Hansard -- Volume 5, Number 8 -- 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		2501

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		2501
	Registry Statutes Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 20) Hon. G. Collins Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 24) Hon. R. Coleman

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2502
	Review of Workers Compensation Board R. Hawes Charitable work of Open Door organization S. Orr Support services for disabled children J. Bray

Oral Questions		2503
	Education funding J. Kwan Hon. C. Clark J. MacPhail Referendum on treaty negotiations M. Hunter Hon. G. Plant Health authority accountability J. Bray Hon. S. Hawkins Hon. C. Hansen Referendum on treaty negotiations J. MacPhail Hon. G. Plant West Coast Express contract R. Hawes Hon. J. Reid

Reports from Committees		2506
	Special Committee of Selection

Petitions		2506
	J. Kwan

Committee of Supply		2506
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. K. Whittred Hon. G. Cheema

Introductions by Members		2516

Committee of Supply		2516
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) I. Chong P. Wong S. Brice M. Hunter P. Bell

Committee of the Whole House		2525
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 7) Hon. S. Santori

Report and Third Reading of Bills		2525
	Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002 (Bill 7) Hon S. Santori

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2526
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) Hon. S. Bond R. Stewart R. Lee J. Kwan B. Belsey Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection (continued) Hon. J. Murray J. Kwan R. Masi B. Penner W. McMahon M. Hunter B. Belsey J. Bray

J. Les: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce a good friend from Chilliwack, Grant Ullyot. Grant, for many years, was the news director for CHWK radio, and, more recently, he is the editor of West Coast Farmer magazine. I would like the House to make him welcome.

D. Hayer: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to introduce two guests: Mr. Mohan Kang, president of the B.C. Taxi Association; and Manpreet Brar, a grade 11 student from Terry Fox Secondary School who is the daughter of a good friend of mine. Would the House please make them both welcome.

R. Lee: I am pleased to introduce Faizel Gulamhusseih. Faizel is a young student who attends Moscrop Secondary School, which is located in Burnaby. Would the House please make him welcome.

J. MacPhail: Some of us who were in the chamber from '96 to 2001 will remember the "Scood" missile incident. The "Scood" missile incident was brought to us by Jim Doyle, the former MLA for Columbia River–Revelstoke, who is joining us once again with his son Adam. I hope the House will make him welcome.

J. Bray: I have the pleasure of introducing some people who are joining us in the gallery today. We are often amazed by their accuracy and sometimes scorn their accuracy. Interestingly enough, they ask that their individual names not be mentioned. However, it's my pleasure to welcome a team of Hansard editors who have taken the time to come upstairs and see the proceedings live. I'd like the House to make them very welcome.

K. Krueger: With us in the House today is Mr. Barry Cross, who's an active businessman in Kamloops–North Thompson and throughout British Columbia taking part in the new-era economy as British Columbia roars to life. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Collins: It gives me great pleasure, on behalf of the Premier, to introduce a group of very special visitors to the House. In the members' gallery this afternoon are representatives from the United States Chamber of Commerce: Clinton Wheeler III, the vice-president of corporate programs, and his wife, Emily; and Bill Swede, the technical manager. They're in Victoria today to make arrangements for the U.S. chamber of commerce association committee's 100th annual general meeting, which will be held in Victoria at the end of June. Also seated in the gallery is Ian Powell, general manager of the Fairmont Empress here in Victoria, of course; and Beth Bouvier, director of sales, international sales office for the Fairmont Hotels in Washington, D.C. Would the House please make them most welcome.

S. Orr: It is my pleasure today to introduce two very special people. I would like to introduce two very special people from our community. I'd like to introduce Mr. Robin Krause, who is the chair of the board of the Open Door. I would also like to introduce the Rev. Allen Tysick, who is the minister at the Open Door. Would this House please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, visiting us today is Elaine Thomson, a member of the Scottish parliament, representing Aberdeen. She is accompanied by Brian Greer, our own chief legislative counsel. Would you please welcome them.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Registry Statutes Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Registry Statutes Amendment Act, 2002. This act will amend four registry statutes and enable corporate, manufactured home and personal property security registries to move towards greater electronic service delivery.

British Columbians from all parts of the province are using the Internet to access information and conduct business from their homes and offices. These amendments demonstrate the government's commitment to provide an easier, faster and more convenient way to do business with the government of British Columbia. The amendments make it possible for the government to provide more information and services on line 24 hours a day, seven days a week. They're also intended to reduce the registry's reliance on inefficient paper-based registration systems.

The amendments will provide the registries with the authority they need to implement cost-effective and efficient systems for electronic filing and storing of information. Most importantly, these amendments will assist the registries in fulfilling the government's vision that all information can be submitted or re-

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

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be introduced and read for the first time now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am pleased to introduce the Criminal Injury Compensation Amendment Act, 2002, which amends sections of the Criminal Injury Compensation Act.

Last August this House passed a Crime Victim Assistance Act. Once the act is brought into effect, the compensation program for victims of crime will be moved from the Workers Compensation Board to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. The new program will enhance services to victims of crime and eliminate awards for pain and suffering.

It was anticipated that this act would come into effect on April 1. However, due to transitional delays in transferring the program to my ministry, this act did not come into effect at that time. This amendment is an interim measure that makes pain-and-suffering awards consistent between the old and the new programs. It also brings us into line with the rest of the country, which — aside from Ontario and Prince Edward Island — eliminated pain-and-suffering awards ten years ago.

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

Bill 24 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Hawes: In May 2000 my constituent Jodi R. broke a small bone in her hand in a workplace accident. In June she was referred by the Workers Compensation Board to a specialist who misdiagnosed the injury and conducted three unnecessary operations on her hand. One month later she was referred to a second specialist who correctly diagnosed the fracture and tried unsuccessfully to correct the damage caused by the first specialist.

Jodi's hand is now completely disabled and heavily covered with scar tissue. She's in constant pain and unable to work. Her workers compensation benefits were terminated in November of last year, and she's now appealing, through her union, for a disability award.

In 1994 the previous government amended the Workers Compensation Act to protect WCB doctors from liability in cases such as Jodi's. On behalf of the Jodis all across this province, I urge the Minister of Skills Development and Labour to expedite the review of the WCB soon to come forward. The WCB has failed workers for far too long in British Columbia, and I urge the minister to ensure that this untenable situation ends quickly.

S. Orr: I rise today to tell you about a very special organization in my community called the Open Door. The Open Door is a non-profit organization. It is 15 years old. In its earlier days the Open Door would see daily perhaps 40 people. Walking through their doors today and over the past ten years, they now see up to 400 people a day.

The Open Door is the living room for the very poor in the inner city of Victoria. It is for people who are not only financially poor but also emotionally, mentally and spiritually. It is a place for people to gather and socialize and receive help and advice. It has a small library, a clothing store and a food cupboard, and it is somewhere safe for people to go.

The Open Door also runs an outreach program where one of the staff walks around the inner city talking and relating to people living on the street. One of the people you will often — very often — see on the streets is a gentleman called the Rev. Allen Tysick. The Rev. Tysick is a remarkable human being. His commitment to the most vulnerable is unconditional. His approach is sometimes unconventional. His success is well known, and he is respected not only by the people he has helped but by many businesses and business people in this community.

The most recent and exciting project the Open Door is now moving ahead with is the new partnership with another excellent organization called the Upper Room. Once together, they will add to all they have now. They will offer lunch and supper, as well as 22 sleeping accommodations on a temporary basis. Hopefully, that will grow.

To finish, I want this House to know that the Open Door has run this organization for 15 years — and it is very successful — without any funding from government at all. They are a model of success. Rev. Allen

Tysick is a model of success, as is the board chair, Mr. Robin Krause. They take care of the most vulnerable. We can learn a lot from them.

J. Bray: Last week I had the privilege of attending a meeting held in the Victoria area with my South Island colleagues and the Minister of Children and Family Development. This meeting was organized by the Victoria Association for Community Living, and I would estimate that there were over 200 families in attendance. These are parents that have children ranging in age from infants to middle age who have developmental disabilities. It was a very constructive and very emotional meeting. I was overwhelmed by the passion and commitment expressed by these parents. We heard stories of the struggles these families face on a daily basis in providing love, nurturing and support to these very special children.

One of their concerns was the fear that their children would be going back to institutions that would simply be renamed as congregate care. They and I were very pleased to hear the Minister of Children and Family Development declare that this was not happening — period. However, we heard of other concerns around the existing supports that are in place and concerns about families falling through the cracks as the Ministry of Children and Family Development moves services from a centralized model to a community-based model. They support the direction the ministry is going in, but their anxiety is very real.

These parents are the experts in providing community care for children and adults with developmental disabilities. I urge the government to ensure that we listen and trust the expertise these courageous advocates are willing to provide. These parents want to ensure that the services that support an autistic child entering the school system are there, that respite care for seniors who are still providing care for their adult child is there, that the successful day programs that improve the quality of life for these children are there and that the ministry addresses the realities of service provisions that occur when these special children turn 19.

I was moved by the commitment, dedication and love these parents show to their children, and I applaud their advocacy. I urge all of us to remember that these families are simply asking for support as they courageously fulfil their desire to be the best parents they can be. They have earned our support, and their children deserve nothing less.

J. Kwan: Yesterday the Minister of Education said that everybody in the education system has to be accountable, from the minister on down. This is the same minister who's running for cover after throwing a budget grenade into the laps of school boards. Will the Minister of Education take her own advice and take responsibility for the devastating cuts her government is inflicting on education in Vancouver and in other communities throughout British Columbia?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't know if I've mentioned this to the member before, but in fact in the largest restructuring we have ever undertaken in British Columbia, this government has protected the education budget, and we are the only jurisdiction undertaking a restructuring of this size that has done that. Not only have we protected it, but this year we saw in the Finance minister's budget that the budget was increased by $20 million.

I know school districts will face challenges because they have some new costs. I know that. But we have also given school districts the tools to be able to manage those challenges. I'm confident that Vancouver and all the other districts across this province will make the best decisions in the best interests of the children in their districts.

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

J. Kwan: The minister is fond of saying that education is protected. Parents are wondering how this could be when they see education standards going down and programs being cut.

Maybe the minister would like to stand up and explain her math to parents and students in British Columbia. How do larger class sizes, fewer teachers, less services and cuts to ESL programs add up to anything less than a cut to education?

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think I have to apologize to anybody in this House for not taking lessons from that member in mathematics. I can quote some of her supporters in Vancouver about their budgets that they delivered in education. COPE said: "If you doubt that this provincial government has the funds necessary, just look at the money they spent on fast ferries and the SkyTrain. Look at this disgraceful decision to increase funding to private schools." Well, well. This government not only has protected education funding. We have also, for the very first time in the history of this province, protected class size in legislation. We have a record to be proud of in education. We are making education our number one priority. We are putting students first.

J. Kwan: The New Era document said the government would increase education funding. It said it would expand training. It said there would be a new

era for students in British Columbia. It turned out that what the Liberals meant was a new era of overcrowded classrooms, school closures, stressed-out teachers and fewer opportunities.

J. Kwan: Young people are counting on this minister to stop breaking her promises. Will she start acting like a role model instead of a bad influence and keep her promise and restore funding to B.C.'s schools?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I won't make a recommendation for the member opposite to go into teaching math or anything like that when she's done with this job in politics. That's for sure. We haven't cut funding to education. The Ministry of Education's budget is protected this year. In fact, it's increased by $20 million over the amount we provided last year. Not only have we done that, but we've protected class size in legislation for the very first time. We brought in new protections for special needs children in legislation, which have never existed in British Columbia.

We are fundamentally changing the way we do education in British Columbia. We are making sure that we protect the funding. We are respecting school boards' abilities to be able to make decisions in the best interest of children in their districts. We are including parents, for the first time in a long time, in many of those decisions right at the school level. That's stuff that we can be proud of.

J. Kwan: We know from this minister that when she says she's protecting education, it means the largest deficit in history for Vancouver school boards. We know that this government has been forced to admit its mistakes for some of its most extreme and mean-spirited cuts. It was not until the Law Society threatened the Attorney General with a non-confidence vote that he found a few extra dollars for legal aid services.

How much more heat from angry parents, school boards and students does the Minister of Education need, to feel that she has to restore education funding? Will every parent advisory committee in the province have to start taking non-confidence motions and votes for this minister?

Hon. C. Clark: I'm going to take one more shot at this. I suspect the member may get up and ask the question again. I'm happy to continue to answer it.

When she stands up and says, "Will the minister restore education funding?" I guess she's trying to say that this budget is somehow less this year than it was last year. It's not. If she looks at the budget documents, she'll see that not only is education funding protected in this budget, but it's gone up by $20 million.

We said during the election that we would protect the Education ministry budget. We have done that. We've increased it by $20 million. We are putting students first. We have a record to be proud of.

M. Hunter: As members of this House know, many hundreds of thousands of non-aboriginal people enjoy recreational activities on Crown lands that have been identified as possible treaty settlement lands. Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations explain how the referendum on treaty negotiations deals with this issue?

Hon. G. Plant: The third principle deals with the issue the member raises. The treaty process will include a discussion, a negotiation and a reconciliation of aboriginal hunting and fishing rights, which are protected under the Constitution but need to be given shape and force in a treaty.

We believe it's important for the province to also be at the table insisting that hunting, fishing and recreational opportunities be ensured on Crown lands for all British Columbians as we move through the treaty process.

M. Hunter: Currently, Indian reserves are not subject to provincial or municipal zoning regulations. Can the Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations tell us how the referendum question that refers to mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning will help the government deal with this issue?

Hon. G. Plant: In many parts of British Columbia, first nations have local governments as their neighbours. Indian bands currently enjoy the ability to make land use decisions on their lands, as do municipal governments. As we move through treaty-making into a new era of reconciliation, we need to make sure that first nations and local governments have the tools in place to organize their land use decision-making for the benefit of both communities.

People who believe that treaties should include mechanisms for harmonizing land use planning between aboriginal governments and neighbouring local governments should vote yes to the seventh question in the referendum and give the government of British Columbia and its negotiators a mandate to advance that principle in treaty negotiations.

J. Bray: My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. Yesterday the auditor general released a re-

port on the allocation of resources within the health care system. He concluded in this very thorough report that in the past, health dollars were being allocated to health regions without any accountability measures attached to meet specific outcomes.

Unlike the previous government, can the Minister of Health Planning tell us what steps the government is taking to hold health regions accountable?

Hon. S. Hawkins: We clearly agree with the auditor general that the former government did allocate funding to the health authorities without establishing any clear goals, expectations or targets for the nearly $6 billion that they spent.

We are doing things better. We are demanding accountability every step of the way. We have set three-year service plans for our health ministries that set clear goals, expectations and targets. We have performance contracts that we're signing with our health authorities which clearly outline what our expectations are for health services delivery.

For the first time ever, the health authorities got their budgets on time, and we are starting to allocate funding not based on historical spending but based on population needs.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill has a supplementary question.

J. Bray: My question is again to the Minister of Health Planning. The auditor general made several recommendations as to how accountability can be improved in the health care system. In my riding, with a major tertiary centre, my office has already received calls from people concerned as to whether or not government will follow through on some of these recommendations.

Can the Minister of Health Planning tell us how regions will be monitored to ensure that health dollars are being directed towards patient care?

Hon. C. Hansen: The accountability framework has certainly been developed by the Ministry of Health Planning. The implementation of that, and the rollout of it, is in the Ministry of Health Services.

The points that are made in the auditor general's report are really an indictment of the way things were handled in health in years past. That has been changed, and we are now putting in place the framework that will allow for the implementation of the recommendations of the auditor general. In fact, we've been well underway, because those were started when we took over as government. As part of the performance contracts that will be signed with each health authority, we'll be holding them accountable for the proper stewardship of money and the proper planning process at the health authority level to ensure that patients throughout British Columbia get the care they need when they need it.

J. MacPhail: I, too, have a question about the referendum. The ballots are now arriving. The trouble is that confusion and not clarity reigns. I want to ask the Attorney General something. Some want to say: "Yes, private property should not be expropriated." Others want to say: "No, private property should not be expropriated."

To the Attorney General: who's the grammatical expert over there? Just how will you interpret that answer?

Hon. G. Plant: The ballots that the people of British Columbia are receiving ask this question: "Do you agree that the provincial government should adopt the following principles to guide its participation in treaty negotiations?" The first principle reads as follows: "Private property should not be expropriated for treaty settlements."

If the voters of British Columbia agree that the provincial government should adopt that principle to guide its participation in treaty negotiations, exactly as the question is worded, then they should vote yes. If the voters of British Columbia do not agree that the provincial government should adopt that principle, they should vote no.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Order. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission has the floor.

R. Hawes: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transportation. The West Coast Express opened five years ago. It's used by a lot of my constituents on a regular basis. However, a badly negotiated contract by the former government — and after hearing that last question, I understand why it would be badly negotiated — with CP Rail has proven so onerous and costly that much-needed expansion to the West Coast Express can't even be considered. Could the Minister of Transportation update my constituents on the current status of this contract?

Hon. J. Reid: Yes, the contract was negotiated by the former government in 1995. It was a 20-year contract. West Coast Express has come to me to talk about their concerns with their contract. They would like to see it renegotiated. The contract does fall under federal legislation, so there's been a reference to the federal act to allow it to be renegotiated. I have spoken with the federal minister about their concerns. As well, I have spoken with CPR with regard to the concerns and asked them to consider a direct discussion with the West Coast Express.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the first report of the Special Committee of Selection for the third session of the thirty-seventh parliament.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

J. Kwan: I rise to present a petition signed by 2,735 British Columbians, which requests that this House proceed without further delay in bringing in a B.C. video game rating system that will have all video games screened and rated and the distribution regulated, based upon that rating system. Much of the work that has been done for this petition has been done by a fellow by the name of Cran Campbell.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be beginning with the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, followed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. 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: We were discussing plans for the 5,000 beds that the New Era document had promised — 5,000 intermediate and long-term care beds. We concluded, Mr. Chair, by me saying that, once again, this government is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The Minister for Intermediate and Long Term Care stands up and says: "Oh, we're building assisted-living units." Well, B.C. Housing is building assisted-living units that used to be provided for by the Ministry of Health, and now there's fewer dollars available for the social housing needs of people in this province.

There are a couple of comments that the minister has made in the past few months around the issue of how communities will fund multilevel care. Let me just quote from the Campbell River Mirror. This would have been Tuesday, November 13, 2001. The minister says…. I'll read the first two paragraphs to put it in context.

What answers does the minister have now? Where will health regions transfer resources to cover intermediate and long-term care?

Hon. K. Whittred: I think I have actually covered off on this line of questioning, but I'll go through it one more time.

I have said that it is our goal to build capacity into the health system in communities that are going to provide service for our population that uses intermediate and long-term care. The vast majority of that population are in fact seniors — although, I might add, at this point they are not all seniors. There is a significant population of younger people who suffer from catastrophic illness or spinal-cord injury or brain injury — other problems that cause them to be clients of the long-term care system.

Regardless of the circumstances, we know that what has been going on over the last number of years doesn't work. I was looking back at a graph that went back as far as 1991. That would have been the first year that the member opposite, I believe, was elected to government. In that year the health budget was, I believe, $5.4 billion. Today it is $10.4 billion. It has increased incredibly, and yet we still have the same pressures on the health system. Therefore, it seems to me that any reasonable, thinking person has to look at that and say: "Okay, I think we have to not only do things differently, but maybe we have to start to think a little bit smarter. Maybe we have to think strategically."

Perhaps I can use the example that the member quoted, which was Campbell River. I was in fact in Campbell River, and I visited the new Yuculta Lodge.

It is a very, very nice, new multilevel facility. It has some very good innovations. One of the innovations I would mention is that it uses a piece of technology called "Vigil." This might be of interest to the member. Vigil is a technology that can be programmed; it's electronic software. It can be programmed to anticipate the regular movements of clients. This enables the staff to know whether a client is perhaps wandering at night. If they are normally in bed, Vigil will inform staff when clients are behaving in an unpredictable pattern. That perhaps, Mr. Chair, is an example of what I said earlier about changes in technology.

To get back to the first part of the question, and thinking more strategically, when the new Yuculta Lodge opened, there was in fact an old Yuculta Lodge. It seems to me that the community now has a decision. What can they do with the old Yuculta Lodge? Well, I suppose they could sell it. They could convert it to assisted living. It has a fairly new kitchen and a good dining room. Portions of it are very much outdated.

I think that's what I meant when I said that communities are going to have to make those decisions. The other thing that exists in Campbell River is a fairly overcrowded extended care facility. So you have a community that has many different problems that are all related to intermediate and long-term care. Within that scope and within the possibilities, I think that communities and the health authorities can make those decisions. I don't think decisions have to be made in Victoria. I believe that if communities think strategically and take advantage of partnerships, whether it be with community organizations or with the private sector, there are many possibilities and all sorts of areas for innovation. That is the kind of thing we're looking for.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, it's the minister's responsibility to stand up and say what she is doing, because the cuts are happening now in intermediate and long-term care. It's all very well and good for the minister to stand up and say here's what she heard one day and here's what she heard the next day and that this technology is available. What is her government doing?

Frankly, it's time for the government to stop saying that nothing is achieved by investing in health care. By acknowledgment of this government's own Progress Board, here's what's changed over the last decade in British Columbia. We are now the healthiest province in Canada, and we achieved that throughout the 1990s — her own Progress Board report. We have the best health indicators of all of the provinces — number one.

AIDS treatment is vastly improved because of the investment in research in this province. People who have HIV/AIDS now live; they don't die. That's the result of investment in health care. While cancer rates remain the same, the treatment and survival of cancer in this province are among the best in North America because of investment. Infant mortality is down. Low birth weight are down. Longevity is up. Investment in health care throughout the 1990s has paid off.

The reason I'm looking to this minister for real concrete solutions is because the problems are facing us as of April 1. I actually have the greatest respect for health care deliverers across this province. I have the greatest respect for the public servants who deliver health care in this province, but the deputy minister in November of last year told the Pacific health forum: "There are some very good things that we've been doing that we won't be able to do." That's exactly what I'm trying to figure out. We know the good things that have been done won't be done. That's what the increased funding paid for. We need to figure out what the alternatives are that this minister can provide.

Let's go to Creston, where the minister was on November 26. I quote from the Creston Valley Advance: "Health Solutions Must Come From Within." There was a long-term care forum that the minister attended. The people were grateful that the minister attended that forum, and that's good. The local MLA said the meeting was a good first step, but it was only that.

This is such a dilemma for people in the community. The minister says the solutions have to come from within the community. The public service admits that good things that happened in the past aren't going to be done. The community is saying: "Help us. What are we supposed to do?" As far as I can tell so far, what this minister is saying is: "Families, it's up to you." Is the minister telling a family to go out and buy this new technology, the wonderful tracking technology for people with dementia? Is a family supposed to go out and buy that? Where are they supposed to get the resources to do that? What happens if actual long-term care is needed, where the mom, the dad, the grandmother or the person with the disability actually needs care in a facility? It's shocking to me that these cuts are coming within four weeks, and the minister has nothing to offer families.

Hon. K. Whittred: A good deal of what the member opposite says is accurate, when she talks about the health status of the people in British Columbia. For that, I am very pleased.

I, too, have a great admiration for the people I've met who work in the field. I have, in my travels, spoken to many people who are home care providers. They are residential care attendants. They are case

managers, managers in facilities, nurses, administrators and home nursing people, and I have nothing but the highest admiration for them. I also wish to congratulate them, in many respects, about the kinds of innovation and in fact flexibility that they've allowed into their workplace.

I think I spoke earlier about the dementia care, and something I've learned about dementia care is that homeyness, apparently, is very important when we're talking about people with dementia. They've introduced things like baking bread. This sounds so simple, but it actually has a calming effect. I, too, share with the member that these are very, very valuable people we have that work in the system.

However, having said that, I think that we — those of us who care about our health care system, and I know the member opposite cares, and I think she knows that I care — have to acknowledge that we cannot simply continue to put another billion a year into the system. The increasing amount of resources that we have put into the system over the last number of years is not…. While we have been rewarded certainly with very good outcomes, we can't continue to pour those kinds of resources into the system indefinitely.

The results in many instances — for example, the cancer outcomes in the patients, the results in this province — are not about dollars; they are in fact about a smart, strategic approach to treating the illness. Standardized protocols are in place that are there for the treatments that are effective for cancer patients. It's the strategic practices used to treat cancer that are most responsible for the very, very positive outcomes that we have. It's this that we're trying to achieve in long-term care.

I make no apologies, Mr. Chair, to the member opposite that my ministry is a very strategic one. It is one where we are looking for best practices. We are asking these very talented people who work in the field to find smarter ways to achieve the same results. We know, and the research shows us, that for the lower-acuity clients, they actually fare better in assisted living than they do in residential care. We know that. The challenge to the health authorities — and, in fact, the challenge to me and the staff around me — is to make that transition so that we have those appropriate resources.

Right now in many areas of this province we do have wonderful care, but in some communities we don't have the continuum of service that we're hoping to see. Some communities, of course, are better served than others. I've already mentioned that the community right here in Victoria is very well serviced. Other communities aren't. We're hoping that we can encourage other communities to invest in those kinds of services.

We know, for example, that nutrition…. Now, nutrition isn't really a health treatment. Nutrition is something that we all need. We know that it is often an issue in care of the elderly. Nutrition does not have to be delivered through a costly program. There are, in fact, many responses to delivering good, nutritious meals to people. I think the task ahead is to develop these systems and to build on the success that some of the health regions have had.

One of the things that's going to be much easier with fewer health authorities is that it's going to be much easier for the health authorities to exchange information. The people in charge of home and community care, in fact, meet regularly. With a few of them, as they are now, it's very easy for them to say, "Well, gee, you know, we just started this program in Parksville," or wherever, "and it's working really well," and describe it to the people in the north. They can say: "Oh well. You know, maybe we can adapt that for our community."

Through this exchange, this is an ongoing work in progress. As I said before, we're not going to accomplish this overnight. It is a five-year program. At the end of five years I'm confident we're going to see some very positive results.

J. MacPhail: I'm exhausted by trying to get answers — immediate answers — because, of course, the cuts are taking place in the next four weeks. Everyone knows it. The member's own caucus knows it. The minister knows it herself. I know it. The people who are going to be affected by the cuts know it. It happens in four weeks.

Let's look at some potential solutions that this minister is responsible for. Let's look at the end-of-life care, palliative care. This government was going to develop a plan for end-of-life care. The draft discussion document went out in October of 2001 — six months ago. Can the minister tell me the status of the end-of-life care plan?

Hon. K. Whittred: The interdisciplinary team that was appointed and headed by Dr. Romayne Gallagher to come up with an end-of-life care strategy is in fact working as we would expect. They will be submitting, very soon, a discussion paper which will be circulated and discussed in the community over the summer months. The report, I believe, will be finalized in September. I believe that is the time line.

J. MacPhail: Maybe this is what the minister could do. The Vancouver coastal health authority is allowing for the North Shore, the minister's own area, to cut palliative care patient-days by 1,460 annually. This is a solution? I'm a huge advocate of palliative care. I am so thrilled that my community, working with me as the MLA and then the Minister of Health, put in place and opened up Cottage Hospice, which is an extremely effective community palliative care home. It meets the needs of first nations aboriginals, it meets the needs of HIV/AIDS patients, and it's a very, very cost-effective health care solution to not having enough money.

Here the minister, on the one hand, has been working six months to develop a plan for end-of-life care. Fair enough. But in the meantime they're not waiting.

The Vancouver coastal health authority is cutting palliative care patient-days by 1,460 annually. Will the minister step in and order the Vancouver coastal health authority to not make that cut before the end-of-life care plan is developed?

Hon. K. Whittred: The document the member is quoting from is a discussion document. I have stated many times throughout this questioning that the health authorities have been asked to present plans. This is an ongoing process. The process is that they will make their plans — they have their budgets — they will discuss those plans with the boards that have been appointed, and ultimately their plans will be finalized. The documents that were leaked to the member opposite have to be treated in that manner. They appear to me to be the kind of thing that a staff might discuss sitting around a table, throwing ideas out about what we might do or what we might not do. They are in no way a final decision. I for one am going to wait until we do see the final plan before I make any judgments.

J. MacPhail: This is like the Minister of Education sticking her head in the sand and saying that there are no cuts to education. That's like this minister somehow saying that these leaked documents are just discussion documents. The Vancouver coastal health authority admits that this is where they're going. This government had a plan. At least have the guts to acknowledge the effects of your plan. The Minister of Education stands up and says: "We protected education funding. Oh well, what we forgot to say was that we off-loaded a whole bunch of increased costs on the school boards that we're not funding. What's anybody complaining about?" The Minister of Education stands up with a smirk on her face that's so arrogantly disrespectful and in denial about what the real effect of their government's agenda is, just the same way this minister does — to somehow deny the reality of a leaked document.

It's a real document; these are real cuts. The member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi understood that, and this Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care has to understand exactly the same thing. It's a real document; these are real cuts that are coming. I'm extremely disappointed that the one area where the minister has responsibility and some negotiating ability, the area of end-of-life care, palliative care…. The minister is doing a study, doing a plan, and all she had to do was stand up and say: "I will make sure that the Vancouver coastal health authority is not proceeding with this massive cut in palliative care days until my study is complete."

Let's look at home care, then. The cuts in this document for home care are huge. They're going to reduce home support. This isn't a discussion document. They're going to reduce home support in the whole area of the Vancouver coastal health authority. It's unbelievable. It says: "Service reduction and efficiencies utilization improvement." That's where the document then goes on to say that there will be real consequences also to (1) not having any intermediate or long-term care beds for people who need them and (2) then cutting home support.

What are the plans to cope with the cuts in home support? Assisted living, as I understand it, is a model saying to families in the year 2002: "Here are your relatives back, to look after yourself. Oh, by the way, we're cutting the support that may be available for you in the area of home support." What's a family to do?

Hon. K. Whittred: I think that perhaps one of the differences between that member's government and ours is that we do have some confidence in the people that work in the health authorities. They have been given the task, with a fairly significant budget, to supply services in their areas. There's no doubt that they're going to have challenges. I don't think there's a system anywhere in the world today that does not have challenges in health.

It's my belief that the health authorities are going to have to think sensibly and strategically, or they're not going to achieve the performance goals that have been set by the ministry.

It would not seem possible to me that they would not be able to make decisions based on their knowledge, their experience in the field in particular, their accumulated knowledge about best practices, and so on, without taking into account the risks. I believe that they will take those risks into account. That is why I think we're going to see very effective and good working documents when the eventual plans are completed and have passed through the boards. That is where my confidence is.

In terms of home care specifically, the member talks about cuts. We have made no change in home care. We are implementing the policy of the previous government that was brought in, in November of 1999. I might just remind the member a little bit about the history and the evolution of that particular policy.

In June of 1994, due to budgetary considerations, the ministry instructed the continuing care people to discontinue admission of lower-care clients who were needing assistance only with housekeeping. Later in that same year staff were instructed to introduce further restrictions.

In 1995 a further instruction went out not to provide service to new applicants at the personal care or IC 1 levels if the only support they required was housekeeping. Clients at the IC 2 level were restricted to four hours if all they required was housekeeping.

In November of 1999 another statement went out from the ministry, stating that clients who required personal assistance could receive housekeeping and then only when appropriate. It was only if that was necessary in the area of providing other personal care services such as bathing. It would make sense to tidy the bathroom after you bathe the client.

We have done nothing. We have made no change in the area of home care policy. What the health authorities are trying to do is rationalize the service across their regions. In spite of those policies that went out from the previous government, there were still many, many clients — 2,284 in the system — that were still receiving care contrary to the ministry's policy. I think that is what is meant when the member talks about cuts. They are not cuts. They are simply rationalizing the service across the delivery area. What was found was that this was particularly true in the area of the interior, that the various community health councils…. There was a wide divergence of policy when it came to the delivery of home care services.

This is simply the enforcement of a policy that has been there since 1999. We have made no change in that policy. I believe it is being implemented by the new health authorities.

J. MacPhail: I find it interesting. I've been trying to think of a way of capturing the mantra of this government about the past. Here it is: "Oh my God. Everything in the past was bad."

I said during the debate for Bills 27, 28, and 29 that the past was the evil empire. Glen Clark was Satan, and union leaders were the soldiers of Satan. We hear it day after day. The Liberal backbenchers stand up and lob questions to ministers, and they go: "Oh my God. That was the bad, bad previous NDP government."

When this government is required to give real answers about what they're changing to deliver on the promises that they've now misled the public about in terms protecting health care, they say: "We're just doing what the NDP did." That's what they say.

In this House today, we saw both. We had several cabinet ministers stand up and say: "Bad NDP government. Wasn't that evil? We're going to do different." Now we have the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care standing up and saying: "We're just doing what the NDP did."

Well, it ain't gonna work, because for one thing, what this government has done is taken away any targeted funding requirements on any program whatsoever for the very first time and said to health authorities: "We're cutting you one cheque, and you decide what to do with it." Here's what health authorities are doing. They're reducing home support; they're reducing community grants; they're ending outreach workers that help look after seniors in their homes. That's what they're doing. We'll get into the mental health program cuts that they're making.

The minister hasn't changed the policy — true. But what she has changed is to say: "It's up to you, health authorities. We're giving you no money for the programs We're giving you zero dollars for the programs, and by the way, you decide what pressures are the best to fund." Health authorities are making decisions to cut home care.

I'm reading from the Nelson Daily News of Monday, February 18. A local health advocate says that the latest announcement by the interior health authority to cut home care services for seniors and the disabled is shortsighted. Last week the interior health authority announced that it will attempt to save between $6 million and $7 million by trimming support for people with chronic or progressive medical conditions. Locally, those cuts will come at Nelson and District Home Support Services Society. Former Nelson and District Home Support Services Society administrator Joan Reichardt, who is an incredibly thoughtful community advocate for home support services, said that any cuts to home support will end up costing the health system more money in the long term. She said: "When you cut back or eliminate completely some of the most basic parts of care that make it possible for people to remain independent, you automatically create huge pressures on much more expensive types of service. If you can keep somebody at home out of an acute care bed or long-term placement with a couple of hours of home support a day, it's money well spent."

Here's what the Vancouver coastal health authority document says. It's not a what-if, not a blue-sky document. This is on cuts in support services such as cleaning and housekeeping.

Oh, I'm sorry. That's referring actually to cuts in housecleaning the hospital. They're quite devastating too. Sorry. That was about how that will increase infection in the hospital.

Here's what it is on cuts to the community health services, which are in-home services: "Reduced access to acute home care nursing" — because it isn't just housekeeping; cuts are being made in home care nursing — "will further move Vancouver below the B.C. average home nursing care utilization rate. There will be less continuity of care for home support clients. Caseloads for nursing case managers will increase by one-third under this government."

I guess it would be helpful if this government could at least have the guts to admit what their programs will do. Stop saying either, "The past was bad," and/or, "We're just doing what was done in the past," because neither is true — neither.

I am deeply disappointed in all the responses I've received today. I know this minister has a strong personal commitment to the well-being of seniors. She has an incredibly strong commitment to the well-being of children, which she's practised all of her life. Her government is letting her down. Her government is giving her zero tools to work with to make intermediate, long term and home care work properly in this province. It is an area where the community is just not going to accept the consequences of the cuts that are being foisted upon them.

This government has said to families: "Time for you to take greater responsibility, families. You have to do more in the area of child care. We're not going to help you out nearly as much as we did in child care. In fact, those of you who are on welfare and have young child-

ren have got to go back to work when your child is three. If you've got ailing parents, it's time for you to look after those ailing parents on your own."

If a child is vulnerable and at risk in this province…. The government is cutting funding to help children in need of protection. Every single move this government is making is ripping asunder the social safety net for families — ripping it asunder. It is going to have huge and dire consequences. I know this minister understands that fully. She has the passion and the compassion to advocate a different way, and that's what I'm urging her to do.

Hon. K. Whittred: I thank the member opposite for her kind words toward me. However, I make no apologies for the route my government is taking. From a purely financial point of view, we are now at the position in government where health care is eating up all the revenues from personal income tax, MSP premiums, total federal transfer payments, tobacco taxes and the latest increase in sales tax.

I do value the system, and I think all the government side of the House values the health care system. We have, in the last year, put $404 million of extra funding to the health authorities. We have put $100 million of extra funding to capital restructuring. That money is there for the health authorities to use for restructuring long-term care facilities if that is how they choose to spend it.

I would like to remind the member opposite of a conversation we had when we were, in fact, on opposite sides of the House. I was questioning that member, and I asked her about seniors assisted living or supported housing. This is when that member was the Minister of Health. She said something to the effect: "Oh well, that wasn't my responsibility. That is the Minister of Housing." I went and asked the Minister of Housing, when the appropriate time came in estimates, the same question. He replied: "Oh, that is the responsibility of the Minister of Health, responsible for seniors."

I was left in a quandary, Mr. Chair, about exactly who in that government was in fact responsible. Well, my government — this government — has appointed a minister of state with that responsibility. I share with the opposite member that it is an integrated job. It is a job that spans more than one ministry, and she is in fact right.

We are partnering with B.C. Housing in the building of assisted-living units. I believe that was canvassed during the estimates of that minister. I make no apologies for that. I believe that the previous government did the same thing. I look forward to proceeding with this task that I have over the next four years, and I look forward to its conclusion.

J. MacPhail: I welcome the Minister of State for Mental Health. I understand that this minister of state has to leave at 5:30. I will do my best to get all of my questions in, but I have many questions.

I conducted an exercise with the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care. Referring to page 144 of the estimates book, could the minister of state look at vote 31, note F, and tell me what areas of regional health sector funding he is responsible for?

Hon. G. Cheema: I would like to answer all the questions, and I will do my best. I think this is a good place for exchange of ideas and also answering the questions. I will encourage the member to just continue with her questioning, to be very specific, so that we can have a productive dialogue.

I just want to also express my sincere thanks for her concerns about mental health. As I have worked for the last ten months, I have been aware of her noble intentions to improve the status of mental health in this province.

To be specific on her question, my role here is that I'm responsible for mental health services to adults both on an out-patient basis and in tertiary psych facilities, adult forensic psych facilities, public and prevention services for mental health. That's my role, to be specific on what she has been asking me.

J. MacPhail: I was curious to know whether this was the place to ask questions about adult forensic psychiatric services, so I am pleased to do that. I want to do something here. One of the areas — in fact, the biggest area — I'm concerned about with the new way of funding that this government has for regional health boards is the area of mental health. I want to walk the minister through some points I have on funding, because I know, in my questions from other ministers, it's: "Don't worry. Performance contracts will take care of these matters." But we'll get into that in a moment.

In 1998, if one goes to the Estimates book, one sees that adult mental health was a targeted funding classification, by subvote, of $333.151 million. One will also see from that book that $296.089 million had been spent in 1997-98. In 1997-98 the budget for adult mental health, by targeted funding, was $296.089 million. In '98-99 it increased to $333.151 million. I have all of that information here, Mr. Chair, if the minister cares…. But I'm sure; I'm reading out of Estimates.

Then we go to '99-2000. Vote 36 shows that in '98-99 we did spend $340.840 million, and we budgeted an increase in '99-2000 to $348.666 million for adult mental health. Targeted funding — that's what people had to spend it on. The first figure is $296 million. Let's remember that. Then for the estimates for the year 2000-01 we saw that, yes, indeed we did spend $348.449 million, and we budgeted an increase to $363.974 million, targeted money for adult mental health. My point will become clear very shortly, Mr. Chair.

For the estimates for '01-02, the last time we saw targeted funding, the subvote for mental health showed that in 2000-01 we had spent $368.57 million, and adult mental health funding was increased for '01-02 to $404.13 million. That's not including capital expenditures, by the way; that's operating expenditures. So we started with $296 million, and we were up to $404 million over the course of four years. That means that there was an increase in funding for adult mental health of $108 million over four years. That excludes capital expenditure for residential care for mental health.

I just want the minister to understand that if he stands up and says, "The mental health plan was not funded," he is dead wrong. There's the proof of the pudding. I've held my tongue every single time he says it — every single time. And here's why. Yes, one of my former colleagues did say: "Oh, the plan didn't go to Treasury Board." I confess. I announced the mental health plan before it had gone to Treasury Board. But I also knew that within weeks I was going to be the Minister of Finance. It was my highest priority to fund the mental health plan, and I did, as the Minister of Finance. The proof is in the pudding. Until this minister took over, mental health funding from '97 through to '01 — four years — increased by $108 million, on track with the funding. So stop. Do not for one second stand up and say: "That minister didn't fund mental health."

Here's what did happen. I confess to this with great disappointment. The community, rightfully so, started advocating that the services weren't on the ground. They moved in the way that the community should do, that mental health advocates should do, to say: "When are you going to deliver?" They said: "The money's there. We know the money's there. Why aren't you getting the services on the ground?" And I shared that frustration. I shared it over and over again. However, we did make progress; we did. But for this minister to set the bar that the money wasn't there…. The bar has been yanked away from his belly. The money was there. In fact, it was funded ahead of schedule.

I will engage this minister in a discussion. Given the fact that the money was there, and it was still difficult to deliver the services on the ground, what are we going to do about that? Let me ask the minister this: as recently as three weeks ago the minister made an announcement, which was incredibly self-congratulatory, that $263 million would be dedicated to mental health. That actually includes capital funding, which was never part of the $404 million for adult mental health. Where has the rest of the money gone? Where's the $404 million that was there for adult mental health?

Hon. G. Cheema: A number of issues have been raised by the member. Let me just first deal with the number one issue. According to her, there's $108 million from 1997 to 2002. This money was there, but my question will be to her: was this money actually spent on community services or not? Our answer is no, it was not. It went to compensation packages. It went for other services, but it was not spent on a mental health plan. When I stand up in this House, I talk specifically about the mental health plan.

In 1998 and 1999 there was only $10 million spent on the mental health plan. In 2001 and 2002, $15.5 million was spent on the mental health plan. The total, $25 million, was spent during that time. When the member is giving us the figures, she is not being very careful with those numbers, because those numbers don't….

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, I think I gave her the opportunity to ask questions, and it's my opportunity to answer the questions. With all due respect, I will answer the question. The money was spent — only $25.5 million. We have funded the rest of the package. Over the period of six years this will be $125 million.

To answer a second question, this year for the first time we have given the global funding for the health authorities, and we have given them clear guidelines. Those guidelines must be met. What that means for patients is that the money for mental health services is protected indirectly because they have to meet those guidelines. We are not going to micromanage the system. We have given specific guidelines, and those guidelines will be met. We are very confident that once those guidelines are met, we will improve the mental health in this province.

J. MacPhail: The minister is not answering the questions. I know it's a nice little mantra, just the same way as the evil empire mantra works — that this minister thinks he can get away with standing up to say that the money wasn't there for mental health. There was $296 million in '97; $404 million dedicated in 2001 — an increase of $108 million in adult mental health, not including bricks and mortar. This minister has dedicated a total of $263 million including bricks and mortar, so stop it.

The minister has to stop misleading the public right now. He can't have it both ways — on the one hand to say the money wasn't there and then on the other hand to say: "Oh, there was $404 million, and I'm now giving a total of $263 million." In fact, it's only $125 million for operating. In fact, it's only $125 million that this minister is committing to adult mental health, whereas there was $404 million for adult mental health when he took over. Where did the rest of the money go?

Hon. G. Cheema: This year we are funding an additional $36.9 million over and above last year's $404 million. That's a 9.1 percent increase in the budget. We have given full authority to the health authorities. We

have given them clear guidelines and clear goals, and those goals must be met. It's so important for mental health to have clear goals. What this member is worried…. She's not fearful about patients; she's fearful that we'll be successful because we have given clear guidelines.

And I'll answer the other question she was raising. Their funding was only $25.5 million as a part of the mental health plan. We have gone over and above our commitment. There's $138 million more on the facilities, which are part and parcel of the mental health plan. We are also funding that over a period of six years. You cannot have a mental health plan without community placement. You cannot have a mental health plan without community beds. You cannot continue to mislead the patients. We made that commitment, and we are fulfilling that promise. The only party who misled this province and the patients with mental illness was their government, not ours.

J. MacPhail: How ridiculous. You know, it's embarrassing what this minister of state is saying. Let him put his money where his mouth is. Show me any document where the minister can show that the $404 million that was turned over to their government for adult mental health is there, and they're adding more. Show me. Just show us the money. Prove it.

Hon. G. Cheema: I repeat my answer again. We have given clear guidelines and performance measures to the health authorities. They have been given global funding. That funding must be spent on the basis of performance measures, so indirectly we are protecting money for mental health. We are doing three things. We are being responsible, we are being innovative, and the health authorities will ultimately be accountable for how the money is being spent on mental health.

J. MacPhail: Pretty direct question that went unanswered — completely unanswered because the money isn't there. This minister claims to be putting money into the mental health budget. He's putting it in the front door, and because there's no targeted funding, the health authorities are shovelling it out the back door in cuts. That's what they're doing.

Let's just go through it. The Minister of State for Mental Health says: "Don't worry, even though there's no $404 million there. It's now $125 million for operating." He'll go to the performance targets. Well, let's go. Let's go to the performance measures and targets. I'm looking at page 11 of the Health Services budget. I assume this is what we're working with. Is this what we're working with?

The minister says: "Don't worry. The performance measures and the performance targets are what will be…." The money's not there. The minister can't prove that there's any money there. That's what will make sure that the money is actually going to mental health. Let's look at the performance measures and targets on page 11 of the Ministry of Health Services service plan. Is that what the minister is referring to in terms of targets and measures?

Hon. G. Cheema: Again, this is the first time we have given them performance measures, and we expect them to meet those goals and those standards. What that will do for patients is improve the quality of life for patients — for example, if the patient is discharged from a hospital, how that patient will be getting the service in the community. This is one example. The rest of the examples…. The member has the book. I think what needs to be done…. We have given them the full authority. We have given them the guidelines and clear goals, and those goals must be met. We will be measuring those goals, and we'll be reporting on those goals.

Hon. G. Cheema: This year we'll be giving $5.9 billion to the health authorities. Out of that, $404 million plus $15 million additional money for the mental health plan is there. It's in the papers.

J. MacPhail: The minister is making that up. There's nowhere…. He's just making it up. Could he actually stop misleading the House or provide the details that show where the $404 million is dedicated to mental health and that there's more money on top of that? Stop making it up. It's not there. The question I asked the minister…. He said he can't show where that money is. It's gone. What we do know is that there's $125 million over six years and that he's going to rely on performance measures and targets. I asked the minister whether the performance measures and targets he's relying on are those outlined on page 11 of the Ministry of Health Services service plan. Just yes or no.

Mental health indicators. This is the only thing we have to rely on that the health regions are going to do what they're supposed to do. This is how we're going to find the missing $404 million.

Mental health indicator No. 1 is: improved continuity of care measured by the proportion of persons hospitalized for a mental health diagnosis who receive community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge. Then it says '02-03 — 3 percent increase. What's the base number we're dealing with here?

Hon. G. Cheema: At this time we don't have baseline data. I will be happy to provide it to the member later on.

We are working with the mental health evaluation community consultation group. They'll be collecting

J. MacPhail: Well, that's completely unacceptable. The minister completely misleads the House that there's $404 million in the base for mental health — completely misleads the House. Then he says: "Don't worry. It's there, because the performance measures and targets will make sure that that money is there and spent."

I want to know the basis on which he's saying that. Here it is. The indicator is improved continuity of care measured by the proportion of persons hospitalized for a mental health diagnosis who receive community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge. Then it says that the target is a 3 percent increase — a 3 percent increase of what? That's what I'm asking.

Hon. G. Cheema: I just want to correct the member's statement. This year we have given part of our health care budget funding to the health authorities, and the $404 million is there.

As for the second part of her question, in terms of the baseline data, as soon as I have the data, I'll be able to give it to her.

We are going to be improving services in many ways. One way to improve the service is to give specific indicators and performance measures and see how the system will function.

This is a work in progress. This is important for mental health. We are, in fact, protecting the funding for mental health by having special targets and specific performance measures. Those will be based on the academic work and the data which is going to be available to us. We are going to use that data, and we will work with the health authorities.

This is a very complex thing. Ultimately, we are accountable. We have to improve the quality of life for patients. This will be done only if we can give a global budget to the health authorities, give them guidelines and performance measures, and those must be met. This time we are not giving them a special line for each area of health care.

J. MacPhail: This is ridiculous. I'm looking for real numbers here. The minister can't stand up and say things he can't support. Show me the $404 million. If the minister can't show it to me, stop saying it's there.

Here's what it was in '01-02, the last budget before this government took over. It was still there in the July 30 budget that the Finance minister really just retabled with some accounting changes. Vote 33 showed a $405 million subvote for adult mental health. The budget note with respect to that $405 million said: "Adult mental health provides for the management and delivery of mental health services to adults on both an outpatient basis and in tertiary psychiatric care, as well as adult forensic psychiatric services. Government transfers are provided and services delivered to or on behalf of individuals, corporations, community groups and other organizations, including health authorities, the British Columbia Mental Health Society and the Forensic Psychiatric Services Commission."

Hon. G. Cheema: If the member would read vote 31, section (f) clearly outlines some of the things the health authorities will be doing. The adult mental health and the mental health services are an integral part of those lines.

We will be funding the health authorities with $5.976 billion, and mental health is a part of that funding. I don't know how many times we need to do that. We have given, for the first time, global funding for the health authorities. We don't think it's right for us to micromanage the system. We are giving them guidelines and performance measures, and those standards will be met. That will help the patients.

J. MacPhail: The $404 million is nowhere to be found. The minister finally admits it — finally. It's not there; it's gone. What it's replaced with is a commitment for $125 million of expenditure on mental health and nothing else. In fact, that expenditure of $125 million guarantees $18 million of expenditure this year. That's the guarantee.

Then the minister says: "Don't worry; the health authorities know they have to spend that money, and it's the performance targets which we're going for."

I'm at the first performance target, and the minister can't answer the question about what the performance target means. He can't even answer the first one. Well, let's get it all on record. Let's get it all on record about what the performance targets really mean.

The next one for mental health. The minister can't answer the first one. You see, the reason why this is important is because there's no money to be found. The $404 million for mental health is gone — gone. How we're going to know whether the health authorities are spending the money properly is to see whether they've matched these targets. A target has to be based on a base, and on the first one we don't have the base. In other words, it's a meaningless target. We don't know where the money is, and we don't know what the target is.

Let's look at the next one, then. This is for mental health indicators — improved availability of community services, measured by (1) percentage of days spent by mental health patients in hospitals after the need for hospital care ended, '02-03. Well, the minister's off the hook — no change this year. Isn't that interesting? Then the next year: 2 percent reduction over the prior year. What's the base?

Hon. G. Cheema: We are looking for performance where there is improvement for mental health care in this province. The second indicator is going to be in terms of the availability of community services, by percentage of days spent by mental health patients in hospital after the need for hospital care has ended. Each

and every health authority will have those baselines and will look for the improvement for next year. This year's baseline is going to be different for each and every health authority.

Right now, because we have put all the health authorities in the…. It's a new structure. I don't have the baseline at this time. We are looking for a baseline from them so that next year we can show improvement that will improve the quality of mental health in this province.

J. MacPhail: We have evidence of what the health authorities are doing about mental health. They're cutting it. They're cutting the programs. As we speak, they're cutting mental health programs across the province. They can do that, because no longer is there any targeted funding — $404 million gone, replaced with an absolute pittance. The minister doesn't even have…. What did he think? Did he think people would look at these performance measures and targets and not ask these questions?

Let's look at the next one. So far it's zero. So far I'm batting zero, absolute zero, for getting any real — actually, any information; let's just be clear — information from this minister. This self-righteous arrogance better come to a stop on mental health, because so far the minister hasn't given one real commitment to mental health.

Let's look at this one: percentage of mental health clients receiving services in their own region. Increase — that's the target. What's the base? What's the number that we're dealing with, so we can understand whether there's been an increase?

Hon. G. Cheema: As I said as part of my first answer on the performance outcomes, we are working with the Mental Health Evaluation and Community Consultation Unit through UBC. These new health authorities will have the baseline data. Once we have the baseline data, which I will share with the member once we have it, we are looking at the positive outcomes from that baseline. We have to have those baselines, and we are working on those baselines.

I think the member is missing a point here. We have given a global budget to the health authorities. Part of the global budget is the mental health funding. Part of that mental health funding is the performance indicators. Once we have the baseline, we will be able to measure all of them.

We are looking for improvements. For this member to say that we are cutting mental health…. That's absolutely not true. What's happening is that each health authority has been given clear guidelines, and they will meet those standards. Once those standards are met, there will be improvement.

There will be reorganization. We're not saying there won't be reorganization; there will be. If the system was functioning, why would we change it? Why was mental health ignored in the past? We are not only funding over and above last year, which was $404 million, we are also funding additional money as a part of the mental health plan. What I want the public to understand is that the mental health plan is a separate section. That's money we are funding for part of the commitment we made during the campaign.

I think there will be improvement. We shall simply wait for the numbers, and then I will share them with the member.

J. MacPhail: Why does the minister keep repeating falsehoods? There is no evidence to support his claim — zero. I've asked him over and over again for the evidence to support his claim that his funding is over and above the $404 million.

The Chair: Order. The Chair has granted the member great latitude in this, but I would remind the member that she is coming very close to unparliamentary language.

Why does the minister keep making statements that he cannot prove, even after repeated requests? Not only is there no proof that this minister is increasing funding for mental health, there is no evidence — except for an announcement that this year they're spending $18 million on mental health — that he's doing anything in terms of spending money on mental health.

I'm trying to get information from the performance indicators. It's got no information there, so where do we have to turn? We have to turn to the health authorities, so let's do that. Let's turn to the health authorities. What are they doing in the area of mental health? Well, on the North Shore…. I saw the member for West Vancouver–Garibaldi. He's gone now. Oh, there's the member for North Vancouver–Seymour; he'll be interested in this. Maybe he'd like to stand up and lob a nice, soft question to ask the Minister of State for Mental Health: "Tell me, minister, is the money going to be there for my community?"

I'll just give him the information on that: almost $2 million of mental health cuts for the North Shore — that's not the whole region, just the North Shore. Here's what their own document says: "Changes to the mental health services" — i.e., the cuts — "noted above may result in an increase in the number of admissions to the emergency department and acute psychiatry."

That's why I'm very curious about these performance indicators. Here's what's going to happen. Cuts to mental health are going to occur. This minister hasn't got any baseline indicators in place yet, so the baseline indicator will be put in place after the cuts to mental health have been made. Then he'll claim victory when the cuts become restored a tiny bit, if at all. That's exactly what's going to happen, because here it is: the very indicator that he's supposed to be monitoring is

already predicted to increase. The baseline will increase because of cuts to mental health.

"At present, the North Shore has the lowest recidivism rate in the province because of the treatment and support provided in the community." Oh. "Every psychotic episode requiring an admission for a schizophrenic permanently reduces their cognitive capacity. Aside from the permanent damage to the individual, this increases the cost of care in the community and future hospital admissions."

Is that me saying that? No, it's the health authority themselves analyzing what their mental health cuts will do.

J. MacPhail: We're joined today in the gallery by a young woman who is close to a person I work with. I am delighted that she's here. Claire Theaker-Brown is up in the gallery watching the proceedings. Would the House please make her very welcome.

Hon. G. Cheema: We will have the data. The baseline information is going to be there. It's being prepared by the Mental Health Evaluation and Community Consultation Unit. It's an academic group. They work out at UBC. It's well renowned. I think they do a great job. Once I have those numbers, I will share them with the member. I wanted to correct that information.

Secondly, about the issue she has raised about the leaked documents. Some of them are working documents. They are in discussion with their own groups. They are looking at all the options. We have given them clear goals and clear guidelines. Once they make their decision, they'll come back to us, and then we'll be able to see how we will be serving the patients.

I just want to emphasize again, here, that we are not going to micromanage the system. We are there to help our patients. We are going to ensure that we have community placements there. We want to ensure that we have respite care. We want to ensure that we have emergency care beds available.

What the member is saying…. Those are real concerns. I share those concerns. Everybody else shares those concerns, but those are not real things happening at this time. These are working documents. Once the information comes, I am sure the member will get a leaked document again, and she will be able to share with us. We'll be able to share with our….

J. MacPhail: Again, how ridiculous. These documents, while leaked because the government doesn't have the guts to admit its agenda, are not denied by the Vancouver coastal health authority. They're not denied, so stop it. Stop it. These are real documents. These are real cuts that are coming.

Let me ask this. The next target is the percentage of mental health clients receiving services in their own region. The target this year is to increase. Increase from what base?

Hon. G. Cheema: As I have told this member repeatedly, I will have the information, and then I will share with her. We are working on the basic information. These are new health authorities. There are five of them. We have to work with the provincial health authorities to have the numbers and collect the data and be careful with our baseline numbers. Once we have those numbers, I will share with her.

J. MacPhail: Why doesn't the minister say to the health authorities: "Stop making mental health program cuts until we have the numbers in place upon which we can judge them"? Why doesn't he do that right now? Why doesn't the minister say to the health authorities that we're not ready to have them take over the funding for mental health services because we don't have our performance targets in place? In the meantime, don't make any cuts to mental health programs. Why doesn't the minister, if he's truly the advocate for mental health, do that?

Hon. G. Cheema: I will repeat my answer again. We have the data, but I don't have the information with me at this time. As soon as I have the information available, I'll be able to share it with her. The same information is going to be shared with the health authorities. We are working on a very complex set of goals, and they are not that simple. We are trying to improve on mental health, and we want to be very careful.

This is a work in progress. It's not something where I can stand up and say today that we have worked out everything at this time. We are working very hard to ensure we have the data, the correct information. Whenever I give her information, she should have some comfort that we will be monitoring from that baseline data so that we can see improvement as a part of our performance measures.

J. MacPhail: I'll repeat my question. Why doesn't the Minister of State for Mental Health say to the health authorities: "We the government don't have our performance indicators ready yet; we're not ready to allow the health authorities to make cuts to mental health programs, so don't do it until we have our mental health performance indicators in place"? He's the advocate for mental health. That's what he was assigned to do. Why doesn't he stand up and say no to any mental health cuts?

Hon. G. Cheema: As I told the member already, we do have the information, but at this time I personally

don't have it available right now. The health authorities would have that information, and they are going to make the best use of the taxpayer dollars to meet the needs of the patients. They will be guided by these performance outcomes.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The minister is saying the health authorities do have this information. Is that what he said?

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Chairperson, I am told by staff that the health authorities do have the baseline data.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm at a loss here. The minister is, to date — because we don't have any of this information — making things up, as far as I can tell. I can't find the $404 million; it's disappeared from mental health. Every single year under the previous government one could document the increase, from '97 to 2001 — the increase in adult mental health by $108 million. The only basis I have to judge the accuracy of this minister's statement is to refer to these performance measures and targets. How can anyone make an informed decision in this House on whether to pass this vote? How can we possibly proceed?

Secondly, let me just add this. I have to say, Mr. Chair, that it's ridiculous to even continue these estimates. It's ridiculous without this information. The minister has no information on anything. In the meantime, if the health authorities do have the information on these targets, they're going ahead and making cuts to mental health programs.

They must be in complete violation of the performance targets, because here's some other cuts that the Vancouver coastal health authority is…. These cuts are real. I met with mental health advocates on the weekend, and these cuts in the Vancouver coastal health authority are real. The Vancouver coastal health authority is closing 67 residential mental health care beds. How are we going to know? Is that the base from which we'll operate to judge whether people are receiving services in their own region? It's real; it's happening.

Maybe the member for North Vancouver–Seymour would be interested in this. On the North Shore they're discontinuing any mental health community supports and contracts that don't provide housing. If you have a person with a mental illness in his or her own home, it's gone — no support. "Discontinue the contract for clubhouse programs." Oh, gee, I guess they weren't very useful. "Discontinue contracts for outreach workers." How will we possibly know, then…? What target will we be basing on the proportion of mental health clients accessing community services? Will that target be after these cuts are put in place?

Mr. Chair, I have to tell you, because this minister has taken such an extremely arrogant approach — that he's the mental health advocate, that he's going to do things better…. Every single question asked and not answered puts the lie to that. There is no ability for me to have any grounds to vote in favour of this vote. The answers are not there, and, frankly, it makes any further statement from this minister that he's the defender of mental health ridiculous — absolutely ridiculous. The community knows that; people who have mental illnesses in this province know that. It's time for the minister to either do his job and give the answers or admit that this government has no commitment to mental health.

Hon. G. Cheema: As I said from the beginning, we made a commitment during the campaign, and we have fulfilled our commitment. We said there would be funding in the mental health plan, and we have done that. Not only are we funding the mental health plan, but we are also funding the capital funding for the facilities across this province. We are also spending the money on mental health as a part of our global budget. We have given the health authorities clear guidelines. Those guidelines are very clear. The baseline data will be shared with the member once it's available.

I must tell this member that we are doing a lot more than the mental health plan itself. While she has outlined some of her fears and some of the information from the leaked documents, these are working documents. We are dealing with a new way of delivery of mental health in this province. We are dealing with the delivery, and where the institutional model has not worked in the past, we will be dealing with a new model — a model of a continuum of services from acute care to the community level. Some patients will always need acute care, and acute care is going to be provided. Some patients will always need chronic care, and that will be provided. Some patients will require community-based funding, and that will be provided. That's part of our one plan.

The other thing we will be doing is having a depression strategy in this province. We'll be dealing with anxiety disorders in the province. We'll also be dealing with a youth and child mental health plan in this province. Once all these things are functioning, the mental health system will improve. We are starting from a baseline. We don't want to practise the way it has been practised in the past. We have to move away from the institutional model. A number of initiatives are being done in this province.

I'm working with the other three ministers and various other ministers in this government to ensure that the mental health issues are addressed across various ministries. We have done a number of things. As the Minister of State for Mental Health, I have met with the Minister of Human Resources. I have addressed with him the issues of disability for patients suffering from mental illness. I have met with the Minister of Education to discuss some of the issues which are important for patients with a mental illness. I have met with other ministers to deal with some of the important issues.

To say to us as a government that we are not committed is far, far from the truth. This member does have a strange relationship with the truth.

Hon. G. Cheema: Our numbers are very clear. As part of the global budget, we have given….

Hon. G. Cheema: The numbers are clear. The budget is there. The performance indicators are there. The baseline data is going to be there. Service will be improved.

If this member thinks we should be doing the same thing they were doing in the last ten years, we are not going to do the same thing. We have to move towards a model which is compassionate and caring. We have to move patients away from institutions. Part of our mental health plan is the redevelopment of Riverview Hospital as well. Unlike the previous administration, we are not going to release any patient without a community placement. As of June 5 last year, not a single patient has been released without a community placement. That's our commitment. That's the way we are delivering mental health in this province.

We are not going to judge the health authorities. The health authorities have been given a very difficult task: to manage health care in this province. Mental health is an important part of health care. It's part of the $10.4 billion — $1.3 billion more than last year. That's not a cut in health services; that's an increase in health services. Mental health is an important part of our whole health care agenda. Our government is committed.

If this member wants to know their record on mental health, she should simply call the B.C. Mental Health Monitoring Coalition, which includes the Canadian Mental Health Association. The Anxiety Disorders Association is part of that. Last year and the year before that, before we came into power, they gave a failing grade to that administration. They had one slogan: "Promises made; promises broken." That was the NDP. We made the promise; we are fulfilling that promise. Our promise is to make sure that patients will get the care and respect they deserve.

I was in the Kootenays for the last two days. If you ask the front-line workers, social workers and health care managers, they will tell you we are moving in a reasonable way. We are not raising expectations to a great extent. Mental health is not something which is going to improve over a period of a day or two or a month. This will take some time. We want to make sure that when we move along, we have improvement in mental health in this province.

Every part of the health sector is working with us. In my opening statement I asked this member to work with us, to help us, so that we can improve the mental health in this province. It's not only people in this community who are looking towards us. In other parts they are also watching us. We are working with professionals, community groups, family associations and health care associations in this province. Most of the organizations in this province are supporting our plan. That is the good news. For the last ten months I have met with almost every possible organization. Our policy is that we'll meet with anybody who wants to improve the mental health in this province.

Our staff have worked very hard. For the first time there are performance measures and indicators and special guidelines. This three-year plan is a work in progress. We will improve on this plan. We'll see next year how this is going to be functioning.

There are three ways of ensuring that this will function. First, the health authorities will be reporting on performance measures. Each year, each June, I'll also be reporting on some of the indicators to the public to ensure that they understand.

Mental health is not that simple. It's not so simple that you can come and that overnight you can improve. We are taking smaller steps; we are taking firm steps. Those steps are important.

Nobody has a monopoly on mental health. I said in my remarks that this member had…. They had good intentions, but they were never able to implement those intentions. If I want to read their record into Hansard, it will take a long, long time, but I didn't come here…. I didn't want to get into this mode, but I cannot listen to that member and not put things on the record and correct some of the mistakes of the past. This is the way they have done that.

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Chairman, I gave her all the opportunities to ask questions. I gave her the opportunity to say whatever she has to say. It's my turn. It's our turn.

We have not given anybody wrong indication. We have told them clearly how we are moving towards a community-based health care system in this province.

This is the way to deliver mental health. We tell everybody this. Mental health is not a personal failure, it's not a failure of the family, and it's not a failure of the community. But ultimately, it's a failure of the government if we don't deliver.

We made a promise. We are fulfilling that promise. Look at what we have done over the period of the last ten months. Not a single member from our caucus has not been involved. They're all actively involved. We have participated with most of them.

We read the news. We read a lot of stuff, but our responsibility is to have the clear indicators and per-

formance outcomes and to ensure that those outcomes are met so that we can achieve the quality of life for patients in this province.

It's too bad. They had the opportunity. They didn't do it. I wish they had done it so that we could have learned from their mistakes.

We are starting from a very base level. A base level is to have effective community care. Mr. Chairman, you understand from your community that sometimes patients were left without a community placement. For the first time there will be outcomes and performance indicators, and those must be met. That's what we are moving towards, those goals.

I want to assure this member that she will have a lot of opportunity to ask questions. Measure us on performance. We are starting from a baseline. Next year she'll be able to ask more questions on how we have done during this year. I would simply request her to cooperate and work with us. If there are mistakes, we'll be able fix those mistakes.

J. MacPhail: This is one of the most ineffective members of this overblown executive council I've ever seen. He….

This minister doesn't have a clue what his mental health plan is. He can't answer where the money is. He can't answer what the performance targets are. He has no plan. He stands up and rants in a rambling way so that nobody has any idea what he's talking about. He can't give any answers. It's unbelievable.

However, it's not that dissimilar to the rest of the health care system and the health promises that this government has made. They say one thing when they're in opposition, and they do another thing or do nothing — do nothing — when they're in government. It's consistent across the board with this government. The fact that this minister responsible for mental health can't even answer some basic questions about where the money is and what the performance indicators are proves that they have not a clue and have no money for mental health — none. But that's just a minor flip-flop.

In conclusion, Mr. Chair, let me just give you one example of how this government doesn't have a clue about what it's doing about health. Let's just talk about how they're going to deliver health care services. Here's what was said on November 28, 2000, about the issue of private clinics: "Our job is to make private clinics redundant. I want to get the public system back, firing on all cylinders, so that they become redundant." Another quote: "We want to make private clinics redundant. We want to make the public sector system work for patients." November 28, 2000. Who said that? The now Premier of the province. April 3, 2002: "What's the government doing about private clinics? The Health minister said he's trying to come up with a public policy framework to guide the operation of private clinics." That was then; this is now.

It's exactly the same with the mental health plan. That was then; this is now. Money's gone. No indicators are in place — absolutely no proof anywhere that this minister can come up with what, if any, money he's spending on mental health. And I have no ability to debate — none whatsoever. Without being able to understand the numbers behind the performance targets, the performance targets are absolutely meaningless. I don't know how anybody in this House can make an informed vote on the Ministry of Health Services, Mr. Chair.

I. Chong: I just have a couple of questions I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Mental Health.

I've been listening to the dialogue, the exchange between the Leader of the Opposition and the Minister of State for Mental Health. It's regrettable because it appears she hasn't been able to get the answers that she wants. Part of the problem is that she hasn't been able to take a look at the government restructuring that's been taking place, especially in the way that this government is trying to save health care from the unsustainable path that it was on.

I do understand that in my area, particularly in the Vancouver Island health authority region, there has to be some work done with a new board to work with our ministry as well to continue to develop performance measures and outcomes that are expected so that we can evaluate and measure them this time next year.

I realize the complexity of the issue of mental health, and I appreciate the fact that we do have a Minister of State for Mental Health to get us to that level of understanding and to make the system work better.

I don't have a specific facility in my riding, Mr. Chair, but there is a facility that borders my riding. I was able to attend this particular facility when I was a member of the opposition. I recall that at the time, they were very excited about having this new facility start up. I believe that they're still developing it. The fact that it is taking some time to be developed shows that mental health is a very complex issue.

The facility I speak of is the Seven Oaks facility in the Blenkinsop Valley. Part of that riding is adjacent to my riding. I know that the member from Saanich South is familiar with it as well. I'm wondering if the minister can advise how this kind of facility is being advanced or promoted within the new changes that he's intending for the area of mental health.

Hon. G. Cheema: Part of our mental health plan is the redevelopment of the Riverview Hospital. When some of the beds will be transferred to the various parts of this province, Seven Oaks in Victoria is one of the facilities. This facility will be fully operational in

August 2002. There were 12 clients temporarily displaced, and they've been moved back in.

These are very special facilities. These are prototypes for respect and for compassionate care. The idea behind this facility is to bring patients back to their communities so that they can stay close to their families. As the member would know, there are some patients who may never be able to fully function independently, so we are trying to make sure they get care close to their community.

This is one good example, and I think this is the way the questions and answers are important: to get some information so that we can improve the quality of life. I'm glad the member is asking a specific question which is going to have an impact in her community.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's response to that. As I say, I visited the facility on the evening they were talking about the hopeful opening of Seven Oaks. I met with some parents at that time who had an adult child — I shouldn't call an adult a child; that's an oxymoron — in their family who had been over in the Riverview institution. They were concerned that as they were fast approaching the age where their travel was being complicated by their physical impairments, they couldn't visit their child as often. Knowing that the child would be closer to home was much more satisfying to them.

I do want to talk about the mental health plan, the so-called $125 million initiative that I know the Leader of the Opposition seemed to think their government had funded. I know that very shortly after its announcement, we were able to see, when we were in opposition, that it had not been set aside. The initiative was certainly laudable. The goals were certainly ones that we would have shared. However, like so many things when funding isn't in place, you begin to wonder whether there is going to be any movement in that area.

Our government, as I understand it, has gotten approval through the budgetary process, through Treasury Board, that $125 million would be funded for the mental health plan. I'm wondering if the minister of state is able to share with us how that funding will be rolled out over the course of the next six years. Maybe more specifically, for my area of the Vancouver Island health authority — I realize it includes the entire Island — I wonder if he can share with me how we might participate in that kind of funding allocation.

Hon. G. Cheema: As we have announced already, we will be funding the $125 million mental health plan. This plan will only deal with chronic and persistent mental illness. This plan was announced in 1998, and it was only funded for $10 million. This year it will be funding a total of $17.8 million more as part of the mental health plan.

The Vancouver Island authority will be getting close to $6.474 million this year as a part of the mental health plan funding. That will give opportunities for patients to have day hospitals, evening hospitals, community-based care, respite care and also some beds in the community for crisis intervention. This funding will also provide some money for the physicians who will be providing mental health services in the community.

I. Chong: There's no question that the $125 million has to be allocated and rolled out or completed over the next number of years because a plan has to be in place to ensure that we adapt to the changes of those with mental challenges and mental illnesses. I'm not trying to commit future governments, but my concern is: what happens after the mental health plan initiative — the $125 million? I think that also has to be considered.

As we move along, we talk about sustainability of programs or services to be delivered. With people with mental illnesses and mental health concerns, it's not something that is fixed and then tomorrow you're healed, and you go on, carrying on in a different manner.

Mental illness can last a lifetime and may need supports over a lifetime. I think it's important to know what plans, even beyond three or four years, the minister of state may be working on to have in place something that future governments would be able to carry on — a sustainable mental health plan that will last well into the future. Can the minister share with us whether he's working on a plan of that nature?

Hon. G. Cheema: Part of the mental health plan is also to have facilities across this province. We'll be spending an additional $138 million on that.

This member has a real concern about what will happen after this money is all spent and what will happen to those patients. That's why we are looking at best practices. We're looking at how we can continue to provide the best possible care. We're moving away from the institutional model. That model is very effective. You have to have acute care, you have to have chronic care, and you need the rehabilitation care.

Our main focus is with the patients and the families. As we go along, we'll be able to continue to monitor what we are doing and continue to learn from our own ideas so we can improve. The basic concern there is whether we'll have the funding in the long run. The answer is yes.

I think it's important to continue to give assurance in real dollars and in real terms. That's what I was trying to explain to the member from the NDP. We are funding mental health as a part of the global funding and also as part of the mental health plan.

Money is spent through various resources. We have given indicators, and those performance indicators are important. As we go along, those will become a part of the mental health culture. I think we are looking towards a cultural shift and better understanding. Once you improve the understanding and you have structures put in place, patients' needs are met. The public will demand those things, and they'll be there. I think

that's up to us, during these four years, to ensure that we are doing what we said so that we can give confidence to the patients and to the families.

I think the member is right. What's going to happen after four years' time? I think we have to see as we move along. There is one assurance we can give: this government is serious, and we are spending money. We are also looking at various options.

I just want to explain to this member that mental health is not about acute care beds only. Mental health is not only about a physician and a patient. Mental health is more than that. There are so many health care providers who can provide the mental health care, starting from mental health workers to the nurses, social workers, physicians and psychiatrists. I think those things are important.

Families are also an important part of the mental health care system. Part of our mental health plan is to provide respite care for the families. We have those families who have loved ones with mental health problems. They can be taken care of in the community. We are looking at those things at this time.

There are a number of other initiatives we'll be launching soon. One of them is a provincial initiative for depression and anxiety. Another issue that is very important, and about which the member has expressed her concern to me a number of times, is about the public information and education campaign. We have to ensure that the public has the understanding about mental health issues. Right now there is a lack of understanding, and because of that the issues for mental health have not been addressed in the past.

The statistics are very clear. One in four British Columbians will have mental illness during their lifetime. No family is immune from mental illness. Mental illness affects people of every culture, race, gender and socioeconomic status.

We'll be looking at a meaningful public information campaign that will deal with the real issue of stigma and discrimination. Once we've worked on all these projects, I think that will help the patients.

The other issue which is of concern to us as a government is the role of advocacy. We value a lot of work which is being done by various organizations. We fund up to $2.1 million for various organizations in this province. They are having individual advocacy for the patients and their interests.

My role is for broad changes and to work across various ministries to ensure that what the member has said, and the other members have told me privately and publicly…. We must ensure that in the long run the mental health funding is there, so we can continue to provide the best possible care.

Recently, last October, there was a report released from the world mental health organization. If you look at that report, there are ten basic things they want the world to do, and we are already doing most of them. I think we are moving along with the rest of the world. We have to take small steps but firm steps.

Mental health is so complex. It's not that simple that you can come for 45 minutes and scream and shout and move away from the House. It's not going to solve anything. We are working with the patients. We are working with the families. I'm working with my caucus colleagues. We are working through various organizations to ensure that there are services.

The only way to ensure that services are there is if you have performance indicators and you can be responsible. By these indicators, you'll be responsible, you'll be accountable, and you'll be innovative. We are asking health authorities to be innovative. We are giving them a set of funding. They're under a lot of pressure, because they have to meet so many goals. This is a tough job for them, but it's our responsibility to ensure that they deliver those services.

I. Chong: There's just one final area on mental health that I'd like to leave with the minister. I had written to him last December. I realize it's something that his ministry is probably still looking at.

I had written to provide information on a mental health program offered at that time by the CHR, the capital health region — now reclassed as the Vancouver Island health authority — which provided quality preventative services that were more than welcomed by the clients and were provided at a relatively low cost. Home support workers were involved. The program was such that the CHR would contract to an agency who would then hire home support workers to provide on-site services to mental health clients living in single-room-occupancy — SRO — buildings.

When I was in opposition, I recall attending at one of these buildings in the Victoria area. There were many people there who had mental challenges and mental illnesses. I saw that these home support workers offered a very caring approach and were there to help in the monitoring of their medications, monitoring of their behavioral changes and generally to provide support to a whole range of mental health clients.

In some cases, because of the interventions of the home support workers and because of their communication with the authorities they had to report to, those clients were provided with certain supports and assistance they otherwise would not have had. In this way it helped them to stay out of hospital, which reduced costs. In some cases, it helped them stay out of jail. As we all know, sometimes people misinterpret those who are mentally challenged, and they end up in the wrong place, whether it be in hospital or in jail.

I just wanted to remind the minister of the letter that I had written him, and I hope that his staff will have an opportunity to review it. I bring it up in the context of…. In looking at mental health, there are options and different ways of delivering services that I hope this new minister of state will consider, just as the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care is looking at different ways of providing long-term and intermediate care to people — not all being in institutions or facilities and providing different mechanisms,

So, too, with those who are mentally ill. I think there is an opportunity for them to stay in the place they know and to provide supports in that way, rather than necessarily having to build new facilities for them. I would hope that in the review and the plan that the Minister of State for Mental Health is developing, he will consider these. If we're able to, as members, provide him with documentation and be included in that, I would hope the opportunity arises.

With that, Mr. Chair, I have no further questions. If the minister of state wishes to respond, that's fine. I do appreciate the staff in his office who have been able to help me whenever I have had questions in this area.

Hon. G. Cheema: What the member has said…. Those are the real issues and real innovations we value. I think that's what we are moving towards to ensure that the health care dollars are spent in the most economical way and in the most cost-effective way and also to ensure that patients stay in the community and with their loved ones. I will certainly work with the member. I will encourage her to continue to be positive and innovative and support the family.

P. Wong: A newspaper in my constituency, the Vancouver Courier, reported on March 25 of this year that the Health ministry's department of mental health response car can only be staffed from 4 p.m. to 3 a.m. daily. The Vancouver coastal health authority provides funding for a psychiatric nurse, but there isn't a police officer to provide backup on a 24-hour basis. The paper reported that there is a huge demand for 24-hour emergency mental health response service. There are advantages to responding to calls during the day when resources are available.

Can the minister tell my constituents whether he has any plan to provide 24-hour emergency mental health response in the Vancouver area?

Hon. G. Cheema: We have given health authorities the funding for mental health as part of the global budget. This is one of the things I'm sure they'll be having a look at — the various programs and how they can provide 24-hour coverage. As far as the mental health teams are concerned, there are mental health teams who are functioning 24 hours a day. The RCMP has one car in Vancouver and one special car in Surrey. Those are two special projects. They are working with the mental health team. If they're called, they will go and respond to those patients.

For an individual case I'll make sure that I work with the member, but as far as the policy is concerned, we have given clear guidelines to the health authorities, and we have full confidence that they'll be able to manage funding and that they'll be able to fund programs to ensure that the patients stay within the community.

It will save money also, because if you can provide 24-hour care or you can provide after-hour care outside the hospital, that's cost-effective. If you can provide care within their home, that's cost-effective. If you can provide care just by telephone, by a 24-hour crisis line, that saves money, and that helps patients. We are looking at all the ways to improve mental health, and I think this is the only way to do it. We're taking smaller steps. Mental health is not that simple.

Also, every crisis can be a part of mental health too. If there are minor difficulties, minor problems, I think they can be addressed by other agencies. For specifically diagnosed mental problems, there are services, and many community organizations are functioning on that. They are functioning extremely well, but the health authority will manage the tax dollars we are going to give to them.

S. Brice: I know that the minister is working with his officials there, and I appreciate this opportunity to bring up an issue that is of particular interest to me. I know, in talking with him, of his great passion for his work and his advocacy. One of the areas that he has spoken about is services for youth and children. Announcements have been made around that. There were some commitments that his ministry would work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development to look at some of the gaps that now exist in the system.

I wonder if the minister might take a minute and bring us up to date on how those discussions have gone and what we can look forward to in terms of improved service for youth and children.

Hon. G. Cheema: This issue is, again, very important for this province. As of last July we were able to put both ministries together, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development, to develop a policy for a child and youth mental health plan in this province. This is a joint action plan. Over a period of a few months, we will have that plan. I think the plan will ensure there is a continuum of services, especially for youth from age 17 to 19. This plan will ensure all ranges of services are available so that we have a continuity of care.

At this time I can only say to the member that we are working hard. There is an external advisory committee on child and youth mental health. We have a joint working group between the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Health. All these committees are functioning extremely well, and I look forward to their report. Once that report comes, I will share it with the member.

S. Brice: I wonder if the minister, just to make sure that we put faces and real people to these issues, could give us an idea of some of the issues that are faced particularly by children and youth in mental health services. What types of programs would you envision being in such a plan when it is unfolded?

Hon. G. Cheema: All the good questions are coming from the members of the government. I think this is good.

Part of the child and youth mental health services plan is going to deal with, first of all, development of a child and youth mental health plan; secondly, the development of policies and procedures to assist youth in making the transition from the child and youth mental health system to the adult mental health system; and, thirdly, the development of policies and procedures to assist youth being transferred to and from the acute care system to the community care system. I think those are the main focus. Once we have the documents ready, I will be able to share them with the member, but at this time I don't want to prejudge the committee. I want them to work hard and come up with a policy which can be effective and have meaningful results in the long run.

It's important for the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development to work together. There was some concern expressed last year when the child and youth mental health area was given to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, so the Premier was able to give us the direction that the ministries should work together. There are two kinds of communities functioning at the same time.

This external advisory committee has exceptionally good people from across the province. They'll be able to not only give us a plan. They'll also be able to monitor us, and I think that's very important. For mental health we have to have a monitoring system so that we can see where we are today, how we are moving, what progress we are making. I think that's the point I was trying to make to the member from the NDP. There are guidelines, and those performance measures will be put in place. Those must be met. There is data available for the adult side. The youth side we will able to share with the member once we have it.

S. Brice: I know the minister, because of his professional background, will have presumably over many years seen the situation in the health care field where unless mental health is identified as a priority, it is one of those services which tends to be overtaken by the acute care system. I know you make that point frequently, and I know I'm in your presence when you make the point that mental health must be kept up there and that we have to provide those services. I appreciate the fact that you don't want to prejudge the committee's report — fair enough. I look forward to hearing the results of that.

In one of the responses you gave to an earlier question, you talked about innovation, which you're hoping for from the regions. Not specifically related to child and youth services but just mental health services in general, can you anticipate what — having seen over the years occur — possibly we might expect into the future and give us sort of a sense of some of that innovation that we can perhaps anticipate, hopefully in a positive way, for services in mental health?

Hon. G. Cheema: Mr. Chairman, we are looking for various ways of delivering mental health. I will give the member one example. For example, if a patient needs acute intervention, does this patient need to go to an acute emergency room, or can this patient be taken care of outside of the hospital in a clubhouse or the facility which is close to the hospital, where that facility is only being taken care of by staff other than emergency staff? They can talk to a specialist on the phone, and they can assess that patient. If that patient doesn't need the admission, that patient can be sent home after 24-hour care in a given community. Then family can provide the rest of the care, or a mental health worker can follow that patient. That is one example.

The next example is that if there is a patient in that community, and you are a family member of that patient. You cannot take care of that patient 24 hours a day. There has to be a respite bed. There has to be respite care for the family. That's one way. The second way is to also look at the issues of following the patient for medication. Some patients will just need a visit from a mental health worker, just probably need a visit from another professional to see how they are doing, somebody to take care of some of their immediate needs probably four to five hours a week to ensure they stay stabilized within the community, so they don't come and use the hospital beds. Mental health is not only about acute care beds. It's more than that. It's about the family, the community. That's another way of providing mental health care.

The other options are the group homes, where you can provide the facility for supported independent living. Somebody can take care of four or five patients at a time. A person must have some basic training but doesn't have to be a psychiatrist or a physician. It can be a mental health worker with good qualifications, and that person can provide the best possible care. That's very cost-effective.

The other way is…. In your constituency a great example is that the Seven Oaks facility is going to be in this area, and that facility is more home-like. It's not as expensive as other tertiary care beds are; it's less expensive. They stay in a one-storey building. These are home-like environments, and they help patients to stay close to their community. It's not only that you're helping the patient. You're also helping the family, because family doesn't have to travel to the lower mainland to make sure that they see their loved ones on a regular basis. Those are some of the few ideas.

Another is to have telemedicine. For example, in some parts of this province you may not be able to have a psychiatrist working 24 hours a day. You may not have enough numbers. What we are looking at is

telemedicine. If the mental health worker wants to assess their patient, they can call a psychiatrist and get the information, and then they can treat their patient. You don't need to see the patient physically all the time.

The other thing that we are looking at in various parts of the province is to have acute care beds in the one place where you can provide the specialty care. Also, adjoining to the acute care facility are smaller places where the community care can be provided.

The other model is having more funding for the clubhouses. Clubhouses are the great example in this province where the mental health workers are providing quality care. Patients can come there, and they can stay for four to six hours. One concern is that clubhouses should be used for patients with mental illness who are diagnosed, and there is follow-up for that. That's a part of the process. I think that's what we have to monitor. We don't want to prejudge the health authorities. They have to do a very tough job. But we can give some guidelines. The money has to be spent in the most cost-effective way. If changes need to be made, then they should be.

The other issue that you have raised with me many times is the role of advocacy. Who are the advocates? How may advocates do you need for a single patient? That's another issue. There are organizations in this province; we fund them. We fund them reasonably well to be advocates, and we respect and value their work. Do you need advocates in every place? That's the question, I think. We have to debate those things. We have to ultimately depend on the families and the patients and the communities. The hospitals are an important part, but they are not the only thing.

S. Brice: Just to conclude with one final…. It's actually more of an opportunity than a question, minister. I know that there are people who do follow these debates with interest, and it would be inappropriate to not give you a chance to make a pitch for public education. I know you maintain that the stigma related to mental illness remains a barrier to treatment and a barrier to people being able to have a full life. Perhaps I'll conclude with putting it to you: where in your agenda and your mental health plan do you see the education of the public at large as to mental health issues?

Hon. G. Cheema: This is one of my third goals as Minister of State for Mental Health. I am working with the other three ministers of Health and also with other ministers, such as the minister for women's services. I think she is also working with me on the education plan. So is the Minister of Education and the Solicitor General. I'll be working with him, also, on the education plan. The education is more than slogans; it's more than posters. It's going to have a real meaning. That's what we are aiming towards. But at this time we are working on two of my projects. I want to wait till we have a good beginning, because we have restructuring going on at the same time, and we don't want to confuse the public. This campaign must be a realistic campaign. It has to be long term and maybe a multifaceted campaign. I'm not sure at this time.

You, as the chairperson for the Government Caucus Committee on Health, have heard from various groups. They are very much concerned, because stigma can be more harmful than the illness itself. I think we need to change that. What we have done as a public policy, having a minister of state responsible for mental health, is given the high profile. That's part of the public information campaign. That's one giant step forward. Certainly, details will be coming, and I will work with you to ensure that all parts of the province are part of our education campaign. A lot of work is already being done. We just need to put that together and have a real and meaningful campaign.

M. Hunter: First of all, I want to say to the minister that I did appreciate being able to accompany him on a tour in Nanaimo ten days or so ago — how much I learned from that day. But I still have a lot to learn about mental health.

One of the issues I am a little unsure about is the linkage between mental health and addiction. I know the minister is aware that in the mid-Island area — in fact, north of the Malahat — addiction services, detox services, are very limited. I wondered if the minister could just spend a moment explaining how he plans to improve services for addiction and detoxification in the mid- and North Island.

Hon. G. Cheema: As of April 1, addiction is going to be part of the mental health dominion. We'll be coming up with set guidelines for the health authorities, and we'll be able to put these two programs together. The member has the understanding that addiction or substance abuse is a very common problem. About 40 to 60 percent of the patients who have mental illness also suffer from substance abuse, so we'll be coming up with a policy. It's just a matter of time.

As I said repeatedly, for mental health we have to take smaller steps. It's very difficult to have so many things happening at the same time, but we'll certainly be coming up with a policy, and that will ensure that addiction services are being addressed.

P. Bell: Just a very brief question. I know there's a new facility under construction in Prince George — a new mental health facility. I wonder if the minister would give us a very brief outline of the capacity and capabilities of the new facility.

Hon. G. Cheema: The member is aware of the facility in Prince George. That is a ten-bed facility. It will be fully functioning as of next weekend. On April 12 I'll be able to visit, with the member in Prince

George, and we'll be able to open that facility. It's a very special facility. Again, it's a prototype. It's a new way of delivering mental health. That facility is part of the mental health plan. I think that's great news for the people in Prince George, and it's good news for patients with mental health…. I think that's the kind of mental health we like to provide.

I would like the member to be a part of the positive news. I hope to see him next week there.

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

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

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

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 7; H. Long in the chair.

Hon. S. Santori: I move the amendment to section 7 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 7, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 7, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Amendment Act, 2002, read a third time and passed.

Hon. R. Coleman: I wish everyone a good weekend and look forward to seeing you back at the beginning of the week.

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to introduce the staff that's here with me this afternoon. On my right is my deputy minister Gerry Armstrong. On my left is Tom Vincent, the assistant deputy minister, management services division, Ministry of Education. Behind us is Lyn Tait, the assistant deputy minister, post-secondary education division, and Rod MacDonald, the director of post-secondary finance.

R. Stewart: I'm on the Select Standing Committee on Education. As we toured the province, we heard from a great many people about the value of distance learning opportunities and a range of opportunities in both K-to-12 and post-secondary that would expand the ability of students from across the province to avail themselves of opportunities in education.

We're now hearing some concerns from people across the province who are hearing rumours about the impending fiscal challenges some institutions may face and, in fact, the potential closure of some institutions. Specifically, one of them was the Open Learning Agency. I wonder if the minister could inform us more about the process that is currently underway related to the future of the OLA.

Hon. S. Bond: I know this is, in essence, a continuation of the discussion that the member from Mount Pleasant and I had. I will try to recap.

When we went through the core services review, all of the agencies and responsibilities under my ministry were reviewed. When we looked in particular at the Open Learning Agency, it became clear at the initial review and core review that there would need to be a review of the mandate of that agency and a look at its relevance and how it fits in the system today.

At this point in time we are working to review all of the component parts of the Open Learning Agency. No final decisions have been made at this point. Certainly, as I said, the member from Mount Pleasant also expressed the concerns that had been expressed about the students that are involved. As you may be aware, there are a significant number of them.

We're working to be thoughtful and careful before we make the decisions, looking at what needs the students have and how we can continue to accommodate them or if programs need to be enhanced, changed or eliminated.

R. Stewart: I stand today recognizing that this has been dealt with this morning as well, and simply, to some degree, urge the minister…. As we saw, with the concern that was expressed over the future of Tech B.C., in large measure from students who were at the institution who were concerned for their future, having made the decision to undertake education at Tech B.C….. The way in which the government was able to continue the work of Tech B.C. through SFU, I think, allayed many of those concerns — granted, not all of them.

I would urge the minister to take into account the existing students at OLA as much as possible, because as of course we know, there are a great many students who have put their future in the hands of individual educational institutions, and OLA is certainly a significant one. Those individual students are currently facing some uncertainty in their future. I wonder if the minister can advise us as to the timing of decisions and the way in which we can allay the fears that those students justifiably have related to the rumours regarding decisions at OLA.

Hon. S. Bond: I certainly do share the concern about uncertainty that students have, and I know it was a similar circumstance with those students involved with the Tech B.C. situation. I do regret the uncertainty that students feel.

In terms of the timing of the decision, I have yet to see all of the final recommendations that will come to me. Certainly, a great deal of work has been done, so I anticipate looking at that and having further discussion about the suggestions over the next couple of weeks. I want to both assure you and other members who are concerned about this that we will take the same degree of care and thought that we did with the Tech B.C. situation to ensure that students are not lost in this process and that we will be looking for options within the system for them should there be significant change or the elimination of programs.

We will keep students first and foremost in our minds, and I want to assure the member that we will be looking very carefully at the programs that are offered. Any changes would be done in a very phased-in way to better look after the needs of those students.

R. Stewart: Very quickly, and finally, I trust there is a process whereby we can, through the ministry, continue to raise concerns, as members, related to the future of OLA and other institutions so that individual concerns of constituents can be brought to bear on this issue.

Hon. S. Bond: Just in response, I do always appreciate hearing the views of our colleagues and especially, in my

case, when it concerns students in the system. We want to hear those concerns. We may not always agree with the answers, but at the end of the day, information and communication is an important part of what we're going to be doing. I do appreciate the concerns expressed.

R. Lee: Just one question around OLA. I understand there are many collaborations between the OLA and other colleges in terms of programs. Are you consulting with other colleges, the OLA partners, to ensure that the students are not affected by any of the changes coming?

Hon. S. Bond: The answer is yes. We are looking at all of the programs, looking at the collaborative relationships and the partnerships and, again, working with all of the institutions to try to find the best answers to the problems for the students who are not only in the system now but are considering some form of post-secondary education.

R. Lee: Another question is on apprenticeship programs. I don't know if that has been discussed or not. There are some changes forthcoming in apprenticeship programs. There are concerns that sometimes students, right now, can get into the system, work with one of the employers and then go back to the system for apprenticeship. In between, they are getting financial assistance. I don't know if that kind of arrangement would be changed in the future.

Hon. S. Bond: Typically, apprentices don't take advantage of student financial assistance. What they do is that in their six-to-eight-week period they actually collect unemployment insurance. That's the kind of assistance. I don't anticipate that changing. The model itself may change, but certainly we don't anticipate that changing. So at this point they don't typically access our student financial assistance.

J. Kwan: I have one last question for the minister relating to the Open Learning Agency. According to Joanne Ellis who is the former chair of the OLA board: "There's no doubt that Knowledge Network will be gone." Ms. Ellis then goes on to say that she believes: "…from early indicators that the OLA will be dismantled and parcelled out to other institutions." This came out of the Province, February 27, 2002.

Hon. S. Bond: As with the other component parts of the Open Learning Agency, no decisions have been made, but certainly we are looking at a whole range of options with the Knowledge Network.

J. Kwan: Can I just follow up with one question on that? Then privatization is on the table for the entire OLA service delivery.

Hon. S. Bond: Since we're looking at each of the component parts separately, it's highly unlikely that the whole package deal would be done in any one particular way. We're looking at every single component part of the OLA, and there are a variety of options for all of them, including retaining them, enhancing them or eliminating the programs. It would be very unlikely that the whole package deal would be treated in any one particular way.

J. Kwan: I'm going to move to questions around colleges, university colleges and institutes. In funding letters given by the Ministry of Advanced Education to colleges, university colleges and institutes, the ministry threatens to take away funding from educational institutes.

The letter written to the North Island College states: "NIC is expected to deliver 2,273 student FTEs in 2002-2003. If the situation arises whereby an institution is unable to meet its FTE target, a review will be undertaken and FTEs and related funding may be reallocated within the system of the following year." If the government's goal is to provide colleges, university colleges and institutes with flexibility and autonomy, why is the government micromanaging these organizations and threatening to take away their funding?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, indeed, that is the language in the letters that were sent out. We believe that with autonomy comes the responsibility and the task of accountability. We believe that it's not actually micromanaging the system; we think that it is managing for results. We think that the use of public dollars is extraordinarily important. We think that access is critical.

I think the key thing is that while we wanted, in essence, to look at the balance between autonomy and accountability at a very high level, we've also made sure that we used the word "may." I think that is critical, because it does give us flexibility. If the targets were not to be met, we would certainly have dialogue with that institution and consider the very specific circumstances in each case. The intent was to take the principle of autonomy and balance that with accountability for the use of public dollars and look at the outputs and results that take place at those institutions.

J. Kwan: The government has repeatedly said that the idea behind providing post-secondary educational institutions with block funding is to allow these organizations to set their own priorities. If this is truly the government's objective, why force them to spend a certain amount of money on hiring? Why would you put any limitations at all but, rather, truly give them the full autonomy the minister says they deserve?

Hon. S. Bond: The member makes the point about block funding. Yes, it is a priority for us to send dollars to institutions and give them the ability to make decisions.

Having said that, the piece from the letter that was read, in terms of the FTE targets…. We also built in throughout the letter the concept of an accountability framework. Institutions were made aware of the fact that we're giving them dollars and there are certainly some priorities, not only for government but for British Columbia. It's about access.

The targets we referred to are actually for student FTEs. We believe that it's important for institutions to provide seats, and that's really the target that's being referred to — certainly not staffing, but FTE student access. We have identified that as a priority. We've indicated that, and we've said that we are going to build an accountability framework, not to micromanage but to look at results so that we can ensure that there are adequate and growing numbers of seats in the province.

J. Kwan: Cuts to advanced education are seriously impacting the ability of people in rural and remote communities to access advanced education. Due to the government's plan to reduce the budget for the North Island College by over $1 million over the next three years, the college has been forced to close its campuses in Alert Bay, Saturna, Tahsis and Tofino. What advice does the minister have to people living these communities who are trying to access post-secondary education?

Hon. S. Bond: We were able to send North Island College a lift this year of, I think, approximately $400,000. We're just trying to do the math there, but it's about $400,000. We've also given them some tools we think will be helpful to them. Undoubtedly, there are challenges and pressures for the institution, and they've had to prioritize the things that are important. One of the things I noted when I visited North Island College was a fabulous program of on-line capability. I'm sure, as the people who govern that institution made the decisions, that while the decisions were difficult, they were looking at alternatives to make sure that the people who live within the region of their particular institution will continue to be served.

We have worked very hard to maintain the principle that the people closest to the institution and working with students should make those decisions. As you know we have protected the envelope for the next three years which, while challenging, allows institutions to look ahead and be able to plan for changes over the next couple of years. Certainly, this current year North Island College did receive an increase to their core funding.

J. Kwan: I know that the ministers in the new-era government like to say they have protected funding. When they say that, what it really means and translates to is cuts in programs, because they have not accounted for increased pressures and costs. Without those dollars coming for compensating or offsetting the increased pressures, it yields cuts in programs, whether it be health, education or any other place. It's no different in advanced education. In real terms for the people who are out there in the broader community, what they're experiencing is not a protection of education; it's a reduction of education programs. Let's just be honest. I ask for nothing more than just to be honest about these issues.

The fact of the matter is that in these smaller communities, I think they will have a hard time accessing post-secondary education. That's the reality. Some people may not have on-line options because they don't have Internet or computer connections — never mind a small community. I know that even in my own community, because of an issue of affordability a lot of people don't have access to a computer. Some people don't even have access to a telephone. Therefore, it is going to create hardships for these communities, and it is a big worry. It's a particular worry for the rural and small communities where they are trying to really develop alternative career opportunities in light of the resource sector collapse and the pressures in the resource sector.

I'm very concerned with respect to the students in these communities. Some of them exist in the system, but some of them are people who may be seeking retraining because of the changing environment in which they now live, with the softwood lumber dispute and so on.

In minimizing opportunities in these smaller communities, I worry that people would not have access to education programs for retraining. You see it all over government. You see school closures, hospital closures, courthouse closures. These are the cornerstones, if you will, of small communities. They are the things that make a community viable, and when they start to see the loss of the institutions that hold communities together, I worry that people are going to leave those communities. Then we're left with ghost towns, and that is not in the best interests of British Columbians.

I just want to go back one moment to the FTE issue relating to North Island College. How can North Island College meet its FTE goal when they have to cut programs and also cut campuses?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I do need to recognize that that's right. On-line learning is not an option for everyone, and we need to consider a number of options across the system. While on-line learning continues to be a new and evolving field, we certainly do need to recognize that some communities and individuals don't have access. We need to think about how that affects them. That's absolutely correct.

I just want to follow up briefly on the North Island College centres. In looking at that decision — and I'm sure it was a difficult one — I still firmly believe that the principle of governance is that people who are closest to the decision should make it. Those are decisions that should be made at that level. In looking at the information we were given in terms of the decisions, the college has indicated that the centres they are going to close had little or no enrolment.

While it may be a challenge, and I don't want to imply there weren't people impacted, certainly the decision was made quite thoughtfully. In terms of how they'll meet their FTE allocations and number of seats, these are the kinds of decisions that boards need to go through to prioritize, to be able to reallocate those dollars to the areas of priority.

Certainly, access and an increasing number of seats for students are priorities not only of government but of most people, I'm sure, in British Columbia. Boards will be reallocating dollars, looking at programs that are efficient and those that are less efficient. In this case, while it was a difficult decision, it was made based on the fact that there were few, if any, enrolments in those centres.

J. Kwan: In the new-era approach, what it really means is that the ministers — in this instance, the Minister of Advanced Education — have passed the buck for cutting education programs to the local authorities: to the boards, the institutes, the colleges, the university colleges, and so on. At the end of the day, what it all translates to is cuts in education programs.

In the name of flexibility, in the name of autonomy, the government has simply passed the buck just so the minister herself could say: "I didn't close the campus in Alert Bay. I didn't close the campus in Tofino. The local authorities did." What the minister knows — or ought to know, if she doesn't — is that when they do not provide sufficient funding to education, it yields a cut in education programs. That is what's happening here.

The minister insists she has protected education funding when in fact she has frozen education funding over the next three years. What that means with increased pressures is that it yields cuts in education programs. That's what it all translates to. It's the pass-the-buck approach with respect to responsibility to local authorities. This is what this government has been doing.

The last point I want to raise on this issue is that on the North Island College website there is a list of various program cuts. Maybe the minister is aware of these cuts already. I urge the minister to take a look at this list. Maybe those cuts will then cause the minister to see how many students will be affected. Maybe it will cause the minister to rethink and re-evaluate this approach to advanced education and perhaps to advocate for students and educators in British Columbia in gaining sufficient funding to really make sure education programs are truly protected in the new-era agenda.

The College Institute Educators Association of B.C. has filed a constitutional challenge to Bill 28 on the grounds that it violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How does the minister expect to work cooperatively with post-secondary educators when these educators believe their Charter rights are being violated by this government?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I want to believe — and I'm hopeful — that together we are going to focus on what's important, and that's students in this province. I am an advocate for students. As a matter of fact, this government believes post-secondary education is so important that despite whatever comments are going to be made, our budget is protected at a time when that is a very difficult thing for this government to have done. As a matter of fact, I know the same is true in education — that when other governments faced the same situations we face, they did not make this choice. They actually cut funding fairly significantly to these ministries.

Yes, there are some challenging decisions for institutions to make. Having said that, I believe students deserve a top-notch education. I think it's absolutely critical to the future of this province. We are going to continue to work very hard as a government to restore economic prosperity to this province so that we can reinvest. The first places we're going to reinvest are in health care and education. That says we care about patients and we care about students.

I'm sure the program decisions at North Island College were challenging for the board and the administration to make. Having said that, I fundamentally believe, as does this government, that those are the people who should be given the autonomy, the responsibility and the tools necessary to make those decisions in the good times and certainly the challenging ones.

J. Kwan: With all due respect to the minister, when the government says they prioritize education — that it is their number one priority, knowing that freezing the education budget would simply mean a reduction in education programs because of increased pressures and increased costs — it does not illustrate by action that this government is prioritizing education as their number one priority. Before they even looked at the books, this government went out and gave large tax breaks to the wealthiest British Columbians and the biggest corporations. If this government truly believed in protecting education, maybe they would have redirected some of those dollars into education programs in the institutions instead of cutting education programs and, therefore, negatively impacting British Columbians who are trying to seek access to post-secondary education.

The minister didn't answer the question I asked about the College Institute Educators Association, which has filed a constitutional challenge to Bill 28. My question to the minister was: how does the minister expect to work cooperatively with post-secondary educators when these educators believe that their Charter rights are being violated by this government?

On February 2, 2002, the College Institute Educators Association asked the minister to "repeal the legislation that no one wanted before it does irreparable damage." Discussing these problems with the educators may have enabled the ministry to avoid this costly, adversarial and time-consuming legal battle. Why didn't the minister consult with the college educators about this legislation?

Hon. S. Bond: In attempting to answer that question, I guess my point is this: we need to work together to focus on what's best for students in this province. Obviously, at this point there are some differing views about the public policy decision that we made. We made the decision that class sizes should not be in contracts in this province in order to give the kinds of flexibility and management tools that institutions need to provide a great education and increasing access. There are only limited dollars, and we have to do the best we can. Our job — and my job, as the minister, in order to advocate for students — is to make sure we have a system that is sustainable for the long term. That means making some tough decisions. We've done that.

I have met with CIEA on a number of occasions. I am hopeful that as we work through the next number of months, as we continue to focus on what's best for students, indeed we will be able to continue that dialogue.

J. Kwan: That wraps up my questions for the Minister of Advanced Education. I understand that the minister has a flight at 3:30 or needs to get back to somewhere — I think it's Vancouver; I'm not sure — at 3:30, so I'm going to wrap up the estimates on Advanced Education. I don't have any further questions for the minister at this time. If I do, I'll certainly be writing to the minister to seek answers.

I'd like to thank the minister and her staff in the estimates process for providing the answers to the opposition. I truly hope that the education system for British Columbians will be enhanced and that students, particularly people who don't have very many choices because of a variety of different barriers, including financial barriers, would not be impeded from getting access in order to fully develop their potential. I know how difficult it is when you're faced with family situations that people are living with every day. Sometimes access is impeded because of those barriers.

I truly hope British Columbians will get access to education, because after all, young people are the best investment any government could make, irrespective of stripe, in terms of investing in the future. It is all of us who will benefit, especially when I get old from this job. Hopefully, there will still be a pension of some sort to support me. I depend on the young people for that as well.

B. Belsey: I have one short question. I understand you're in a rush, and I appreciate this opportunity.

We heard earlier on — last year, I guess — that we had to put off a number of planned projects for colleges within your ministry. I think the wording, if I recall, was that we would review this after an 18-month period.

In my riding the community of Prince Rupert was greatly impacted by the cancellation of a new college that we were planning to build. We refer to it often — I'm not sure if it's fondly — as the hole in the ground.

I'm just wondering where we are with our plans to carry on not only that project but some of the other projects that we have cancelled.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, the member is correct. We made some very difficult decisions very early on in our ministry as we faced the financial challenges. Living in a rural and northern community myself, I think I have a sense of the impact that had on your constituents.

I want the member to know that we are working very hard. We're not waiting until the end of 18 months. I have my staff continually looking at the projects, re-evaluating and looking at how they fit into the bigger picture for us as a ministry. Additionally, constituents in the member's particular riding and others are working very hard at looking at alternatives for projects.

The possibility of a public-private partnership, for example, is the kind of thing that we're exploring across the province. We're currently reviewing the whole public-private partnership process and how we might take advantage of that.

Suffice it to say that we are working very hard. Those projects remain on our agenda in terms of looking to the future and how we might make them happen. I've been very impressed with the work that many MLAs have done within their constituencies to bring creative and thoughtful ideas about how we could proceed with some of those projects. I certainly want to assure the member that they are still on our agenda, and we continue to explore ways of trying to bring those projects to fruition, at least at some point in the future.

Hon. J. Murray: It's my pleasure to introduce Dana Hayden, who is the assistant deputy minister for corporate services, shared services with two ministries, and Derek Thompson, who is the Deputy Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. Kwan: Before I begin my questions, I just wanted to make sure that we have a clear understanding with respect to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protec-

tion estimates. We were advised by the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, that after we finished Advanced Education, the small House here would actually shut down and only the big House would continue on the estimates process. But just before we went into the House at 2 o'clock, the House Leader advised that we'll be proceeding with the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection instead. I think I'm going to call it WLAP from now on.

For the understanding of everybody here, including the minister and the Chair, the agreement now with the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, is that we will begin the process. I will then yield the floor to other members from the government side, who will continue on with the estimates process, and on Monday I'll come back with further questions to the minister.

I want to make that very clear, because we were advised earlier on that the House would shut down earlier, so I made plans to meet with a constituent in Vancouver and therefore booked a flight at 4:10 p.m. I was unable to rebook another flight for a later day unless I overnight here until tomorrow, and I have to be in Kamloops early tomorrow morning. I can't really rearrange my schedule to accommodate the change in the scheduling of the House Leader.

As long as we have clear understanding and agreement on that, I'll proceed with the questions to the minister. I'll start for about 15 minutes or so, and then I'll yield the floor to other members in the House.

First thing, I'd like to look at the cuts in staffing from the service plan. As we've seen over and over again in previous estimates with other ministries like Sustainable Resource Management and Energy and Mines, as well as Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, WLAP seems to be the fallback. Every question around environmental integrity, around standards, regulations, compliance, enforcement, eco-system, health…. The list goes on and on.

All of the resource-based ministries have referred the opposition to the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. It is as if they are focused only on certain access to Crown land and resource development and have no responsibility towards environmental and ecosystem integrity. Every time, they said, "Oh, that's WLAP," or "WLAP will hold us accountable," or even: "Ask the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection." That's what they have continually advised the opposition.

It has become abundantly clear that the ministry has a tall order to fill and a lot pressures working against it. Before I look specifically at what those other ministers have said, I would like to get a few key details settled first.

I'd like to start by looking at the cuts to the FTEs and the staffing levels in the ministry. The service plan states that the ministry had 1,298 FTEs. The '02-03 estimates say that will be reduced to 1,138, and by '04-05 the FTE total is projected to hit a low of 897. That's a reduction of over 30 percent.

Knowing full well how hard working and professional the public service is, how could a reduction of this magnitude possibly fulfill the pressures being put on by this ministry?

Hon. J. Murray: I would just like to respond quickly to the member's comments about the role of this ministry. Each of the ministries has received directions from the Premier to incorporate sustainability in their service plans and annual planning. This ministry has a role to play in protecting the environment, but this ministry is actually partnering with the other ministries that also have environmental protection as part of their responsibilities. An example of that might be the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, where environmental sustainability is one of the core functions of the ministry.

The ministry is working together with the other ministries to ensure that the environment is protected. The respective ministries are actually working together to ensure that any areas of potential overlap or gap are identified and clarified so we can be as — and more — effective in protecting the environment.

J. Kwan: The minister is suggesting that on the protection side of the environment she'll be working with other ministers, but I have to say that when questions were asked of other ministers in their estimates, they say that's not their responsibility. It is absolutely within the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection's responsibility, not their responsibility. I am going to go, probably on Monday, into specifically what other ministers have said so that we can canvass thoroughly whose responsibility it is and how the ministry will ensure environmental integrity is protected in British Columbia.

As I said, from what we have learned to date in the estimates process, WLAP will be relied on heavily for the so-called best science and for keeping the other ministries accountable with that science. In order to do so, one would expect that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is heavily laden with qualified science officers. How many science officers were with the ministry in '01-02?

Hon. J. Murray: In answer to the general comment first, this ministry does have a responsibility to use up-to-date science to set standards and ensure enforcement. It's natural that the other ministries would defer those questions to the WLAP estimates, because that is the role of this ministry.

In terms of the specific question, we'll have to take on notice the request for science officers for the previous year. The materials we have don't break down the FTEs based on science officers. They're broken down by other segmenting regimes that are more tied to the ministry's departments. The number of science officers for this coming year, however, is 321.

J. Kwan: Given that the minister has to look up the numbers from the previous year, I will continue on

with my estimates questions with the minister on Monday. We'll have a series of questions around what the FTEs are looking like within the ministry and then other questions for the minister. At this point, I'd like to yield the floor to other members in the House who wish to ask questions of the minister.

R. Masi: I would like to ask a few questions on the Burns Bog situation as a general update. I wonder, first of all, if we could establish how many hectares are in fact involved in the negotiation process and get a general description of where those are located within the outline of the bog itself.

Hon. J. Murray: Any details around a current negotiation can't be divulged. However, nothing has been taken away from the set of lands that were being negotiated in terms of preserving and protecting Burns Bog prior to the election. My understanding is that it's somewhere over 5,000 hectares.

R. Masi: From the first answer you gave me, the questions I have may or may not be answerable. I'll proceed anyway. We'll take whatever answer we get, I guess.

In terms of the groups or parties involved in the negotiations, could the minister explain to me which groups and which parties are involved in terms of the owners of the land?

Hon. J. Murray: The negotiations are between the provincial government, represented by the Ministry of Finance staff, and the legal representative authorized by the owners to negotiate on their behalf.

R. Masi: In fact, then, the minister is not free to divulge the actual names of the companies or owners involved in the discussions.

Hon. J. Murray: We can take that on notice and get back to you with the specific names of the companies. It is a matter of public record. It's the companies that are on the title of the Burns Bog property. I don't happen to know the company names here and now, but we can get back to you on that.

R. Masi: I would appreciate that very much, because there seems to be some confusion in the actual ownership in terms of who's negotiating and who's in and who's out — that sort of thing — so a clarification would be very valuable.

In terms of the federal government, I understand there's an involvement there and a commitment there. Can the minister explain to me whether or not the federal officials are directly involved in the negotiations at this time?

Hon. J. Murray: The federal government is not involved with the negotiations. It's entirely between the province and the representative of the company that owns the property, but we do keep the federal government informed.

R. Masi: In terms of the federal commitment, does the commitment still stand in terms of the federal government's budget process?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, it does. I've received assurance from the Minister of Environment that that commitment does stand.

In terms of the greater Vancouver regional district, is there any involvement there or commitment or support level given, beyond moral support?

Hon. J. Murray: The greater Vancouver regional district remains committed to some financial contribution in the few millions of dollars, so there hasn't been any reduction in that. If you'd like us to get the exact figure, I'm sure we could get back to you on that.

R. Masi: Well, I would appreciate any information I could get in terms of the Burns Bog situation. I will be attending a meeting of the Delta council, and I'm sure this subject will be coming forward. It usually does. In terms of the Delta council, is there any direct involvement there? Are they simply involved in the zoning of the land and have no further participation in it?

Hon. J. Murray: We're happy to arrange a meeting between the member and Steve Hollett, who's the negotiator on behalf of the provincial government. He'll be able to provide a complete briefing for your needs.

R. Masi: I read in the newspaper that in fact the loan extended to the owners of the bog has been called by a ministry of the government. Will that have any bearing on the direct negotiations in finalizing the deal with the bog owners?

Hon. J. Murray: The circumstances around the company's loans are a completely separate issue from the negotiations to purchase Burns Bog, and they're being handled by Competition, Science and Enterprise.

R. Masi: There is a lot of discussion regarding the south perimeter road. There is probably a connection there between the development of the south perimeter road and where it's going to go relative to the bog. It's fairly close quarters there. I'm wondering if the ministry has any communication going with the Ministry of Highways relative to the planning and the layout of the possible south perimeter road.

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, there have been discussions between staff in my ministry and Ministry of Transportation staff as the discussions around the potential ac-

R. Masi: I appreciate the fact that discussions have been going on, but in fact, has there been a definition provided here on where the bog ends and where the road begins? It is very tight in specific areas.

Hon. J. Murray: I can't provide details on that, because it gets into the details of the negotiations and the definition of the perimeter of the property.

R. Masi: We seem to have gone full circle, right around to question number one again. I think, at that point, that will be it. Thank you.

B. Penner: I appreciate this opportunity to ask the minister a number of questions.

It's a beautiful, sunny, spring day, which is great news, but it also means we're not that far away from summer, when people in the lower mainland will become once again increasingly concerned about air quality. I'd like to take this opportunity to ask the minister if she's aware of any indication from Washington State when we can expect a recommendation from EFSEC, the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, with respect to the Sumas Energy 2 proposal. I know people in British Columbia have been waiting, no pun intended, with bated breath for some time. I just wonder if the minister is privy to any indication about when a recommendation might be forthcoming from EFSEC.

Hon. J. Murray: We've been expecting that decision any day, and we have no information as to why it hasn't come and when we might expect it.

B. Penner: If my memory serves me correctly, we were told late last year that it could be sometime early in the new year, being 2002. Then we were told it would be in February. Then we were told it would be in March. In March I received some advice from people close to the governor that it would be whenever the Legislature in Washington State had finished for the spring.

The Legislature there adjourned two weeks ago. At that time I phoned EFSEC staff myself in Olympia and was told that they expected a recommendation in "four to six weeks' time" from two weeks ago. It seems like the time lines keep moving. I was just wondering if the minister heard anything further. Perhaps she hasn't. I guess we just have to keep waiting. It's tempting to speculate whether the delay is good news from our perspective or not, but that might not be productive at this point.

I'd like to turn to another matter pertaining to air quality. It's a matter that I get particularly excited about, because I think there's tremendous potential for reducing the amount of air pollution if certain things happen. I'm referring to standards for sulphur content in gasoline. I know the federal government has an initiative that's been discussed for many years to mandate a reduction in the parts-per-million of sulphur in gasoline. I'm not sure if there is a standard currently, but the average in Canada is over 150 parts-per-million. In some cases, tests have shown quantities of as much as 300 to 500 or 600 parts-per-million of sulphur in gasoline. This has a very deleterious impact on air quality, not just in urban areas but throughout Canada. I think that perhaps the biggest single gain or improvement in air quality that we'll see in our lifetime will come from a major reduction in the quantity of sulphur that's permitted in gasoline.

I wonder if the minister can tell us what role her ministry's playing vis-à-vis the federal government. I know they're under some pressure, especially from the oil refiners — Petro-Canada foremost among them — in resisting efforts to ratchet down the amount of sulphur content permitted in gasoline. Again, just going by memory, I believe the first step is to reduce the acceptable amount to 150 parts-per-million, with the eventual goal of achieving the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency standard of 30 parts-per-million. We have a long, long way to go in Canada to get anywhere close to the U.S. standard.

I wonder if the minister's been working at all with her federal counterpart to encourage the federal government to show some resolve when it comes to dealing with the oil refineries and to take steps to clean up our air.

Hon. J. Murray: I appreciate the member bringing this issue up, because air quality is one of our most important environmental challenges. Air quality is one of the environmental impacts that is most tied to human health problems. The research is confirming that every day, about various kinds of health issues, whether it's the connection between air pollution and incidences of asthma in children or whether it's the tie between smog and atherosclerosis and strokes, so I think it is a very important issue. The federal minister's program to reduce sulphur in air emissions is part of the federal government's commitment to clean up our air.

Ministry staff, provincially, work with the federal ministry of Environment in developing these kinds of regulations. The province will, of course, be considering how we can harmonize with the federal government's standards and their timetable.

I have spoken personally with the federal environment minister, Minister Anderson, about my support for this initiative. I'm not aware of any weakening of the federal government's resolve. I know that the federal government negotiated with the refineries and other industry proponents over a period of many years, and there were iterations of discussions about how to address the concerns about sulphur in gasoline. This current regulation that's coming forward, which has to do with the 2005, 30 parts-per-million level, is the product of years of discussions and negotiations. I'm not aware of any intent or consideration of weakening that.

B. Penner: It's almost, perhaps, counter-intuitive that it's the Canadian automobile manufacturers association that has been helping lead the charge in requesting the federal government to require lower sulphur content in gasoline. The reason why the automobile manufacturers are so strident in this position is that the higher sulphur content fouls up the high-tech engines that are available in today's automobiles and works to defeat the effect of new pollution control devices that are installed on automobiles.

What can happen because of the higher sulphur content is the engines cannot perform as designed, resulting in greater tailpipe pollution and earlier mechanical problems with the cars and the engines themselves. This imposes a financial burden on the manufacturers of the automobiles because of warranties that are applied to those vehicles. The automobile manufacturers have a vested financial interest in making sure their cars run as well as they can so they don't have to pay out on warranties, but to accomplish that goal, they need to see a reduction in the amount of sulphur that's allowed in gasoline.

It's very frustrating for me to see better technology applied to automobiles to help reduce pollution only to have that equipment defeated because of higher sulphur content in gasoline. The minister quite correctly says that almost every day there are new studies proving the link between air pollution and adverse impacts on human health. In fact, today's Vancouver Sun carries a story on the front page with the headline: "How Air Pollution Hurts Your Lungs, Heart." That article refers to a recent study by St. Paul's Hospital and the University of British Columbia, a study that will be published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, showing that the cardiovascular system is compromised by smog and other such pollution, primarily fine particulates which come from automobiles and also power plants that burn fossil fuels.

There is a very strong evidentiary link between increased levels of air pollution and adverse impacts on human health, whether it's asthma for seniors and for children or actual increase in the risk of stroke or heart attacks amongst adults. We are all paying a significant price for unacceptably high levels of fine particulate pollution in the air we breathe.

I know there have been a number of studies from Harvard in the last year showing a link between smoggy days in Boston and increased levels of heart attacks amongst adult males. The evidence is very persuasive, and that's why I've taken such an interest in this topic. I really do believe that just as getting lead out of gasoline became such an obvious thing to do in the 1980s, getting sulphur as much as possible out of gasoline will become the real issue for Canada in the current millennium. I hope we get on that sooner rather than later, and I appreciate this opportunity to discuss this with the minister.

W. McMahon: Can the minister explain the need for removing the free access to parks for disabled people, and what the cost savings on revenue associated with this action are?

Hon. J. Murray: In our service plan we determined that eliminating subsidies to parks was one of our plans for this coming year, but I'm very happy to say we made an exception for people who are disabled and low income. We are maintaining free camping for people who are qualified for disability benefits level 2. In other words, they're both disabled and have low incomes. We've also maintained access to free camping for disabled children who qualify under the At Home program of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I'm happy to let the member know we've made an exception so low-income disabled people can camp for free.

W. McMahon: I guess many of these people who are affected cope by themselves with very little assistance from government or other agencies. In many cases this is the only vacation or recreation they get, so I'm pleased to hear there is some flexibility for people on fixed incomes. I'm concerned, and I've had concerns expressed, about disabled people in general who have used this service.

Changing the subject now, the elimination of a number of the conservation officers in the province will impact how services are provided if the status quo is to be maintained. I'm getting a lot of concern expressed in my riding. It's a large rural riding, and we've lost two conservation officers out of one area.

If the expectation is that enforcement services are to be maintained and if conservation officers will be travelling greater distances, can you explain to me how they will be able to do their jobs in the same manner in which they have been done in the past? The distances in my area could be one and a half to three hours simply to get to a site or to a town.

Hon. J. Murray: I'd just like to go back for a moment to your closing comments about the disabled camping. One of the reasons the member may be receiving calls is that there is a change to how people are qualified for free camping under the disabled program. I didn't want to leave the impression that the program is exactly as it was.

Just to clarify, in the past the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection has managed and administered its own process for qualifying people for handicapped access to free camping. That's not something the ministry can afford to do in the future, so the ministry will be making free camping available to people who qualify for disability benefits level 2 and the At Home program.

The process of qualifying and administering the qualification that's already being done in other ministries doesn't have to be duplicated in Water, Land and Air Protection. It does mean that some people — for example, people who are disabled but don't have low incomes — will no longer qualify for free camping.

This will limit the free camping to people that are disabled but also who are low-income.

Previously, income was not an issue, so you could be very well off, and if you were disabled, you qualified for free camping. We didn't believe it made sense to the taxpayers that the ministry would run a separate qualification system. Also, we didn't believe it was in the public interest to provide a subsidy to people who are not in financial need, whether they're disabled or not. I just wanted to clarify. There are some changes, and some people will no longer have access to free camping that enjoyed it in the past.

Secondly, on the question about the conservation officer service, I want to start by saying enforcement is a very important part of this ministry's job. We've identified through the core services review that some of the things the ministry has been doing, they should get out of. The things they should be doing more of and doing more effectively, actually, is setting standards and making sure those standards are enforced and penalties are in place.

It is very important in our ministry that we focus on how to have effective enforcement, and we have several ways we believe we'll be able to achieve that better than we have in the past. One aspect is that we've maintained a ministry presence in 60 out of 67 communities. We were very conscious of making a choice to not find financial efficiencies through centralizing ministry staff in a few larger offices but rather to maintain a presence in communities throughout British Columbia. The very presence of conservation officers and ministry staff is in itself a benefit and a deterrent.

Something we're doing that I think will definitely improve the effectiveness of the conservation officer service is that…. In the past the compliance activities were mixed in with other responsibilities of ministry staff, and there were sometimes not strong lines of communication between ministry staff doing compliance work. When breaches of standards or the law were discovered, the people responsible for the enforcement work, which is the conservation officers…. We're addressing that by creating a new designation of ministry staff, which is compliance officer. Those officers will be focused on monitoring and compliance, and they will be working very closely with conservation officers and supporting conservation officers so that we avoid any gaps and duplications. The conservation officers will have more time in the field doing the things they are so highly qualified and trained to do. That's part of how we're addressing the concern the member has.

Another aspect of the changes we'll be making over the course of our three-year service plan is to move to improving our information flow so that some of the quite onerous paperwork conservation officers were required to do — to fill out forms in triplicate and make sure they went in a number of different places — will be streamlined through using electronic means for communication and for recording information. We think that will help the COs spend more time in the field as well.

We're clear on the importance of effective enforcement, and we're making a number of changes — the ones that I've mentioned. We've also brought the conservation officers into a division that is specifically about planning, innovation and enforcement. We have a renewed focus on compliance and enforcement activities, and we intend to be effective.

W. McMahon: Constituents in the area that I represent are concerned. One of their concerns centres around the fact that there will be a number of people not purchasing licences this year simply because they don't feel that the enforcement is there anymore for them to have to do that. I'm getting letters on that right now stating that that is the plan — that they won't be.

I'm wondering how the ministry will address this issue given the distances people will also be having to travel, and great distances out into the back country, to even try and find these people who are out there fishing and hunting.

Hon. J. Murray: From the member's comments, my understanding is that the concern is that people won't be buying licences and so therefore won't be fishing and hunting, because they're concerned about…. Well, in the conversations I've had with regional and provincial media, I've assured the public that enforcement is a strong priority for this ministry.

I also know that hunting, fishing, parks and recreation are important to people in British Columbia and important for tourists and for attracting people into the province to spend money in the regions. I would encourage people to write me a letter if they have a concern about that. I will continue to communicate my confidence in the structure that we're doing and the improved processes that we're doing that will improve CO effectiveness.

I just thought I'd mention two other things. One is that the ministry does have a program called Observe, Record and Report. That is a program where if any person is out in the bush or anywhere else — in town; it could be anywhere — and they observe what they believe to be illegal activity, we encourage them to observe, record and report it. That information is helpful, and people can be the eyes and ears on the ground.

A second point I want to make — well, we've got a third point here — is that we are exploring opportunities for a SWAT team approach. I've spoken directly with the Minister of Environment from Ontario, who was very enthusiastic about the effectiveness of that approach, where there is a set of unannounced visits, I guess, to a whole sector that impacts the environment. The SWAT team is a way to concentrate resources in a focused compliance effort rather than it being scattered all over the place. We expect that to be as effective as it is in other jurisdictions.

Another thing we'll be doing …. I understand that a lot of COs' time is taken up with some of the human-

wildlife conflicts that are not actually a danger to human life and well-being. Some of the examples I've been given are raccoons on somebody's roof or squirrel problems. The COs will be developing clear criteria for the kinds of wildlife-human conflicts that are a risk and which they will be responding to and some of the ways they will redirect calls that are not the higher-risk issues. We will be having the COs focus more where they should be and freeing up their time for the things they should be free to do.

W. McMahon: Last question. I've also had concern expressed to me by the RCMP, who feel that they will be phoned for enforcement, particularly with their situations. They don't have the manpower or the training to deal with these types of issues. I know it's been expressed to me in two communities. I've also spoken to the Solicitor General about it, letting them know of their concern there.

I'm wondering if there has been any thought given to how we should be dealing with this issue or where they should be directing their efforts. When we have an hour and a half, or two hours, or two and a half hours, between communities and we've got a bear in a community, I think people will naturally phone the RCMP when the conservation officer is no longer there to deal with it. I'm hoping there will be consideration given to this problem.

Hon. J. Murray: The question that the member is asking points directly to one of the approaches that we will be strengthening, which is prevention of human-bear problems. I understand the ministry deals with something like 10,000 calls a year of bear problems. Some of those are preventable.

A town in the member's riding, Revelstoke, is an exemplary leader in British Columbia in how to prevent those bear problems by the community taking action to understand what attracts bears to where people live and then actually taking steps to solve that. I was able to acknowledge the city of Revelstoke a few months ago for their work.

The ministry is continuing its funding for the coming year for the Be Bear Aware program. We see prevention as a very important part of our toolkit for reducing the load on COs and also reducing the problems in the communities. I'm looking forward to seeing that prevention and that awareness and the action taken by communities expanded throughout British Columbia. I've been encouraging city councils that express concern about bear problems to talk to ministry staff and register for the bear smart program that the ministry's also developed and get the Bear Aware training and take those actions.

With respect to the RCMP's concerns, there's communities where the conservation officers and the RCMP work closely together. I understand that's going to continue and that they will work closely together with the issues that are of concern to the community, because it's the same taxpayer and the same local person, whether the problem is an RCMP jurisdiction or whether it's a conservation officer's. I think that kind of communication and cooperation is important.

The ministry has no plans to download on RCMP by saying: "You need to do this now. The provincial government dictates that the municipality needs to do something, and we'll load a responsibility on the RCMP." We certainly invite cooperative relationships between the RCMP and…. We do have communities where the RCMP have had training in some aspects of bear control and have willingly taken on some of those responsibilities where the conservation officer can't get to the scene in as quick a time as the RCMP officer.

W. McMahon: The training for the RCMP. Is that something that the conservation officers do in conjunction with the RCMP?

Hon. J. Murray: In the example that I'm talking about, which is Whistler, I've had a chance to talk with both COs and RCMP, and yes, the COs provided training to the RCMP at their request.

M. Hunter: I would like to pursue, just for a moment, the questions that the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke asked with respect to conservation officers from a slightly different angle. I do appreciate and I listened carefully to the minister's responses, but I think the minister is aware that the linkage that is being made in the wildlife community — those that hunt or observe wildlife — is that there is a reduction in conservation officer strength, and that will mean less-appropriate wildlife management.

I want to give this a perspective that comes from the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club, of which I'm a member and with whom, by the way, the minister did meet a month or so ago — the first time, I'm told, a minister had ever met with the Nanaimo Fish and Game Club, an organization that's over 50 years old. That was much appreciated, minister.

The issue that I think brings the conservation officer problem to light is one connected with Vancouver Island deer management. We have, as I'm sure the minister knows, a problem with deer populations on the Island. The way this argument goes, hunters know there are fewer deer. Therefore, they don't bother buying a licence and equipping themselves and going out into the woods. Therefore, the eyes and ears which the hunting community has represented as part of the management fabric of wildlife management for decades is starting to erode. You add to that an erosion in the strength of the CO staff, and what you have is basically nobody in the woods so that those who want to trespass, break the law and take wildlife illegally have much more of a chance to do that than was the case before. Would the minister like to comment on that aspect of this whole issue, please?

Hon. J. Murray: Firstly, I'd like to say that I've been very appreciative of the role that the B.C. Wildlife Fed-

eration members have played in terms of conservation — really; you're right — being out there on the ground and having an interest in the conservation of the habitat and biodiversity. People from fish and game clubs are strong advocates for the environment and for the responsible use of our environmental assets. I'd like to acknowledge that.

I trust that people out in the back-country area — whether they're fishing, hunting or, perhaps, hiking or canoeing — will continue to take an interest in whether the rules are being respected with respect to wildlife. We do have the program in place where they can channel their concerns to the ministry.

Secondly, I would like to assure the member that there has been no change in CO staffing levels in Nanaimo.

M. Hunter: I want to just switch to fisheries for a moment. British Columbia has had a fish hatchery lake-stocking program for many, many years. I know that in the strategic plan of the ministry, that activity is at least, as I understand it, under review, and fewer resources are being placed on it.

At the same time one of the performance measures for the park and wildlife recreation part of the service plan is client satisfaction with fish and wildlife recreation opportunities. I'm a little bit curious as to how we expect client satisfaction to be maintained, at least based on current measurement standards — which I guess include the number of repeat visits and how many people buy licenses, for example — if we are going to reduce or eliminate public participation in fish hatchery and lake-stocking programs. Could the minister comment on that, please?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm not clear what the member means by eliminating public participation in lake-stocking and fish hatchery programs. Do you mean government participation?

Hon. J. Murray: Oh, sorry. Okay. There's no reduction in the fish hatchery program in this coming fiscal year, so that program will continue. Yes, the model for funding fish, wildlife and park recreation will be reviewed this year, with the intent that British Columbia has the diverse and adequate funding sources for those activities so they can be managed in the quality manner they ought to be, appreciating that fishing, hunting and park recreation are incredibly important to people throughout the province, whether living in cities or towns. Those activities are also very important for creating economic activity in many parts of the province, remote or not remote from the lower mainland. This ministry understands the vital importance of those activities, and the purpose of the review this coming year will be to ensure that those opportunities remain available.

In terms of visitor satisfaction, the number of park visits has actually either been level or declining recently. My analysis is that one of the reasons is that we've had a major expansion of the parks system with a decline in funding through government in the last decade, so the model in which the provision of those opportunities and protecting of parks depends entirely, or almost entirely, on government funding is not working. It wasn't working when the election was called, and isn't working now. We will be addressing that in this review.

My intention is that we have increased park visits, that we support our economic aspirations, aspirations for prosperity in British Columbia, connecting those aspirations with opportunities to visit parks and engage in fishing and hunting opportunities, and that that becomes part of our new-era future. That's what the review will be aiming to accomplish.

M. Hunter: Minister, just to pursue that a little bit, can you explain how you see the review of the hatchery and lake-stocking program being conducted? Are you looking for public-private partnerships — the involvement of the B.C. Wildlife Federation, for example, or its member clubs? What kind of process are you going to undergo to get us from where we are to where the service plan says we need to be, while maintaining what I, from my perspective, think are important rootstock, genetic elements of the 50-or-more-year-old lake-stocking and hatchery program that the government of British Columbia has run?

Hon. J. Murray: I had the privilege of visiting one of the stocked lakes in the Kamloops area and watching the ministry biologists actually work with the fish in the lake and find out about the hatchery program. I'm very aware that there are elements of the program that have to do with recreational fishery but also with maintaining and protecting the integrity of wild stock. The review will definitely incorporate those elements. The process of doing this review is being worked on currently, and there isn't a completed plan. We've drafted an approach, and that will be considered through the proper channels before it becomes the official plan for this review.

M. Hunter: Just one last comment, if I may. Thank you for that, minister. I would just urge that in conducting the review we do look to tap the energy, commitment, brains and background of a lot of people. The B.C. Wildlife Federation is the obvious candidate, but not the only one. Perhaps there are retired people who might have something to contribute that will help us move, as the service plan suggests, to the way we need to be in 2004-05.

Hon. J. Murray: I just want to confirm that yes, we will. I'm very aware of how knowledgeable and how interested and actually passionate about these issues people in British Columbia are. There will be a public

consultation process. There will be an involvement of stakeholder groups that have a connection with these issues.

I've been hearing some concerns about bear around various communities. I guess I'm going to come at it from a different point of view. My concern is the grizzly bear hunt and not being allowed to participate in this in parts of my riding.

It became a very important issue in the central coast, where we have licensed guides that make a living from guiding into areas to cull bear. They've been doing it for many, many years. They do it with full understanding and concern for the bear population. They do it with an understanding that they're going to have to go back there next year and the year after and the year after, and they have to make sure every time that the population is strong enough to support this ongoing hunt.

Soon after we were elected we dealt with what the NDP brought in, and that was a moratorium on grizzly bear hunting. We lifted that moratorium, but in the central coast we left two areas in. I don't think we've allowed anybody to go in and hunt in these two areas. This impacted one of the guides in the area and probably cost him somewhere around $30,000 to $40,000 of income. I'm wondering if we have any intentions of revisiting these two locations. One was in Oweekeno area. It escapes me right now exactly where the other location was. I'm wondering if we have any plans to allow the hunting back in these areas as has gone on in the past.

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, as the member mentioned, there were two areas that were closed temporarily in the central coast area. These were identified as grizzly bear management areas as part of the grizzly bear conservation strategy that the ministry has put together. The moratorium is being maintained on those areas until the central coast planning tables have completed their work. They're being maintained as an option that the land use planning tables will make the decision on.

One of the things I want to connect is that these two areas are part of an overall conservation strategy that the ministry has. That strategy includes carefully managed hunts. It also includes some recovery of grizzly bears in areas that it's believed by the science can support a viable grizzly bear population.

The goal of the conservation approach is to make sure we maintain viable grizzly bear populations and the population units that do support grizzly bears. Grizzly bear management areas are part of that.

We have a scientific advisory panel that has been working since July and will be reporting at the end of this current calendar year. Their job is to review the science, because there have been concerns about grizzly bear hunting and moratoriums from both perspectives, people that are concerned that it might affect the viability of our grizzly bear populations to hunt and people that believe the ministry's allocation of hunting and their closures are too conservative.

The grizzly bear scientific panel will be reviewing the conservation approach that the ministry uses, the formula by which the calculations are made in a particular grizzly bear population unit as to how many opportunities to hunt grizzlies in that unit should be provided. The panel is inviting anybody who has some scientific information that they can consider, and will be reporting to government. Government will be guided by their recommendations. That's December 2002.

B. Belsey: There is another community in my riding, the community of Stewart. The bear population in Stewart is such a problem that they build fences around their yards, and that is a safe place for a child to play in. You go to the community, and they don't recommend you walk down the streets at night, because of the bear population.

If we have a group that's going around or taking a look at bear populations around the province — and I assume there may be more areas in which we are not going to be allowed to hunt bear as well as maybe these two parts that I'm concerned about in the central coast — we might be able to go back in there. I will be watching very closely to see the outcome of this analysis.

I know some of the reasons for not allowing grizzly bear hunts in the central coast area. It troubles me to think we might have a group out there now taking a look at it and saying: "Yes, there is a decline in population." Some of the reasons for that decline…. I'm not sure they will impact the decision they make. I think that certainly in one area there was a lot of shooting of grizzly bear, but not by those with guiding permits or whatever in an area.

Anyway, my next question. I'd like to go on, and I want to talk a little bit about the steelhead fishery in the Skeena. It's been brought to my attention by a few of the constituents that the steelhead fishery in the Skeena is a catch and release, although I think in the last three years the testing of the fishery that has been done has indicated large numbers of steelhead. I'm just trying to think of the figures. I think something like 35,000 was a level at which they would get concerned about steelhead, but we've had numbers upwards of 50,000. Yet we still have catch and release. These steelhead fishermen are wondering why they can't keep at least one steelhead a year with those kind of numbers returning. Those numbers have been verified not only with the test fishery near the mouth of the Skeena, but good returns are also verified in some of the traps further up the Skeena River.

Hon. J. Murray: I'd like to take that question on notice and get back to the member and also invite the member to talk with ministry staff from the region. I'll just add that there is an angling use management pro-

cess or planning process underway, and the decisions made provincially around fisheries, as with the grizzly bear hunt, are informed by ministry biologists from the regions. The local staff will be able to answer your questions, but we can also get back to you with more information.

B. Belsey: I'd like to thank the minister for the opportunity. I appreciate that. I would be more than pleased to spend some time with you — another time, another place — and we'll talk about these concerns. Thank you very much.

First, I'd like to congratulate her staff on the service plan. I continue to be impressed with all the ministries and the work staff have done, both in the minister's office but also back in their headquarters settings, for putting together such comprehensive service plans in a way that hasn't been done before and in what were really very tight time frames. They're excellent documents, and I continue to encourage my constituents to look at these service plans. They really do provide more information than, I think, the provincial government has ever released before on future plans.

I'd like to start with the service plan, if I might. The first area I'd like to talk about is that obviously, coming from an urban riding, my issues with respect to Water, Land and Air Protection are somewhat different than the rural areas. Many of my constituents feel very strongly about environmental issues but feel somewhat disconnected from some of the issues and their ability to have input.

I'm looking specifically at some of the broad strategies outlined by the ministry. One of them is to involve local communities in protection and restoration of local ecosystems. We have a very active association here, the Land Conservancy, which has done some amazing jobs. If you look out the windows of this Legislature at the Sooke Hills, for instance, you will see some of their work. I'm wondering whether or not the minister could expand a little bit on how she sees urban areas like Victoria being more involved in that type of activity — the protection and restoration of local ecosystems.

Hon. J. Murray: I appreciate the acknowledgment of the member, both for the organizations that have worked with the ministry and the kinds of partnerships that have happened that have had positive results. There are a number of examples. The member has mentioned one, and there is also an organization in this area, the Veins of Life Watershed Society, that has worked in partnership with levels of government and the business community.

In fact, a number of members joined me last night in attending a dinner by another organization, which is Ducks Unlimited. It also has a long and pretty venerable history of conservation and partnerships. That's an important part of our approach as we move forward. In the division of planning, innovation and enforcement in Water, Land and Air Protection, we're working on a model for developing more partnerships.

One thing that has sometimes happened is that in a local area there has been a reinventing of the wheel as to how to work together in a partnership. There are some plus sides to that, because each of these partnerships is unique. I had a chance to speak to some of the staff people working with the South Okanagan–Similkameen Conservation Program initiative.

This is also a very good example of a partnership that includes different levels of government and non-profit groups, local communities and businesses in protecting areas in the South Okanagan–Similkameen area that have some of the highest densities of endangered species in British Columbia. That's an effective partnership, and there are other very effective partnerships that grew up out of different committed people creating partnerships.

What we'd like to do in the ministry is identify the common elements in these successful partnerships, which are in different parts of the province and include different kinds of constituents and partners, and see if we as the province can provide some leadership in creating almost a set of models for successful partnership-building with other interested members of our society.

I think that's very much in line with government's philosophy around the environment, which is that we need to move away from a time where there is one ministry in government that protects the environment and move towards where that is the responsibility of all ministries. Also, it's the responsibility of organizations that impact the environment, or potentially do, and it's the responsibility of all members of society, really, to begin to live and breathe sustainability and the protection of the environment in their local area.

J. Bray: Thank you to the minister for that. Carrying on the theme with respect to public input, it's unfortunate that my colleague from North Coast is no longer here, because I'm going to move on to the issue of the grizzly bear hunt. It is one of those issues that does have different perspectives, as the minister alluded to in a previous answer. Essentially, you have a rural consideration and then you have an urban consideration. I fully respect those differences.

As the review panel that's looking at the grizzly bear hunt, the grizzly bear moratorium, reports out at the end of this calendar year, I'm wondering if the minister could lay out what the next steps are or might be as a result of that report being released, I'm assuming, sometime in December of 2002.

Hon. J. Murray: We've gone on public record to say that we will be guided by the conclusions of the panel's report. I think it probably would be considered future policy to speculate just how we might do that, because we don't know what the report's going to say.

J. Bray: Again, coming from an urban riding, where that activity is obviously not occurring — at least, not

very much in my area here — there are, nonetheless, many constituents who do express some concern from, perhaps, a more ethical or moral standpoint as opposed to the actual population data. I'm wondering whether or not the minister can advise me on how I can ensure that constituents of mine who have concerns might have some ability or where they might be able to engage in some conversation after that report comes out with respect to the issues around whether hunting should or shouldn't occur in and of itself, as opposed to a conservation measure or a population-based model. Can the minister give me some guidance so I can ensure that my constituents can feel engaged in the process after that report comes out?

Hon. J. Murray: I appreciate the member distinguishing between the science of grizzly bear population and the management of a controlled hunt and the ethical or value positions that different people hold. I would just like to mention that my experience is that those different values, with respect to whether hunting grizzly bears is a good thing or not, are held on both sides in the urban areas and on both sides in the rural areas.

My ministry's job, as the member did recognize, is to ensure that the science of conservation is being applied in the decisions around the hunt and not to take a stand on the cultural, moral or value issue here. The question is: how can that debate take place? I don't see it as my ministry's responsibility to make a decision on that issue or, necessarily, to foster that debate. It is a completely legitimate debate for people in our society to have, as are any other kinds of moral, ethical or cultural differences.

I would invite the member to share with me his ideas as to how we can in British Columbia create a vehicle for that debate to take place. There are many people who feel strongly about this issue on both sides, and having a vehicle for that debate would be a positive thing. I extend that invitation, and we'll see what the possibilities are.

J. Bray: I do appreciate the answer from the minister. I will take her up on that on behalf of many constituents who've expressed some concerns. I'm also pleased to hear that she fully supports that type of public debate and in fact encourages it. I'll make sure my constituents are aware of that.

If I may, I'd like to move on to a few of the other areas in the service plan. One deals with the goal for protecting human health and safety by ensuring clean and safe water, land and air. Moving down the strategies, I'm looking at the second-to-last strategy identified in that area: undertake a comprehensive review of contaminated sites administration by mid-2003.

Of course, that's a very general sort of strategy. I'm wondering if, as a lead-up to more refined questions, the minister might give me a basic outline of what that's actually referring to, which may guide me in any follow-up questions I might have.

Hon. J. Murray: The ministry, in its core services review and service plan, has identified moving to more results-based regulation, as opposed to prescriptive regulation, as one of the things we'll be working on. Also, there's identifying where permitting is appropriate and where guidelines, standards and enforcement are appropriate.

With those shifts, the ministry will be looking at a number of the regulations that it manages and seeing what kind of changes might be needed to improve the regulation, to make sure it's effective but not overly prescriptive or bureaucratic, and that it meets the goal of protecting the environment while not overregulating. This is one of the ones on the list, and a ministry team is reviewing that standard now.

J. Bray: The sort of specific that I have in my riding is an area that can be viewed just outside the Legislature that's often referred to as the Dockside lands. Of course, it had high industrial use in our harbour for many years. Over time, as the industry has left for a variety of reasons, that land has in some cases been developed into different types of commercial operations and, in some cases, into residential.

Some sections there are of high value in and of themselves, both by location and size. Six or seven years ago there were companies that expressed a great deal of interest in those lands. The province sold that land to the city for $1, as is, and said: "You're responsible for cleanup." The city said: "Well, that's fine." They put some money into cleaning that up, based on the regulations of the day.

A company then came in, picked up the rest of that work and was prepared to do a very exciting multidimensional commercial, residential and retail development there. That would have created a great deal of economic activity, which would have reclaimed this land for a positive future use.

In the midst of their activities, the ministry under the previous administration then changed the regulations, with respect to contaminated soil in particular, to the point where it made it absolutely uneconomic for that company to continue to clean up that soil in order to do the development. They then walked away. Unfortunately, we were left with an undeveloped site and contaminated soil.

I'm wondering whether or not this review that the minister is referring to may help to clarify the ground rules for any future developer who may look at a site like that, to have some assurance that they can participate, with reasonable regulations that will meet the objectives of dealing with the contaminated soil but won't be so overly burdensome as to make it uneconomic for anybody to develop that land. As I say, leave the land undeveloped and the soil is still contaminated.

Hon. J. Murray: I'm also concerned about some of the time lags that I've heard about between identifying a site as being potentially contaminated and when it is productively being used. I'm also concerned about the

costs that have been incurred, especially in various litigation flowing from the contaminated site regulation issue. We'll certainly be looking at those things as we review this regulation.

J. Bray: I'm wondering if there is the ability for public input, for examples of where it hasn't worked well — and the fallout — to assist the ministry team that's looking at this issue, just to make sure that they actually have both academic examples and some real life examples to help them in their review of that process. When they come out with any decisions and advice to the minister, it can be balanced between real-life examples and some of the academic research that they would be looking at. I'm wondering if there's an avenue for public input with respect to contaminated soil regulations.

Hon. J. Murray: The review of the contaminated sites regulation is in very early stages of development. I can't comment at this point about exactly what the process will entail. I do appreciate the member's concern and suggestions.

Madam Chair, noting the time, I move the committee rise, report resolution and progress and ask leave to sit again.