Hansard -- Volume 5, Number 7 -- Thursday, April 4, 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		2477

Committee of Supply		2477
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. K. Whittred S. Brice S. Orr B. Belsey

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2488
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) Hon. S. Bond J. Kwan

Hon. B. Barisoff: Today it's my great pleasure to introduce a good friend of mine, Mr. Gil Benard from Houston, Texas. He's up here visiting his mom and dad. Could the House please make him welcome.

R. Masi: It's my very great pleasure this morning, in place of Minister Murray, to introduce 35 students from New Westminster Secondary, accompanied by their teacher Ms. Kwok. Would the House please make all these wonderful students welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the Ministry of Advanced Education. In this House I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: In order to properly work from information that's available to the public and therefore to me, I would ask the minister to confirm a couple of things. We did go through the supplementary estimates in terms of the responsibility, but I want to turn to the service plan that specifically relates to the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care's responsibility.

What I could find from the service plan was that within the Ministry of Health Services service plan — like, if there's no separate service plan for the minister of state — were two references…. There's the accountability letter that the minister of state signed, which we talked about last night, and then there are performance measures 3(a) and (b) under the Health Services plan. Is there anything else on intermediate and long-term care to which we can refer that the government has made commitments to? It does seem just a bit barren. That's all.

Hon. K. Whittred: The health authorities, as you're well aware, have been given the responsibility for the delivery of health care services. They are expected, within the realm of home and community care — which is a very large segment of the health care sector — to deliver a whole continuum of services for clients, of course, in their communities. The benchmarks, which the member has mentioned, are two of those measures that the ministry will use to monitor the programs of the health authorities.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Fair enough. I suspected that was what the minister's answer may be. We're left with only being able to refer to the documents prepared by the health authorities. I'm more than willing to do that, because that's where the minister says the decisions will be made around these matters. I will use the documents prepared by the health authorities. Let me just say for the record that the documents leaked recently, particularly from the lower mainland — the Vancouver coastal health authority — are the documents I'll be referring to.

Given the fact that I've given the minister the opportunity to say there's some other work going on, and if there isn't any other work, then I hope she's not going to somehow suggest that these are works in progress. Everything we have available says that these are exactly what's going to happen in terms of intermediate and long-term care.

Before we go there, the minister and I had a discussion last night at the conclusion where the Minister of Human Resources suggested…. I checked Hansard; it turns out the minister did say this. To a question about what would be happening with homemaker services provided under the Ministry of Human Resources, the minister said he felt it was a duplication of services that would be better delivered by the Ministry of Health Services. The reason his ministry has cancelled homemaker services is that he saw it as a duplication of services.

Did the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care have the opportunity to better inform our discussions by having a discussion with the Minister of Human Resources as to what he meant?

Hon. K. Whittred: Within the Ministry of Health Services we do, of course, have a home support program. In order to be eligible for home support, a client would be assessed by a case manager, and it would be determined that that person requires or perhaps doesn't require a certain level of service.

Home support services would normally assist clients with such things as personal assistance — items such as dressing, nutrition, helping to get out of bed, grooming and so on. Housekeeping services would only be offered if a client was eligible for those per-

sonal kinds of daily living tasks. Homemaking is not provided as a stand-alone service but only as a complement to someone who is receiving those other services. This, in fact, is a policy that's been in place for quite some years.

J. MacPhail: Well, there have been cuts brought in by this government to home support services for people delivered through the Ministry of Human Resources. There have been cuts. It's not a policy that continues on. There are real cuts to homemaking services, particularly for seniors, that were delivered through the Ministry of Human Resources.

I really hope the minister does go and look at the debate that occurred in those estimates, because the Minister of Human Resources is really saying very clearly that his ministry is getting out of the business and that if anyone should pick it up — if there's damage done to people being able to live in their homes — it's got to be picked up by this minister, the Minister of Intermediate and Long Term Care. It's a delegation of responsibility. It's quite an interesting delegation; it's a lateral delegation. The Minister of Human Resources very clearly said: "Over to you, Minister of Intermediate and Long Term Care."

It was to deal with issues around delivery of homemaker services for people to be able to stay in their homes and not end up in hospital. We'll be getting into those later on, around those matters. It was very unfortunate that the Minister of Human Resources decided to off-load his responsibility onto the Minister of Intermediate and Long Term Care. What we also need to be very careful of then is…. If somehow this minister claims there's increased funding for home support services, increased funding for people to stay in their own homes, we have to look at that in conjunction with the cuts elsewhere that were delivering complementary services, such as the cuts in the Ministry of Human Resources.

Let me just ask the minister a couple of questions, then. I went to the New Era document, because I couldn't find much in the Health Services plan. It says: "Work with non-profit societies to build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006." That's an additional number of beds.

The minister of state, frankly, skated answering the question last week in question period when she stood up and said: "Oh, the world is fine, because I went and opened up new beds in Penticton." Frankly, because there are only two of us, the minister got off the hook, but those weren't additional beds. They weren't part of the new 5,000. They weren't additional beds that meet the "New Era of Health Services" commitment made by the government.

Where is the plan, please, for the additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds?

Hon. K. Whittred: To the member: our program in home and community care is to try to enhance the independence of the clients who are in the system.

I think that when we look at home and community care in the broader picture, we are looking at a picture where people are not necessarily, in the traditional sense, clients of the health care system as much as they are clients of a kind of broader system that is supposed to be enabling them to live healthy and independent lives.

The challenge that we face in this regard within the home and community care sector is to redesign the system so that we are getting the best value for the dollars that we put into it and to provide the client with the absolute best and most appropriate care. The principal task that I have is to work with health authorities and other organizations to try to determine that continuum of care that we are working toward.

I'm very pleased to say that some health authorities have picked up on this. The Island came out last week with an announcement about what they are calling their network of care. That, in fact, was a very good example of providing a whole range and continuum of community-based services that will enable clients to be independent and to live fully functional lives for as long as possible. That is the goal that we are working toward.

J. MacPhail: Believe you me, Mr. Chair, I fully appreciate the minister's personal commitment on these matters. I understand the minister's personal commitment to these issues, but what I'm looking at is an understanding of actually how it'll work on the ground.

The commitment, very clearly, was to provide an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. Those aren't beds that are in people's homes. People who require intermediate and long-term care require a level of health care delivery that requires some sort of institutional commitment outside of the home. I mean that in the most positive sense. I don't mean that in a pejorative sense. If I'm looking after my mom, I can do that under certain circumstances in her home or in my home. But if my mom reaches a certain point of illness or disability or, god forbid, dementia, my mom needs help in an intermediate or long-term care facility — not my home. I assume that's what the commitment was when this government said "an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds."

There is also a commitment here to provide better home support and home care services — hence, my question earlier on about whether the government is robbing Peter in the Ministry of Human Resources to pay Paul in the Ministry of Health Services. The commitment isn't one or the other; it's both.

I'm just trying to follow the game plan here. There isn't anything here in the home and community care indicators that somehow says that getting people alternate-level-of-care days will be the building of more intermediate and long-term care beds. Let's just look at this requirement of this minister to this year decrease by 5 percent the number of alternate-level-of-care days as a percentage of total in-patient days.

Now, just for the great unwashed of us who actually have to work with all of these terms, in an acute care facility sometimes there are people in acute care beds who would be better assisted, better treated, better off in an intermediate or long-term care bed. We used to use the term "bed blockers," and we all agreed with it. It was a pejorative term. I hope the minister can tell me what the new term is, because I always hated that term, but it was a common term in the system. A person with dementia, for instance, shouldn't be in an acute care bed; she or he should be in a long-term care bed.

That's, I assume, what the minister is doing here by saying that there will be 5 percent less in-patient days in acute care beds for people that would be better served in long-term care beds. So what's the plan to do that? The plan can't be to have them go home to their family, because they're too ill.

Hon. K. Whittred: I would like to tell the member a little bit about an experience I had a few weeks ago. I had the pleasure of being introduced to a very, very remarkable woman who had recently been moved out of George Pearson extended care hospital after spending 30 years in there. She has recently moved into her own supportive-living arrangement with appropriate care in place.

I use that illustration to simply inform the member, I think, that we live in times of great change. We live in times when technology and expectations are two of the major things that are driving the system. I think that the advances in technology, the advances in what we have learned about the value of exercise for the elderly, the advances in medications and pharmaceuticals…. All of these things combine to make for a much different kind of outlook for many, many of the clients of the home and community care system.

Within that spectrum of opportunities, it's my job to try to come up with a plan, which is what I am doing, that is going to best serve all of these individuals. I mention that to the member because certainly common sense would dictate that there are individuals who cannot be maintained in their home. We have learned, however — and technology has advanced — that many people who a few years ago would not even have been considered by the health providers to be maintained in their homes can now be looked after quite nicely.

Another example I might offer is that a few months ago I went to Edmonton to look at some of their facilities. Edmonton, for whatever reasons, has become noted as a leader in their approach to home and community care. I had the opportunity to visit a number of the programs that they had, and among them was a special purpose-built facility for young adults who were largely brain injured and spinal-cord injured — that sort of thing. I couldn't help but think: what a wonderful kind of approach. Traditionally, those people would have had no future, except to be in what we call an extended care hospital, and would not live anywhere nearly as independently or fulfilled as these, mostly, young men were.

That is really what I am trying to accomplish: to look at all this broad range of opportunities and, around that, to build a program that will fulfil our commitment for the 5,000 new spaces that we need. However, I think it would not be responsible of this ministry or myself to look at that purely as duplicating what we had in the past. It is not my intent to duplicate the extended care hospitals, for example, that were built during the 1960s. It is my goal to provide these spaces that are in tune with what is considered to be best practice and within a framework that is going to really take into consideration the goal of providing independent living to the vast majority of the clients who use this service.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the examples that the minister has raised. Those are excellent examples, but this is a huge issue. Moving one person into assisted living out of the Pearson Hospital is wonderful news, and I'm well aware of the program that's going on there, but first of all, that's not a client who suffers from dementia or a patient or a resident. The minister knows full well that isn't a client.

Moving that person into assisted living requires a huge investment, a huge amount of money, in capital funding into the home and then in support for assisted living. I don't know where the money is in the budget to get that. I can't see anywhere here that the health authorities have been given money that allows them the flexibility under any circumstances to move people out of institutions now and into their homes.

Secondly, the minister is well aware that when one moves, let's say, a now-classified intermediate care patient back into the home, that patient requires almost 24-hour care within the home — certainly more than one or two hours a week. That's what I'm looking for here. I'm looking for the plan.

Here's what we have happening. Let's take my region. Let's take what the Vancouver coastal health authority is planning this year, starting this week: closing 523 intermediate care nursing home beds to be replaced with 516 assisted living units. The change will mean that the care is greatly reduced for those people and that if they want any extra care, the money for it comes out of their own pockets. That's what's planned for this fiscal year in the Vancouver region. How does that jibe with the government's commitment to provide an additional 5,000 intermediate and long term care beds over the next four years?

Hon. K. Whittred: I have described for the member my goal and where we want to be going. I think it's useful at this point to maybe look at what has been in the past. There is, in fact, a significant expenditure that goes into home and community care of about $1.5 billion a year.

I might also just let the member know that in recent years, between 1996 and now, there have been continual increases in the amounts of money that go into

home and community care, ranging from a 4.86 percent increase, about 4 percent the next year, a 75 percent increase, a 6 percent increase and this year a 4 percent increase. Those are the increases just in the residential section. Last year, 2001-02, similar increases are there for the community sector. In total, over the last several years, just reading from 1997 to '98, there has been a 7 percent increase, a 5 percent increase, a 50 percent increase, an 8 percent increase and a 6 percent increase.

When we put all that together, we see that there have in fact been many, many additional funds that have gone into the home and community care sector. The CIHI data suggests that B.C. spends more on this sector than any other province.

Having said that, it still remains a challenge. We have an aging population. The population is increasing at huge rates, particularly those populations over 75 and over 90. It is a challenge to determine where we're going to find the ability to care for these clients in the future. That includes myself and many other people in this chamber.

The way that we have to move on this is to adopt some new policies. I will give you one example. In the home and community care sector, waiting lists were always established by chronology. What happened with this was that people put their names on waiting lists for a particular facility even though they might not need it at that time. Eventually, as time went on, their name would be called, and they may or may not have accepted a space in that facility. It didn't mean that the most needy clients were getting into facilities.

What we are doing, which is a change in policy and should provide more equitable service and actually meet the needs of clients much better, is using a policy that is based on need rather than on chronology. If a person who is needy — as the member suggests, a person suffering from high-level complex health needs — needs a particular kind of care and level of care, that will be provided. However, if a person only needs a much lower level of care and needs more support with daily living rather than complex health care, then we will have an appropriate place in the system for that person.

That is the way in which we are changing our policy and looking at this program as it develops over the next five years. It's not our goal to change everything in the next three weeks. This is a five-year program, and we know there are going to be some challenges as we go through this process.

J. MacPhail: What I hear the minister saying is that there is no problem. That's exactly what the minister is saying. Because the previous government increased funding year after year after year for home support and community care, everything is just fine.

Well, I hope the minister was listening to the estimates discussion with her colleague the Minister of Health Services, where it became abundantly clear that there's not even enough funds in our health care system right now to stand still. The Minister of Health Services had to admit that every single extra dollar that this government is putting into the system doesn't even cover standstill needs in the health care system. He admitted to that.

Here we have a promise made by the Liberal government of 5,000 extra intermediate and long-term care beds. They didn't say 5,000 intermediate and long-term care beds in your own home. If that's what the intent was, I think the Liberal government would have been very forthright and said: "Hey, we're going to search around and find 5,000 beds in your own home that we can put your mom and dad in." The commitment was for real beds: 5,000 over the next…. Well, we're running out of time. We're down to four years now, and there's no money. We already know, by the admission of the Minister of Health Services — no money.

Here's what is happening. Cuts are being made — real cuts — today. Let me read to the minister about what's happening as of May. Let's see. Today's April, so one month from now the Vancouver coastal health authority will be closing 367 intermediate and extended care beds. Is the Vancouver coastal health authority making that up with increasing home care? No, there are cuts being made to home care and home support as well. The Vancouver coastal health authority, who the minister says is planning all of this, says these cuts in intermediate care beds will mean increased demand for home support services, increased waiting time for residential care placements and reduced access for urgent community clients.

I very much appreciate that the minister is working on changing the wait-list system for intermediate and long-term care beds so that it makes more sense, but with those changes there's still hundreds of people in the Vancouver coastal health authority who are on the wait-list legitimately, according to the new system that the minister outlines. How does closing 367 intermediate and extended care beds help when there's no new money?

Hon. K. Whittred: First of all, I don't think that everything is rosy. I think that in fact we are in a state of almost crisis as it applies to looking for solutions to care for our aging population, and that is precisely why we cannot accept the status quo. Let me just give one little statistic to the member, which I'm sure she knows, but this sort of graphically points out things. Between now and 2005-06 there are 1,700 estimated additional clients that will come into the home and community care sector. It costs $48,000 a year for a client in residential care. We could not possibly, under any government, maintain the status quo. We must look to a system that is appropriate for the year 2002, which employs what we know about technology and active aging, and we have to work with groups not just in the health care sector.

The interesting thing about my particular role in the ministry is that many of the things that really impact on what I do really have very little to do with health. They have to do, often, with other aspects of people's lives and to do with their housing.

Having said that, Mr. Chair, I simply want the member opposite to understand that I do not accept the status quo. The reason that we're trying to make adjustments to this policy and to this section of the Health ministry — in fact, the very reason for my existence — is because my government places a great deal of importance on this sector. We know that if we do not address the issues of an aging population — and I mean that in its broadest context — then the sustainability of the entire health system, I believe, comes into question.

J. MacPhail: That's not what the minister promised during the last year. That's not what the New Era document promises. The New Era document promises — it's very clear, it's very practical, it's very real, and it's substantive — 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds. I assume the reason why the Liberals made that new-era promise was because of exactly the pressures that the minister is well aware of.

These are not new pressures. We're all getting older. We're all living longer. Hallelujah! As we live longer, there are increased health pressures that an aging population faces. The increased incidence of diagnosed dementia, the range of dementia, is huge because people are living longer and there's better diagnosis, and frankly, there's better treatment as well.

The minister is well aware — and I assume that's why her now government committed to 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds — that assisted living isn't appropriate in many circumstances and that those beds are needed. If the minister made that promise for any other reason, it would have been pure politics. I can only assume the best of intention of this particular minister in that area.

The issues are facing us now — next month in the lower mainland. Around the province…. It just so happens that the government hasn't revealed the health authority plans for what's going to happen in the rest of the province, but the issues are immediate and now.

Last month it was reported in the North Shore News, Wednesday, March 27, that this minister met with mayors in her own community who were extremely concerned, as reported, by the slated closure of 217 North Shore continuing care beds in the year 2003. What does the minister have to offer her own constituents?

Hon. K. Whittred: I would like to take this opportunity just to pick up on something that the member said about dementia, because I think this area actually illustrates my task and what I'm here to do very well. Dementia has often been looked at in the past in a kind of stovepipe way. You know, you had one group over here saying: "Gee, we need to think of innovative treatment." We had another group talking about prevention. We had someone else saying, "We need supportive housing," or "We need some sort of residential care" — all of which may have been true.

What we're trying to do here…. My job is an integrated job. I look across ministries, not only across the entire breadth of the Ministry of Health. One of the things ministers of state do is go across ministries into other areas. Let me just use the whole conversation about dementia as an example.

As one of my very first assignments, when I was first elected in 1996, the then Leader of the Opposition assigned me the job of Seniors critic. This was something I knew absolutely nothing about. However, I went out into the community and started to learn about it. One of the things I did was tour a lot of what were called special care units. These were pretty depressing units to have a look at, particularly for a layperson like myself who was not involved in the medical field at all and had no experience with anything to do with hospitals.

Now, six years later, I see something entirely different. I have to give enormous credit to the people in the field — that would include everybody from the ministerial level through the system — that there is wonderful treatment going on in the area of dementia care. That's been my experience as I go around the province and into other provinces and other areas.

I've witnessed, for example, the cottage model of caring for dementia. This is apparently based on a Swedish model where clients suffering from dementia live in individual cottages. For the most part they look after their own daily needs. You know, sometimes we assume that people have way more disability than they do. In the cottage model the clients suffering from dementia — granted, this would be in the earlier stages and the moderate phases — do their own housework. They prepare the meals. They live in a cottage that is very cleverly designed so that their security and safety is foremost in the minds of the providers of the service. That is a far more contemporary and preferable existence than being put in an institution.

Across the sector we're looking at ways to deal with the issue of dementia. The member opposite points out quite correctly that we have a growing population, and because it's an aging population, we also have more people who suffer from dementia. That is precisely why we're here. We're looking not only for cost-effective ways of looking after the clients who suffer from dementia but also for better ways of looking after people who suffer from dementia. That represents one aspect of the continuum of care of which I have spoken.

J. MacPhail: Good — except there's one problem. There's no money that this government is giving to the system to develop those strategies — none. We already know that the Minister of Health Services has admitted there's not even enough money to stand still. He said it. When I listed a figure of how the increased funding disappears and how there's still a $30 million shortfall just to stand still, he said: "No, no, you're wrong. It's a $60 million shortfall just to stand still."

All of these new techniques, new ways of looking after seniors or people with dementia or people who

need long-term care, are wonderful, but this government's starving the system. This government's saying there isn't any money to do that.

What health authorities are planning for are cuts, not building cottages, not building the model that the minister says is the one that works. They're not considering that; they're considering reducing the number of beds that are available right now, by the hundreds.

I'm going to read something into the record that comes from a design from the Vancouver coastal health authority. Here's what's going to happen:

I'm sure the people in Powell River are going: "Oh my God, this is happening immediately. What are we going to do?" While the minister describes some wonderful treatment programs and living programs for people who need intermediate and long-term care, her government isn't doing it. There's no money available.

S. Brice: First of all, I would like to compliment the minister. I think her knowledge and commitment to this field come through strongly, and it's something that gives us all great assurance as we all aspire some day to be, perhaps, eligible to consider some of these services.

I'd like to just sort of start off by saying that I, too, totally endorse the concept of living independently. I think it must be one of the basic human desires. We see that from our children. From the time we wean them, there's that desire to be independent. It's obviously a human condition that stays right through to the end of our life. I compliment you for working on these strategies that are going to allow people, all of us, to maintain that dignity that comes with independence.

For the assisted-living option, I would be interested in knowing how individuals will be assessed to be eligible for assistance under the assisted-living model. Currently, of course, it's done regionally, and there is presumably a tool the regions use. How do you envision this on sort of a go-forward basis?

The question is a very good question. Someone who would be eligible for assisted living would be, first of all, assessed by a case manager from the health authority. That person would be assessed as needing a certain level of service. Those levels of service are currently described by a number of descriptions that we use: intermediate level 1, intermediate level 2, intermediate level 3 and extended care. Generally, if you think of that as sort of a scale of one to five, five — being the most complex — is extended care. People who would be at that level would require complex care treatment and would undoubtedly be advised that residential care is the best method to care for them. However, people who are assessed at a lower level of care would be probably….

The whole idea of assessment — I should backtrack a little bit — is to determine what is the most appropriate level of care. For someone who is at a lower level — for example, an intermediate care 1 or 2 — it would probably be much more appropriate to be cared for either in a community program or perhaps in assisted living. It really depends on the range of services that a client requires.

S. Brice: Thank you, minister. Can you give some idea — I know the thrust of it is philosophical to assist in independence, but as well, obviously, there is a financial implication — of the difference between providing those levels of care in a person's own home or some community facility, as opposed to in a residential care facility — the cost, basically, to the taxpayer?

Hon. K. Whittred: Well, health care, like education, which was my old field, is often not an exact science, so it's not possible to give an absolute number here. We do know that the cost to the system in residential care, I believe, is generally $125 a day. For maintaining clients in home or community programs, which may be a community program or might be an assisted living program, generally you get anywhere from 1.2 to two clients, depending on the level of service. It's really one of those kind of happy outcomes. Not only are we giving clients, I think, much more appropriate service frequently, but it also has the benefit of being more cost-effective.

S. Brice: Then, obviously, this is good for the sustainability of the system in the long term, because as you've pointed out, the growing numbers of seniors is something we have to manage and be able to provide for.

Could you tell me, on a region-to-region basis, and thinking here, say, of the Vancouver Island health region, in order to determine money that might be available to that region for such things as assisted living or residential care…? Is it chronologically determined? What is the age at which a region qualifies for funding, or is it post-assessment of people within a certain chronological group that triggers dollars coming to the region? Certainly, our region here has a large number of seniors, with every indication it will continue to grow. I would be curious to know what is now considered age, if age is indeed the triggering factor that frees up money to allow the system to provide these services.

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, the ministry has recently embarked on population needs–based funding, which, simply put, means the funding is related to the population as it would be on a distributional sort of model. Within the factors that are taken into account are things like age, so for a community that has a large distribution of seniors, that would be a factor. Socioeconomic status would be a factor. Rural or urban would be a factor, and the complexity of the community would be a factor. All of those things together the model would take into account to determine the funding. Gender is another factor.

S. Brice: Thank you, minister. Is 65 still the number we pull out of the air and say that things start to fall from there? Is that still in the mix in terms of this, albeit complex, calculation? Is aged considered 65?

Hon. K. Whittred: The member has asked if 65 was the defining line. I wanted to say that I hope not, as I feel that I am within a number of years approaching that level. Anyway, I'm not quite there yet. My staff advises me that the way the model works is that there are bands of population. I think it's like a population graph. You have cohorts — you know, 65 to 70, 70 to 75, zero to six, and so on. The formula would take into account the distribution of age groups within all the bands. I think that is the simplest way I could describe it.

Also, for the information of the member, it's a very interesting observation, I think, that the average age today of clients who enter facilities is 80. I have, in my journeys around the province, observed that in many, many cases it is actually over 80. I am frequently astounded to find when I go into a new assisted-living facility, for example, that the average age of people entering is 87. That occurred to me on one occasion, and I was, quite frankly, taken aback by that number.

S. Brice: It is indeed that phenomenon that triggers in me a question about whether or not age, as we have once defined it, is still relevant, because we're pushing the other edge. I know there's a community very close to here that has a card shop that actually has a section of birthday cards for the 100-year-old. It used to be hard to find a single card, and now they're obviously marketing to that group. That's great.

There's one aspect of the assisted-living model that I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to consider in the complex planning. That would be the result of this kind of a scenario: a couple, both living independently in their home. The husband, say, dies. The woman is 75 or 70. She sells the family home and goes into congregate care. Perhaps congregate care is her home for five or six years — hopefully, as long as that works. Most of those congregate care facilities have pretty strict guidelines — in fact, requirements — as to the need to be able to be in there without much assistance. It's one of the hallmarks of the place. They want the healthy, lively and very mobile seniors. Then we'll say that senior reaches a point where, through your assessment tool, she is assessed as being eligible and would benefit from an assisted-living package.

What then happens? That person isn't virtually in their own home, in the models as we have described them. What happens to those folks? They don't go from the totally independent house to then some kind of care facility. There's all sorts of options that have appeared in the marketplace in the last 15 or 20 years that put people in different circumstances. I wonder if that's been something that you've had an opportunity to give some thought to.

Hon. K. Whittred: Again, I thank the member for that observation. That is one of the issues that I find frequently on my travels.

There are, in fact, a number of options that this person would have. The member is speaking of a person who is in what are often called retirement homes. There's a number of different descriptions. Typically, they would be in their own apartment in an arrangement that includes at least some meals, housekeeping and that sort of thing. They reach a point where they perhaps need some degree of personal care. The question is: what happens to that individual?

I think there are probably a number of options. One is that the person is eligible to be assessed by a case manager and could very well qualify for some degree of home support. Because that person is living in their own home, the home support could go in and offer that care.

Another option that is becoming increasingly available is what is called cluster care. Cluster care is simply a model that actually makes perfect common sense. The home support people identify that they have a number of clients in a particular building. This is often the case. A number of seniors, for example, live in a building. When there is a demand for service, the home support people will say, "Well, let's cluster our care," which means they will have someone on site for probably the whole day or however long is necessary. That's increasingly happening.

Then, of course, the other thing that could happen, depending on the change of circumstances, is that in some cases — and I think these would be relatively few — the person may actually have to move to a higher-level, residential care type of facility. That might be if a person suffered a stroke or a fairly dramatic change in circumstance.

S. Brice: I'd like to close by asking a question about a situation in my own riding and use this opportunity to see just what plans there are. In Saanich South, as you know, we have a residential care facility, the Lodge at Broadmead, which is a remarkable, very attractive and well-run organization. It's a facility which has been provided on a cost-share basis with the federal government because it does give priority to veterans.

I know that in the last year and a half, just to pull out a time frame — I'm not exactly certain how long that assessment took — there was an assessment done of the need for spaces. Certainly, the capital health region had identified the Lodge at Broadmead as one of the projects to go ahead. I know the federal money is earmarked and time-sensitive, but it is such an attractive option at 25-cent dollars. I would be interested in knowing what the plans are for the Lodge at Broadmead.

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, the Ministry of Health Services does in fact work with Veterans Affairs Canada, and they have an agreement to provide a certain number of beds to veterans on a priority basis. Currently, Veterans Affairs is re-evaluating its need for spaces, and it is in discussion at this time with the Ministry of Health Services. The ministry certainly appreciates the value of the federal contribution, and these discussions will be ongoing.

S. Brice: I would like to close, then, by thanking the minister for that. The minister will know how feisty and forthright senior veterans are. They constantly make sure their MLA is aware of their desire for that. I thank the minister for her response and will let her and her office know that I'll probably continue to be prodding her along on that particular project.

S. Orr: I have just a couple of very short questions, because the member for Saanich South asked a couple. I can get the answers from Hansard, so I won't repeat the questions.

I visited a lot of the facilities with the minister. An issue that is becoming very large is acute care. We went to facilities where you could get to level 3, and then there was quite a shortage of acute care beds. I would just like to ask the minister if she could help me with some of the plans she might have for acute care beds.

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, the member quite rightly identifies what is in fact one of the biggest issues in the whole provision of care along this continuum of care that I speak of. That is the bridging between what we have in the past called an intermediate level and what is a complex level.

It is our plan and our goal that the very valuable residential beds will be available for that very complex client. I am confident that as the health authorities work out their plans.… Of course, part of their mandate is to work out plans that are going to address that issue. I might add, that is also the reason why the section is in the performance plan about moving people out of alternative level of care, which is an inappropriate level, and into those more complex arrangements.

I can assure the member that I am fully cognizant of this issue, and it's one that we do direct a great deal of our efforts to reach solutions over the next several years.

S. Orr: Thank you for that. You're right; it is complex. I think the member for Saanich South rightly put it: "People are just living much longer now." I was with the minister at one facility where we discussed with people the fact that a lot of facilities were made for people who lived to 75 and 80. Twenty or thirty years ago that's how facilities were built; that's changed a lot.

This other question is one I've had from some seniors. We removed the seniors counselling service. This didn't seem to be much of a problem. Some of the seniors were quite happy to continue doing the service themselves. The one problem that they had when running this service independently themselves — it was a question that was presented to me — was an insurance issue. I'm happy if you'd like to take that one on advisement, because that's a question that was just presented to me this morning.

Hon. K. Whittred: I will take that question on advisement and get back to the member.

The one last question I have is…. When we visited one of my facilities — and there are many in Victoria-Hillside — we visited the Wellesley. The Wellesley is a facility where they had talked about extending their facility into an acute — if possible; if they can get the…. It's an area that isn't ours; that's zoning with the city.

One thing that I heard a lot from the people in the Wellesley was about all the care workers that would come into the Wellesley. You'd have care workers from all these different organizations arriving at the Wellesley, giving care. They were saying that it would be very helpful and cost-effective if they could have their own organization within the Wellesley so that the care workers, when they were taking care of one person, could run down the hall and help somebody with their meds, instead of having all these different organizations coming in.

I wonder if you could address that. Does it go to the health authority? Will they decide how that would work? It would be quite a cost savings.

Hon. K. Whittred: Actually, I have the pleasure to let the member know that since we visited the Wellesley, there has been a change. One of the plans that has come out — that is a definitive announcement from a health authority, I'm pleased to say — is a program by the Island authority called Network of Care. I am extremely pleased, because this is an excellent example of the kind of program that we're hoping the health authorities will develop in all areas of the province, and therefore it provides a wonderful model.

A second thing it provides is an excellent example of clustering care, where the health authority — in this case the Vancouver Island health authority — has gone into the Wellesley and has solved the problem that the member alludes to.

I might say that, in my mind, this represents exactly the kind of partnership that we're encouraging, because it is a partnership between the Vancouver Island health authority and in fact a private facility provider.

It has a number of good-news aspects to it. I'm pleased that situation has been resolved.

S. Orr: I'm going to finish now. Thank you for that last piece of information. That really is good news for me personally. As I said before, I have a tremendous number of seniors and seniors facilities in my riding. I know that the minister has visited pretty well every one of them. I thank her for that. It certainly gave the people in my riding a chance to explain some of the changes they would like to see. Obviously, we're starting to see it already.

B. Belsey: I have a few questions for the minister. I appreciate this opportunity. I know she has spent a little time in Prince Rupert. It was a great visit, and I look forward to her next one.

One of the points I would like to bring up today is that in the northern regions we have a large population of elderly people. Their earnings in relation to a lot of other people are certainly lower in the north. One of my concerns is the aboriginal elders that live off reserve. I know that those on reserve have benefits and plans provided by the federal government. Those off reserve fall more under the responsibility of the province. I'm wondering if the minister could share with us today some of the plans that she has for first nations elders living off reserve.

Hon. K. Whittred: I thank the member for what is in fact a very timely and important question. I think I can make a number of points to the member. One is that the health authorities are required by the ministry to provide, in their plans, plans to address the unique needs of their populations. That of course includes the aboriginal population. The aboriginal community grants have been forwarded to the health authorities, and the health authorities are expected to come up with a plan for the health service needs in their area. This is due by September 2.

The other expectation of the ministry is that aboriginal programs are to be viewed in an integrated fashion — that is, across the needs of the population. This would include, to give you an example, looking perhaps at the primary care needs of aboriginal elders — that is, their day-to-day health care needs — within the context of their home and their community and, again, trying to determine what programs are going to fit them best.

Another comment I could make is that the federal government — as the member, I'm sure, knows — does provide funding for programs on reserve. I think this offers an opportunity in many instances — and I think your community would be one of these — for an integrated model, where actually the funds and the program that are available on reserves could be available to people who are off reserve.

I might share with the member that I did visit a facility just outside of Cranbrook on the Saint Mary's reserve, and they are, I believe, almost unique in the province in that they have a very, very nice — very small but very nice — long-term care facility. It's extremely well run, and I spent quite a pleasurable day there discussing their program with them. They have a program, by the way, that did integrate the needs of not only the aboriginal community that lived on the reserve but also many of their members who lived off the reserve.

One of the obstacles — and I don't mind sharing this with you, because it's a challenge I'm trying to address — simply has to do with a lot of nonsensical kind of bureaucracy. Because this was federal government funding, beds are designated so that this bed could only go to a reserve person and the other bed could only go to a non-reserve person. This didn't make a lot of sense to me, so I have to share with you that it is something I am working on.

I think that beyond that, the development did represent an option for aboriginal health. I understand there is a band around Kamloops — and I am sorry; I've forgotten exactly which one — that is looking at a similar type of model. I would suggest that that probably is something that might work very well in your community and is something that not only the health authority could take a lead on but also the aboriginal community.

B. Belsey: Thank you much, minister. I will look into some of those places and pass that information on to people in my riding.

My next question…. There are four hospitals throughout my community, and when I travel through the area, I see a number of seniors occupying hospital beds. This is probably unusual and expensive. I hear the term "bed-blockers," and I assume this is what we mean by bed-blockers: those in these beds who are there because there are no extended care facilities for them to be moved into. I'm just wondering what the ministry is doing throughout the province to deal with these so-called bed-blockers that we often hear about.

Hon. K. Whittred: Again, the member raises a very good and very timely question. The whole issue of what I would describe as inappropriate care is certainly exemplified by what has often been call a bed-blocker or what I think is more appropriately described as an alternate level of care, although I can't say that I think either term is a very good one. In any case, dealing with this issue is one of the major points in the expectations of performance between the ministry and the health regions. As the member for Vancouver-Hastings has pointed out several times, it is in fact one of the goals that has been put into my own personal service expectation.

The health authority, as the member knows, has the responsibility of addressing this issue and will be expected to put into place programs that will in fact find more appropriate placement. Perhaps I could just add that I think this is a major challenge or perhaps a little bit of a bigger challenge in smaller communities such

as this member represents, simply because there often aren't adequate numbers to support alternate arrangements. One of the things that, again, I am doing is looking to other models. I can point to a model from a very little town, Midway, where the community had put up a very small but very adequate assisted-living type of facility. Again, cluster care went in there from the health region. These things are possible.

Some of the other things the health authorities will be expected to do to try to address this issue are…. We are looking at a new assessment tool for assessing individuals. This will give, I think, more accurate measurement about where they should be placed appropriately. I hope that addresses your question.

B. Belsey: That's all the questions I have. I'd like to extend my appreciation to the minister for answering my questions.

J. MacPhail: I did have the opportunity, while I was absent, to listen to the questions that were asked by the members of the Liberal government, so I'll do my best not to repeat them.

I was, before my brief absence, dealing with the issue of the minister's own situation in terms of intermediate and long-term care on the North Shore — her own situation as a local MLA for the North Shore, on the lower mainland. It was interesting. As I was coming back into the chamber, I received a message from a member of the public. The message was: "Hey" — they used my first name, so I won't repeat that — "don't you know that there's a column in the newspaper on this very issue, where there's a member of the Liberal government asking those very questions?"

I went and read it, and it's true. The member for West Vancouver–Capilano wrote a letter. It wasn't a public letter, or those questions weren't being asked in the chamber, but nevertheless he was asking exactly the same questions I am now asking about how these cuts can possibly deliver on a new-era promise and, secondly, how they can be in any way good for the health care system.

I just note that for the minister. It's exactly continuing on the point that I was making with the minister. The minister met in the third week of March with the mayors on the North Shore, as did the member for West Vancouver–Capilano and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. They met with Mayors Sharp, Bell and Wood to discuss the leaked document.

I'm asking the minister: what is her response when the leaked document itself is the harshest critic? I wasn't aware until this member of the public called me and said that the member for West Vancouver–Capilano is an extremely harsh critic as well. Before that, the harshest critic was the Vancouver coastal health authority themselves.

It's a double-digit figure. I'm sorry; my document has it highlighted, and the photocopy doesn't have it. It's a reduction of some double-digit figure. I think it's something like a third.

Alternate-level care patient-days, which is exactly the goal of this minister to decrease, are what this document is saying will increase.

These are the officials that drafted this strategy, to whom we are now supposed to go for answers.

This is about the strategy for cuts in the minister's own area. We have the member for West Vancouver–Capilano concerned, asking exactly the same questions as I am. We have the health officials deeply concerned, and we have the mayors concerned.

The reason why the mayors of the North Shore are concerned is this. Let me read the concern. This is from one of the three mayors on the North Shore: "Even though local governments have no say in health care, we feel people are going to come to us for support, but our only source of revenue is property tax. We've already approved our budget with an increase in this property tax. We do not have money to help unless we cut other services. This is our community, our seniors and young people. We're between a rock and a hard place." The mayors of the North Shore are joining.

I do want the minister to tell me — she met with the mayors — what her answers are to the mayors. It's not just the member's own back yard. It's not just the back yard of the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. There are areas around the province that have exactly those same concerns, where mayors are worried about the off-loading onto their communities. The minister was in Creston in November, and she said that expanding home services would keep seniors in their own homes longer but said that solutions must come from within the community. When asked how that might be accomplished, she admitted that she didn't have any answers. The mayor and church leaders in that community are concerned that it will be just a matter of downloading for them.

That same concern exists in Campbell River. Let me read — the same month, from Campbell River — an editorial in the Campbell River Mirror. I don't know

whether the member representing Campbell River has spoken yet. This is an editorial that says:

Her own situation, her own home area is saying, "We're worried," and other areas around the province are saying: "We're worried." Everyone who has the guts to stand up and ask is saying: "Where are the 5,000 beds?"

Hon. K. Whittred: Once again, the purpose of my existence is to strategically address the issues around an aging population. It is not just about money. I have already pointed out to the member that there has in fact been increasing amounts of money go into home and community care. There may in fact be more increases. That responsibility is now in the hands of the health authorities. They are the ones that have to determine the programming. I have every confidence they are going to come up with programs that are consistent with the kind of performance guidelines that this Ministry of Health Services expects.

Among those guidelines is the expectation that the health authorities are going to address the issues around home and community care in a contemporary way. I have pointed out, Mr. Chair, several times that the status quo simply won't work, simply because we have too many people, and an increasing amount of money would be spent on inappropriate care if we were to continue along the same path.

Having said that, I think it is appropriate to point out that we are well on our way to illustrating some solutions. For example, I've mentioned several times the network of care that has been introduced by the Vancouver Island health authority as an excellent example. I was in Penticton a couple of weeks ago, where I announced the beginning of a new campus-of-care model. This campus-of-care model incorporates a lot of what we are trying to achieve. It offers a range of services — everything from adult day care to dementia cottages, which I've already alluded to, to new multilevel-care beds. It will offer a range of services that will replace an aging and, quite frankly, inadequate facility.

I have been to Penticton and have visited the facility that is going to be phased out, and I express that this facility is not going to be closed immediately. It is going to be phased out over a period of time, as the clients are placed in what is in fact more appropriate care, and it will not be taking any new clients.

That facility was built back in the days when personal care homes were built. Do you know that in those days they still had parking lots? People drove to live in their personal care facilities. Things like wheelchairs and walkers were not even heard of. They've got these little tiny halls that nobody could possibly manoeuvre with a wheelchair or a walker. They have bathrooms that are totally inadequate for the kind of client who is today in these residences. That is the reason that we are conducting an assessment across the province to determine what is worth trying to salvage, what is still usable, what might need to be converted or what might simply have to be phased out.

We're dealing today, as I think has been pointed out several different times, with an entirely different population. In the community we often hear people speak of the fourth wave, which means the fourth generation. We're speaking of the generation of people over 80, which is the fastest-growing segment of our population. They are frequently very active. They are frequently quite well informed. They value their independence, and, yes, as the member quite rightly points out, there is an increasing demand for complex care.

We are trying to deliver that service, but these services have to be provided within the context of a $10.4 billion budget. The member keeps talking about cuts. This government has not cut health care. The budget used to be $9.3 billion, I believe, and it's recently been increased to $10.4 billion. That's $1.1 billion. That is a great deal of money. I believe that if we are going to have a health care system that we all value very much, we have to be realistic enough to address the pressures on this system and try to find more appropriate ways to address some of these issues. That is what I am doing in trying to find a whole continuum of methods to approach that pressure, which is an aging population.

J. MacPhail: It would be appropriate for the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care to listen to the estimates that have already occurred. The Minister of Health Services has been forced to admit that the increased money this government is putting into the health care system doesn't even keep it at a standstill level and that it covers off wage pressures, which are appropriate, for the people already in the system, and inflation pressures. That's it. There's no new money for any new programs. In fact, there's a deficit of $60 million. He's had to admit to that, so please stop using the argument that this government put extra money into health care as if it's an explanation for more money being available for new programs.

Again, the campus-of-care model in Penticton — I love it, except that it's B.C Housing funding money. It's not health care money. Once again, this government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The B.C. Housing program used to be non–health care housing for people who were

low-income, poor, and for seniors who didn't need health care. That was what B.C. Housing was. Now, because this government isn't putting any money into intermediate and long-term care beds as they promised, they're robbing the B.C. Housing accounts to do it. That's what the campus-of-care model in Penticton is all about.

When the minister stood up last week in question period and somehow indicated that that was a good model, that somehow this was good news and an advance for people in British Columbia, that was dead wrong.

Noting the hour…. I had hoped to be able to get through some of this stuff. I will try my best to move expeditiously this afternoon on continuing with the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care and then move to the Minister of State for Mental Health.

With that, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report some progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

With me today are, to my right, my deputy minister Gerry Armstrong and to my left, Tom Vincent, who is the assistant deputy minister, management services division, Ministry of Education. Behind me is Lyn Tait, assistant deputy minister of post-secondary education, and Rod MacDonald, the director of post-secondary finance.

J. Kwan: My understanding from my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings is that she has canvassed most of the issues, except for the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission issues and also the area around employment programs for students. I won't be recanvassing the items she has already done but rather focusing on the items that have not been debated in these estimates.

Let me first start with the ITAC piece. In the service plan, which calls for the elimination of ITAC by the end of May 2002, where will the 16,000 people currently in the midst of trades training in B.C. turn to for assistance with their training?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, only ten of the 16 offices in the province will be closed down at this point in time, certainly by the end of May. The balance of the offices will be wound down in a phased-out way. By the end of May we will, as I've said, have six offices that remain. We have looked very carefully at ensuring there is a regional presence with those particular offices.

In addition, we certainly are cognizant of the fact that we want to provide as much assistance as possible to those apprentices who are currently in the system. We've provided a help line number, a 1-800 line, and we will also continue to address concerns through a computer system. We will maintain regional offices for a period of time yet.

J. Kwan: Is it anticipated that those approximately 16,000 people would be able to continue or finish their training? Is that the anticipation of the minister?

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise of the locations where the offices are being shut down and the locations where the offices will remain?

Hon. S. Bond: The offices that will be closed will be in Abbotsford, Coquitlam, Cranbrook, Terrace, Dawson Creek, Williams Lake, Nelson, Kamloops, Nanaimo and Courtenay. The regional presences we intend to maintain are in Surrey, Victoria, Burnaby headquarters, Prince George, Kelowna and metro Vancouver. Those will close at a later date — potentially, it's anticipated, the spring of 2003.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, with the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, we are in the process of looking at a new model of skills and trades training

in the province. At this point, the administrative arm of the organization is being phased out. We're in the process of appointing an industry advisory transition committee, which will have representation from industry, labour and education. The task they will be given is to develop a new model of training in this province that is responsive to industry needs and that allows employers and employees to have a top-quality, responsive program. The transition committee will be appointed very shortly. Their task will be to develop a new model. It will have a leadership role for industry, and certainly we will be working with labour as well.

I really want to emphasize the fact that we want to assure apprentices and employers that they will be able to continue their current training. We intend to work with industry to encourage more work-based training delivery and certainly a more flexible delivery option. Some of the things that are being considered are weekend courses, on-line learning — simply trying to address the concerns of the province in the anticipated shortage that we face in B.C.

J. Kwan: I just want to go back to the issue around training and completion for the people who are in the midst of obtaining their training right now. Is it anticipated by the minister that those individuals would be able to complete their training in their existing location, or are they expected to relocate to another site?

Hon. S. Bond: We anticipate there will be very little, if any, change for apprentices working with employers in the current formal training situations that they find themselves in. We want to ensure that they are able to complete their process, and what we're doing is developing a brand-new program in terms of moving forward in the province. We certainly want to reassure apprentices and employers that they will be able to complete their existing programs.

J. Kwan: I understand, then, from the minister that they can complete their existing programs at their existing site, so they won't be relocated to another location. Am I correct in that understanding?

Hon. S. Bond: That is correct. Their actual training will continue to exist in the way it does now. The only thing that will change is that because of the closure of some of the specific offices, obviously they'll be relating to a different place in terms of the relationship with the offices that were in place. The training and the workplace situations will continue as they exist now.

J. Kwan: The reason I want to get clarity on this is that I think, as the minister can appreciate, how difficult it would be for a student in midstream having to relocate. As an example, if they are receiving their training in, let's say, Kamloops, and all of a sudden find themselves having to relocate to Kelowna — I guess that would be nearest site — that creates problems. I want to be clear in understanding that there is not going to be a move for these students in having to relocate to a different site to complete their training.

When the minister says that when the offices are closed and perhaps some of the…. Is it only the administrative aspect, then, in terms of certification and those kinds of things that need to be done — the head-office work on the administrative side — that is being relocated? Would the student then have to travel to an alternate site to complete those administrative aspects of their studies?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, the member makes an excellent point in that we would be concerned about midstream relocation. It is an important consideration. We don't plan for that to happen, so in fact it is the administrative and counselling relationship that will be adjusted simply because the local office will close. For administrative and counselling purposes they would relate to a different office.

J. Kwan: The minister advised that the commission would be replaced with a new entity, a group of people involving labour, educators and so on. Regarding this new entity, when does the minister anticipate the new entity would be up and running?

Hon. S. Bond: There are a couple of answers to this question in that the first step is the announcement and appointment of the transition advisory committee. That is the group that will have membership from labour, industry and education. The letters of invitation for those particular positions went out last Tuesday. We anticipate the first meeting within ten days, we hope, for the group that will form the advisory group.

One of their first responsibilities will be to look at the new model and begin to provide recommendations. The new model of training in the province will evolve over the next period of time as we work with this group of people. They will also be making recommendations to me about a permanent advisory committee, which would have sectoral representation. We're in the early stages of evolution. This group will look at the transition issues. The actual model of training will take some time to develop, and this is the group that will begin looking at that process.

J. Kwan: How many people are going to be on this panel? Is there a name attached to this group?

Hon. S. Bond: The name of the group is actually the transition advisory committee at this point. It has a membership of nine from business, labour and education. The list is on our website, so the names and the relationship they have to the particular industry or labour group they're associated with are certainly public at this point.

J. Kwan: How does it break down? Is it three business individuals, three labour and three educators out of the nine from three sectors?

Hon. S. Bond: That's probably the most efficient way, because we'll probably end up there anyway.

I'll just tell you. The industry representatives are Jim Utley, the vice-president of human resources, Teck Cominco Ltd.; Murray MacLeay, president of the British Columbia Construction Association; and Michael Coughlin, executive vice-president of Cascade Aerospace. Representing the Coalition of B.C. Businesses are Phil Hochstein, executive vice-president of the Independent Contractors and Business Association of B.C.; Janet Marwick, executive director of Recreation Vehicle Dealers; and R. Allan Cullen, president of Detroit Diesel–Allison British Columbia Inc. From education we have one member, Tony Knowles, the president of the B.C. Institute of Technology. From labour, representing the B.C. Federation of Labour we have Rod Goy, apprenticeship coordinator, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and Phillip Legg, who is a staff member with the B.C. Federation of Labour.

J. Kwan: So out of the nine, there are six business representatives, two labour and one education representative. That's according to my count of the list that came from the minister.

Is there a budget attached to the work of this group? If so, what is the budget?

Hon. S. Bond: The direct funding that particular group will access is $400,000, and that is to develop new curriculum and pilot projects, in particular, in the province. Of course, that's separate from the substantial budget we have in terms of the training dollars available, but there's $400,000 in direct funding.

J. Kwan: What is the amount for the training dollars within the ministry's budget?

Hon. S. Bond: The training dollars are $70 million, and they are broken down to $19 million in apprenticeship training and $51 million in entry-level trades training.

J. Kwan: The minister has suggested that industries and colleges be involved in trades training and therefore would be responsible for some of the work the commission had been undertaking. Will the colleges and institutes involved in the trades training receive additional funding from government to cover the cost of taking on this new responsibility?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, certainly the placement of Tony Knowles on the transition team was very strategically done, because we want to work very closely with our institutions in terms of the training that's provided. We are looking forward to a new way of training in this province. At this point, we can't anticipate what that model looks like.

Ultimately the colleges are actually quite anxious and excited about participating in a new approach to trades training in this province. At this point in time we have an envelope of $70 million in this province. We're going to look at how we can use those dollars more efficiently and effectively and, more importantly, to provide opportunities both for employees and employers that are appropriate and work very well.

We have a challenge in the number of trained and skilled workers we need in this province, so we're looking at a new way of doing things. The envelope is there. We're going to look at a new model and pilots, and certainly, the colleges and institutions will have input into the design and delivery of those programs.

J. Kwan: If the colleges and institutes are involved in the delivery of the training programs, one would assume that they would be attached with funding to take on that responsibility. If that new model calls on the colleges and institutes to deliver the programs, then it's safe to assume they would have funding to provide for the training. If the answer is yes, could the minister please just advise? In comparison to the previous year's budget on the training side, what was that amount? Is it also $70 million, or is there a reduction or an increase?

Hon. S. Bond: The $70 million is the same. It is the same amount. At this point, in fact, there are no new expectations of institutions other than the knowledge that we're going to look at how to use those dollars effectively. That will be linked to the model that's developed, so we're looking at finding new approaches. We're looking at perhaps a modular approach, and we're looking at recognition of prior skills, etc.

We're looking at a new way of doing things. The envelope of dollars is the same, but we are looking forward to the process evolving over time. Colleges and institutions will certainly have a great deal of input into what the delivery looks like and how we can use the $70 million as effectively as possible.

J. Kwan: Is there any concern that as programs are eliminated and then until new programs come on stream, there would be a lapse in the transition where some programs could be lost? Does the minister have any concerns around that? One example I want to bring to the minister's attention is the issue around the training for butchers. This was reported in the Vancouver Sun on March 28. It reported that Vancouver Community College will be looking at putting its butchers program on the chopping block.

The concern there is that once the program is eliminated and once the stores, equipment and infrastructure that support the training program are gone, it would be very difficult to start it up again. There is, I guess, a concern around the lapse in time during that transition and what will happen to programs if that lapse in time takes place. Could the minister advise whether or not she has any concerns around that transitional phase and the potential loss of programs?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of the meat-cutting program, as the member refers to the situation with those

apprentices, there are apparently fewer than 40 apprentices currently. There are a couple of issues here.

My staff has actually has thought quite carefully about this, and so has the institution. When you look at how we train those people, obviously, with a small number of apprentices, it's very hard to keep up with the state-of-the-art equipment that's necessary, for example, to do that training. The institution will be looking at a model that is much more work-based focused — it would take place on a worksite perhaps — and looking at perhaps modularizing the theory part of it so that there's still access to it. Certainly, it is not our intention, nor the institution's, to not train meat cutters in this province, but we are looking at a new way of doing that. I actually think that's a very exciting possibility of doing work-based training and linking that to theory.

In terms of the program, we want very much to ensure that as we evolve to a new model, we are being thoughtful and careful about how that evolution takes place. Our staff and, I know, the transition advisory committee will be working very hard with institutions to ensure that training continues while the new model is being developed.

The rest of the article goes on to talk about additional cuts to the butchers program.

The article then cites issues around class size. It talked about Moira Henderson, who is the college vice-president of academic and development programs. She said the college was already facing cuts before it received its budget from the government last week. She said: "We had thought we would have to cut 300 spaces, but it would mean it will be much greater now." She said: "Tuition increases are contemplated, but increased class sizes is not an option, because the programs are geared to specific training, unlike traditional universities."

As I understand the situation, part of the problem in increasing the class size to over 40 is that there isn't enough equipment and there's a problem with respect to that training environment. What they're doing here is not just a training program, but rather they are also engaging in a business — really in some ways to engage in a store — whereby they do sell the products. The students get their training much like you would actually get in a job training initiative in the workplace. It benefits the local community, as well, because the product being sold is at a slightly reduced price, which of course helps a lot of the lower-income residents in and around the neighbourhood and perhaps outside the neighbourhood as well.

It seems to me this model is one that is sound. It provides for training, for a business opportunity and, at the same time, for a benefit to the neighbourhood by way of its products. The concern here is that if this is lost, then there's no opportunity for it to be rebuilt. I would like to ask the minister if she would, in this instance, reconsider protecting the program and perhaps ensuring that it, being the only one in southern British Columbia, is sustained in the community.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm always happy to comment about VCC. I visited there several times, and I do recognize, as the member has pointed out, the benefit to the community. It's quite a remarkable institution to visit.

I just want to reiterate a couple of things. No current trainees will be affected. One of the reasons we're looking at a new way of doing things is because of the very reason that was quoted in the article: the issue around infrastructure and costly equipment. We want very much to ensure that the resources we have are being used in the best way possible.

In thinking about a new model, what's better than to take advantage and work with industry to provide a model that will access excellent equipment in the workplace? Those are the kinds of things being considered. In terms of the member's request to reconsider, I should tell her that it is still an institution's decision to make the choices around the types of programs that will be offered.

Having said that, we recognize what's in the best interests of students as well. I should point out that one of my staff members, who is here with me at this moment and who I should also introduce — Stuart Clark, who is the director of the industry training branch — happens to be meeting next Tuesday with the vice-president of program development to look at options for the fall.

As we move forward with a new model, we want very much to make sure the kinds of programs that exist now are considered. We simply want to look at how we might deliver them, perhaps in a different way. Stuart will be meeting with the vice-president next Tuesday to discuss some of these very issues.

J. Kwan: The concern here, as is often the case, I guess, with the new Liberal government, is that they will simply reduce the funding in areas and then advise various institutions, whether they be in education, health or otherwise, that they have to provide the programs on their own. When they have to make cuts to those programs, the government washes its hands of those reductions in programs and says: "That's not our decision."

We've seen that in a variety of areas, and I'll cite just one. That is education in the K-to-12 area. We saw that the local school trustees are now advising that they're faced with huge cuts and that students will be impacted. There's no doubt about it. In the city of Vancouver alone, they'll be faced with a $25.5 million deficit as a result of what the Minister of Education would like to call protection of education. In reality, that translates to cuts in educational programs, because the funding is no longer there to support the programs with the increased pressures.

What I was asking the minister to reconsider is not necessarily to say to VCC to rob Peter and pay Paul for this program but rather to see whether or not the government would actually fund this specific program so it would not be eliminated. I see this is not the intention of government. They are saying they're not going to be doing this kind of training anymore. They're going to wash their hands of it.

I'd like to ask the minister what mechanisms would be created to assist industry in becoming involved with the apprenticeship training.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, for the record, I also want to state that we have a fundamental belief in the people, in looking at who is best positioned to make decisions about what's best for their communities. We believe — and certainly in our ministry, we've demonstrated that — that those people who live in those communities, those people who govern and organize those institutions, are best positioned to make the decisions about what should be offered and how programs should exist in communities.

Again, I do want to remind the member that in fact our budget was protected. Whether we want to debate what that means, the fact is that my budget actually increased by $8 million. As an example, Vancouver Community College received a lift of $381,000 this year. In fact, their core grant went up.

It is a fundamental difference in how we govern. It is a fundamental difference in how and who should govern institutions. We believe that boards and those people who work there should make those decisions. To be candid, I'm quite proud of the fact that this government, during extremely difficult fiscal times in this province, did protect an almost $2 billion budget in my ministry. We are working really hard to make sure those dollars go directly to institutions.

I do want to suggest again that it's not that we're not going to do that kind of training, as the member suggested. We're looking at doing it in a new way. We're looking at being responsive to industry and looking at what's best for students. I personally believe that if we can train students on state-of-the-art equipment, rather than taking limited resources and building infrastructure into those programs…. Let's work with industry and find a new way to do that. I actually think that's quite creative. Institutions are considering those things today.

How are we going to involve industry, and what mechanisms are we going to give them? I can honestly tell you that of all the initiatives…. While there has certainly been some initial apprehension about what we're doing, there are also people lining up from all of those sectors — industry, education — to say: "Let's work together to find a way to meet the needs of our province in terms of the jobs we need, and training employers."

The first step is involving them in the transition advisory committee. I'm really pleased to see that here will be a new and expanded role for small business people to have a chance to participate in training. Right now, it's a lot easier to look at training issues if you're a huge employer. We're going to say to small businesses: "What can we do to help you train the kind of worker you need for your business?"

We're looking forward to the input we're going to receive from the transition advisory committee, and a number of other people. As I've said, we certainly have people lining up to be a part of how this process evolves, and I think that will benefit all of us.

J. Kwan: In terms of matching the training that is required with what the demands are in the industry, this is an excellent case in point. It's been pointed out that 95 percent of the students who finish the program are offered jobs, and the classes have been full for the past few years. In fact, they regularly get calls from prospective employers, and oftentimes, they actually don't have trained people to go there.

It just goes to show that in this instance, that match is there with regards to the butchers program taking place at VCC. There's got to be validity in understanding that this is already taking place within the community colleges and that they are making those decisions.

Maybe this is just a new way of the new-era Liberal government, because every time they say they're protecting something, you really have to be careful, read between the lines, go out into the community and find out what's going on. When they actually say they're protecting education funding, it means decrease and elimination of educational programs. That's what we're seeing right now before our very own eyes with the school trustees who are dealing with the protection of

What it really translates into is cuts in education programs. It's not any different in advanced education. It's not any different in health. It's not any different in legal aid. That's another new-era way of doing things: cutting legal aid to the tune of 38.8 percent. The new way of business is denying access to justice for people. That's the pattern we see under the Liberal government, and that's what's happening right now in advanced education as well.

The minister says that they will be looking at building relationships and working with the industry on apprenticeship programs and small businesses, amongst others. Is the minister planning on attaching funding to this aspect of the new model of apprenticeship training?

Hon. S. Bond: The envelope is $70 million. We're looking at new, exciting, different ways of doing things. The envelope is there. The potential for brand new models for working with institutions and for collaboration with industry exists. We've maintained the $70 million training budget, and I'm optimistic that we're going to be able to take those dollars and train incredibly skilled workers in this province in very new ways.

They're going to focus the model on shorter completion periods, and I think that's good news, certainly for trainees and for the province. We're going to look at competency-based programs rather than just simply the time in the trade.

We're going to take those dollars, and we're going to work together with institutions, industry and labour and say: "How can we take this $70 million and do as much as possible with it?" That's exactly the principle we're going to use with those dollars.

J. Kwan: One of the functions of the commission was to provide an independent organization that would assist students in the trades with issues they may face during the course of their training. The elimination of this body means that there is no longer an independent body involved in trades training in British Columbia. Where do students turn if they have problems with the college they're attending or the apprenticeship component of their training?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons we're maintaining an ITAC presence over a period of time is that we want, very much, to make sure that we don't lose sight of students and the needs they have in this transition period. We are going to maintain, as I've suggested, a regional office presence. Additionally, we have new websites; we have new 1-800 numbers. In essence, industry and the transition advisory committee are going to make recommendations to us over the next period of time about what the system looks like and what kinds of supports continue to be provided for students.

The other thing we're looking at is bringing skills and trades training into the mainstream in this province. We're going to work very much with apprentices. I mean, there are 160,000 students in this province who manage to work through their educational situations. We're going to bring trades and trades training into the mainstream so that it becomes a choice, and we're going to continue to support students. The transition advisory committee will provide recommendations as to what that might look like as we move forward.

J. Kwan: The model is not yet established, then, on any of these issues with respect to supports to students, with respect to whether or not the institution or the college might actually take on and increase spaces for apprenticeship. That is all being worked on right now while the model is being developed. How that budget will be expended, the $70 million, would be subject to whatever that model looks like, as would who administers those funds.

The budget for the training component for this year is $70 million. Is it the anticipation of the minister that those moneys will be utilized this year towards apprenticeship training initiatives? That means the model will be up and running sometime this year, and it would utilize the $70 million that's budgeted in the ministry.

Hon. S. Bond: It is indeed our intention that the $70 million be used to provide trades with certainly the apprenticeship and the training component this year. We are going to move forward with the new model after we get advice about what that should look like. The most important point is that in the present system the apprentices will continue to be able to complete their program. Training will continue in the province, but I think we're taking a very thoughtful and rational approach. Rather than simply changing everything instantly, we're going to put together a great team of people who will look at the process and will develop the model. Training will continue as that happens, and it is our expectation that the $70 million will be utilized.

J. Kwan: Of that $70 million, how much is going towards the existing sites that will be kept in place until the students complete their program? How much of it will go into the sites that will be kept? How does the budget break down?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the training dollars are exactly that: they are training dollars. They are not linked to the offices. They are not linked to the counselling. They are not linked to the administration. The $70 million in training money will continue to be spent pretty much the way it has been in the past as the model evolves over the next year. Those dollars currently are largely spent through sending dollars to institutions,

and that's exactly what has happened. The administrative and counselling component is quite separate from that. These training dollars will be expended through public institutions for the most part, although there are a few other variations to that, over the course of the next year.

J. Kwan: Could the minister give the budget for the administrative side of these offices and the breakdown of the components within it?

Hon. S. Bond: I'll answer the question this way. If there are further questions, I'm sure the member will provide them, but I think this is the question she asked.

The cost for administration this year to maintain the presence in the regional offices and across the province — the administration, counselling and management side of that — is $7.6 million. That is a reduction of $5.3 million from last year. So the closure of the offices and the reduction of the operating costs there would be $5.3 million, leaving us with an existing budget for that of $7.6 million.

J. Kwan: Is there a breakdown as to how much of that budget goes toward counselling support?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll be happy to get the specifics of that for the member. We think it's roughly 40 percent of that, if you were to sort of pin it down to counselling. Obviously, they do a multitude of things, and the offices provided a number of services. In fact, it could be about 40 percent, but we're happy to get the specifics and get them back to the member.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate that. I'm particularly interested in the portion that goes toward supporting students to troubleshoot, to deal with problems, counselling — that sort of parameter. If the minister could provide that, I'd appreciate it.

In February the minister stated: "Studies have shown that 70 percent of parents believe their kids will go on to university. In fact, less than 20 percent do. We need to start early on to say there are good jobs in trades." What is the minister doing to ensure that people are informed about the benefits of trades employment early on?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things I'm going to do is to be working with my colleague the Minister of Education, because one of the things we've come to recognize is that the emphasis and looking for alternative routes for students in this province is an important part of what we do. It's a part of choice. It's a huge cultural shift. As the statistics point out, the majority of parents still believe that their children will go on to a university education.

We're excited about the skills agenda of this province. One of the things we're going to do is talk about skills and trades training at every opportunity we get. We're going to look at programs like a more responsive and new way of training. Having said that, we need to work — particularly in secondary schools, as students come through the system — to have them consider skills and trades training as an option. We're also looking for innovative ideas from labour, industry and institutions about how we best educate people in this province about options available for their students.

It's going to be a challenge as we try to shift thinking about the value and merit of skills and trades training. Our government recognizes that, and as minister, I certainly do, so we're going to continue to look for new ways to work together to try to ensure that students consider this as an option for their futures.

J. Kwan: What the minister just advised is their intention of wanting to do that. I didn't hear from the minister what specific plans or strategies the minister has in place to attract and to ensure that people are informed about the benefits of trades employment.

Is there anything concrete within the ministry, which it's working on right now, other than here's what they wish would happen?

Hon. S. Bond: One of my staff members was telling me he's just explored this website for career options. I'm not sure what that means.

There are a number of specific initiatives. We have a website called Learn and Earn! It talks about the options and opportunities available with the kinds of skills and trades we're talking about. Currently, our staff is working with 40 school district coordinators who focus on career programs to look at ways we can better inform and help students and parents make decisions about their child's future. Recently, also, a new website, called PASBC, created by the Centre for Education Information Standards and Services — CEISS, as we know it more commonly — has been organized and is now up and running, where you can actually go in and look at a particular trade or skill. If you're interested in animals, you can look up veterinarian.

We are trying to find very practical ways to encourage people to explore options in this province. Though one might suggest it's simply intention, I think one of the most important things we can do is model as a government how important skills and trades training are in the province. That's exactly what we intend to do. Our agenda is exciting and aggressive, and I think that will hopefully help the shift in thinking in the province.

J. Kwan: The websites that the minister mentioned. Are those government website or are they outside sources websites? I'm interested in what government programs are in place.

Hon. S. Bond: Learn and Earn! is our initiative; it's our website. Certainly, the program being offered by CEISS — CEISS is funded by us and actually falls under my ministry — is also an initiative of ours. Having said that, we are also working together, as I've said,

with my colleague the Minister of Education to look at alternate programming and the kinds of things that students need to be encouraged to do in the K-to-12 system as well. Again, it's a beginning and one we will obviously see evolve. We will enhance those initiatives as time goes on.

J. Kwan: Are those new initiatives that the minister mentioned? Were they existing already with the previous administration?

Hon. S. Bond: Learn and Earn! is our website, and it is constantly changing. It's taken a whole new approach, obviously, with our approach to skills and trades training. The PASBC website, as the member points out, was in existence prior, but we're looking at an enhanced program there. However, the working group with the 40 school district coordinators is brand new, and we have actually had only one meeting. That is very much focused on how we look at skills and trades training and encourage a shift in thinking. That is brand new.

Hon. S. Bond: The working group at this point in time has 40 school district representatives from around the province. They are typically the career program coordinators. However, there are a couple of vice-principals, and we also have three staff in the working group, including Stuart and two other staff members. We have a member from the Ministry of Education to look at the whole issue of how we work together, and we have the secondary school apprenticeship coordinator, who will also talk about its relevance and the importance of that program to future training needs.

J. Kwan: Is the minister intending to involve parents in this working group? I know that one of the things in the new-era agenda the ministers often talk about is the involvement of parents. One would assume that they, too, would have an important role to play in this working group, especially in trying to get parents and their families to understand the importance of trades training as an option for the children.

Hon. S. Bond: It is the intention of the working group and, certainly, the school district coordinators for them to engage parents locally. I'm thinking particularly of parent advisory councils but of parents as well. The intention is that this group would work and meet together. Then there would be a further local involvement of parents on a district-by-district basis, spearheaded by the career programs coordinators in those districts.

J. Kwan: I would suggest that it would be wise to bring parents into this working group at the start and then shift to local district-by-district working developments with the parents. I think ensuring that the parents are at the table in the first phase of development would be important, especially when the government talks about how much they value the parents' participation in these areas.

Hon. S. Bond: In our ministry service plan under expanding training and skills development, we intend to increase general trades training. At this point, we do not have a proposed target. They are currently under development. We felt it would be more appropriate to develop the model and match the number of students to the model, because we believe we can train a greater number of students but that it's dependent on the eventual look of the training model. Our service plan indicates that those targets are under development.

J. Kwan: Eventually, targets will be established, then, with the new model that would be produced. Am I right in making that assumption?

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely. The targets will be developed. The current number of spaces are: in ELTT, 6,103; 16,200 apprentices; and secondary school apprentices of 1,100. Those are the existing numbers. We will be developing new targets as the model is developed.

J. Kwan: Is it safe to assume that the targets will be larger than the ones that are now in place?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. We would absolutely assume that the number will go up. That's the intention of looking at a new trades and training model. Recognizing the situation in which we find ourselves in this province, we need to produce a significant number of skilled and trained workers. We are going to increase the targets as the model is developed.

J. Kwan: I look forward to the minister's new model as the information becomes available and will be monitoring it very closely to see, hopefully, progress in this area and to ensure that students do not lose their opportunities for trades and apprenticeship training in British Columbia.

I'd like to move on to the employment programs area with the ministry. I have a list myself here of all the youth programs that have been eliminated by the ministry. I want to make sure I have the correct list. Could the minister please advise what programs have been eliminated in the youth programming area in the Ministry of Advanced Education?

Hon. S. Bond: The youth programs that the dollars are no longer targeted for are Student Summer Works and Youth Community Action.

My list includes the following government programs involving youth that have been eliminated: the public sector youth employment program; Student Summer Works, as the minister mentioned; Youth Community Action; ITAC, as we have touched on earlier; skills for employment; institutional-based training support; new learning opportunities envelope; institute-matching endowment; training assistance benefits; YouthQuest, which provides support for gay, lesbian, transgender and bisexual youth in B.C.; teaching assistantships; research assistantships; and work-study programs.

Hon. S. Bond: The two specific youth employment programs that no longer have dollars specifically attached to them are the two I mentioned. The list that you've given me…. If you're prepared to share them, or we can certainly go through them one at a time. We know that at least one of them doesn't belong to us and possibly more than that. There are a number of programs, but the two specific youth employment programs that you're referring to are the two I mentioned.

J. Kwan: Then let's just broaden the base to not just youth employment programs. Let's just say that these are government programs targeting and involving youth that have been eliminated.

I'm prepared to share the list. It's just a list on a piece of white paper that staff have put together. Maybe I can just pass it over to the minister, and then she can confirm this information — not necessarily at this time, but at a later date. I'll be fine with that. If it's not within her ministry, please identify which ministry. If I'm missing others, please add those to the list as well. I will ask this information to be shared with the minister.

Why did the government cancel the work-study program that provided post-secondary students in financial need with the opportunity to gain employment that complemented their academic interests, paid a reasonable salary — on average, $10 an hour — and provided them with the flexibility to balance both school and work? Will the government be replacing this program with another employment program for post-secondary students?

While the minister's searching for the answer, I'd like to state this. To my knowledge, the work-study program, the teaching assistantships program, the research assistantships program …. All three of those employ students on campus, and I do know that they fall under the Ministry of Advanced Education. I just want to point that out while the minister is looking for the answer to the other question I asked.

Hon. S. Bond: All of the programs of our ministry and, obviously, in government went through a very stringent core review process to make sure we were spending dollars as efficiently and effectively as possible. We knew this review would result in some program and funding changes. What we wanted to do was to be able to give institutions the decision about how best to use those dollars.

The work-study program. We actually eliminated the specific funding for that particular program. Having said that, the dollars that were generated from that program were still sent to institutions in their core amount. As I've said, the majority of institutions received more money this year than last.

Some institutions have already made decisions to continue either with a program like this or with some other program. They've made that a specific priority choice for their institution, so those services will continue for some students as institutions make the decision that that's appropriate.

J. Kwan: I would disagree with the minister on the elimination this variety of programs — the work-study program, the public sector youth employment program. Just as an example, on the post-secondary student side 120 jobs were offered to post-secondary students in 2001-02 as a result of a government program that targeted youth. Those will now be lost. That's a loss not only for the students who would gain the experience but also for the broader community, as well, and for the universities who utilize these students to maintain labs and other programs existing in the institution. Really, it's a loss all round. I don't think it's in the best interests of British Columbians, especially as we're trying to get young people to gain the experience, get into the workforce, make their studies relevant and have practical experience on the ground.

The Student Summer Works program was also eliminated by this government. The January service plan described this program as a subsidy to business. If this program is simply subsidizing businesses that would have hired students anyway, can the minister guarantee, then, that the number of businesses employing students this summer will be the same or even greater than the number of businesses that employed students last summer?

Hon. S. Bond: The member is correct. This program was determined to be a business subsidy. It went through a very rigorous process, as did many programs in government, because we've said clearly and for a very long time that we don't intend to subsidize businesses in this province.

Can I guarantee that that number of students will be hired by businesses in this province? Of course not. What I can say is that I'm confident that businesses in this province recognize the value of hiring youth. I'm confident that we will continue to see businesses in this province hire young people.

J. Kwan: I would like to get from the minister, if I may, on the number of jobs that have been eliminated as a result of the elimination of government programs relating to youth. I know, for example, that in the pub-

lic sector youth employment program, as I mentioned earlier, 120 jobs were eliminated as a result of the elimination of that program. In another one, the work-study program, some 400 jobs were eliminated at UVic alone as a result of the elimination of that program. I believe that for 2001-02 it provided for 5,327 jobs for students. If I could get a total number and the breakdown of the respective programs for jobs that are attached to students and that have been eliminated as a result of the elimination of the programs, I would appreciate that as well.

Another one that I actually missed earlier is the Student Summer Works program, which also funded volunteer legal aid clinics that were put on by UBC students. That, too, has now been lost. It's also a loss of experience, training and job opportunities for young students. If I could get a comprehensive list from the minister on all of these programs and the job loss associated with them, I would appreciate that.

I'll ask this question as well. I think it would be a simple answer from the minister. The youth community action program was eliminated. Could the minister please advise why, and will another program be created to replace it?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, as I've mentioned, the programs of my ministry went through the core review process to make sure we were spending our money responsibly and in the most efficient way possible. This program was eliminated. Having said that, we have already seen institutions making decisions to find ways to continue to support and assist students around the province. We have sent the dollars to institutions in their core grants, and we are already seeing the results of institutions making decisions to either continue programs like this or provide assistance to students in as many ways as possible. They are choosing to do that with the dollars we've sent to them.

J. Kwan: In my question was a request for the comprehensive list. I'm assuming that the minister will be providing that.

Hon. S. Bond: I apologize. Yes, we will certainly be able to. We will review the list the member has given us in terms of the programs, and we will do our best to give you the number of jobs eliminated, particularly in the programs that belong to my particular ministry.

J. Kwan: I take it that the minister will also consult with her colleagues to obtain the numbers for the other programs if they're not within her ministry.

These programs are all targeted towards youth. They are employment training–related. They speak to, I think, students' career development and the potential for career development as they relate to advanced education. I hope the minister will work with the other ministers to secure those numbers and that information for the opposition caucus. I'm assuming the minister will, to the best of her ability.

I would also like to just submit that on the question around the Youth Community Action program, it was a program that was effective and sought after in the community. I recall that when they were first launched in the community, I think within months the placements were full. In fact, there was continuous demand for this program to actually expand. I would argue that it's an effective way of government spending its tax dollars in getting young people involved in the community, getting training and employment involvement and experience and, of course, also getting involved, in their own community, with non-profit organizations.

I know of a number of students in my own community who have completed this program and continue to volunteer with these existing organizations, whereas they never would have thought of doing that before, never would have made that connection before. The value in the programs is larger than the immediate benefit to the student or to the organization. It goes beyond, into future dates as well. I would argue that that is an effective and efficient way of spending tax dollars for investing in our communities and investing in young people.

I'd like to ask the minister questions around this letter I have received. It's from a resident speaking about YouthQuest, a program that has been cut by the government, eliminated by the government. The program runs a drop-in program for gay youth in a dozen communities across British Columbia in places as large as Surrey and as small as Port Alberni. The funding has been cut with only 30 days of notice, and there's been a lot of concern from the community around that. This particular resident has written and forwarded a letter to our attention. I'd like to get the minister's response on their rationale for the elimination of the program YouthQuest.

Hon. S. Bond: YouthQuest is one of the programs on the list the member has given to us to look at, and we will certainly do that. At this point in time, in discussions with my staff and even those in the gallery, we do not directly fund this program. Having said that, if it's under the umbrella of one of these other programs, we'd be happy to sort of look at the details, but it may well be one of the ones funded by another ministry. We will clarify that from the list the member has given to us.

J. Kwan: It may well be a program that's funded from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. If the minister would look into that, I would appreciate it. If it is indeed from the Ministry of Children and Family Development, we'll be canvassing these questions with that ministry's estimates.

I have just a few follow-up questions in a couple of different areas for the minister. I'm trying to see if we can do this before the lunch break. I'll go through them as quickly as I can.

One of the issues I don't believe my colleague has canvassed around the Open Learning Agency is around a press release issued by the ministry on Feb-

ruary 15. It announced that the CEO and all board members of the Open Learning Agency had been fired and replaced. I'd like to ask the minister why this action was undertaken prior to the ministry's review of the Open Learning Agency. Let's just start with that.

Hon. S. Bond: The OLA was one of the parts of my ministry, obviously, that went through the core services review. Through that process, it was recognized that changes needed to be made. It was our belief that in order to begin to look at how the services might be delivered and what the future of the OLA would look like, we needed to do that with another group of people. That's why the decision was made.

J. Kwan: It doesn't make sense to me, though, that the board was fired prior to the ministry's review of the Open Learning Agency. One would assume that you would have done the review first, then if you decided that wasn't the model you wished to follow or there was some other model you wanted to develop, then you would proceed with action. It was the other way around with the ministry on this issue, and that doesn't make any sense to me.

The former CEO of the Open Learning Agency had signed a five-year contract with OLA that paid him $162,525 a year. How much money will he receive in severance as a result of the ministry's decision to terminate his contract?

Hon. S. Bond: I should make this very clear. This information is already public and has been referred to a number of times. The severance amount was $359,631, which is 21 months' salary at $307,377 and another $52,254 in benefits. I hasten to point out that the contract was actually signed on May 23, 2001.

J. Kwan: Then the total amount, if you add it all up, is about $450,000. That's the estimate I have received, so I'm seeking confirmation from the minister on that.

The CEO of the Open Learning Agency has stated that the Open Learning Agency will be eliminated within the next two years. However, as we understand it, the minister recently denied that the government plans to eliminate the Open Learning Agency. I believe that was reported on CKNW. Can the minister please explain why there is a discrepancy between her statement and the statement of the CEO about the future of the Open Learning Agency?

Hon. S. Bond: What I have said is that after the core services review it became clear that there needed to be significant change at the OLA, and to this point in time no final decisions have been made about the future of the particular components of the program. We're looking at whether or not we can do them more efficiently, whether there are other ways of delivering the service. What I have said is that I've made no final decisions about the future of the specific component parts, but certainly, I've made it very clear that significant changes are imminent as a result of our preliminary indications through the core services review.

J. Kwan: We'll double-check on our tape on CKNW in terms of what the minister actually said on-air and reflect that back to what she just stated now.

Can the minister perhaps just give a simple answer, then, on this: will the Open Learning Agency be eliminated by this government?

Hon. S. Bond: No final decisions about that have been made. What I have said consistently is that significant change…. We are looking at the entire organization, looking to see if its mandate is still applicable. Certainly, I will be looking at that over the next couple of weeks.

J. Kwan: Some 22,000 people in the province take Open Learning Agency courses each year. Many of these people come from communities that do not have advanced education facilities. In light of the cancellation of the construction of the new advanced education facilities in Prince Rupert, the Northwest Community College and the Cloverdale-Kwantlen expansion, how can the minister justify the process of eliminating the agency that provides people of all ages, from all parts of the province with the ability to access advanced education?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the things I want to take the opportunity to do is to try to say once again publicly that there is no change to the current day-to-day operations of the OLA. I recognize the uncertainty that a discussion and review of an organization creates for employees. I know that's challenging. I'm well aware of the students that are served by the OLA, and that's the reason we're taking our time and looking very carefully at the component parts.

Our ultimate goal is to provide excellent, top-quality service to students in every part of this province. Before we make any decisions, we will carefully examine what alternatives are available for those students should that significant change take place. We want very much to ensure that we do this in a thoughtful and careful way, and that's why no final decisions have been made at this point.

J. Kwan: I'm particularly concerned about what options would be available to students who could only pursue advanced education through distance learning and especially with the uncertainty around the Open Learning Agency. In the event that it should be eliminated, what would happen to access and the question of choice, which I know the minister likes to speak of, for students in British Columbia? Who did the ministry consult with prior to making this decision to fire the board and then undergoing the review of the Open Learning Agency and its future?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to say very clearly that the decision to replace the board was a decision I made as

a result of the core services review, which indicated there was significant change necessary. The decision to do that was mine as we looked at how to move forward with the Open Learning Agency.

In terms of on-line learning, I certainly do not want the impression to be left that in this province there will not be opportunities. As a matter of fact, a great variety of opportunity for on-line learning already exists in this province, not simply with the OLA but with a number of — most — provincial institutions.

What we're going to do is look at a coordinated strategy, a provincial on-line learning strategy. That's been identified, if not in my service plan then certainly in all of the core review that we did. That's part of our work plan: to look at how we can coordinate and better enable students in this province to actually take advantage of on-line learning.

I was pleased to read in the Education report the emphasis on on-line learning and how important that is to people in British Columbia. Certainly, we will not lose that in our agenda. We're simply looking at…. The OLA had an original mandate. We believe that perhaps it's been overtaken by other options in this province. We want to do things efficiently and focus on what's best for students.

I think the development of our on-line learning strategy will be an exciting thing and certainly was clearly highlighted in the report that was presented by the Education committee.

J. Kwan: I'm tempted to get into the report of the Education committee, particularly as to its recommendations. Basically, the recommendations are just a reiteration of what the government's agenda has already established, but I won't get into that for these estimates.

The minister said she made the decision to fire the board of the OLA because it occurred to her that changes were necessary. What changes did she discover were necessary?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, we believe there is a variety of things in this province that provide services to students. We wanted very much to eliminate duplication and overhead and look at certain functions in this

province. The decision was based on a core review that said we need to make sure we're efficiently and effectively using dollars. We need to look at the mandate of the existing agencies, all of the ones that fall under my responsibility, and so the decision was made to look at how we might continue to enhance and streamline and create a really effective way of providing on-line service in this province.

It was based on the principle of how we best serve students. We need to look at what exists in the province and how we can either enhance it or change it or eliminate it to better serve students.

J. Kwan: If the basis of the evaluation is to make sure that it best serves the students and the interests of British Columbia, then one would assume that the government, the minister, would wait until the review is complete and a model is established and then take action, not the other way around. If you take action first, before you have done that review, then I think it speaks to a predetermined approach and outcome for the Open Learning Agency, which is why the speculation is out there that the Open Learning Agency is slated for elimination. The decision around the Open Learning Agency makes no sense whatsoever in terms of the process that the minister has embarked on.

I'm getting the nod from the Chair to wrap up. I was really hoping we could wrap up our questions on Advanced Education this morning, but it appears that we will not be able to do that. I have four more questions, and then I'll be done. Maybe I can canvass the committee and see whether or not there is interest for us to plow through this. It'll perhaps run into our lunch hour just a little. If that's okay, then I'll continue to proceed.

J. Kwan: I'm advised by the Chair that we can't do that, because we have to report out.

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