of that magnitude. We wanted people that had at least some experience around operations of that scale.

The health delivery system in British Columbia is extremely complex, and there is so much at stake that we need to ensure every cent of that money is being spent with the best value possible but in a coordinated way. We needed people who had the experience to wrap their heads around that complexity and the size of these operations.

I don't apologize for a minute for the people we've got there. They are excellent people. They're diverse in terms of their backgrounds and the experiences they bring to the table. The majority of them do have good corporate experience with medium and large organizations. I think that's entirely fitting. I think it's also entirely fitting that we compensate them for the time and the responsibility they're taking on.

J. MacPhail: There were boards of that magnitude in the past too. The Vancouver-Richmond health board

had a budget of $1.5 billion. Every single person volunteered hundreds and hundreds of hours. The regional health board in Victoria was the same thing. The Simon Fraser health board was exactly the same thing.

This is not a new magnitude. Frankly, over a third of the appointees have donated a substantial amount of money to the Liberal Party. I'm just curious why the question wasn't even posed to the corporate business community. Why wouldn't the corporate business community do something that actually assisted this province rather than being paid for it? It's a curiosity to me, and I will be asking the business community what exactly it is they contribute to this province where they're not being required to be paid for it.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour and the people coming in, 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 resolutions and progress, was granted leave to sit again.

V. Roddick: On the confidence issue, could I ask a further question on antibiotics? It has been stated that farmed salmon receive more antibiotics by weight than any other livestock. What methods are in place to actually measure what, if any, residue is released into the ocean?

Hon. J. van Dongen: The member really asked two questions. On the second question I'm going to refer her to my earlier answer, where the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection measures for a range of components and issues in the benthic community under fish farms. That's the best answer I can give her at this time. If she wants to pursue that further, we can try and get her more specific information.

Also, on the question about the amount of antibiotics used in farmed salmon production compared to other types of agricultural production, we know very precisely the amount of antibiotic that's used. As I said, everything has to be recorded and prescribed by veterinarians. It's my understanding that her information is not correct, in that the level of usage relative to the amount of a product produced in salmon aquaculture is lower than in other agricultural endeavours or other agricultural products. That seems to be a fairly conclusive fact, so I would leave that with her to pass on to the people who are concerned about it.

V. Roddick: If you could provide me with that statistic or whatever, then that would be most helpful. I appreciate that.

One final question. Access to newer, reduced-risk pesticides is imperative for competitive British Columbia agricultural industries. The pest management regulatory agency's pesticide regulation program impedes the timely registration of these products. Efforts of various government agencies and organizations are hopefully underway to effect needed changes.

Will your ministry work hard as our advocate on this very important economic issue facing our industry?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly the member identifies an issue that is of great concern to our ministry and to our industry. We have identified it as something that we have as a very high priority, to work with Intergovernmental Relations and the federal government.

The PMRA falls under the authority of the Ministry of Health. It is a very slow and costly bureaucracy and seems to have had a fair degree of intransigence in terms of moving some of these processes forward. It does put our industry at a very distinct disadvantage where very often we are actually using pesticides and herbicides that are no longer the most modern products available, which may have been approved in the United States but we can't seem to get approved in Canada.

This is an issue about which I have directly indicated to my staff that anything that we need to do, we want to do. I've asked them to ensure that anything they identify that we can do to push this issue forward, they will push that up through our senior public servants to act on whatever we can and need to do.

I did talk to the hon. Minister Vanclief recently in Kelowna on this issue and together, with the Canadian Horticultural Council — who were there for their eightieth annual meeting and national meeting — impressed upon him the very, very critical nature of this situation. It's something that simply no one has been able to break through on for a number of years now. We will work very diligently to try and rectify that situation and get our producers, our growers, on a more level playing field with American growers and other producers.

If we're going to be competitive in a world market, which is what we say we expect our growers to be, then we also have to ensure that they have equal access to all of the products and inputs that they need to produce an environmentally friendly product and do it in a productive and economical way. The member has identified something that we have as a priority. As I said, we're certainly up against a very difficult bureaucracy, but we're seized of the issue.

We have heard an awful lot lately about salmon farming, but we haven't heard a whole lot about the wild fishery. I'm curious: is there any support in the ministry for the marketing of wild salmon?

Hon. J. van Dongen: In response to the member, we as a government certainly want to reaffirm our support for the wild fishery and, first of all, our commitment to work with the federal government to maintain wild stocks and, secondly, to ensure that we capitalize on those stocks to create jobs in our coastal communities.

Two things that we as a ministry are doing. One is that we have legislation in place that helps facilitate a levy that is deducted on all landings of salmon, for example. That is used by the B.C. Salmon Marketing Council to market B.C.–produced wild fish. Those dollars, for example, are used in trade shows in Brussels or in Boston and some of the international markets that we hope to tap with our wild fish products.

Secondly, we have invested considerable dollars with the industry in eco-certification of our wild fishery. This is, again, to make sure that our industry is competitive on the world market. This eco-certification will be done by an organization called the Marine Stewardship Council, and we as a government have been actively engaged with the industry in ensuring that our industry achieves certification and keeps us competitive in a market where a commitment to a sustainable environment is important to the buyers.

B. Belsey: The ministry has come out in the last three or four months and supported the finfish aquaculture — the expansion of sites and the movement of finfish aquaculture up to the north coast. I'm very, very pleased that we have been able to do that, seeing as how an awful lot of that is in my riding, but I do have a question. Can you tell me what the plans may be for shellfish aquaculture on our coast — if there are plans for expansion or supporting it, certainly, on the north coast?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly we have a number of activities that we're engaged in, in the north coast region, to expand our aquaculture and, in particular, the shellfish industry that the member asked about. We've been doing biological growth studies there for oysters and scallops. The results of those studies look good in terms of capability there. There are two tenures that are active: one in the Queen Charlottes and one near Prince Rupert.

There's also biotoxin monitoring that is being developed with Environment Canada, and this is being done for both the wild industry and the cultured shellfish industry. Staff are working on shellfish capability studies in the Oweekeno area, and they're also working with the Haisla in terms of possibilities there.

We've been doing shellfish capability mapping, and I think we're working with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management on that, because certainly they are involved through Land and Water British Columbia. They're reviewing the process for accepting new applications. There is a fair bit of activity going on. We haven't had official announcements or a lot of big, fancy press releases, but there is a lot of activity on it, and we certainly see the shellfish aquaculture industry as something having good potential for places like Prince Rupert and other areas on the north coast.

B. Belsey: Getting back to the finfish aquaculture and the concerns that we have heard in the past about escapement. I'm wondering: has the ministry identified any streams or rivers on the north coast where Atlantic salmon have been found or identified in North Coast rivers?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly monitoring of escapes is a critical function that is carried out by Atlantic Salmon Watch. In about the last ten years there have, in general, been 77 streams, rivers or watercourses where Atlantic salmon have been identified. In two or three of those cases they were juveniles. In continuing to monitor those, there has never been any colonization of Atlantic salmon in any of our streams.

The focus of the effort by Atlantic Salmon Watch has been mainly in the areas where our fish farms are operating. We have not had the same level of focus all across the coast of British Columbia. Having said that, my staff are not aware of any streams or rivers in the North Coast area where there have been escaped Atlantic salmon identified. As I said, that may be partly true due to the fact that there has not been the same level of focus there as in other parts of British Columbia. Certainly we expect that as the industry expands into the Prince Rupert area, the monitoring of escapes will follow the industry into those regions and into the watercourses in those regions.

B. Belsey: My next question is regarding a small business that is operating in the Bella Coola Valley, called Bella Coola Valley Seafoods. They're a small operation in which the husband of one of the owners is

a fisherman. He goes out and fishes salmon. He's got a licence for salmon and halibut and, I think, some groundfish.

He's having difficulty with one particular part of landing his catch, and that is with the halibut validator which is a requirement wherever you land fish. One of the difficulties he has is that there is no longer anybody who is acceptable to the ministry to act as a validator in the Bella Coola valley. He's required to fly someone in, pay room and board, air travel, travel time and pay all their costs and expenses to validate his catch, or he must take his catch someplace else. That's his understanding at the current time.

I'm wondering if the minister could tell me if there are any plans or anything that this family can do, given the current rules and regulations he has to work under.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I should say to the member that I was aware of this situation. I think we had received a letter from the people involved. It's important to recognize, first of all, that it is a federal fisheries requirement to have a validator for the landing of halibut. I understand that the problem these people are currently facing is a result of the fact that the Pacific Halibut Commission moved the main site for validating the landing of halibut from Bella Coola to Bella Bella. That has, in part, created this difficulty.

My staff have been working on this issue. We are working on, basically, two approaches. We're talking to DFO to see if they would be willing and able to designate one of their staff as a validator. Right now, as I understand it, validators are independent contracted services, and it generally has not involved DFO staff. That's one option we're working on.

The other is that the people involved, together with our staff and DFO, may want to contact a local training agency — in this case the Bella Coola Valley Learning Society. We may want to try and talk to them to see if they could train someone local who could provide that service. We're trying to find some practical options to help these people out. I understand the difficulty they're facing for the small amount of catch they're landing.

J. Kwan: From our debate more than a week ago — because we had a week away from the Legislature — we were asking questions. I'm just checking in Hansard where I left off.

I'd like to now ask the minister this question related to age restrictions. The recipients in the age group of 55 to 64 will see their income assistance level drop by at least $50 to $100 each month. My question to the minister is: what has the ministry done to prepare this group for the drop in their income of between $50 and $100?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry has sent out, under my signature, letters to all those who are affected by any of the changes. That group would be one of them. The affected changes will be in the April cheque, and the letters were sent last month.

J. Kwan: How will the ministry ensure that employers hire people in this age group of 55 to 64?

Hon. M. Coell: There are many people employed now in that age group. The employment programs that are now out to RFP make up part of that $300 million over three years we spoke about last year. We're going to look at helping people who have been on income assistance for longer periods of time to participate in those programs.

The programs saw some success. Last week the member talked about creaming, getting the best people into the employment programs. It's our desire to have people who have had more difficulties in gaining employment involved in those programs as well. That will, I think, improve their chances of employment.

J. Kwan: How will the Ministry of Human Resources prevent age discrimination in hiring practices? Are there any plans within the ministry to try to combat age discrimination?

Hon. M. Coell: We may want to have a couple of questions on this one. One of the issues is the performance-based contracts that we'll have. It will be important that clients be placed because the contractor will not get paid until they place those clients.

J. Kwan: For recipients who are applying for positions, it may well be that the employer understands that with a person in this age bracket, the probability of training this person and then having this person stay on for a longer term than a younger person, of course, becomes less likely. In that instance, a person may well be discriminated against in the workplace in terms of hiring practices.

Are there any active procedures or processes that the ministry is going to be looking into to prevent that from happening?

Hon. M. Coell: I think more specifically, in the programs that we're looking at, is everyone having an employment plan. They would be referred to those programs that we have now. I think the age discrimination probably exists now, as well, in that they would really be involved through employment standards and human rights. Both of those the ministry deals with on a regular basis, as do, I would imagine, a lot of people that are not involved in our ministry but involved with employment standards or human rights issues in the workplace.

J. Kwan: One of the reasons why, I think, the higher rate was afforded to this age group was the recognition that this age group would perhaps have a more difficult time in securing employment for retraining purposes and so on. It was that recognition. Also, as individuals age, their costs perhaps would also increase, so there was that recognition, which is why, I think, the rate was higher for this group. Now that the rate is going to be reduced for this group — well, actually, it is being reduced now for this group, because this is April — I am very concerned that this group would find it difficult to secure employment.

This will bring me to the next set of questions around the time limitation, which is the two-year limitation for this age group. Let's say you were 55, and two years later, in spite of retraining and all those kinds of things, you still can't find work because you're simply less competitive in the workforce out there; you're then without resources. What happens to this age group? I'm very concerned about that, especially now as you look at the resource sector.

A lot of people in the resource sector are losing their employment, and they're going through a difficult time for themselves and for their families in that adjustment. In fact, I've an article here from the Province, March 24, which talks about a 56-year-old forest worker. The headline reads: "Only Way Out Is if I Die: Worker." This is a 56-year-old worker who has been working in the lumber industry for the last 38 years. He's a veteran in his field.

Aside from the detrimental effects of losing his employment, of course, he will now have to go through employment retraining and enter into a competitive place to try and compete for work. At 56 years old, two years for retraining, let's say, will bring him to 58 years old. For him to then enter into the workforce to try and compete for work just becomes increasingly difficult. Has the ministry, then, paid any notice to those kinds of situations for this sector of income assistance recipients?

Hon. M. Coell: A number of issues arising from the question. I guess the first would be that as of April 1 people can be temporarily excused from seeking employment because of a disability or a medical problem, so they wouldn't be necessarily looking for work if they were in that category. That hasn't and won't change from the previous acts. A person with disability, also, who may be in that age group could be on continuous and also would receive a higher level. They would go to $785 a month, total.

On the other question, with regard to the displaced forest worker, the Premier has initiated a summit to deal with the softwood issue and also a software summit. We're working with HRDC and to deal with the LMDA to make it more effective — a lot of those issues revolving around people who've lost jobs in forestry or mining. There are some federal dollars there that we can access over the next year or so.

J. Kwan: Well, let me ask the minister this question: has the ministry done any projections in terms of the increase or the potential increase in the welfare rolls as a result of the softwood dispute?

Hon. M. Coell: We're certainly aware of the effects. Most of the people affected by the softwood would be on unemployment assistance, and then many of them would have assets that would be quite a bit above where you would be on income assistance at the provincial level. The effects that the province would see may be quite a way down the line.

J. Kwan: Yes, I can appreciate that. Yes, once people become unemployed, they'll go on UI, and the UI will run out — and I should also note that UI has actually been reduced. When the UI runs out, people will start to, perhaps, go into debt. People may well be going into debt now.

In this instance with this 56-year-old forest worker, he has eight weeks left of unemployment insurance and a $140,000 mortgage on his home. His take-home pay went from $3,500 to $1,200 a month. During this period, he ran up a $20,000 debt over the last nine months. I can imagine this kind of scenario taking place out in the broader community, not just restricted to this one worker but to many other workers as well. Yes, people will diminish their assets in the home, they'll run up a debt, and at some point in time, they'll land at a place where perhaps income assistance is the only option they have available to them.

In terms of projections, has the ministry looked at what the projected numbers might be in terms of the impact on the ministry's budget, in this instance? Even after retraining some of them may or may not be able to gain employment, especially the older workers. I worry for them even more, because my father, actually, when we came here, was exactly in that place. He was deemed to be an older worker, and by the time he got English as a second language, he could only secure employment as a minimum-wage worker. Those diffi-

culties that the family unit faces are something that I've experienced myself, and it is very difficult for the family and particularly for people who have had employment here, but they now will not be able to perhaps have the opportunity to compete.

What is the projection of the ministry in terms of the increased welfare rolls because of that, and more importantly, what plans does the ministry have in assisting this group of employees?

I understand that the federal government may well come in with some programs, but they haven't yet. I know that HR with the federal government has some employment initiatives, but all of those are time-limited employment training initiatives. They, too, will run out at some point in time.

The safety net that is there for people, which the federal government has charged the provincial government with, is the income assistance support. Here, we now have a limitation (a) in reducing the amount that is afforded to people who are in this more senior age, if you will, and (b) a time limitation. The impacts of that, I think, will be severe in terms of hardships felt by community groups and individuals and families. What is the minister's contingency plan for dealing with that?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of initiatives. One is the labour market development agreement with the federal government, and there's $290 million in training employment programs in that agreement.

The province is actively considering workforce adjustment initiatives to assist as well, and that's cross-ministry. The ministries — not just HR, but also CAWS — are looking at the community transition strategies for communities on the Pacific coast affected by the softwood issue. There are a number of cross-ministry issues.

For me, the agreement with the federal government, the labour market development agreement with $290 million in it, will go a long way to assist those communities. We're actively working with them on that.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect that those agreements would be signed and come into reality?

Hon. M. Coell: It's actually been signed. We have a comanagement agreement that we're working on. It's in place. Those programs should be in place later this year.

J. Kwan: The minister says that the programs will be in place later this year. However, the changes to income assistance are now in place, effective April 1. There is a time lag with respect to that. Is the minister anticipating that in this time lag, people will collect UI, and by the time their UI runs out, they will enrol in the federal government's program? When they finish the federal government's program, would they then come onto income assistance? Is that the anticipation — unless, of course, in the meantime, they are able to secure employment?

Hon. M. Coell: Some of the programs are in place right now. What will come into place during the year is targeting them to communities that are most in need.

The programs the member was mentioning are the ones that people coming out of the forest industry and losing their jobs now will be eligible for right away. They're not going to get as far down as coming onto income assistance. They'll actually be using the HRDC programs through the LMDA to find that training program. We don't see them or feel they're going to be coming onto income assistance before they have access to this $290 million worth of joint federal-provincial managed programs.

J. Kwan: Does the minister know what kinds of programs are being offered through HRDC and for what duration? What kind of provision is there for people who are going to be out of work because of the softwood lumber dispute?

Hon. M. Coell: I can get the member the complete list of the training programs that will be available. Many of them range from four months to a year. They can be anything from software training that would take upwards of a year…. If the member wishes, I will get a complete list for her.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate that. I'm also just trying to work out the time line, in my own head. If the training program is such that it is somewhere between six months and a year, then in one year's time the person would not be able to access HRDC programs. If that person, at that point, is still unable to secure employment, then they have to look at other resources or other areas of assistance. I guess at that point an individual will be looking to the Ministry of Human Resources for assistance.

Would it be the case, then, that that person would be eligible for two years of training under the Ministry of Human Resources, and then, if they are unable to secure employment after that, they are cut off?

Hon. M. Coell: I think there are a number of options for someone in the forest industry who's lost employment and is seeking retraining. The first would be the LMDA or the HRDC programs. If they have taken a program with us, they're going to target them so they're not going to be producing programs that don't have jobs attached to them. Someone may have to move. Many people are willing to do that. There will be job training programs that are actually targeted for jobs, not just for taking a training program. We want to have people find employment at the end of that.

The member raises a question, I think. If, for some reason, at the end of the training program — be it a four-month or a year program — that person wasn't able to find employment, they could also go to student

financial assistance for another training program, if need be, or they could come onto income assistance if their asset levels made them eligible. There are a number of different programs that they could take part in if their asset level made them eligible for income assistance at the provincial level. They could go into the training for jobs program or the job placement programs that will all be in place by the fall of this year.

I think there are a number of stopgaps through the federal-provincial programs that will assist the forest industry workers who are displaced at this point, and then, as a last resort, there is income assistance from the province.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, we will, and it will be done on an inter-ministry level to make sure that we do the best we can for these people.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister to also provide the information that he receives on the monitoring of these individuals who have lost their employment as a result of the resource sector impacts and, hopefully, their ongoing progress, but if not, how that is impacting our income assistance rolls in British Columbia. If I could have that, I would appreciate it.

The other point I'd just like to raise, then, is this: I hope the minister will reconsider his approach to income assistance recipient rates for the group of recipients aged 55 to 64. My experience has been that, as an older group, they tend to be individuals who are perhaps less competitive in the workforce, especially as to undergoing retraining and seeking re-employment. They're also at the age where perhaps their expenses are increasing, as well, as they age. Especially now, with so many changes by government in the health care sector — eye care provisions and the like — people's expenses are going to increase, and I think that their cost of living is also going to increase as a result. For the government to reduce their rate by $50 to $100 is going to detrimentally impact this group of recipients.

I think the government needs to rethink that strategy and that approach and ensure that people's quality of life is not severely compromised because of savings to the Ministry of Human Resources. My view is that you may have savings in the Human Resources ministry, but you may well simply increase long-term costs to government in another ministry down the road, whether it be that people are desperate and therefore engage in criminal activities, or whether it be that people don't have the financial resources to maintain their health, therefore increasing emergency costs in the Ministry of Health Services, as an example. It will simply have a ripple effect down the road, and it would not be in the best interest of all British Columbians in the long term. I hope the minister will rethink that issue around the rates for the 55 to 64 age range.

On the question around time restrictions: in the service plan summary for the Ministry of Human Resources it is stated that employable singles and couples will only be eligible for assistance for a maximum of two out of every five years. Where else have time restrictions been introduced?

I want to go back to a previous statement from the minister during the estimates, I think, where the minister stated that eligibility is actually for five years as opposed to two. Let me just read off what the minister said. Perhaps the information that the ministry gave is incorrect.

We were canvassing the impacts on single parents and so on, and this is what the minister stated: "With single parents after that, there is just a reduction in their income assistance, not the child's income assistance or the shelter income assistance. It's designed to be motivating. You have the three-year period so that they would, for the most part, get their lives together if they come from a difficult situation. Then they would transfer into the training and employment placement programs. Then at the end of five years we would reduce by, I believe, 11 percent the income level of that single parent, not the child or the shelter. It's designed to be a motivating factor in moving people into employment."

The minister mentioned five years, and I believe it's actually after two years, per the ministry information that was sent to all the MLAs. After two years, if you're unable to seek employment, then you're cut off.

Hon. M. Coell: Maybe I can clarify. I was speaking as if the child was just a newborn — that a parent would have three years. If the child is two years old, you would have a year and then two years to seek work before the reduction was made. If the child is a newborn, the parent would have three years.

J. Kwan: Thank you for that clarification, but really, if the child is more than three years old, then you're looking at two years out of five for which a person could stay on income assistance. Then, within those five years, if after two years the individual is unable to secure employment, that person is then cut off income assistance. That's not counting an individual with a child three or younger. I'm talking about people with children three or older.

Hon. M. Coell: It's not the intention that a single parent with a child would be cut off at any age. There would be a reduction after the two-year period — after you're intended to seek work. Then the reduction in that individual's income would take place. The only people who would see a two-year…and then to not be eligible would be single, employable individuals.

J. Kwan: For people with children, either a single-parent or a two-parent family, after two years their income assistance would reduce by first 11 percent and then escalating up. That's for people with children.

People without children — single employables or couples — have a maximum of two out of five to be eligible for income assistance.

Hon. M. Coell: The time restrictions have been introduced in the United States. They have a five-year maximum for income assistance at the national level.

J. Kwan: What have been the outcomes of time restrictions on income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: Many of the states are just coming to their five-year limit at this point. It was introduced by the Clinton administration, so there are a number of states getting close to that five-year limit. At present for the people who have come off income assistance — and I gather it's a smaller sample — there has been no indication of increased hardship. The income is about the same as the people who are coming off. Also, there hasn't been an increase in homelessness.

I think in some respects it's early to tell, because they're just coming onto that five-year limit. We're at the same. Beginning a two-year limit here, we've really got two years to monitor and to see what effect the programs are having, before there is going to be an effect on people.

There would be a desire — we can discuss this more when legislation is tabled — to have the ability to create additional categories down the road, if we find when we're monitoring the people who are getting close to the two years that there are barriers for those not able to achieve employment. It's something that I know the United States is monitoring closely, and we would endeavour to do the same here.

J. Kwan: Well, then, it would seem to me that if it hasn't necessarily been established that the restriction actually works and that it doesn't cause further hardship to individuals, wouldn't it be more prudent to wait until after a full evaluation of the program has been completed before we embark on this experiment on human lives of British Columbians?

Hon. M. Coell: The early indications from the United States show that the time limits are a motivating factor. That's the essence of what we're trying to produce: a program that helps to motivate individuals into employment programs.

It's important to note that the motivation wouldn't be solving a problem if you didn't also have those job placement or training programs in place. It's a package where you provide the answer to the question: are there no jobs? It's incumbent on us to find the jobs, to put the people into the training programs to match those jobs and then to monitor our success. We'll monitor closely the first year and have a better idea of whether the time-limit concept is a motivating factor. As I said, the early indicators from the United States are that it is a motivator for people to get into the training and employment programs.

J. Kwan: The issue around the motivating factor is working on the assumption that income assistance recipients are not motivated to get off income assistance and that perhaps they're lazy or do not want to work. That has not been my experience in dealing with income assistance recipients. Everybody I've spoken with in my past as an advocate or as an MLA…. People actually don't want to be on income assistance. They want to find a way to get off income assistance. The issue around motivation is questionable — the way it is being implied that income assistance recipients are not motivated to get off income assistance. I want to challenge that first assumption with the minister.

The other is this. I've received this information from advocates in the community.

The lights just came on — thanks. Thank you, hon. Chair. It almost feels as though it's a good analysis of how government's dealing with welfare — working on it in the dark. Turning the lights on is good, so let me just shed some light on the reality.

The reality is that the number of individuals on welfare has been steadily declining since the B.C. Benefits program was introduced in December of 1995. B.C.'s welfare caseload declined 32.6 percent between December 1995 and August 2001, when there were 120,700 fewer people on B.C. Benefits.

The B.C. Benefits program contains strict rules requiring applicants and recipients to look for work, any work. It penalizes people who refuse to take a job, fail to attend training sessions, quit a job without just cause or get fired from a job. Getting onto welfare involves a vigorous eligibility screening process, and as it currently stands, many people fall through the cracks. If ever there was a "culture of entitlement," it ended a long time ago.

Given that we already have a lean and mean welfare program in this province, how will the government accomplish its goal of a 30 percent reduction in the welfare budget, and what will be impacted?

This is a statement made by advocates in the community about the change to welfare that was proposed by the government and is now materializing for April 1. There are a lot of concerns around that.

Let me ask the minister this question with respect to consultation: what research has the ministry undertaken with regard to the implementation of time restrictions?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry has thoroughly examined the cross-jurisdictional analysis that's available in the United States and has monitored the U.S. research. There are some very good websites, and I will get the member the websites that go through all of the research in the United States with regard to time limits. I'll make sure that I get that to her immediately.

J. Kwan: Is that the information the minister relied on in making his determination to impose a time limit?

Hon. M. Coell: It's certainly one of the considerations. We looked at a B.C. approach, where it would be two years out of five years rather than the American approach, which is a five-year lifetime maximum. So if a person lived 50 years as an adult, they could be on income assistance for 20 years out of that in British Columbia. That's still a significant amount of time.

In putting the package together, we were trying to tie the employment training programs with employable people, while recognizing that there are people with multiple barriers to work who aren't able to work and will be on continuous assistance, and at the same time designing programs that would achieve an active participation as close to someone applying for income assistance as possible.

Just to go on, the idea of having a three-year time frame on single parents, then the two-year participation, then a reduction goes along with that. We also realize that when there are children involved, there may be other reasons for people to be on income assistance, and they would be eligible for income assistance for lengthy periods of time. I think it's important to look at the difference between an American model of a five-year maximum and ours of 20 years out of 50 years.

J. Kwan: Will the minister share with the opposition caucus all the information that the ministry used to determine and arrive at the time limit restrictions? I'm talking about research data that seems to indicate that it is a good move for government to impose a time limitation.

Hon. M. Coell: I would make available the websites we used to review the American programs and plans. Some of the material the member asked for would be part of budget material and part of cabinet material that the minister would not be able to release.

J. Kwan: But in terms of the research that indicated that the time limitation is a positive move in getting income assistance recipients off income assistance, is the only information the ministry has relied on information from the website?

Hon. M. Coell: The website, which I can give the member, has all the research reports and the studies that all the American governments have used in dealing with their time lines and time exemptions.

J. Kwan: Then I would assume that the other factor that impacted the minister's decision with the time-limit imposition would be financial, one that is of financial relation, not on the basis of merit of the proposal.

Hon. M. Coell: The specific impetus for the change in the legislation was a change to move people from income assistance to employment and to do that as effectively as we can. The program that will be tabled in the Legislature will outline that, will outline the best advice that staff and their research could give to putting that in place, to change — what the member has said and I've said — from a culture of entitlement to one of helping people to get off income assistance and helping them to get employment that pays a lot more than income assistance.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister earlier what science or research work has been done for the minister to arrive at this time-limited approach, and he advised that there were various websites which he will share with the opposition caucus. I thank the minister for offering that information. I also asked the minister the other question around what other factors might have influenced him in determining this plan of a time limitation, time restrictions, on income assistance, and he advised that there was information that was shared with caucus, with cabinet, around the cabinet table, more particularly, and that it was tied to the budgeting process.

Am I right in assuming that there are two aspects to making this determination? One is the research information the minister had received from the website, and the other piece is financially based.

Hon. M. Coell: I'm sorry. I didn't understand the question. The service plan is available, the three-year service plan that was presented to caucus and to cabinet at the open cabinet meeting. Part of my commitment to this ministry is to meet those targets within the service plan. That's available, and I'll get the member a copy of that as well.

J. Kwan: I do have a copy of the service plan. What I'm trying to arrive at is this: I'm interested in how the minister arrived at adopting the time restriction or time-limited approach to income assistance, given that the jurisdiction which has done this is in the United States and that the minister himself acknowledged that they have not completed their five-year program, although they're coming towards the end of it. How effective is it?

The minister mentioned that the issue around income assistance recipients is trying to shift "a culture of entitlement to a culture of employment." The minister in this House mentioned the notion of motivation, as though somehow, when I hear it, the implication is that the welfare program in B.C. has allowed people to lounge around on income assistance and that this government's change will give people a needed push to go and find work. As I said, that's not been my experience. People on income assistance want to get off income assistance.

On what basis did the minister arrive at the approach of time-limited restrictions? One is the information, which he said he will share with me, through the websites he or his ministry has collected. The other, I would assume, is financially-based and is related to budget documents which the minister is not able to share, and I understand that. I'm just simply asking for

the minister's confirmation that those are the two factors, then, to really arrive at the time limitation for income assistance recipients.

Hon. M. Coell: No, that's not the case. When you're developing a new program, you look at cross-jurisdictional analysis, effective practices. You look at what you want to accomplish. We went through a number of the open cabinet meetings, with the strategic shifts. We went to a service plan. That whole package is designed to move people from income assistance to employment and to support them in employment.

I can give you an example of changes to income assistance. In 1989 there were 135,000 people on income assistance. By June of '95, which is the previous government, it had risen to 222,000. The government in that year, when I was the critic, introduced the B.C. Benefits program, and from 1995 it has moved from 222,000 to 155,000. The effect of B.C. Benefits was to actually reduce the caseload by almost 65,000 people. That had a bunch of programs and initiatives, some of which I've acknowledged are working and continue to work in favour of putting people into employment. What we're doing is taking the changes that I, as an opposition member, supported and enhancing them, learning from some of the pilot projects the previous government put in place.

I think you can see that when you go from 135,000 to 222,000 in the first four years of a government's mandate, they must have been doing something different. They must have been probably not enforcing a lot of the things they were doing. They recognized that and started to pay more attention to putting people into the employment programs and brought the caseload back down to close to where it is.

I think the program we're putting in place with the job placement and training programs will go a long way to helping people further to get employment. It's a bit of a continuum. When we were developing this — and we did it, as I said, through open cabinet, through the service plan initiatives — and added to it, we were looking very much at what the previous government had success with, what some of the cross-jurisdictional analysis in Canada had done, where our rates were as compared to everyone else in the country and where the rates in the United States were, where the time limits were being tried. We put a package together and have made it, I think, very public, with the idea that we're very proud of the changes we're going to make, because we feel that we're going to help people get back to work and make a greater potential success out of their employment than they have been.

I think the member, who was a minister in the previous government, knows how that development package is developed by staff. I'm very proud of the staff we have in the ministry. They're able to take a basic premise of, "Let's see how many people we can find employment for," and create the projects and the legislation necessary to do that. It's been a long, lengthy process. I, like the member, am looking forward to tabling two pieces of legislation in the Legislature: one for people with disabilities and strategies to go with employment for people with disabilities, and one for people who are employable. We can have a good discussion at that time as to the quality and capabilities of both pieces of legislation.

J. Kwan: The B.C. Benefits program was introduced in the House in December of 1995, if I remember correctly. I wasn't part of the government then. I was elected in the 1996 election. Actually, when I was sitting on city council, I raised some concerns around the changes to B.C. Benefits, because at that time, I was worried that there may be impacts on income assistance recipients, on the negative side, not necessarily on the positive side. I still share some of those concerns.

As we're now embarking on yet another approach to reform in the welfare system, I'm most interested in how the ministry arrived at this new approach and the research work that's been done behind it to illustrate and to demonstrate that it in fact is effective and does not cause greater hardship.

I'll cite a case for the minister's consideration. This is something that happened in Ontario — the death of Kimberly Rogers on August 9, 2001. Ms. Rogers was cut off income assistance in Ontario following a conviction for welfare fraud for not disclosing receipt of student loans. Ms. Rogers had started a court case challenging the Ontario welfare regulation as being contrary to sections 7, 12 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and outside the legal power of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of Ontario.

On May 25, 2001, Madam Justice Epstein of the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario granted Ms. Rogers interim relief, reinstating her Ontario Works benefits pending the outcome of the constitutional challenge.

Even when her benefits were reinstated, the money was absurdly tight. As a single person, she was entitled to receive $520 a month from Ontario Works. However, because of her debt to the ministry, that was clawed down to $468 a month. Her rent, when paid in full, ate up $450 of that.

From May until her death on August 9, 2001, Ms. Rogers would have had to survive on $18 a month while being confined to her apartment as a result of the fraud conviction. Ms. Rogers's lawyer, Sean Dewart, noted that his client would have been better off if she had committed a violent crime and been sent to prison. The Globe and Mail had actually reported this. I quote from the Globe and Mail, August 18, 2001: "If sentenced

to jail, she would have had the necessities of life. She would have had access to medications. If something had happened to her, it wouldn't have been two days before her body was found."

When asked about how such a tragedy could happen, Harold Duff, the director of the Sudbury office of Ontario Works, said that the changes the Harris government made to the welfare system in 1997 created an atmosphere in which more people simply slipped through the cracks. He said: "The focus is now on employment. We're not really into the social service side anymore."

Amanda Chodura of the Elizabeth Fry Society stated: "This tragic case is a symptom of a government putting policies into practice without doing any research. What transpired was she and her child were placed in a dangerous situation. This should never have happened. Two lives are over."

What I'm trying to get at is how to prevent a situation like this from happening here in British Columbia. What I'm trying to get at is an understanding from the minister's side what research has been done in determining this new approach and the reform to welfare, and if indeed that research was done, to illustrate that it was effective and that it does not put individuals or their family members at risk in British Columbia, or reduce their quality of life.

Maybe I can just ask this: can the minister table to the opposition the information that he utilized to determine the change and the welfare reform that we now see in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: The very sad case the member brings up gives me reason to think that, had that person been given the opportunity to work and given the support they needed to find employment, their life would have been able to achieve a greater potential.

I think that's what we want to do. I honestly believe that all members of the House, all 79 members, want to see people succeed. The legislation that we bring forward is designed, in our way, using the best information we have to put programs forward which will achieve success for people. In this case, only the most serious forms of fraud under the Criminal Code of Canada would disqualify someone from receiving income assistance. That would not disqualify a family from receiving income assistance, only the individual. There are approximately 120 criminal fraud cases a year in Canada.

What we want to do is protect the family, but at the same time, if someone goes out of their way to criminally defraud the welfare system, we need a penalty there. The penalty has been there before in the B.C. Benefits program of three months of withdrawal for much lesser fraud cases.

The bottom line for me is that we want to see people succeed. We want to see people find employment and stay employed so that they don't have to rely on this system or any other government system for their families to survive and for them to achieve their greatest potential. I think that, not too dissimilar to the previous government who had bans for fraud in, we've taken it where the family will be protected, but it sends a message to people who go out of their way to defraud the system and basically take money from the people who need it.

J. Kwan: In this instance with Ms. Rogers, she was charged with welfare fraud for not disclosing receipt of student loans. I've never met Ms. Rogers, but I've no doubt that she, upon completion of her studies, would want to seek employment, and I would assume that she went into pursuing her educational opportunities to allow a better future for her and perhaps her child. In this instance she was pregnant, she was a single person. She was charged with fraud, she was going through a court case around that and she was cut off income assistance.

Would the minister consider, then, individuals who do not disclose receipt of student loans — for that to be a serious fraud case? What is considered to be so serious that a person would be cut off income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: The short answer is that the person would actually have to be convicted under the Criminal Code of Canada.

J. Kwan: For individuals to be cut off income assistance, they would have to be convicted. Now, in this instance with Ms. Rogers, and as is often the case with income assistance, if a person is identified as defrauding the system and is proven as such, maybe not necessarily in criminal proceedings, then what income assistance often does is cut their welfare cheque by a certain amount to repay the loan. In this instance that's exactly what happened to Ms. Rogers when she was reinstated by the courts. However, the amount was reduced to the point where she was unable to survive. She had $18 a month to survive for her and her child-to-be. Then, in August, she died.

Is that the practice of the government, then, for individuals who are not convicted through criminal proceedings for welfare fraud? They will not be cut off income assistance. However, I would expect the minister is going to advise that they would have to repay. How would that arrangement be made?

Hon. M. Coell: I can get the member the complete policy that B.C. Benefits functions under. We don't see any major changes. It's collected sometimes at $10 a month for minor cases of fraud. There are repayment agreements and penalties imposed by the court sometimes as well. I can get the member the present policy. It's been in place since, I believe, '95.

J. Kwan: I wanted to get this on record from the minister, because it is of great concern in the broader

community. I'll give you an example why, and I'll go into the other areas where changes are being made.

Take as an example an individual who will no longer be able to keep their earnings exemption. It is a huge impact for people on income assistance to make that extra $100. That extra $100 actually carries them through the month. I'm not referring to the people on disability, because the provision for them is different, but for single individuals or couples, their earnings exemptions are no longer available. People may well be forced to defraud the system, if you will, if they do end up making $50 here or $100 there. If they don't report that to welfare, so that the amount is not deducted from their cheque, and if they're caught in that process, what will happen to them, as an example?

That is why I asked these questions. I wanted to get the minister on record with respect to fraud. I should also say on the record, as well, that I don't think it is the intent of people on income assistance to defraud the system. Sometimes people are simply so desperate, because the rates are so low, that they may well resort in desperation to defrauding the system in some form or another. I want to be clear that by and large people are not out there to defraud the system. There may well be one or two or three people, but most people on income assistance are not out there to think of ways to defraud the system.

I want to ask the minister this question. I asked around consultation — and actually he didn't give me an answer — with respect to releasing to the opposition caucus the information that helped the ministry arrive at the determination for these changes in income assistance. I would really like to see that information, the research and the background information that helped the minister arrive at this decision — not the information produced in the open cabinet, but the information that really led to this determination.

If the minister cannot provide it because they're confidential documents within cabinet, that's fine. We can FOI that information in due course, but I was hoping the minister could offer up that information so that I, too, can look at the information and say: "Okay, maybe this makes sense. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm just misguided in my view of income assistance recipients' needs and this approach."

The other question I asked the minister was: who has he consulted with? Could the minister please advise?

The first one was the loss of income exemptions. What we're wanting people to do is find full-time employment. We don't want people to work part-time and stay on income assistance for long periods. We want people to find full-time employment.

I can give the member just a quick brief. As of today, for a single parent with two children, the total net income they would have on income assistance would be $1,453. That would take into consideration the B.C. sales tax credit, the Canada child tax benefit, the B.C. family bonus and the GST credit. You'd end up with a total today of $1,453. If that same person were to work at a minimum wage job — our minimum wage is $8, which is the highest in the country — the net income would be $1,725. So there's a benefit to working.

Part of the process of putting this together was saying: what rates can we have for income assistance, where's our minimum wage, and where are the programs to get people involved in that? That package was developed, as I said, looking at cross-jurisdictional information and looking at information from the United States, for which I'll get the websites for the member and she can have a look at them. There are literally dozens and dozens of studies. That package, combined with the desire to see people in employment programs and to keep a $300 million level in those programs, was brought forward and approved at an open cabinet meeting. The service plan and a three-year financial plan were approved in January.

We're moving forward now with the legislation that was promised as part of that plan, which would enact the types of programs that will see us help people to succeed in employment while at the same time having a very positive program for people with disabilities to allow them to work on a part-time basis and to allow strategies to be developed that will go a long way in seeing that people with disabilities on continuous assistance have the greatest potential success they are able to have.

I'm comfortable that the programs laid out here and the legislation that will be tabled shortly will help people to succeed.

J. Kwan: If the minister's comfortable with his plan, then the minister ought to be comfortable, in an open, accountable government, in releasing the information to the opposition caucus with respect to what information assisted him in arriving at this plan. I would ask for that information from the minister and also ask the minister who he has consulted with in arriving at this plan. Could the minister please advise?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not quite sure I understand the question. As a former minister…. I would say that ministers rely heavily on their professional staff to do the research and make recommendations that a minister can take forward to cabinet.

I happen to have, I think, a very excellent senior staff in the ministry. I rely on them a great deal to help with the policy and program development and will continue to do that.

J. Kwan: I'm not quite sure which part of my questions the minister doesn't understand. I'm asking a simple question of the minister, and that is: could he provide to the opposition research the background information that his ministry and the minister himself utilized in arriving at this planned reform of income assistance? I want to be able to judge for myself, on the basis of the information the minister received, that in fact his plan is a workable one and is one that has been

The other piece on consultation…. Maybe the minister doesn't understand what I mean by consultation. As a former minister, when I say I consult, I normally have staff draw up a stakeholders list — people who are concerned about poverty issues, for example — and then we go and consult them and ask them for their input, their advice, their thoughts, their concerns in the area. That would be how I define consultation. I'm interested in understanding from the minister who he consulted with respect to these changes.

Hon. M. Coell: I will provide a list of studies and websites for the member to have a look at for her own use.

What I did in the last ten months as far as consulting people was make a point of the deputy minister and myself going around speaking to people on a variety of issues that they had concerns with this government…. I can give you examples of some of them.

I've met with the Action Committee of People with Disabilities, AIDS Vancouver Island; ASPECT; the Association for Community Living, Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres; the Association of Dental Surgeons of B.C.; the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities; B.C. Persons with AIDS Society; the BCGEU; the B.C. Brain Injury Association of B.C.; Bridge shelters; Canadian Mental Health Association; capital regional district; in Fort St. John, ConnecTra; Contract Training and Marketing Association; Council of Senior Citizens Organizations of B.C.; the David Foster Foundation; all of the contractors that the previous government had put in place — I think I've met with all of the major ones — the Dietitians of Canada; the Downtown Eastside Residents Association; the Downtown Eastside Women's Centre; Downtown youth internship program; End Legislated Poverty; Esquimalt Neighbourhood House; Federated Anti-Poverty Groups; FIT Vancouver; Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce; Greater Vancouver Chamber of Commerce; Housing Affordability Partnership; Inter-Cultural Association of Greater Victoria, Kickstart; Open Door Inner City Ministry; Open Learning Agency; Pacifica Housing; READ 2000; Salvation Army, both at the provincial level and many of their regional offices; Sprott-Shaw Community College; Tetra Society of Vancouver; Together Against Poverty Society; Together We Can Bottle D epot in Vancouver; University Presidents Council of B.C., Vancouver East community service fund; the Vancouver Island vocational and rehabilitation services groups; the Variety Club; VIATEC; Victoria READ Society; Youngs Ferris International Vocational Testing Service; and the YMCA.

I have tried to — anyone who wanted to meet with me and had dealings with the ministry — be open to meetings, and I'll continue to do that. I think one of the important things that many of these people had is that they wanted a chance to give us their impression of the success their programs were having or the changes they thought could take place, to ask us questions about how we were reviewing the ministry. What I did is make a point of saying that we were going to have some changes. We were looking at employment first. I found the input I got from these people…. We may not always agree on every issue, but we continued to meet with large numbers of people, and we continue to do so.

J. Kwan: Is that an exhaustive list of groups with whom the minister has met? On the question around providing the list of documents the minister has utilized to determine its welfare reform, in the case where it is not a website, could the minister — if there is a hard copy of the document — please provide that study for the opposition caucus?

My last question to the minister around consultation is around the Raging Grannies. Actually, I read in the paper today that the Raging Grannies went and visited the minister, I think, at his home or near his home. Apparently, the reason that was given in the paper, why they took that approach was that they were unable to get a meeting with the minister. Will the minister meet with the Raging Grannies?

J. Kwan: If the Raging Grannies make that request to the minister, will the minister meet with the Raging Grannies?

J. Kwan: In reading the article, I'm just trying to hopefully help prevent any further visits as such, if indeed the Raging Grannies went to visit the minister's house over this last weekend because they were unable to get a meeting with the minister, and if I could assist in making sure that that meeting take place, which may prevent future visits. That's where I'm going with this question around consultation. So I urge the minister, if indeed the Raging Grannies want to meet with the minister, to meet with all constituency groups. Actually, the Raging Grannies are quite harmless. I've met with them on many occasions in my capacity as MLA and in other settings as well, particularly at community functions. They're often there with a strong message, no matter who's in government. They're a harmless bunch.

The question I had for the minister around consultation is that I assumed that the list the minister read out is an exhaustive list of groups or individuals whom you have met with around welfare reform.

Hon. M. Coell: I would say this is not exhaustive. There are many groups that I meet with. There's the agricultural group today, which the member is probably meeting with. Other members have asked. These were specifically for this ministry.

J. Kwan: My question was related to welfare reform. I met with the agricultural group myself today, as well, but we didn't talk about income assistance. I

I see the minister in his seat is saying yes, so I would assume that's the exhaustive list, then.

What happens once a single person or a couple uses up their two-year allotted time on income assistance? Will they qualify for a form of hardship?

Hon. M. Coell: It's my intention to monitor over the next two years. The legislation has the ability, as B.C. Benefits does now, to create new categories of people. My first intention would be to monitor the progress of the programs over the next couple of years before making that decision.

J. Kwan: That's undetermined, then, at this time, and the legislation would not spell that out either in terms of what happens. Presumably, the minister will monitor to see what happens on this two-year time requirement to determine whether or not people will be cut off or if there would be hardship. I assume there's also the possibility with this monitoring, then, that in two years' time the minister may well change his mind and change his position on the two-year limitation. I think I heard the minister say that he will see what happens on that issue after two years.

Hon. M. Coell: We might want to have this discussion once the member has had the privilege of seeing the legislation.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that. When we started the estimates, we talked about the strange place we are in — that is, that pending legislation's coming in relation to the minister's estimates. A lot of these questions are going to cross over just because we are in the situation that we are. Because the welfare changes came into effect yesterday, I have to canvass these questions to get as much understanding as I can prior to legislation.

I think I heard the minister say already that the legislation will not specifically spell out what options will be available for people who are on income assistance for two years. After that, would they be eligible for hardship? Also, it will not necessarily spell that out in certainty for people who are on income assistance two out of the five. After that time limitation, that time restriction being imposed, the legislation does not necessarily spell that out. That may well be changed after two years of monitoring what takes place with this kind of approach.

Hon. M. Coell: It's the intention that the legislation would create the authority to deal with different categories of people, but it would be my intention to monitor that for at least 18 months before any decision was taken to change that.

J. Kwan: The detail of that would then be defined in regulations. I think I heard the minister also say that shortly after the legislation is to be introduced in the House, the regulation will also be introduced.

Hon. M. Coell: That's the intention: to have the regulations done as quickly as possible. I know that in some pieces of legislation, the regulations can come up to six months later. The intention is to have it done quickly.

J. Kwan: We canvassed this previously. I just want to go back on it to get clarity in my own mind around the issue of time limitation. Can the minister confirm: for an individual who is undergoing training, that is not counted toward their two-year time limit period?

J. Kwan: Will the minister — during this time while the employment supports and programs are being initiated and they're not yet fully up and running — then consider that time period to be exempted towards the two-year time period?

Hon. M. Coell: That wouldn't be the case, as we do have programs up and running right now that people can be referred to, and they are being referred to as of April 1.

J. Kwan: There's some programs up and running, but it is my understanding that there are a lot more programs that are not yet up and running. Am I correct in making that assumption?

Hon. M. Coell: The exemption would be for the programs, training for jobs, that would be under the Ministry of Human Resources at this point.

J. Kwan: Is that the only program that's not up and running right now, and is that the only program that the minister is anticipating would be put in place?

Hon. M. Coell: Right now we have the JPP programs moving forward that people are involved in. We have an RFP out for the job placement program. We have extended our contracts until September for the pilot projects. The training programs that will be up and running in September are the ones that people will be exempt if they're involved in.

The member raises a good question, and I'll have to get back to her on that as to whether the training programs that people are involved in now, the JPP programs, will be exempt. I will get back to her on that, but I don't have an answer at this point.

J. Kwan: Refugee claimants. Has there been consultation with the federal government with regards…?

I'm sorry. Before I go to refugee claimants, let me ask this question. Has the minister had legal advice with respect to any potential violation of the federal government's transfer payment agreements with the imposition of a time limitation for income assistance recipients?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the short answer is that we do consider those when developing policy, and it's something that would be internal to the ministry.

J. Kwan: I'll tell you why I'm asking this question. It is speculated in the broader community and some community members are wondering whether or not this is, in fact, legal for the government to impose a time limitation on income assistance recipients. The federal government actually transfers dollars for social programs, albeit not enough and albeit they've cut the transfer payments to British Columbia. I disagree with that.

However, in that transfer of payments to the provinces, they're charged with responsibilities. The provision of social programs includes income assistance. If the government's moving in the direction whereby they are now going to be limiting access to income assistance for people who are in need, is that in violation of the federal government's transfer payment agreements? Is that in violation of the provincial government's responsibility, an abdication of the provincial government's responsibility to ensure that income assistance recipients receive assistance where it is needed? Of course, these are individuals who are most in need.

With respect to legal advice the minister might have sought, I am interested in that information. What is the advice pertaining to it? It goes right to the heart of the welfare reform that the Liberal government is imposing and the potential hardships it would cause to income assistance recipients in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the simple answer is that we wouldn't be moving ahead with these reforms if we felt they weren't legal.

J. Kwan: I would take from the minister's answer that he has received legal advice, and the legal advice is that the government would not be in violation of the federal government's transfer payment agreements.

Has the minister consulted or sought advice from the federal government on this issue?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I would have to repeat my comments that we would not be moving ahead with this program and these changes if we did not feel they were legal.

J. Kwan: I understood the minister's answer to that. Correct me if I'm wrong. My interpretation of the minister's answer to that is that they have sought legal advice, and that legal advice is such that it advises the government that they would not be in violation of the federal government's transfer payment agreement.

My second question to the minister around this issue is: has the minister sought the advice of the federal government on this issue?

Hon. M. Coell: We don't believe it's an issue. It has not been raised with us. As I said, I don't think we would be moving ahead with a program that we didn't feel comfortable with and that was within all legal bounds.

J. Kwan: The federal government hasn't raised the matter with the minister. Has the minister raised the matter and asked that question of the federal government?

J. Kwan: I'm sure that community groups will be examining this issue and the legality of this issue. I'll leave that for a moment. I just wanted to get an understanding from the minister's perspective of what work he has done around this area and whether or not he has spoken with federal representatives on that. I've got my answers from the minister on that.

Let me ask the minister questions around refugee claimants. Has there been any consultation with the federal government with regard to the proposed policy of denying refugee claimants hardship assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: It's our intention to discuss this with the federal government before any actions are taken.

J. Kwan: What assistance will be available to refugee claimants through the Ministry of Human Resources, then?

Hon. M. Coell: Until such time as we've had those discussions with the federal government, we will continue to provide assistance as it is.

J. Kwan: What kind of time line are we looking at? Is the change as it relates to income assistance recipients who are refugee claimants part of the legislation?

Hon. M. Coell: We're certainly looking at continuance beyond this fiscal year. As I say, the changes will not be made without thorough discussion with the federal government on these matters.

J. Kwan: Will changes as they relate to refugee claimants be dealt with through the special categories, under the different categories that could be attached if changes are to be made through legislation?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the question should definitely wait for the legislation, for the member to see how the wording is in the legislation. She will probably have more questions at that time as well.

J. Kwan: Then I'm assuming that refugee claimants will be included in the legislation, and that it wouldn't be dealt with through a special category. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

How many refugee claimants access income assistance supports in a given month and in a given year?

Hon. M. Coell: There are approximately 1,700 refugee claimants in any given month.

J. Kwan: I'm assuming that until the matter is sorted out with the federal government, their access for support will remain consistent, so there will be no change.

J. Kwan: The service plan states that diet assistance criteria will also be restructured. What will the new eligibility criteria be, and which medical diagnoses will be eligible for diet assistance funding?

Hon. M. Coell: That policy has not been fully developed as yet. It would be done through regulation later this year.

J. Kwan: Will the people who are eligible now for diet allowance continue to get the diet allowance then?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, until a new policy is developed and brought in through regulations later this year. As you notice in looking at the service plan, there are three-year changes. Some of them will be in the third year, and some of them are spread out. We're working on policy in a number of different areas right now that will be brought forward.

I just wanted to add that the monthly nutritional supplement many of the HIV recipients have remains the same. It remains intact with no changes to it.

The diet assistance allowance is actually an important component to the individual's health and well-being. It's not a lot of money, but it is one where it makes a difference in people's lives. Take this as an example: it pays for things like fresh fruit and vegetables. A lot of times, actually, recipients don't have enough funds to do that. The extra little bit will allow them to get some vitamins from fresh fruit or vegetables into their systems.

I know that over-the-counter drugs often cost recipients a lot of money. They cannot claim those dollars through the Medical Services Plan, and it assists them in that way. Those little bits of money actually make a huge difference in terms of people's quality of life.

If the system is to be restructured, how would it be restructured? What medical diagnosis will enable a person to receive the assistance? It's a big question in the minds of those who are receiving the dietary allowance.

The minister says that once the regulations are in place, then we will know. That will be later on this year sometime. Is it the intent of the government to reassess every individual who is eligible for or who is receiving a diet allowance?

Hon. M. Coell: It's a difficult one to answer because it's under development. What we want to do is have the subjectivity of the diet program looked at, but we haven't looked at that, and we don't have any details of it as yet. It's part of an ongoing re-evaluation of programs. I believe the staff are shooting for a September implementation of any changes that would be made.

J. Kwan: Then will each individual who is receiving a diet allowance be reassessed by the ministry in September?

Hon. M. Coell: The assessment now is done on a 12-month basis, so when the changes are made, we would just go into that cycle of reassessment. When someone came up for reassessment, they would be reassessed with the new criteria.

J. Kwan: It would be renewed on the 12-month cycle. That policy is not in place now, so if people apply now for a dietary allowance, they would still be qualified under the current eligibility criteria.

J. Kwan: I just want to canvass a little bit on the question around seeking employment. The government, as the minister knows, has brought in the $6 training wage policy. What will the impacts be on income assistance recipients of the $6 training wage policy? As an example, income assistance recipients may well have a difficult time showing documentation that they have had employment experience in the past. As such, they may not be able to demonstrate, with the necessary paperwork, to new employers that they are beyond the threshold of the $6 minimum wage policy. In that instance, would the ministry be intervening to assist that person to establish…so that person is not abused by employers with the $6 minimum wage policy?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess there are two issues. The vast majority of people receiving income assistance have worked. It wouldn't be an issue for the group who would be on continuous assistance, even if they hadn't worked, as they could earn up to $300 from a variety of different avenues. Most of our clients are well over the 500 hours of employment.

The other thing that may be of some interest is that the $6 training wage, which is being used mostly by very…. It's your first job wage. It's still higher than Alberta's income assistance, at $5.90. As I said, the vast majority of the people receiving income assistance aren't affected by it.

J. Kwan: On the contrary, people on income assistance may well be impacted by this. What is required is that they show up to the prospective employer with documentation showing they have been employed before, so therefore, the application of the $6 minimum wage for new employees would not apply to

them. As the minister knows, a lot of people who are on income assistance for a period of time may well not have those records, especially those who have been on income assistance for a period of time. When they enter the workforce, they may not have those records. In that instance, how does one protect those individuals to ensure that they're not abused by the prospective employer on the issue around the $6 minimum wage?

The other scenario would be the person who is employed under the $6 minimum wage, who was on income assistance and is released or fired from that job through no fault of theirs but rather just as they approached the 500 hours. That person has been released from the workplace, and the employer actually may well find reasons that may not be legitimate. In that instance, would the person who's been fired from their job still be able to collect income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: That hasn't been the initial experience. We have a number of ways, when people show up without documentation…. HRDC has helped many people get that documentation. Our job placement people have also done that, as well as our financial aid workers. I appreciate the question, because there are many people who have lost everything from birth certificates to cheque stubs and those sorts of things. Right now we do spend a lot of time trying to assist people in redefining that record of employment, or the record of where they were born, for that matter.

J. Kwan: The ministry will actually provide assistance, then, in trying to gain the employment records in some form from the ministry. If a recipient came up to the minister's office and said: "You know, I know I've worked somewhere before. Here's where I worked before. Can you help me get the employment record?" Oftentimes individuals don't actually have the money to go through the process and seek all those records. The ministry will then provide that assistance in obtaining those records.

Hon. M. Coell: Through the job placement programs and other programs in the future, there would be assistance.

J. Kwan: In a situation where the individual is fired from a job through no fault of theirs but because of potential abuse by a prospective employer with the 500 hours, $6 minimum wage criteria…. In that instance, where a person has been fired from a job, would that person be penalized?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the first avenue would be labour standards. If someone is laid off because of a business closing down and the staff being put out of work, they wouldn't be penalized.

J. Kwan: No, what I'm saying is that if a person is being abused by the employer because of the $6 minimum wage requirement of 500 hours…. If a person gets close to the 500 hours but does not reach it and then is released from employment because the employer is trying to gain cheap labour by hiring a series of people who are going to be working for him or her for $6, in those instances where an income assistance recipient is caught in between, would that person be penalized by income assistance and not be eligible for income assistance because he or she has been fired?

Hon. M. Coell: My assumption is that is not happening. Labour standards would be where we would address that problem, not necessarily with this ministry. My understanding is that's not been an issue. I know labour standards are monitoring it to make sure it's not.

J. Kwan: The minimum wage requirement is new and may not have surfaced just yet, but in the case that it does and the person is cut off of income assistance…. I want to get some assurance from the minister that that individual would not be cut off income assistance. Am I right in assuming that?

Hon. M. Coell: If a person is laid off without cause, they would be eligible. We would still expect them to seek work and to be part of our training programs. If a person is laid off with cause, they are not eligible for income assistance for three months, and they're also, I believe, restricted from unemployment insurance for a number of months.

J. Kwan: So there are no provisions addressing the issue of potential abuse of the $6 minimum wage violations, that is, if a person is fired from their job because of the $6 minimum wage requirement when the person gets close to that 500-hour threshold. I presume if the employer is looking for ways to abuse you, the employer will find a way to release you with cause, whether legitimate or not. That's what I'm concerned about: that in those instances, those individuals are going to be penalized by the ministry by not being able to receive income assistance.

What if in that instance, then, the individual is taking the case to Employment Standards and has not yet been able to prove the case — right? They're making an allegation of abuse, and they're going through the procedures. While they await the decision, would that person be eligible for income assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: If someone is pursuing a case through Employment Standards, they would be eligible.

J. Kwan: I'd like to ask the minister, then…. Sorry, before I move off that: am I right in assuming that the minister is working across ministries with the Minister of Labour on this issue around monitoring potential abuse and its impact on, in this instance, income assistance recipients?

Hon. M. Coell: I think, from the perspective of this ministry, that the Minister of Labour is monitoring the situation. If we found any information, we would forward it to the minister.

J. Kwan: I assume that the minister on the other side would also forward information to this minister. If abuse is taking place through the Ministry of Labour in employment standards, I assume that information is flowing to the minister as well so that he, too, can utilize the information to ensure that people are not penalized in the system of income assistance recipients.

Hon. M. Coell: The person would still be eligible if they're taking a case forward to Employment Standards. That would be if they made $6, $8 or $10. They would still be eligible if they met the asset requirements.

J. Kwan: I'm just trying to figure out in terms of within government and between ministries, that people working are working across ministries to make sure that information is being tracked and shared so as to best protect British Columbians who might be impacted by potential abuse of the system.

Hon. M. Coell: I think I can answer that in that I am aware that there's a high degree of cross-information between staff in various ministries at numerous levels.

J. Kwan: Could the minister also commit then to providing that information to the opposition caucus once the information is available — as an example, in the monitoring of defrauding or abuse of the system in this regard and how many income assistance recipients are being impacted that way? When that information is available to the minister, could he also commit to providing it to the opposition caucus?

Hon. M. Coell: It would go to employment standards, so it wouldn't be something this ministry got. It would be something that would be released from employment standards.

J. Kwan: The minister would have a record, though, for the people who are on income assistance who have gone to employment standards and come back to the ministry to requalify for welfare. The minister would have those stats — right? I'm asking whether or not the minister can share that information with the opposition caucus.

Hon. M. Coell: At present we're not collecting those statistics. I think the member would agree that there would be a problem with freedom of information in giving out statistics and individuals' and companies' names that were grieving employment. That's not something that is readily given through freedom of information.

J. Kwan: If freedom of information is the issue, one could always delete the name so as to protect the issue around freedom of information. What I'm asking is what the potential impacts would be for the ministry. I take it that the minister does keep track of this information, because those people who are requalified for income assistance would be on record. I'm asking for that information to be shared in numbers, broken down in regions or offices — that kind of thing.

Hon. M. Coell: The answer to that is: we don't collect it centrally. It would be on individual files and dealt with on an individual basis. It's not something that our computer system at present is capable of tracking. It's not programmed to do that.

J. Kwan: The minister knows, then, that it is the Ministry of Labour who'll be tracking that information and who will then share that information with the minister so that he knows what the impacts are for his recipients and the folks to whom his ministry is providing a service.

Hon. M. Coell: I will stress again: this hasn't been brought up to the ministry as a problem by clients. Until it is, we wouldn't be designing programs to track something that hasn't been shown to us to be a problem. If clients bring this up as an issue, we would follow it up with the Ministry of Labour.

J. Kwan: Advocacy groups have brought it up as a concern, and they've brought it to my attention. Because it's in the early stages of implementation, clients may not have complained about it yet, but it doesn't mean that the cases will not surface.

If the minister is saying that he doesn't have the capacity to track that information right now because he doesn't have the computer system to do that but the Ministry of Labour does, or the minister is saying that the Ministry of Labour doesn't have the capacity, then how would one know whether or not there is abuse being monitored? How would one know how the system is working or not working? Is it just on the basis of complaint on a one-by-one basis, as clients come forward? And even then you're not able to track to see how big and broad the problems are, because there is no system to actually tally up all these individuals?

Hon. M. Coell: I would have to say that financial workers are very sensitive to clients' needs. We will rely on people bringing it to the attention of the ministry. If it's not being brought to our attention, it's not something we would pursue tracking at this point.

J. Kwan: That troubles me greatly, because I think it is a concern. If the minister does not track that information because he doesn't have the capacity to do that, then one has to ask whether or not the Ministry of Labour is tracking that information and making sure that abuse does not take place.

I actually think that some people may well be let go and that there is abuse in the system in that regard. When the person is let go, some people may not actually come back to the ministry. They will just simply suffer through a three-month period of not getting any assistance and then reapply at that time. Therefore, the person is going to be hugely jeopardized by the lack of flow of information between ministries and the lack of interest from the minister in collecting that information and making sure that abuse does not take place and that individuals are indeed protected. I'm very troubled by the minister's answer in this area.

Hon. M. Coell: People would still receive income assistance if they were eligible if they were appealing something to employment standards. The vast majority of these people who are working with the training wage at $6 are not clients of this ministry, so it's better asked of the Minister of Labour.

J. Kwan: The issue is that it would only surface to the ministry if the person filed a complaint through employment standards. By and large, the minister would not know how many people are being abused in the system, because there is no tracking. That minister has also just advised that the Minister Labour does not provide that information either, so he has no ability to cross-reference between ministries on how far and wide that abuse might be and how it is impacting the client base that the minister serves through his Ministry of Human Resources. That troubles me.

In my own experience, people often are disadvantaged and marginalized, and even when they have been abused, oftentimes they don't necessarily file a case, because they face multiple barriers. Because they face multiple barriers, they don't file a case. When they don't file a case, they simply suffer through a three-month penalty through no fault of their own. That concerns me.

One would assume that the minister would actually be interested and want to ensure that that kind of abuse does not take place and that some measures are in place within the ministry to protect income assistance recipients. I'm very, very concerned with the minister's answer in this regard. It is completely unsatisfactory for individuals who are out there and may well be faced with problems in this area.

The minister said, though, that he would share information and that across government ministries share information with each other. Is the minister anticipating that the Ministry of Labour would share that information with his ministry?

Hon. M. Coell: We haven't specifically discussed that. If it became an issue, I'm sure he would discuss that with us.

J. Kwan: But would the minister actively pursue this question with the Minister of Labour and not just wait for the Minister of Labour to come to him? Rather, would he initiate it and go to the Minister of Labour and say: "I'm concerned about this issue. I would like you to monitor this information. Will you please provide that information to me when it becomes available?"

Hon. M. Coell: The FAWs in the ministry are sensitive to those needs. We will flag that as an issue, and they will be able to tell people that if they are in a circumstance where they feel they've been fired or laid off unjustly, they have an avenue through employment standards. We'll make sure that clients are aware of that situation.

From this ministry's perspective, those people will still be eligible for income assistance if they meet the criteria set out.

J. Kwan: I've no doubt that FAWs are very hard-working and want to assist income assistance recipients. But do you know what? The FAWs have no way of tracking what is going on in the system. Maybe there are just one or two cases, but there is no system to say: "Gee, it's not just one case or two cases. In fact it's 800 cases" — or whatever the case may be — "in this region." There's no system to actually track that information. Even the most conscientious FAW would not be able to go to the supervisor and say: "You know what? This is a big problem. Look at the numbers. It's showing that there's this many people who have been abusing the system." They have no way of knowing, so how could they be conscientious, even if they wanted to be, around this front?

The other thing is that FAWs don't actually assist individuals in filing a case. When the funding for advocates, through the Ministry of Attorney General, is being cut severely, where will people go for assistance if they are being abused by potential employers in this regard? They have nowhere to go. They are simply, then, left on their own, trying to fend for themselves, in an environment where the advocates are being cut, in an environment whereby assistance for them is a threat.

This is actually very disappointing. I would urge the minister to take the initiative to bring the matter to the Minister of Labour and to ask the Minister of Labour to track this information and to share it with the minister. I think it is important for the clients which the ministry is charged to serve. It would be important to make sure that abuse is not taking place and to monitor that and then when it does, to take action around it.

I'm now going to ask the Minister questions around the cuts to income assistance and the benefits related to it. One of the stated goals of the B.C. employment assis-

tance program is to move people off welfare and into jobs. The cuts to ministry programs will impact working families. The proposed changes include a $285 reduction in child care subsidy thresholds; an increase in child care costs due to the elimination of the universal child care program as of July 2002; the elimination of transition-to-work benefits and the one-time work entry benefit as of April 2002; and the elimination of a flat rate and enhanced earning exemptions, worth approximately $200 a month, for all except people with disabilities. A dollar-for-dollar deduction on earnings means that those on income assistance who are working part-time will actually end up with less income than those who are not working at all due to transportation, day care and other costs.

How will the minister ensure that people who are able to find part-time work are not penalized financially for taking a job?

Hon. M. Coell: I apologize for the delay. I'm a little confused by the question.

There are three issues here. The flat-rate exemption is being increased to $300 from $200 for people with disabilities. The exemption is being eliminated for employable people on income assistance. Our desire is to have people work full-time, not part-time and stay on income assistance. We feel that a full-time job — I've quoted this before — is the best social safety net an individual or a family can have.

With regard to child care subsidy, we're looking at the ministry service plan summary released July 17, which stated that the eligibility of child care subsidy will be restructured. Income-assistance and lower-income families will continue to be eligible. The subsidies for child care, special needs care and preschool continue to be available for parents — and here's where the changes are. I'll repeat that. The subsidies for child care, special needs child care and preschool continue to be available for parents who are working, seeking work, attending school or training-for-jobs programs or have child care that is recommended by the Ministry of Children and Family Development as part of an assessment for risk reduction plan. Parents will no longer be eligible for subsidies for preschool unless they are working, seeking work or attending school or a job-training program.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that what the ministry's trying to do is get income assistance recipients off income assistance and into full-time work. The reality is that there are people who are on income assistance and working part-time and also have earnings exemptions, but that earning exemption is now gone and not available to them, with the exception of people with disabilities. I'm not talking about people with disabilities. These are individuals who are not classified with disabilities.

My question is this. because of costs associated with working — there are costs associated with working; child care is one of them, and transportation is another — if you're working part-time, you may not yield enough revenue, income if you will, to actually make it, for lack of a better word, worth your while to work, because you're no longer able to earn the exemptions from deductions from your income assistance cheque. In that instance, how is it more advantageous and better for people on income assistance in assisting them to move off income assistance, if indeed their expenses are going to cost them more than working part-time?

Hon. M. Coell: Through the Chair, I don't think that's the case. We went over the changes to employment for a single parent with two children. I'd just like to look at the employment, as of April 1, of a single parent with one child. The total net income is $1,123 on income assistance. If that person works 37 hours at a minimum-wage job, their total net income is $1,483, and the person working at 37 hours is eligible for the maximum child care subsidy. There are also other benefits. A single parent who's working at 37 hours would pay no MSP. They would be able to keep their entitled family maintenance if they had it. There are significant benefits to working full-time and being off income assistance.

That's the thrust of the program. The thrust isn't to keep people on for long periods of time so that they are able to collect income assistance and work part-time. The benefit is to have people find that they get off income assistance and that they have the ability to get the first job and the second job. They're supported by the training programs that we've involved for upwards of two years while they're working, so they can start to build a future for themselves apart from income assistance.

There's a whole range of programs and issues that will help someone start to move off income assistance, but full-time employment is far better than income assistance with the ability to work part-time. That's the thrust of where we've gone with the new programs.

J. Kwan: Just calculating quickly the numbers the minister used, he says he used an example of 37 hours a week of work. Assuming that people work five-day weeks, that's 7.4 hours a day. That's almost full-time work. A lot of the people I know who are working part-time are receiving much less than 0.6 hours short of full-time work. Really, it's misleading, to say the least, to use the calculation as such to say that someone working 37 hours a week is actually better off.

If you're looking at someone who is working part-time with much less hours than that, some people who are working are not necessarily just receiving minimum wages per se. People work to gain experience. What they're doing a lot of times is volunteering with a group, and they get paid a per diem. They put in perhaps even more hours, but then they only get $100 per diem, as an example, so that they can actually take home that pay without deduction. Now they're in a situation where that pay is going to be fully deducted,

so they won't be ahead. There wouldn't be any incentive. I know the minister liked to use the notion of incentive and motivation. Where is the incentive, then, for people to continue to seek work if they can't get into the 37-hour-week range in terms of part-time work?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I was using $8 an hour minimum. The average hourly wage of the job placement programs is $10 an hour. We have 5,000 of those jobs available right now. We're saying we want people to take part in the job placement programs and, later in the spring, the job training programs.

History has shown — and it's the previous government's two pilot projects — that they can have a bank of 5,000 jobs that the average pay is $10 an hour. There are some of these people that with a little bit of training can fit into those jobs. That may be a change, and a fundamental change…. We feel that a full-time job is the best social safety net an individual or a family will ever have. Being on income assistance and working part-time isn't going to give the benefits financially, as I said, and the support that people will need to move into that employment. At the same time, the child care subsidy program is at its highest for people who are working at $8 to $10 an hour, to enable them to work and keep more of the money they earn.

J. Kwan: I'll go back to those numbers in a second. In terms of his numbers, the minister is actually utilizing a different scenario than the one I was talking about. It is completely different.

Let me ask the minister this question: how will reducing the support allowance for single parents by a minimum of $51 per month help single parents find a job?

Hon. M. Coell: The changes in rates are for consistency. We wanted a program that had the same rate for employable singles, be they male or female, from ages 19 to 64. It's for consistency, to make the program fair across the board.

J. Kwan: So it's for the purpose of consistency is what the minister said. It actually doesn't help single parents find a job.

Hon. M. Coell: The program I think needs to be taken and looked at as a whole. The $300 million over three years raises the ability of people to get jobs and to go from having a take-home pay of net $1,123 to a take-home pay of net $1,483. Those are the job-training programs. When you say that the programs for people on income assistance are consistent and fair across the board…. The bottom line isn't to stay on income assistance; the bottom line is to get employment and to have the satisfaction of a job and more money for the individual and their family.

J. Kwan: I understand that. As I said, most people that I've come across who are on income assistance don't want to be on income assistance, and they're trying their very best to get out of being on income assistance. In those instances, with the changes that have been brought forward by the government, these individuals are going to have less support and perhaps even less ability to get off income assistance. In the meanwhile, they will be suffering hardships because of the reduced rates.

So in the case around single parents who will be receiving a minimum of $51 less per month, that doesn't assist the individual to find a job. It doesn't. As I said, most individuals want to find work. That policy the government has brought in does not provide the government's goal of assisting the individual to get off income assistance. It just takes away their quality of life and the amount of support to which they're entitled. That is the issue here.

I see that the Chair has sat up straight, and I think that is a signal to say that we're getting close to the time of needing to report out. Should I be making the motion, Mr. Chair? The Chair nods.

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