Hansard -- Monday, May 26, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 2 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6891

Tributes		6891
	Jack Radford J. MacPhail

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6892
	Aga Khan Foundation J. Nuraney Duke of Edinburgh's Award recipients V. Roddick Ronald Lou-Poy I. Chong

Oral Questions		6893
	Privatization of B.C. Rail J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Liquor sales and identification requirements M. Hunter Hon. R. Coleman Privatization of B.C. Rail J. MacPhail Hon. J. Reid Management of Coquihalla Highway J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid B.C. Rail staff layoffs P. Nettleton Hon. J. Reid University college designation T. Bhullar Hon. S. Bond Regulation of floatplane landings B. Suffredine Hon. J. Murray

Petitions		6895
	R. Harris

Tabling Documents		6895
	British Columbia Legislative Library, annual report, 2002 Ministry of Finance, notification of accounting policy change, 2002-03

Motions without Notice		6896
	Adoption of government business schedule for May 26 to May 29, 2003 Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of Supply		6897
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen

Second Reading of Bills		6911
	Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40) (continued) Hon. R. Neufeld J. MacPhail P. Nettleton Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail P. Bell R. Harris R. Hawes B. Suffredine Hon. M. de Jong

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6935
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Planning (continued) Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. Kwan Hon. K. Whittred Hon. G. Cheema

Point of Privilege		6955
	J. Kwan

Hon. G. Campbell: Unfortunately, this particular guest isn't with us today, but the press gallery has yet another member added to its tribe. The CBC TV reporter Justine Hunter gave birth to a seven-pound, six-ounce baby boy on Victoria Day. Evidently, Justine and her partner Darrell Gittens are having difficulty coming up with a name, and I'm sure that the member from Mount Pleasant will be able to tell her what names she didn't use. That would probably be helpful to Justine. Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of the Legislature, I think simply "Claude" would be good.

R. Harris: We are joined in the House today by a very good friend of mine down from Kitimat. She has served a large part of her life in municipal politics, in the municipality, but also on the federal scene. She is the past president for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. Would the House please make Joanne Monaghan very welcome.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I'm very pleased to introduce a special guest in the gallery today. Her name is Mrs. Nomalanga Makwedini. She is the director of the HIV/AIDS, STI and TB control unit department of health at the Eastern Cape province in South Africa. In 1996 the Eastern Cape province and British Columbia signed an agreement on cooperation and governance under the aegis of the Canada–South Africa Provincial Twinning Project. Study and work exchanges are funded by the Canadian International Development Agency and administered by the Institute of Public Administration of Canada.

This partnership has been an enriching experience in both provinces. In the next two weeks Mrs. Makwedini and her colleague — and I hope I'm saying the names right — Dr. Buyiswa Mjamba will study best practices and share innovative solutions in prevention, treatment and research in the area of HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis control. She will observe the roles and the structures of the British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning and NGOs in the province.

Please join me in welcoming to this House our guest from Eastern Cape province, and we wish her a productive and enjoyable stay in our Pacific province.

J. MacPhail: I'm reminded by the Premier's announcement that in the Bible it talks about how as the seasons turn, there are ebbs and flows in life. As he announced a flow and a growing of life, I am sad to announce today that the MLA for Vancouver South from 1972 to 1975, Jack Radford, passed away in Victoria in hospice on May 19, 2003 — the same day the baby was born. He had a valiant battle with cancer and died at the age of 73.

He is survived by his wife Shirley, daughters Denise, Cheryl and Brenda, two stepchildren, Susan and David, seven grandchildren and four great-grandchildren. He ran in Vancouver South — what was then called Vancouver South — for the NDP in 1972 and was appointed Minister of Recreation and Conservation in that government. He devoted all of his life to improving the conservation of wildlife, providing parks, recreation and greenspace for people around the province.

As we bless the birth of one, we mourn the passing of another very important person. I hope that the Legislature would send condolences to Mr. Radford's family.

D. MacKay: Today in the gallery we're joined by 16 grade 7 students from St. Joseph's Catholic independent school in Smithers in the beautiful Bulkley Valley. They are accompanied today by two chaperons, Mark Adamson and Sally Toman, as well as their teacher, Elizabeth Creyke. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

I. Chong: In the gallery today I am pleased to introduce some very special friends and community leaders who are here to watch question period. We have amongst ourselves Ron and May Lou-Poy, who I will speak a little bit more about later, as well as Mr. Ben Low, who represents the Lung Kong Association here in Victoria; Mr. Eric Donald, who is a director on the board of governors of the University of Victoria; Mr. Paul Chan, who represents the Hoy Sun Association; Mr. Thomas Chan, who also represents the Chinese Freemason Society here in Victoria; and Georgina Wong, who is a winner of a Women of Distinction award as well as a founding member of the Victoria Chinatown Lioness Club. I hope the House would make them all very welcome.

Hon. S. Santori: I would like the House to welcome today Kristin Knutson from Castlegar, who is a student at Selkirk College in Trail. Kristen is working — for free, I might add — in the office of the Clerk of Committees for two weeks as part of her practicum studies. I would ask that the House make her feel very welcome.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today some of my favourite people. I have my older brother Badrudin, who is here — who spared no rod as I was growing up — and his wife, Nabat. I also have my

younger brother Salim and his wife, Yasmin, who have joined us today. I also have a friend in Rashida Haji, a member of a prominent family of my community. I would ask the House to please make them all welcome.

J. Bray: Joining us in the gallery today is a Vic High student, Sarah Taylor. Sarah is a budding journalist who is spending some time with Times Colonist reporter Judy Lavoie. I'm not sure if she'll find the experience here to encourage her to be a journalist or make her decide to take a different career, but I know that she's going to find it an interesting experience. I ask the House to please make her very welcome.

H. Long: I want to inform all the members of the House that there are people out there who are out for our blood. Due to the West Nile virus that is expected this way, in British Columbia, at some point this year, the Canadian Blood Services needs thousands of new donors to help build reserve blood should the agency require certain collection activities as a result of the virus. In light of the situation, I want to make all members aware of the blood drive with the Canadian Blood Services that we'll be having here in the buildings on Thursday, May 29, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. in the Birch Room, in 339. I encourage all the members to participate in that important initiative.

For the public, I'd like to say that they can reach Blood Services through a 1-800 number: 236-6283. This is a very important initiative for British Columbia.

Hon. R. Neufeld: In the gallery today is a lady from Fort St. John who came down to visit the capital. Her name is Dorene Callison, and she has worked with me in my office in Fort St. John since 1991. I'd like to make her welcome to Victoria today.

J. Nuraney: Yesterday was the day when over 6,000 people walked across Canada to raise money for the Aga Khan Foundation Canada. The first report indicates that over $3 million was raised yesterday. Since its inception, the World Partnership Walk has raised more than $20 million across Canada, and more than 60,000 people have taken part.

The Aga Khan Foundation has now become the leading philanthropic organization in the world serving central and south Asia and East African countries. A full 100 percent of the sponsorship to the Aga Khan Foundation goes to the projects. The World Bank and CIDA evaluate these projects and have concluded that the Aga Khan Foundation Canada's stewardship and utilization of donor funds is impeccable.

The Aga Khan Foundation is one of the agencies under the aegis of the Aga Khan development network, which includes Aga Khan education services, Aga Khan trusts for culture, Aga Khan University and Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development. The Ismaili community around the world takes enormous pride in the work of their leader, His Highness the Aga Khan.

We in Canada derive much comfort and satisfaction in being able to contribute and make a small contribution to this global trust to improve the lives of those in need. This is truly the Canadian way. Our Premier and my colleagues in this House have shown their continued support for this worthy cause, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank them all.

V. Roddick: The Duke of Edinburgh's Award, designed with great care by a small team in 1956, is a means to encourage and motivate all young people between the ages of 14 and 25 in areas of community service right through to physical recreation. In the words of our Lieutenant-Governor, these remarkable words teach the wisdom of toughening the body, inspiring the heart, enlightening the mind and polishing the precious human spirit.

This is not a competition but rather a test of the individual's self-reliance. The program includes children with special needs, providing them with a great opportunity to reach for their best. On June 3 there will be a ceremony held in Tsawwassen at South Delta Secondary school to award bronze medals to young people from the lower mainland. I'm proud to say that Delta has had its fair share of Duke of Edinburgh achievers, including last year's gold medallists, Bren Farrish, Jessy Dhillon, Cole Anderson, Scott Fattedad, Blake Jamieson, Jeremy Lasell and Shafiq Vallani.

Recent silver award winners include Ben Linkowich, Ian McLennan and Christina Chamberlain. I would also to mention Clint Gurniak of the Tsawwassen first nation, who has also won gold and silver awards, and Ruthie Adams, a silver award winner — both from the TFN — who will be receiving their bronze award in June along with Vanessa Nielson, Lisa Hislop, Kirin Jacobson, Suzanne Pereira and Alyssia Premji. Congratulations to all participants and their mentors. Your contribution is exemplary.

I. Chong: It is my pleasure today to introduce the University of Victoria's newest chancellor, Dr. Ronald Lou-Poy, QC. Last November members of the University of Victoria convocation, including alumni and faculty, cast their ballots and elected Ron as their ninth chancellor, succeeding Dr. Norma Mickelson. Ron's three-year term began on January 1, and the official installation takes place next Tuesday morning on June

3. However, he has already been very busy attending meetings and many functions.

Ron is a graduate of Victoria College, UVic's forerunner, and he is a senior partner in the Victoria law firm of Crease Harmon and Co. He has had extensive involvement with the university and the broader community, including two terms on the UVic board of governors from '72 to '74 and from 1992 to '95, and as an original director of the UVic Innovation and Development Corp.

Under Ron's direction, the Lou-Poy family has been instrumental in spearheading many local fundraising efforts. In particular, their support in the construction of much-needed child care space at UVic led to its being named the Harry Lou-Poy Infant and Toddler Child Care Centre, named for Ron Lou-Poy's father.

Within the broader community, Ron has held various positions with the Kiwanis Club, the United Way, Victoria Crime Stoppers, the Victoria McPherson Foundation and the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Association. He is a Queen's Counsel, an honorary citizen of Victoria, a recipient of the community service award from the Canadian Bar Association, B.C. Branch, and last year received the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal. Almost three years ago Ron Lou-Poy was granted an honorary doctorate of law from the University of Victoria.

While Ronald Lou-Poy credits much of his success to the example set by his father, he has certainly distinguished himself through many selfless years of commitment to the community to help make Victoria a better place to live. Ron assumes the role as the ninth chancellor for the university, but he represents much more. He becomes the first-ever Chinese person to be bestowed this honour at this university. As the titular head of the university who confers degrees and as a member of UVic's senate and board of governors, we are privileged to have such a distinguished gentleman serve as chancellor, and we wish him much success.

J. MacPhail: Just days ago the opposition released documents from B.C. Rail that indicated that selling this profitable Crown corporation to Liberal campaign backers could have potentially dire consequences for the economy of this province. Today we see even more implications of the Premier's now thoroughly broken promise to not sell B.C. Rail. It was revealed today in a newspaper that thousands of well-paid jobs will be sent to other provinces. That's a really innovative economic strategy, isn't it?

Can the Premier tell us why it's good for the taxpayers to export more than a thousand jobs and millions of dollars of profits to Alberta and Quebec?

Hon. J. Reid: Our B.C. Rail initiative is all about jobs. It's all about prosperity. It's all about sustainability. It's all about the heartlands. It's about the industries in the heartlands. Right now we have industries that are trucking their product to Alberta to put on rail in Alberta instead of jobs here in B.C.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer, or we will terminate question period right now.

Hon. J. Reid: We want sustainable, long-term rail service in British Columbia, and we are looking at the private sector to be an operating partner to be able to service our industry and service our communities.

M. Hunter: As the Solicitor General knows, pub and bar owners in Nanaimo and in other parts of the province are unhappy with new identification requirements that were introduced last December. Although the legal drinking age is 19, licensees must request two pieces of identification if a patron appears to be under the age of 25. Can the Solicitor General explain why these regulations were introduced and what enforcement of them has achieved?

Hon. R. Coleman: Last December when we brought in the new regulations for liquor and eliminated 2,500 to 3,000 silly regulations in the liquor sector, we told industry and we told the public that we were going to concentrate on four public safety issues: service to minors, over-service, overcrowding and illegal liquor in our establishments.

Part of that is an initiative to ask our operators to ask for two pieces of ID, which was done in consultation with the industry. What we have found, through testing, is that we weren't getting the compliance rates we were looking for. We have not done any more than warn the industry to improve its role and do its job better. We make no apologies for having rules that say we will now enforce minors in licensed premises. We will go forward and work with the industry so that compliance goes up and the need for inspections goes down.

J. MacPhail: The exporting of good jobs isn't the only new piece in the Premier's broken promise puzzle that came out today. The leaked briefing document also shows that after this government hands over B.C. Rail to its campaign backers at CN, customers who now ship their goods through B.C. Rail will pay more — lots more, more than 600 percent more — when this government privatizes and gives it away to CN.

It's starting to become even clearer why there's so much interest in scooping up B.C. Rail from the Liberal campaign backers: eliminate the competition and be able to charge 600 percent more. Who wouldn't sign up for such a deal?

Will the Premier commit today that he will stop the sell-off of this vital provincial asset to Liberal campaign backers and actually keep the promise that he made in the last election to keep B.C. Rail in public hands?

Hon. J. Reid: It's unfortunate that the member opposite has not been paying attention to the process we're involved in with B.C. Rail. We have been working with communities and we have been working with shippers to develop an RFP document that is public. The RFP document clearly states that what we're looking for is a proposal that would address competitiveness, sustainability, growth opportunities and community-specific issues. We have not received any proposals to date. This has just gone out.

J. MacPhail: Well, this is becoming a theme of this government: "Oh, it's just an idea we're floating. Relax." Isn't it interesting? Maybe the government would like to say that all these leaked documents are wrong. Just stand up and say it. Here's a chance, because the biggest customer that B.C. Rail has right now is the forest industry.

We may have known, in our absence last week, that several mills shut down in the province, to add to other mills that shut down in the weeks previous. It's the forest industry, which is already reeling from this government's inability to solve the softwood lumber dispute, that will pay the vast majority of the 600 percent increase in shipping costs if this goes to CN Rail.

Is there any MLA from the north or the interior that will stand up for their forest-dependent communities? Can the Premier tell this House what analysis he has done to determine the effect of this more than 600 percent increase on the forest industry? Will he release that information — that economic study that I'm sure he's done — to the House today?

Hon. J. Reid: The nonsense that is being discussed here is frustrating to be able to address. We want investment in B.C. Rail that will be sustainable, that will meet the needs of industry and that meets the needs of communities. It is the industry and communities that are saying that the status quo is not acceptable. It is the industry and communities that we have been working with in order to come up with this RFP, and it is this RFP that is our basis for evaluating proposals.

J. Kwan: Thousands of people in the interior are attending meetings and organizing against the government's sell-off of the Coquihalla tolls. The Kamloops and Kelowna Chambers of Commerce are just two of the voices of business who have condemned the plan. Ron Cannan, president of the Okanagan mainline municipal association, says the sell-off is "totally unfair and discriminatory." Even Paul Mitchell, head of the Coquihalla coalition and a Liberal who gave $4,600 to the Liberal election machine, is asking: "Where are the MLAs? They should be pounding their fists on the table."

Today the mayor of Kamloops stated that the sell-off of the Coquihalla tolls doesn't meet "the heartlands test." To the Minister of Transportation: will she admit today that the sell-off is a bad idea for the interior of B.C. and cancel her plan to impose a permanent toll on the Coquihalla? Will she tell the Minister of Finance to go somewhere else to find the money to pay off his record-breaking deficits?

Hon. J. Reid: When I travelled around this province for the first year, I heard, from all those people who were mentioned as well as all the communities, that investment in transportation infrastructure was critical for economic development around this province. I heard from all the MLAs representing all these areas that transportation infrastructure in their area was absolutely necessary.

We have taken steps to be able to look at an increase in fuel tax that is only partially the solution. We are looking at being able to provide investment in infrastructure, and in this area alone — in the central area of the province — we're looking at $350 million worth of infrastructure improvements over three years. The Coquihalla provides benefits if we are able to get the operator to maintain and rehabilitate the highway. We have benefits for greater use of the highway, better rehabilitation and investment in that highway, as well as frequent-traveller passes.

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

J. Kwan: The mayor of Kamloops has identified a simple heartlands test where a government initiative must "be in keeping with the expressed aspirations of the heartlands." Community and business leaders throughout the interior say the sell-off of the Coquihalla tolls does not meet the test, but the government isn't listening.

There might be hope, though. In a letter to the local paper, the member from Kamloops begs readers to try to get past the emotion — that it is a proposal only. The letter makes every effort to put the government's plan in the best light and attacks the previous administration.

But it does raise the following question. To the Minister of Transportation: given that she isn't prepared to listen to municipal leaders and business leaders, will she commit today that if the local MLAs tell her that the sell-off of the Coquihalla tolls to pay for the Finance

minister's record-breaking deficit doesn't meet the heartlands test, she will kill it?

Hon. J. Reid: As we look at investing in transportation infrastructure — which is what this is about; as we look at being able to provide benefits to areas, to users, to local residents, to frequent travellers; as we look at the fact that 81 percent…

Hon. J. Reid: …of the people using the Coquihalla are not from the local area; and as we look at the return to the taxpayer….

We have a bottom line. If we do not exceed our bottom line, we will not be going ahead with this deal. It will make sense, and it will provide the benefits we need.

P. Nettleton: Back to B.C. Rail. I'm eager to read the Prince George newspapers tomorrow to see what kind of empty assurances the member for Prince George North will give this one.

CN Rail's briefing note would see this private operator cut 70 percent of B.C. Rail jobs. That comes out to more than 1,200 jobs — hundreds alone in Prince George. That's a huge blow for rail-dependent communities, including Prince George.

To the minister: does her government support this gutting of B.C. Rail jobs? Or will she disqualify CN Rail from winning the bid, since her own request for proposals — to which she made reference earlier — states that any private operator must show how employees in communities would benefit and not be adversely affected by this form of privatization?

Hon. J. Reid: There has been no proposal that's been received by CN. There's been no proposal received by anyone. We've put out the RFP, and interested parties will seek to be qualified. From there they'll put proposals in, which will be evaluated according to the criteria outlined in the RFP request.

T. Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many of the educational institutions around the province bear the name "University College." Would it not make more sense to designate them as one or the other, as they were previously designated?

Hon. S. Bond: University colleges in this province provide a broad spectrum of opportunities for students — everything from career and trades training to university degrees — and now under the Degree Authorization Act, university colleges have the ability to grant applied master's degrees.

They're outstanding institutions in the province. They provide a broad opportunity of choice for our students, and we think they have an important role to play in post-secondary education in this province.

B. Suffredine: Floatplane operators in this province have concerns about why it is difficult to access lakes in B.C. parks. Those pilots have traditionally provided observations for free that help park officials monitor activities in the parks and protect the environment. Now they have to negotiate landings on a region-by-region basis. This is inconvenient, it discourages exploration of our parks and back country, and it increases risk to the environment. Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us why we have this rule and what's being done to make floatplane landings more practical?

Hon. J. Murray: I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the B.C. Floatplane Association last month, and they raised this issue, which relates to a regulation dating from 1990 that hasn't been amended at this point despite ongoing discussions between the association and government over the past decade. I'm pleased to report that in that meeting, we did agree on a process and a time line for reviewing the regulation and addressing those concerns by the end of the year.

I'd like to reassure the member that I'm very aware that responsible floatplane owners can be extra sets of eyes and ears that help to protect our parks. I, as well as the rest of government, appreciate that role that they do play.

R. Harris: I'd like to take this opportunity to present a petition to the House, signed by 5,000 people from the Terrace-Kitimat area, requesting that the Ministry of Transportation put in place a stronger regime of highway maintenance that is more proactive and has greater monitoring and enforcement requirements so that our highway system is maintained at the highest and safest standards.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the annual report of the British Columbia Legislative Library for the year 2002.

Hon. G. Collins: In accordance with section 11(2) of the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, I'm announcing a change in accounting policy for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

In fiscal year 2001-02 the province qualified for and received federal equalization payments of $226 million.

This receipt was recorded on a cash basis because detailed information was unavailable at budget time to record it on the accrual basis. This was the first federal equalization payment made to British Columbia since 1962.

Equalization payments are based on a complex economic model and calculation, including changes in population and economic conditions for the previous three-year period. During fiscal 2002-03 additional detailed information became available to us from the federal government, which now permits the recording of the federal equalization funds using the accrual method of accounting, consistent with other types of provincial revenue and generally accepted accounting principles.

Estimates of the accrual basis for equalization payments were first disclosed in the quarterly reports of the Ministry of Finance in the fiscal year 2002-03. This change in accounting policy is made public in accordance with the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act as described in the document I'll table momentarily.

The effect of the change is that the bottom line for 1999-2000 will be increased by $125.286 million, and the bottom lines for 2001-02 and 2002-03 will be decreased by $67.533 million and $57.753 million, respectively. It's important to note that this change in accounting policy does not affect the results reported under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act reporting must be based on the accounting policies used in the estimates of the same year. Therefore, the current summary bottom line in the public accounts will be $57.753 million more than that reported in the ministerial accountability report and will include a reconciliation. All future federal equalization receipts will be recorded on the accrual basis according to generally accepted accounting principles.

Additional information about the federal equalization program may be obtained from pages 45 to 48 of the first quarterly report for April to June of 2002, which is published by the Ministry of Finance. That quarterly report is also available electronically on the ministry website. I table the report.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the schedule in the hands of the Clerk, as well as the opposition, be adopted for the conclusion of the government business for the week of May 26 to May 29, 2003.

[That the following page be adopted for the conclusion of government businesss for the week of May 26 to May 29, 2003.

Monday	2:45-4:45 4:45-9:00	Health Services Bills 40, 45	Com. of Supply 2nd Reading

Section A:	5:00-9:00	MOS Mental Health MOS Int., Long Term Home Care	Com. of Supply

Tuesday:	10:00-12:00 2:45-3:45 3:45-4:30 4:30-6:00	Bills 50, 51 Bills 64, 66, 58 Bill 61 Bills 40, 45	2nd Reading 2nd Reading 2nd Reading Committee

Section A:	10:00-6:00	Health Services	Com. of Supply

Wednesday	2:45-4:30 4:30-9:00	Bills 61, 66 Office of the Premier Vote 1 and Final Supply (1-7)	Committee Com. of Supply

Thursday	10:00-11:00 11:00-12:00 2:45-6:00	Bills 50, 51 Bills 58, 64 Bills 29, 39	Committee Committee Committee]

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition wishes to speak on this. It's not a debatable….

J. MacPhail: I just want to make sure that this is not unanimous and that we'll be able to call a vote on it.

The motion in front of you is the schedule of bills to be passed for the remainder of this week. I'm sure all members have a copy. Hon. members, the question before the House is adoption of the schedule of business for the week of May 26 to May 29 inclusive.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply for continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: We left off going through health authority by health authority, and we were just about to deal with the Fraser health authority. I have a question to ask the minister — maybe a couple of questions — about the recent court decision regarding health authorities.

As the minister knows, last week while we were in our ridings working, Justice Macaulay of the Supreme Court of B.C. issued a ruling on whether health authorities were meeting their obligations in being publicly accountable. The complaint was brought forward by the Hospital Employees Union, and it was ruled upon last week when we were absent. It is timely now in the context of us trying to find out information from health authorities from the minister, but also the public accessibility of the minister of the health authorities.

Let me read the key quote from this decision. The PHSA, or provincial health services authority…. Even the judge is using the short form. It is the sixth — for lack of a better term — health authority that covers all tertiary care services in the province. Here is what the judge said: "The functions of the provincial health services authority are administrative and advisory. The minister remains legally and politically responsible. The minister" — and he means the Minister of Health Services — "sets the applicable provincial guidelines, not the provincial health services authority. The provincial health services authority was required to develop its redesign plan in accordance with guidelines provided by the minister."

Essentially, Mr. Chair, this decision would counter any of the Health minister's claims that he can avoid a question or dodge answers by placing responsibility on the health authorities. Clearly, this decision says that the minister is responsible for guidelines, approves their plans, and as the judge pointed out, the government — the minister — remains politically and legally responsible. This, I think, warrants some clarification when the following quotes are considered from the ministry website, so this is advice that I'm giving to the minister and asking him how he reacts.

Here's what the Ministry of Health Services website says: "Health authorities have the responsibility for delivering health services for their overall populations, including acute, continuing care, public health and mental health." Second quote from the ministry website: "Within the regionalized system of health care in the province, the Ministry of Health Services is responsible for the requirements, conditions and policies within which health authorities manage their services and supports. Health authorities are responsible for determining how best to provide a range of services and supports…. Health authorities are responsible for outcomes."

I would argue, given this court decision of last week, that the description on the website is now inaccurate and that it should change to reflect what the court decision said, which is that the minister is accountable legally and politically. Will the website be changed?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, to address the issue of the open board meetings that was included in that. All of the health authorities have had open board meetings. It is a requirement in the legislation, the Health Authorities Act. Certainly, the Attorney General ministry as well as the Ministry of Health Services are reviewing the court decision so that we can learn from it with regard to what an appropriate interpretation of the requirement is, and we will be following up on that with the health authorities.

On the other point that the member raises around the accountability of the minister, what is on the website and what is in the judge's ruling are certainly not in any way inconsistent. I have made it quite clear — in fact, we had this discussion when we were in the middle of Health estimates about two weeks ago — that I take responsibility.

I am responsible for the activities that fall under my ministry and flow from my ministry, and some of those responsibilities are, in fact, delegated. We have delegated the operational and management responsibilities to our various health authorities, but that in no way diminishes the overall accountability of the Minister of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: What about what the website says? The two quotes I read out from the website are in contradiction to the court decision.

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't see them as contradictions. We have set up a framework whereby the health authorities are responsible for management and operations, but we do hold them accountable. We've put in place the budget controls around how they spend moneys, but we have also put in place the accountability and performance measures so that we can ascertain

that they are, in fact, achieving the desired outcomes with the way they are managing their affairs.

At the end of the day, we want to let the managers manage — we will get much better results if we do that — but that does not diminish the accountability I have for the overall operations of the health authorities. I think it's fair to say that in this very complex organization known as health care delivery, with a $10 billion budget and 100-plus staff that work to make this system work, the Minister of Health Services can't do everything. You know, he or she has to delegate, and that's exactly what we've done in this case. Therefore, the wording in the website I don't think is inconsistent.

J. MacPhail: All right. I'm not going to pursue this. If the minister says he's completely unaffected by the court decision, that's very interesting. But the first quote I read said: "Health authorities" — this is from the website — "have the responsibility for delivering health services for their overall populations, including acute, continuing care, public health and mental health." The quote from the judgment is that the minister remains legally and politically responsible. That's directly contrary to what the website says.

The minister shakes his head. I guess we'll leave it up to the public to decide whether he's going to be unmoved by the decision, but certainly it seems to me that a statement saying health authorities have the responsibility for delivering health services is directly contradictory to what the judge said.

We will certainly take advice from the ruling, but I don't see it as inconsistent in any way that I will not shirk my overall responsibility for the way the health system works. The policy framework is certainly dictated by the provincial Ministry of Health Services, so the health authorities have to operate within that framework, but we have to allow the managers to manage those affairs and deliver a good health care delivery system in this province.

Mr. Chair, before I turn it back to the Leader of the Opposition, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm actually very pleased to welcome a group of students here today from Crofton House School in the riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. There are 40 grade 4 students from the school, along with five adults. Their teacher, Mrs. McGrath, I think, is here. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

J. MacPhail: Well, one of the reasons why I'm pursuing this so vigorously is exactly because of the discussions we've had in the Health estimates. To date, this is perhaps one of the few, if only, places where any light can be shone on what goes on in the Ministry of Health Services. I'm pursuing this with the minister because just the very last discussion that we had, which was in the hours prior to us going to our ridings for a week, here's what the Minister of State for Mental Health said: "If this member or her colleague is concerned about missing funds, they should report to the CEO of the appropriate health authority."

I would hate to suggest how many times in this Legislature we've been told that the health authorities are in charge. That was the most recent example of it, on Thursday last, when the Minister of State for Mental Health shirked his responsibility to the health authorities.

I would also quote from a decision…. Actually, this is a very interesting decision from Justice Macaulay. It says over on page 30: "In my view, the minister has not delegated any of his duties."

The justice goes on to say that the reason why there needs to be…. "While section 8 specifically limits closed meetings to circumstances where the board considers it desirable to avoid disclosure of information 'to protect the interests of a person or the public interest….'" That statement shows, in my view, a cynical favouring of the interest of the bureaucracy over that of the public as well as a stunning disregard for the legislative intent behind section 8.

"Mr. Bruce" — I'm sorry; Mr. Bruce, I think, is counsel for the health authorities — "proffered his opinion mainly on the question of public consultation, an issue not addressed by section 8, I note that he referred expressly to the presence of the public in the passage quoted."

This whole decision is rife with the fact that (1) the Ministry of Health Services, and therefore the provincial government, cannot shirk its responsibility as being the authority, both politically and legally, for health services — it is their responsibility and their responsibility alone — and (2) that there has to be public disclosure of these matters.

How would the minister respond to what the Minister of State for Mental Health told my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and me to do — that he's not going to answer the questions and that we should go to the health authorities? The health authorities aren't here. They're not legally or politically responsible, according to this court decision, and they're under questionable disregard of the law for lack of public meetings.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I think we just have to go back a couple of years. The legislative requirement for public meetings by health authorities is something that was in place going back probably to when this member was Health minister in the province. That hasn't changed.

If you look at what we inherited when we formed government, it was a very mixed approach across the

province when it came to public meetings. Some health authorities did them regularly. Some did them very, very infrequently.

I think the issue is that it was never tested before the courts. It's now been before the courts. We have a decision that we can certainly take some guidance from. As I mentioned earlier, we are certainly reviewing that court decision, as is the Ministry of Attorney General, to determine what course of action we should take in the future to make sure that our health authorities are, in fact, in compliance with that legislative requirement.

I guess the other thing is the amount of detail. We could go into the detail of how each of the health authorities is spending its respective funds. We have health authorities that have budgets in excess of a billion dollars each. We have to rely on their professionalism and their expertise to make sure that the health care delivery system is structured in a way that meets those concerns.

Actually, I could refer the member back to Hansard on May 27, 1997, when she herself said in this House that the health authorities will decide what their priorities are. I think that relationship between the health authorities and the ministry has not changed. We still rely on the health authorities to ensure that there is proper delivery at the health authority level.

I may not have all of the answers for every minute detail about how the health authorities are meeting that challenge, but I can certainly try my best to get answers for her to any of her questions. If they're not something we can readily answer with the information we have at our fingertips, I would certainly undertake to get that information for her.

J. MacPhail: Isn't it interesting what a difference a legal decision makes. All of a sudden now the minister is standing up and saying: "Well, nothing's changed since the 1990s." In fact, when he's on the defence from a court decision, he says: "Everything's happening exactly the same as it did in the 1990s." What the hell was the big announcement about, about how they were going to do things differently and about how awful it was in the 1990s — how awful, how chaotic it was and expensive? Now, when faced with a court decision that claims his government isn't being responsible, he says: "Oh, we're not doing anything differently."

I don't know why the minister keeps insisting on quoting back from a time when I was in government. I've lost a lot of my big memory, but I haven't lost one iota of the excruciating detail of my responsibility. Let me tell the minister that every single health council, every single regional health board, held open, public meetings regularly — painfully so, I might add. They would go on for hours. They were held regularly. They heard delegation after delegation until there were no more delegations to be heard. In fact, it was his members in opposition that claimed that was a waste of time. That's what I remember.

The difference between 1997 and 2003, six years, is this: at no time did the then government ever claim they were no longer responsible for health care in this province. What this government has done until now, caught out by a decision, is to say: "Oh, that's the health authorities' problem." In fact, as we ask for detail after detail about mental health, we can't get any details about mental health because that's the regional health authorities' issue. That's what we're told. That's just one example.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, this court ruling is being reviewed both by my ministry and by the Ministry of Attorney General, and no decisions have been made.

Hon. C. Hansen: At this stage we certainly have no intention to appeal, and so far no one has come forward to me with any reasons why we should.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, we were on Fraser health authority when we left last time. Since then there has been a very tragic event, and I know everyone joins in sending condolences to the family of the Herons — both the in-laws and the immediate family — for the murder of two people in Mission Hospital.

I do not want to explore the particulars of that incident — not at all. I think it is a matter that is too fresh and too grievous and too tragic for it to be used in any way in a forum that is a partisan debate.

What I do have is all of the articles at the very beginning related to that event, but only to bring attention to this — it was actually my first item under the Fraser health authority prior to us leaving — and that is the whole issue of hospital security and privatization of services. So I'm going to proceed on that basis. But it's about the Fraser health authority and the privatization or contracting-out of security, and in no way am I relating this to the Mission Hospital incident.

It's been my understanding that health authorities around the province for the last six or seven years have had a mix of publicly delivered security and privately delivered security, but that there is a change afoot in the Fraser health authority, that there is going to be a substantial expansion of privately delivered hospital security, that the recommended company to take up the expanded privatization of security is a company called Intercon Security Ltd. and that they are on the verge of getting a five-year contract.

Perhaps the minister could use this as an example of explaining to me how decisions are made around private delivery of security services in a hospital. What are the qualifications necessary?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the most important point is that when we ensure there are proper security services at any of our facilities, we have to put the interests of the individual patients and the staff first. There is noth-

ing that says an in-house security staff provides a better service in that regard than contracted services. Certainly, when the Fraser health authority went out with their RFP, they set out in that RFP the experience and security benchmarks that would have to be met. In no way does the contracting-out process lead to any compromise or reduction in the quality or effectiveness of security that our patients and our health care professionals rely on.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm asking for the details behind that assertion. This is the time to actually provide the details. Does a security company have to have previous health institution experience?

It would be my view that there's a difference between providing security at a data centre and a hospital — that there are many, many different concerns. I can think of the vast number of people entering and leaving the institution on a regular basis, the arrival of people with mental health disorders who may need to be treated differently than those without mental health disorders, people who are highly medicated, people who should be medicated and aren't, families who are frantic with the urgency of the situation and crime victims coming to the hospital. What are the standards that are set for security at hospitals?

I would also think just this, Mr. Chair. My other area of concern is that people, by virtue of being admitted into a hospital and being in a bed, are in a vulnerable position themselves.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I think the member indicated, over the last number of years we've had a mix of both in-house employed security staff and contracted security staff at our facilities. Just within the Fraser health authority alone, they have private security at Hope, at Chilliwack and at Mission. There are other, much larger hospitals in B.C. that use private security service, including the Children's and Women's Hospital, Richmond General and Kelowna General.

Companies that provide private security are required to have comparable training to in-house security staff used at other facilities. I think what's important from that is not whether it is an in-house service or whether it is a contracted service. What is important is the training each of those security officers undertakes to make sure they are sensitive to the unique needs of our hospital system. That is true whether it's an in-house service or a contracted-out service.

J. MacPhail: What is that training? First of all, has the contract in Fraser health authority been awarded to Intercon security? What's the value of the contract? What's the nature of the training?

Hon. C. Hansen: The Fraser health authority is in the final stages of that particular process of securing a security supplier. That has not yet been finalized, although my understanding is they're fairly close to it.

J. MacPhail: Did the RFP require a certain wage level for either management of the services or the employees themselves?

Hon. C. Hansen: It would be highly unusual for us to dictate a wage structure to a contractor when we go out for an RFP.

J. MacPhail: It wouldn't be highly unusual to dictate a proportion of administrative costs. That's what I was driving at. What would management be paid versus what the people on the ground would be paid?

Will the contract provide the training the current staff now have in non-violent crisis intervention? That's a standard requirement of Workers Compensation Board and health care facilities prior to this contract.

Hon. C. Hansen: The RFP and the final contract which would be signed would specify that the training would have to be comparable to the type of training that is in place for in-house security staff currently.

J. MacPhail: I asked a specific question about non-violent crisis intervention training. Is that required? The reason why I'm asking these questions is that if a company has no previous experience in health care institutional security, they may not have experience in non-violent crisis intervention. There are different types of security. So that's why I ask about that specifically.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the same would be true of an in-house program where individuals may be hired to provide an in-house security service. They, too, would have to go through the kind of training that would be necessary to meet those kinds of circumstances that might be unique to hospitals. What I've said is that the training that would be required for these contractors would have to be comparable to the kind of training that would be provided to security staff working in an in-house environment.

I asked specifically about the non-violent crisis intervention training, so I assume — given the minister's comments and the fact that all health authorities do now directly provide that training — that when this service is contracted out, the training will be expected to be provided by the new security company.

Who does the training? When a new company comes in, who does the training of the new guards?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is my understanding that there is a requirement — spelled out in the RFP and the contract — that there has to be comparable training and that the supplier would have to ensure that those particular terms are met. But there is not a requirement, necessarily, that it be done in-house.

J. MacPhail: What happens when a new security company comes in? What's the training for staff other

than the security guards in terms of contacting the security company? What procedures are in place for that?

Hon. C. Hansen: That turned out to be a bit more complex than I would have originally thought.

Basically, within the security staff in the hospital, they would have supervisors who would be responsible for making sure there is an ongoing relationship with the hospital generally and with the other supervisory staff in the hospital. When it came to emergency situations that had to develop, then obviously there would be an interaction to make sure those needs get met on the urgent basis that may be required, depending on the particular situation.

J. MacPhail: Is there any review given to the concerns raised by the BCNU last week? I was busy with other things, but I think the B.C. Nurses Union raised some general security issues. What review, if any, is being conducted as a result of those concerns raised? That's why I asked the question.

I was just thinking about this. In our general lives, we have to come into contact with security systems even outside of our health care. But there is always a transition period when there is a new security system put in place, whether it be at your house or your strata council or your kid's school. One has to learn new systems. What happens for that transition period? What, if anything, is the ministry doing to ensure a safe and secure transition?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know the member indicated that she didn't want to get into the specific incident that happened, and I think the BCNU's response was with regard to that specific incident. That is going to become the subject of a coroner's investigation, I believe, and clearly those issues will be looked at as part of that investigation. We want to make sure we learn from that.

But I think it's fair to say, if I can speak generally about the level of security we have at different facilities, that if someone is at one of those hospitals that I mentioned earlier, where there are currently and have been for some time private security firms, they should feel no less safe in those facilities than they should feel in a facility where there is a security service that is provided in-house. The fact that there are some contracted-out models and that there are some in-house models is not a factor when it comes to making sure patients and health care providers are safe when they're in those facilities.

J. MacPhail: I apologize. I didn't realize that the BCNU's concerns were related specifically to that hospital.

I only leave the minister with this. While there is a mix now of publicly delivered security services and privately delivered services, my question is about change and how, when there is change — particularly in the area of security services, where notification procedures and alert procedures vary from company to company — the overlap, the transition, is extremely important for the staff of the hospital, the patients in the hospital and the training model as well. I'm not in any way discussing this in the context of whether it's public or private. It's about the change and not falling through the cracks.

Did the minister give me what the surplus or deficit is of the Fraser health authority at the end of fiscal '02-03?

Hon. C. Hansen: Their projected surplus as of March 31 is $25.083 million on a base budget of $1.3 billion.

J. MacPhail: Let me just put the minister on notice that I'll be asking a series of questions about contracting-out as a result of the proposed settlement not being ratified by health care workers. But I'll do that generally and outside of Fraser health authority.

In terms of the targets for the Fraser health authority…. I think Riverview Hospital has got its own board and reports to the PHSA, but because the Fraser health authority encompasses geographically the same area as Riverview Hospital, they have a higher target — I assume that's the reason — for residents moving from Riverview into selected locations in the communities of the Fraser health authority. That means we're now two months into this fiscal year, where that Fraser health authority is going to have to produce 114 units for Riverview residents. What's the status of that?

Hon. C. Hansen: When we were discussing the performance agreements for other health authorities, the member may recall that there were several health authorities that had targets to achieve in the '02-03 year. In the case of Fraser, they had to make progress last year towards achieving their target this year of 114 beds. My understanding is that they are on target, and they expect to be able to meet that objective. Actually, this was just handed to me, and it's…. The allocation of the 114 units in '03-04 is shared with the Vancouver coastal health authority, so it's not specific to Fraser health authority.

J. MacPhail: When they're well on target, like where…. Let's see. We've got ten months left. Are places being built? Are they subsidized units? It will be very interesting to see how those 114 units are produced, given — I would assume, and experience tells us this to be true — that the vast majority of people who leave Riverview want to stay in the lower mainland. So how is that target being met by the shared responsibility between the Vancouver coastal authority and the Fraser health authority?

Hon. C. Hansen: My understanding is that they're now in the final stages of working out their operational agreements between the health authorities with regard to where these beds would be allocated. I am told that

in the case of Fraser, they are in the process of developing new facilities and that those facilities will be operational and able to accommodate those requirements within this fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: Are they group homes, or are they mini-institutions? Are they subsidized housing with support?

Hon. C. Hansen: They will be achieving their targets through a mix of community beds as well as facilities along the Connolly Lodge model that was recently opened at Riverview, which will ensure they meet their targets.

J. MacPhail: I'm moving to the interior health authority now. The last four times I have been into the geographic area covered by the interior health authority there has been a discussion, both in the media but also with people I've been meeting at community meetings, about the low morale.

It started, I think, when there was what some might have determined — this was about a year ago, not quite a year ago — a communications gag put on interior health authority employees so that they were not allowed to speak to the media, and that ran through the system. There have also been surveys done — granted, it's been done through the unions, the union representatives — about low morale at the interior health authority.

The other issue that I heard from the interior health authority was that casual employees were no longer able to access the benefits or that the benefits which would have allowed them to access psychological support services had been eliminated for casual employees.

Let's start in reverse order. Have the benefits for casual employees that would allow them to access up to ten visits a year to a psychologist or a therapist on a family basis been eliminated?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm told that those provisions would be set out as part of the collective agreements and that those provisions within the collective agreements would be followed.

J. MacPhail: As the minister may know, and we're going to get to this in a minute, there were lots of segments of the collective agreement that were made null and void by Bill 29. I was told that as of November of this past year, casual employees, including nurses who sometimes work more hours than regular ones but who are classified as casual, no longer have access to employee assistance. Employee assistance is the term I'm using. Is that true?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member's very much aware of the changes that were made as a result of Bill 29 from a year ago. It's my understanding that there is nothing in those changes that would affect these types of benefits for casual employees.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe I'll have to ask a question in question period after we hear back from the employees who brought this to our attention, then, if the minister…. I'm not in any way suggesting the minister is misleading the House. He may be giving the information that he has available, but it was pretty much a given, when I was up there last December, that those benefits had been cut. Here's why they were concerned. It was because there is, as you know, stress in change, stress in a shifting workload, and the casual workers — particularly the casual nurses — no longer had access to any sort of employee assistance benefits and therefore were quite troubled by that.

What is the status, then, of the interior health authority in terms of employee relations? Can the minister describe for us what labour relations are in place, particularly in the interior health authority where matters such as what employees would call a communications gag are on and there is also low morale?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to address this issue that she raises about instructions to the staff regarding their relationship with the media. There is no gag order, and there never was one. What happened at a facility in Salmon Arm, I believe it was, was that some of the front-line staff made a decision to go directly to the media rather than talking to their own supervisors about a concern they had around patient care. The message that was sent out to all employees is that they had a professional obligation to make sure that issues around patient care were, in fact, discussed with their supervisors before they talked to media. I think that's a fair request, and I certainly stand by the instructions that went out from the interior health authority in that regard.

On the other area with regard to just general morale issues, I think we have been through some change. As I have travelled through the interior health authority myself over this last two years, I get great feedback from front-line staff, who tell me the changes that were being made are long overdue and that, in some cases, they're getting more job satisfaction because they can focus more on the areas of specialty they were trained for.

I also appreciate the fact that some staff may be troubled by those changes, because I think it's part of human nature to be anxious about change. But as we know, in the health care system, change is absolutely essential if we're going to restructure the system in a way that's truly sustainable and does a better job in the future of meeting patient needs.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I understand. I know the incident the minister is talking about — about a gag. That was in April of this year, but that's only the latest incident. I actually first heard about the gag…. I'm just raising the issue. I have no idea whether it's accurate or

not, but I first heard about the media gag order in November of 2002 from the interior health authority, and it was while I was visiting the Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops. The latest incident that the minister rightfully describes as the Salmon Arm matter in April was just the latest incident.

Is there any ranking of best practices amongst the health authorities? The reason why I ask this is that there are certain areas, it seems to me — just anecdotally — where there are troubled practices and best practices. For instance, I would say that in the interior health authority, there are troubled labour relations practices. In the northern health authority, the physician relationship, physician–health authority, seems troubled. By virtue of other areas not being mentioned, they have better practices. What best practices are shared amongst health authorities on matters…? Let's start with matters of personnel.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I think some of her information may be a little bit out of date when she talks about relationships with physicians in the northern health authority. I would say that today, we have probably the best working relationship between the health authorities and the ministry and our northern doctors that we've ever had in the last five or six years. It's not to say there are not still some challenges and some issues we have to resolve, but I'm getting great feedback from doctors across the north with regard to the new rural subsidiary agreement we announced in February.

When it comes to employee relations generally, there is a council of VPs of human resources that gets together on a regular basis. I think this is one of the advantages of having the six health authorities — that those officials that have responsibility for different aspects can actually meet on a regular basis and learn from one another's experiences and innovations. There is also a leadership council that meets on a regular basis, including senior ministry staff and the CEOs of the health authorities.

The work of the HEABC has changed fairly significantly over the last little while because of the fact that there are now just six of the health authorities they have to relate to.

I know when we had our discussion two weeks ago with regard to nursing, I talked about the council of senior nurses in the province that meets on a regular basis. I think we talked then about the work that's being done around the recommendations of the CNAC, the Canadian Nursing Advisory Committee.

I think there's a lot that's happening at different levels, including the ongoing relationship between shop stewards and supervisors and managers at the local level. I know we canvassed some of that previously, but there's certainly a lot of work that's being done to try to make sure that human resources, in a very large and complex health care organization, are managed and that we can ensure that the issues that are of concern to staff get brought to the forefront.

J. MacPhail: What role does the Health Employers Association of B.C. play in all of that?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member knows, the HEABC is there to provide collective bargaining services to a range of health employers, which includes the six health authorities. They are obviously by far the largest employers within the health sector.

They have ongoing training that is provided both provincially and regionally to VPs of human resources and other managers who have human resource responsibilities throughout the province. They monitor for best practices around the province so that we can certainly learn from experiences in one region and apply those to others to ensure that those get met. In addition to that, HEABC serves on the OHSAH board with regard to occupational health and safety. That's just a few of the areas they're involved with.

J. MacPhail: I heard something last week. Is Gary Moser, the head of HEABC, retiring?

J. MacPhail: I want to just take a very brief moment to go on record about Mr. Moser and to wish him a happy retirement. I assumed he was younger than me, so I'm upset he's retiring.

He and I started out together. He was my nemesis, and I'm hoping he'll say the same thing. We were together when I was a rep at the B.C. Government Employees Union and he was with a group that was then called GERB, Government Employee Relations Bureau. He was an extremely tough nemesis. The problem was that he was also fair, which made us upset as well. Also, he had an ability to negotiate and couldn't be bamboozled, which made us even more furious.

We will miss Mr. Moser. I hope I'm not ruining his retirement by praising him — but I'm damning you with faint praise, Gary, I want you to know — and I do wish him all the best in his retirement.

Will the HEABC continue to play a strong role in assisting…? Well, let me ask this question: what role does the HEABC play in these coming days after the collapse of the recent round of collective bargaining that led to a rejection vote by the health care workers?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the HEABC has an ongoing responsibility around assisting with the evolution of collective agreements and the management of collective agreements and providing advice to the 400-some-odd different employers that bargain under that umbrella. That work goes on. I think the agreement that went out for ratification by the health facilities sector unions was a proposal that was brought to us initially by the unions. They then took it out for ratification. My understanding is that the unions recommended acceptance of it. Their membership voted it down by 59 percent. So from our perspective, we have some responsi-

bilities to get costs under control in the health sector, and we're back to plan A. We have to move on.

So there is certainly nothing now…. Now that the union membership themselves have rejected that, the HEABC goes on with its normal business, preparing for the next round of collective bargaining and dealing with some of the collective bargaining interpretation issues that are before them on an ongoing basis.

J. MacPhail: Yes. I didn't mean to leap forward. I actually have a couple of questions about that. The minister is merely replying to my questions, but I didn't mean to leap forward out of order. I just wanted to know about the overall policy of the interior health authority. I have one other area to explore on the interior health authority, and then we'll return to that issue of collective bargaining.

The interior health authority has a consultant, as I understand it, that's looking at surgical services. The consultant will report on where best to spend funds on surgical operations. What's the status of that, please?

Hon. C. Hansen: This actually goes back to a discussion that we had, I think, two weeks ago around the whole surgical review for the province that is being led by the PHSA. But each of the health authorities is involved in that, and the interior health authority is in fact probably further ahead than some of the other regional-based health authorities on moving forward with that surgical review.

The way it's described to me here is: "The review will examine the effectiveness of the present system, develop an integrated system of surgical services across the interior health authority, review the level of self-sufficiency in hospitals and develop a physician supply plan." So each of the health authorities, I'm sure, is taking a different approach to how to achieve that end objective. Some are using the services of outside consultants, and some of them may be developing that with their own in-house staff.

J. MacPhail: And the time frame? The minister says it's being done under the auspices of the PHSA, so will that study be shared with other health authorities?

Hon. C. Hansen: There are in fact six processes underway here. Each of the five regional health authorities has its own independent surgical reviews that it's undertaking. They're obviously talking to each other, and the different executive members — team members — are comparing notes as they move forward on that. The PHSA is looking at the entire province to make sure that is consistent and integrated across British Columbia and that we can meet those challenges across health authority boundaries. The goal is to have the PHSA's surgical review completed by the end of this fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: I'm moving to the northern health authority now. It was the northern health authority that got coverage…. It was the first time I noticed about their closed meetings.

When the minister says that all health authorities have had open meetings, the northern health authority did all of its business behind closed doors except to allow for public delegations to come and present. But there was no business conducted in the open — none of it. Has the northern health authority changed that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Every board meeting held in the northern health authority has had a public component. There have been meetings held in May, June, September and November. There was a board meeting with a public component in Prince George in January of 2003, and there is one taking place in Dawson Creek today, May 26.

As I mentioned earlier, we are certainly reviewing the judge's ruling with regard to the interpretation as to what's required. We will certainly be learning from that.

J. MacPhail: But Mr. Chair, come on. The minister has to be a little bit more forthright than that. The public component of the northern health authority's meetings has been to finish all of their business in camera and then open up the door and say: "Hey, public, if you want to make a presentation to us, come on in and you can make a presentation, and we'll listen." That's the public component of the meeting. Virtually everything else is decided behind closed doors, in camera. That's what the court case was about.

It's disingenuous — I will say nicely — of the minister to somehow suggest there's a public component to the meeting, and therefore any requests for open meetings are not needed. I think what the public wants is to observe the business being conducted by the health authority. Has the NHA…? Well, it's in Dawson Creek now, so will it have its business meeting in public?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I indicated earlier, the court ruling is one that we are reviewing and trying to make sure we have an interpretation of that provision in the Health Professions Act that reflects the advice that has come from the justice. We wish to make sure that happens. I can't tell you exactly today whether or not that has led to changes in tonight's meeting. That ruling obviously was very current.

Health is a very large and complex structure in this province. We have to make sure that there is an opportunity for appropriate business to be conducted in public and appropriate business to be conducted in camera. As I mentioned, we will be reviewing the judge's decision to make sure our interpretation of the act properly reflects the advice that comes from that ruling.

J. MacPhail: What's the review mechanism for determining whether the geographic size of a health authority is appropriate?

Hon. C. Hansen: In the fall of 2001 we set out with a fairly extensive review both of where population-based centres were and what was an appropriate critical mass to constitute a health authority. In the past we had some health authorities that had as few, I believe, as 3,000 people in them, which didn't really provide for effective oversight and governance.

In the case of the north, we looked at both the geographic expanse as well as the population density. One of the solutions to try to get the best of both worlds in there was to structure the health service delivery areas. Each of these very large regions is also broken down into regional components to make sure that we don't lose sight of the regional interests as well.

Hon. C. Hansen: We actually undertook review. There have been some slight amendments to boundaries since they were first announced, particularly around the area in Bella Coola and Bella Bella, which had originally been in the interior health authority. We started looking at referral patterns specifically and geography. It made more sense for that to be tied in with Vancouver coastal, which was where that move was made.

We're certainly open to suggestions from individuals around the province as to how we can make sure that those health authority boundaries best meet regional needs. To date, there are no changes that are under active consideration But certainly, if there were issues to be brought forward, I would give it my full attention.

J. MacPhail: The last general question on health authorities: what's the status of the aboriginal health councils?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is one that I may need to get some specific advice on, which I don't have right here in the chamber with me. If the member would like to go on to another question, I'll be pleased to come back to it as soon as I get that information.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Well, let's turn, then, to the government's recent proposal with the health care workers unions — and it's not just the HEU; there are other unions at the table as well — and the rejection of that proposal by those members. I had looked at that closely. I only talked to a couple of members, working people, who actually participated in that vote, so it was mostly through the media that I followed that. I think, certainly from the media commentary, there's general consensus emerging that one of the reasons the government's recent proposal was rejected by health care workers was that there wasn't enough trust the government would keep the word and hold to any agreement. I actually think that's probably a safe assumption, given the fact that the executives of the unions negotiating with the government recommended acceptance and the members rejected that recommendation.

Some also said that health care worker layoffs were inevitable even if the now-dead deal had passed. Here's why. The proposal said — and I'm quoting from the proposal or, at least, how it was reported in the paper — "the number of FTEs reduced as a direct result of contracting-out of services or programs shall be limited to 3,500 FTEs." Bill 29, which we've talked about here and we assume the public remembers, was introduced at the end of January of 2002. It's called the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act. It, as legislation, expressly prohibits any such agreements which limit contracting-out.

Section 6 of Bill 29, the Health and Social Services Delivery Improvement Act, says — this is legislation, Mr. Chair: "A collective agreement between Health Employers Association of B.C. and a trade union representing employees in the health sector must not contain a provision that in any manner restricts, limits or regulates the right of a health sector employer to contract outside of the collective agreement for the provision of non-clinical services." That's the legislation; that's the law.

I asked earlier what role HEABC plays with the government, and it still has its current role. It's not like HEABC is gone. The legislation exists, HEABC exists, and the legislation specifically says there can't be any agreement that in any way interferes with the government contracting out. So the now-dead deal that was put to the health care workers membership for ratification would have been void anyway, in my mind. It could have been ratified, and any health authority could have said: "Well, sorry, we have to live by the law of the land, which doesn't allow such deals to be made."

I'm wondering whether the minister or his advisers at the cabinet table or his staff have had a chance to discuss the conflict between the actual act, which prohibited such an agreement, and the actual agreement that was presented, because that would have an effect on trust.

Hon. C. Hansen: One thing I want to put on the record right off the top. The member, in posing the question, referred on two occasions to the government's recent proposal. This was not initiated by government. It was actually initiated by the unions. They came to government asking for us to consider that proposal. It did wind up with an agreement that was supported by both parties at the end of the day, but it was certainly not something that government initiated.

The section 6 that she refers to in Bill 29 was looked at very carefully by lawyers prior to that interim agreement being concluded. It was felt that the agreement was not inconsistent with the wording of section 29, and therefore it was appropriate for the government to proceed on that basis.

J. MacPhail: How could it not be inconsistent? There was a limitation on contracting-out, and I find that in-

teresting. I wasn't trying to target the government at all in terms of the government proposal. Yes, the union, as I understand it, initiated talks to get back so that the contracting-out could be eliminated — absolutely. But I wasn't in any way trying to say: "Oh, it was the government that wanted this." I find it curious that the minister immediately leaps to that in times when there is going to be such turmoil.

How is it that a proposal — whoever initiated it — that limits contracting-out isn't in violation of section 6(2), which says: "A collective agreement between HEABC and a trade union representing employees in the health sector must not contain a provision that in any manner restricts, limits or regulates the right of a health sector employer to contract outside of the collective agreement for the position of non-clinical services"?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't want to avoid the member's question, but I do want to make sure she understands that Bill 29 is not my legislation and that when the unions came forward to talk to government, those discussions took place with the Deputy Minister of Labour. We certainly were obviously vitally interested in it because it could have profoundly affected the way in which support services would be provided in the health sector.

But as I understand it, I think the member in quoting that particular section referred to changes to a collective agreement. My understanding is that the legal advice we got was that these were not changes to a collective agreement but were rather around an agreement that was separate from the collective agreement. I'm not a lawyer. I can't pretend to understand all of those unique features, but the advice that we got from lawyers at the time was that the way this particular agreement was structured would not be inconsistent with that clause.

J. MacPhail: Well, I appreciate the minister wanting to say that it's somebody else's responsibility, but the fact of the matter is that the deal went down the tubes. It would have saved $500 million over the course of the agreement to the health care system. Theoretically, the minister should be interested in that in terms of allocating of funds for patient care. I'm sure the minister, as the person responsible for that money, should have been intimately and integrally involved in the outcome of that.

Well, what I understand is that the people who were asked to vote in support of this agreement outside of the collective agreement looked at Bill 29 and said: "We don't have any protection." Even their own union leadership, with the best of intentions, couldn't convince them of that. I guess it's a situation where legislation that's draconian and seems to override everything else can't be dismissed. It can't be dismissed by the people whose trust with the government has been broken.

Can the minister tell us, then, what measures he's taking either to get the parties back to the table or to deal with the lack of access to the $500 million in savings that the proposal, if accepted, would have generated?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know I was asked during that ratification process what would happen if it was rejected, and I said: "Well, we go back to plan A." You know, it was not part of our agenda to start down the road of contracting-out as a way to somehow get the unions to come to the table. That came out of the blue, and that was their initiative. Our agenda is to make sure that we get the most cost-effective delivery of support services in the health sector.

So, to answer to the member's question — what measures am I taking to get the parties back together? — the answer is: none. There was an opportunity there, and they voted it down. We've now got to go back to our initiatives around contracting-out.

I'll tell you, when I heard that the ratification had been voted down by a 57 percent vote, I was really of two minds on that. On one hand, I do sympathize with the families who wind up being displaced as a result of contracting-out initiatives. I know that is really difficult, and I've talked to some of those families. On the other hand, we need to make sure we get costs under control in the health sector, and we need flexibility to deal with not just the budget pressures of next year and the year after but the budget pressures of five years and ten years from now.

I believe the direction we were heading in, to look to outside suppliers of those support services, was the right way to go to make sure that we met our cost objectives and we had flexibility there for the future.

J. MacPhail: So there's no alternative. The government's not going to try to get people back to the table. Well, aren't negotiations going to have to start at the end of this year anyway? The contract expires the spring of 2004, so perhaps the minister could outline what's going to happen from now until the expiry of the collective agreement in terms of contracting-out of services. Are the health authorities ready to go — that there's going to be contracting…? Are the RFPs in the pipe? What's happening?

Hon. C. Hansen: The various health authorities have been looking at initiatives for contracting-out. While there was this discussion and ratification process underway, we asked them to hold off. We've asked them to get on with the job and make sure they achieve the cost savings that are necessary using the tools given to them in Bill 29.

Yes, we are going into contract negotiations. My understanding is that those negotiations will be underway, I believe, in early October. It will, hopefully, lead to a successful collective agreement that will take effect on April 1 of next year. It's our hope that it can be negotiated through mutual agreement, but the bottom line is: we've got some big cost pressures in British Columbia in the health care sector. We have the cost of support services in this province, which is 30 percent

higher than the national average when it comes to the wages and about 20 percent higher than the next most generous province.

That's just the wages. If you start looking at the structure that's in place around benefits…. I know when I've talked to people who are working in resource industries in this province, who are in unionized environments, and you start talking about a maximum of nine weeks' vacation a year and some of the other benefits that are there…. You know, their first reaction is disbelief. Their second reaction is anger, because that's their tax dollars. It's their tax dollars that are being turned away from meeting some of our patient care needs to paying salaries and benefit costs that are considerably higher in the support sector in this province than in any other province in Canada.

J. MacPhail: You know, I actually thought that perhaps the minister would have been a little more calm in his rhetoric. We had a discussion around the rhetoric he's putting forward right now, where he was forced to admit that much of that differential is as a result of pay equity coming forward for women in the system. Yet he still stands up, knowing that the system now is in a very fragile state.

It isn't just people in the union that I'm hearing from. It's managers in the system who are very concerned about the coming months. I'd even…. Well, no. I'll get people in trouble if I say exactly how high those people go. Yet the minister stands up, and he wants to say that the union is the problem. He stands up right now — just like his boss, the Premier, likes to do — to take a big stick and poke them in the eye. I'm not quite sure why. I really am not quite sure why he has to stand up there with the rhetoric when he's actually facing a potentially very unstable and fragile time in the delivery of patient care in British Columbia.

He may think it's to his advantage to stand up and spout the Liberal rhetoric that people are angry at those LPNs who are getting that money; people are angry at those housekeepers who are washing that dirty linen in their hospitals; people can't stand those dietary aides, and they're angry. Well, I don't hear that. I'm not sure where the minister hears that at all. I didn't hear it when I was in government, and I don't hear it now.

What I do hear is that people are concerned about whether our health care system is sustainable. Yes, I do hear that — not that it isn't sustainable but whether it is sustainable or not. Here's a government that's getting a billion bucks over the next three years from the federal government — a gift from them — and they're still wanting to attack the little guy and gal who are delivering the services that many of us simply wouldn't deliver.

So here we are in a situation where it's brinksmanship once again. The minister stands up and attacks them, when I merely asked him for an opportunity about what plans he would have to avoid the conflict. Of course, October is — what? June, July, August, September — four and a half months away, when the parties will be at the bargaining table with perhaps, depending on what happens in the ensuing four months, as rigid a position on either side as we've ever seen. There's no leadership coming from this government on this matter. The minister wants to characterize it that somehow…. I guess maybe he thinks he can humiliate the union by saying it was they who reached out to the government and saying: "It wasn't our idea. We're the big tough guys. We're going to carry on."

Well, the fact is that at least three of the health authorities are in a surplus situation right now — a surplus situation. This government is getting $1.3 billion from the federal government for health care alone over the next three years. He wants to say that because health care workers rejected a $500 million wage cut, we're going to march on.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member may know that part of the federal-provincial discussions around allocation of the additional health dollars were specifically aimed at making sure that what happened with this money was not what happened in the late 1990s, and that's that the increased federal transfers got eaten up in making…. They went straight into higher wages and collective agreements rather than into making sure that patient care issues got addressed.

As the member mentioned, money is coming to British Columbia. It's actually $1.3 billion over three years, and we have to put that in perspective. It helps, yes, but it doesn't come close to meeting the cost pressures we already have in the health care sector. It's not a case of saying we've got all this extra money that's coming from the federal government, so let's use it all to make sure our health care workers continue to be paid considerably higher than in other jurisdictions in Canada. That money is going to get allocated to making sure patients get better access to care.

Actually, I'll take advantage of this opportunity. When we were speaking two weeks ago, I made reference to the $130 million of additional CHST money that's coming to British Columbia. That will actually fund the health care system in this next year for 92 hours, just to put in perspective how long the new money will last. I do want to make it clear that there are requirements around the $130 million and the additional CHST money in the subsequent years that we've agreed to.

The Ministry of Health Services includes in its service plan clear performance goals, indicators and measurement criteria for the results it plans to achieve with this fund over the next three years. The intent is to ensure protection for British Columbians against catastrophic drug costs through Fair Pharmacare and the following performance measures that were included in the service plan. Those are in the service plan, if anyone wants to refer to those.

J. MacPhail: My point in raising the federal dollars was this. The minister insists on continuing to poke a finger in the eye of health care workers now, saying it's

plan A, come hell or high water, when indeed…. And he uses that on the basis of how outrageously paid they are, again quoting statistics that have already been challenged earlier in the debate, and he uses that on the basis that the system isn't sustainable.

Well, where is the proof that it isn't sustainable when there's $1.3 billion coming to deal with the cost pressures? I'm not talking about wage increases. I'm talking about cost pressures that this ministry faces and the fact that three out of the six — maybe it's four out of the six — are either in balance or….

Or in surplus. I'm not suggesting that the $1.3 billion, which no previous government over the last decade ever got…. How is it that with that money to deal with cost pressures and the health authorities in balance, there's no avenue whatsoever to go back and try to resolve the concerns of the members who rejected this settlement?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll tell you, I am very proud of the fact that for the first time in many, many years, the Ministry of Health Services has come in on budget. I'm also very proud that for the first time since regionalization was introduced, all of the health authorities have come in on budget and with slight surpluses. To put it in perspective, we're talking about a budget of about $6 billion for the regional health sector, and the amount that's in surplus is really a very small percentage.

The other thing is that those health authorities can carry those surpluses forward and make sure they get spent on patient care next year. We're not in this business to try to manage a budget from month to month or from year to year. We're going through this restructuring to make sure we meet the challenges of five, ten and 15 years from now.

The health authorities are actually facing their biggest cost pressures and biggest challenges not in this current year but in the next year out. The fact that there are some small surpluses next year just helped to position and fund the transition costs necessary to make sure that we can deliver better patient care in spite of those cost pressures that are going to be there in the out years.

J. MacPhail: We'll see how the minister's rhetoric on behalf of his boss helps in smoothing the way over the coming months. I would predict, actually, that the system will be in a state of disarray, a little bit of shock and some anger, given the minister's comments and the fact that he shows no willingness whatsoever — whatsoever — to find any other path than confrontation.

Given the fact that he's getting a whole giant wad of gift money from the federal government not to deal with wages — I'm not even suggesting that; the minister has already asked for $500 million back from these very employees — but to deal with the cost pressures that he has in terms of patient care. Even given that, he is unwilling to show any sort of conciliatory moves in terms of what happens between now and when formal collective bargaining comes into play. I hope this isn't true, but I expect that the minister will see his intransigence and his resort to rhetoric will actually lead to poorer patient care for some months.

The minister likes to make great hay of how little money he's getting from the federal government. We should have been so lucky, in the 1990s, to get so little money from the federal government. Instead of getting little money from the federal government, it was cut year after year after year. Billions of dollars of transfer payments — billions, throughout the 1990s — were cut out of the health transfer payments to British Columbia.

Now the minister has a whole whack of money, $1.3 billion, coming from the federal government. I'm interested in the accountability measures that are being established for the spending of this money. There was quite a negative article — I have no idea whether it was true or not — in the Globe and Mail during the week that we were in our constituencies about British Columbia's position on accountability measures through the Canadian Institute for Health Information. Could the minister clarify what British Columbia's position is on accountability measures for this new federal money coming to British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will come back to the member's specific question about the accountability measures, but I did want to respond to her question about aboriginal health councils. I do now have that information.

The aboriginal health councils were disbanded. The reason is that they were not aligned with the new health authorities. A lot of the relationship between the aboriginal health councils was working directly with the Ministry of Health Services. As we've made the shift from being a rowing ministry to a steering ministry, the rowing being done by the health authorities, it was more appropriate that the health authorities themselves develop their individual aboriginal health strategies.

All of the dollars that had previously flowed through the aboriginal health councils were transferred to the individual health authorities to facilitate that. They have worked with aboriginal stakeholders to develop the provincial aboriginal health services strategy. There's a steering committee in place to achieve that, including the First Nations Summit, Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Métis Provincial Council and United Native Nations. The health authorities have all now completed at least their first cut of an aboriginal health plan. Those continue to be worked on.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I know all of that, but during estimates of last year we were told that those would be in place by September of 2002. What's happening?

Hon. C. Hansen: The health authorities were given a deadline of last September to have those aboriginal health plans developed. They did that; they met that target. Most of them continue to work on that in terms of implementation and reshaping, as they go out with consultations with

various first nations communities. I believe that all of those aboriginal health plans are, in fact, posted on their respective websites. I'm not sure if that's true of every single one of the health authorities, but certainly I'm aware of several examples where that's the case.

Hon. C. Hansen: This is ongoing work. Achieving better health outcomes is not something that happens by a deadline. The deadline that was in place last September was to complete the aboriginal health plans. Each of the health authorities has done that. They are now working with their first nations communities either to reshape them or to implement them.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I'm not going to let this go. We were told during estimates last year that the deadline for completing the health plans was moved from June 2002 to September 2002. Then when that was moved, the authorities would actually have them implemented, on the ground, with aboriginal health professionals working to implement the new program because, in the course of this change, the government also shut down $10 million worth of aboriginal health programs — shut them down. I was reassured that: "Oh, don't worry. That $10 million doesn't mean a thing. We're shutting down the aboriginal health funding, but we're going to have our health plans in place by 2002, and the programs will be up and running after that." Are we still muddling along?

Hon. C. Hansen: All of the health authorities met their deadline of having an aboriginal health plan in place by September 2002. We made it quite clear that these were not locked in stone. These were not documents that would not have to grow and change. As I say, there are discussions that are ongoing with first nations communities for the development of the provincial aboriginal health strategy as well as the evolution of the aboriginal health plans with each of the health authorities.

That work is ongoing. This is not something that's going to get locked into some new stone that cannot be changed. We want to work with first nations communities. We want to make sure that we can be adaptable and flexible to meet their concerns, and that's exactly what is happening at the local health authority level.

With regard to the $10 million that had previously flowed through the aboriginal health councils, that money was transferred to the health authorities, and they have responsibility to ensure that it is used to meet some of their goals and objectives with regard to aboriginal health.

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned before when we were talking about the federal dollars around the health reform fund, there is still work that is being done to determine exactly what those accountabilities are, but I can give you a bit of a progress report on it.

The health reform fund provides $780 million over three years to enhance primary care, enhance home care and catastrophic drug coverage. Once the objectives of the health reform are achieved, B.C. may use the fund for other priority areas of its health system. B.C. believes the cost of federal expectations may exceed the federal funding provided, so the province is using the CHST supplement as well to fund the residual costs of the catastrophic drug coverage.

Just to give you a bit of a progress report around some of the accountability measures that we have already put into our service plan in anticipation of what may flow from those discussions on the federal level, the existing service plans contain numerous performance measures that support the federal health reform agenda, including the following: increasing the percentage of home and community care clients with high care needs living in their own homes, increasing the percentage of the population appropriately insured for eligible prescription drug costs, increasing the percentage of mental health clients receiving community services after hospital discharge and improved accountability of community mental health services measured by a reduction in alternative-level-care bed-days.

We anticipate that there may be more that come out of those discussions. Our expectation is that that final package of accountabilities will be presented to the federal-provincial-territorial health ministers conference in September.

J. MacPhail: I am reading directly out of the federal budget of 2003. It's the document from the budget. It's called Investing in Canada's Health Care System. I'm referring to page 14, which says:

What position is the B.C. provincial government taking on the establishment of the health council and funding for CIHI?

Hon. C. Hansen: At the first ministers' conference that took place in February, there was agreement

around the establishment of the health council. We certainly support that 100 percent. We have also supported and encouraged the work of CIHI. I think they do excellent work, and I certainly rely on it regularly.

Just as an example, we've also commissioned CIHI to do some evaluation on behalf of our own provincial ministry to the tune of an additional $500,000 over and above what our share of CIHI expenditures would be.

J. MacPhail: The report in the paper — I don't know whether the minister saw it, but I'm sure his staff did — was that the British Columbia government was working with Alberta to oppose the establishment of a health council that would keep its own statistics. So is the British Columbia government signing on with the proposal put forward by the federal government about the establishment of a health council that will actually monitor and make annual public reports on the implementation of the accord priorities?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member read out, that is exactly what we support. It was an agreement by first ministers, and we are now tasked with implementing that agreement. British Columbia supports 100 percent the establishment of the health council, as the member just described.

J. MacPhail: The next item on the accountability measures is around pharmaceuticals management. I'm reading out of the federal document: "Access to safe, effective, new human drugs requires timely, efficient and scientifically rigorous review in all phases of the product cycle, including reviews and approvals by Health Canada and ongoing surveillance of safety and therapeutic effectiveness once a drug is on the market. Federal, provincial and territorial governments also require evidence on the cost effectiveness of drugs in order to make sound listing decisions for public drug plan formularies."

The minister earlier referred to the sharing of initiatives amongst provinces. What's the time line for having that established? After he gave me that information, I went and did the research across Canada to see how that's proceeding, and you certainly couldn't tell from other provinces that that was anywhere near ready to go in terms of initiatives such as our therapeutics initiative. Perhaps the minister could give me more detail on how this pharmaceuticals management is going to work.

Hon. C. Hansen: The common drug review, as it's referred to, is a great initiative because it will, I think, save costs on the part of provinces and territories that were duplicating each other's work but will also lead to more timely approval of new medications that are there to benefit patients. The common drug review is now operational. As new drugs get notice of compliance from Health Canada, those are going out for reviews in accordance with that common drug review.

One of the challenges we have is they have not yet established the panel of experts that will be evaluating the findings that then come back. So what's happening on an interim basis is that those findings are going back to each of their respective jurisdictions for review at the provincial and territorial level. My understanding is that there are meetings of deputy ministers that will be happening in the very near future to try to finalize the structure of that panel of experts so that we can get to that next stage of the common drug review.

The Chair: Members, pursuant to an order of the House earlier this day, it is now 4:45, and the committee must report out.

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

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A for the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services. In this House I call second reading

Hon. C. Hansen: There's a group of students from St. George's School in the gallery today from the great riding of Vancouver-Quilchena. They're here with their teacher Ms. Doyle and several parents that have come along. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Hold it. No, we're still at second reading. Have we finished the debate on Bill 40?

Hon. G. Collins: It's on a point of order. I am just advised that the Leader of the Opposition was partway through her second reading speech on Bill 40, so perhaps the House could give her a few moments to return to the chamber to complete it if she wishes.

J. MacPhail: I adjourned debate on this when we last concluded our week about ten days ago, before we went to the ridings.

This is a very interesting piece of legislation in how it revamps the B.C. Utilities Commission along the lines that the minister would like to claim gives greater authority to the B.C. Utilities Commission. One of the reasons why this government likes to claim that it's re-regulating — that's the term it is using — the B.C. Utilities Commission is because it is desperate for cash. It wants to jack up hydro rates, and it wants to do it under the guise of the B.C. Utilities Commission.

This Minister of Energy will stand up and slam that decade of decline of the 1990s when, lo and behold, hydro rates were frozen. Companies in this province actually got some breaks on hydro rates over and above that. If the mining industry was in trouble, it actually got some breaks over and above the frozen rates. They had to guarantee that they would use those lower rates to stimulate the economy — not ship the money offshore, but actually create jobs — and that happened. It happened at Highland Valley — unlike this government, who is doing the square root of nothing for the mining industry. It likes to stand up and say it's doing a lot for the mining industry, but it's doing nothing — absolutely nothing. In fact, the mining industry associations around the world have put British Columbia on the doomsday list because of this government's ineptness.

In the past, in the 1990s pulp mills got breaks on hydro rates, even below the rates being frozen, because it's a publicly owned asset of British Columbians and the government of the day thought that maybe the natural advantage — the B.C. advantage — of hydro should go to business. Certainly with the increased export market and the higher offshore market rates for hydro, we thought in those days of the 1990s that those benefits should be returned to the people of British Columbia in maintaining a steady, frozen, domestic hydro rate. But this government says we were interfering with the B.C. Utilities Commission. Of course the reason why they say that is because now, under the guise of re-regulating the B.C. Utilities Commission, they want to jack up hydro rates because of their own incompetence.

You know, I was just cut off from debating 40 percent of the health budget by this government. Maybe if we actually had some legitimate debate around 40 percent of the budget, the health budget, we wouldn't have to ram through this legislation so this government can jack up hydro rates. Perhaps we actually could have found health care solutions that dealt with 40 percent of the budget, and we wouldn't be here in a situation of this government shutting down debate, closing off debate, with their immoral majority, and now ramming through this legislation.

Because we couldn't find those solutions under the Health estimates debate, we now have to ram through a bill so that the Liberal MLAs can jack up hydro rates. Oh, dare not let legitimate debate carry on in this chamber. Forty percent of the budget, the health care budget — why would we want to debate that? Why would we want to do that? Oh no, let's ram it through, under no scrutiny, so we can now ram this legislation through.

Well, what does this do? Yeah, it's legitimate second reading; it's talking about how taxpayers benefit or are hurt by this government. That's what this bill is all about. You can't isolate that debate from the overall budget debate of which health care is 40 percent. If the health care budget could actually have some sense brought to it, perhaps you wouldn't need to jack up

hydro rates to hurt every little company, every big company in this province and — oh, by the way — everybody who actually gets an electricity bill from B.C. Hydro.

This government — I guarantee it — is going to force higher rates through B.C. Utilities Commission. That's what it's going to do, and it's doing it in a very devious way. Let's go through that devious way. First of all, BCUC will be forcing through higher rates both from the new B.C. Hydro Transmission Corporation and from B.C. Hydro. There will be two opportunities now that the Utilities Commission can raise rates for ratepayers.

The pulp mills on Vancouver Island can get done over twice — one through B.C. Hydro and one through the B.C. Hydro Transmission Corporation now. Isn't that good news for all those pulp mills, sawmills, that are struggling like crazy now? Good news. Those sawmills that were just closed down by Doman Industries in the Minister of Labour's riding…. Isn't this good news for him — higher hydro rates, not once but twice? God, these guys are good economic managers. They really know how to increase the costs of industry in this province.

Bill 40 is a shining example of that. Forest industry on its knees. Let's jack up their hydro rates. Mining industry on its knees. Let's jack up their hydro rates. The B.C. advantage that we had throughout the 1990s — which more than made up for the lower taxes in Alberta for industry, by industry's own admission — will now be gone. Just when our economy is going in the tank, let's put more pressure on business. Let's make sure they're really hurting. That's what this bill does. This bill is all about just increasing the cash flow from ordinary British Columbians using hydro and from industry in this province into the pathetic empty purse of this government.

So that's one way they're doing it. They're also going to force higher rates when the government opens up every stream and pristine lake to power development — which it's doing now — and then it will blame the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the United States for forcing the dismantling of Hydro. That's what it's doing — on that basis, under the guise of: "Oh, the United States is making us do this. We have to open up our pricing system to FERC. Oh, I'm sorry, British Columbia industry, you're going to have to pay more for that." They're doing it all under the guise of this bill and the previous bill in setting up the B.C. Transmission Corporation. It's all under the guise to cover what they're really doing, which is squandering our natural legacy and our economic advantage here in British Columbia.

I really worry about the effect that this is going to have on our economy, and, boy, our economy's in trouble. I don't know whether any of you noticed last week, because it certainly wasn't reported by CanWest Global that I saw — and forgive me, CanWest Global, if you did report; I just didn't see it anywhere — a very, very important economic statistic out of British Columbia. Here's what it said. I wish all those Liberal MLAs would look up so that they can actually hear this statistic: "Retail sales in the month of March in British Columbia fell by 2.9 percent."

I bet you the government of British Columbia will be happy because we were first in Canada. We fell the highest and the furthest. The average decline in retail sales was 0.7 percent nationally, but British Columbia led the way in having the biggest giant decline in retail sales all across Canada — more than four times the national rate. Retail sales plummeted in this province. Why is that important? Well, it's important because I guess the government will have to stop talking about how great the economy is, because the only ray of hope in the doomsday scenario of the new era was retail sales. Retail sales are driven by residential construction that drives retail sales.

This economy is totally consumer-driven. There's not any investment happening in this province. Non-residential investment in this province has plummeted under this government. The only hope our economy had was from the consumer spending her dollars. That ground to a halt in March with such a stunning thud that we're reeling in this province.

We plummeted four times the national rate in the decline of retail sales in British Columbia. I can hardly wait to see how the Premier of the province is going to spin that as good news. When unemployment goes up, he says: "Oh, aren't we great?" When job creation goes down, he goes: "Oh, aren't we great?" When we come out not once, not twice, but four times from economic forecasts as dead-last in economic growth, the Premier says: "Oh, aren't we great?" Gosh, I can hardly wait to see how he's going to spin that.

Here's the real kicker about that. Not only are retail sales plummeting, but this government is attempting to drive up the consumer price index by increasing hydro rates at the same time. Inflation will skyrocket in this province, and retail sales will plummet even further because the third controlling factor around this is the size of the paycheque people are bringing home.

Here British Columbia stands out again. We were the only province in the first quarter of this calendar year to have paycheques shrink — the only one. Paycheques shrunk in the first quarter in one province: British Columbia. Isn't that nice? Paycheques shrink.

This bill, by allowing hydro rates to skyrocket, will drive up inflation, as it has done in the rest of the country — Alberta, Ontario. People will have even less to spend, and retail sales will plummet even further. Gee, there's an economic management strategy that would make you proud, isn't it? But we're going ahead with Bill 40. We're selling off what is public to those who make only private profit. As a result of that, B.C. will become a poor place to live for most of us.

Now, how can we control that? Let's look at other areas in the country to see what they did when deregulation occurred. This government likes to call it re-regulation. Isn't that interesting? Re-regulation.

Well, whatever you call it, prices are going to go up. They went up in Alberta. They went up in Ontario, and they're going to go up here. After a decade of no price increase, of a corporation running a profit for the public, of money being given from Hydro into the public coffers to build schools and hospitals — even though the Vancouver Sun doesn't like that. The Vancouver Sun thinks it's terrible that B.C. Hydro pays a dividend to the public purse. Actually, the Vancouver Sun thought that was the creation of the bad old New Democrats. The Vancouver Sun doesn't realize that every budget this government has introduced has a dividend as big or bigger going from B.C. Hydro into the public purse. But all of that now will be gone. It will be going into the private pockets of who knows who. Certainly not British Columbians.

By further removing the ability of the public to determine how we will use our public resources, we impoverish not only ourselves but all those who follow us. In Ontario seniors are being forced to choose between food and hydro. Not my mom, thank God. Not my mom, because even though she's supporting herself, she saved a lot during her years — scrimped and saved — and now she has her savings from which she can live. But she showed me her increased electricity bills when I visited her this past weekend. They have skyrocketed in Ontario. It is shocking. It is shocking how much her electricity bills have increased with what the Ontario government has done out there.

They've got exactly the same thing as this government's got. What do they say — some cap? This minister, I know, will stand up when he's concluding at second reading and say: "Oh, what's that Leader of the Opposition fearmongering about? We've got a cap on rates." The cap is meaningless if it's at the gosh-darn top of the ceiling — meaningless. Ontario has a cap on its rates as well, and my mom is paying hundreds more this year just for her ordinary electricity bill for her 900-square-foot home — skyrocketing.

Alberta — same thing. On top of that, Alberta's got brownouts, so industry can't even rely on continued electricity under their deregulation. But in British Columbia this government thinks the public will be fooled because they're calling it re-regulation, so that's different than Alberta and Ontario. It's exactly the same. People are going to be robbed with higher hydro prices, and the economy is going to spiral downward because of that — spiral downward.

But the shame of this bill is that once this government brings into action all of this, no other generation will be able to reverse it. Once they go down this road, other laws will kick into place that will not allow future generations to restore the public benefit of B.C. Hydro.

You know, this government makes so much of its Citizens' Assembly, and rightfully so. It is an excellent experiment in participatory democracy, unlike the parliamentary reforms that are in place in this Legislature, where we can't even finish the debate of the Health estimates; where it's shut down, cut off; where the minister gets to escape after hardly any scrutiny. The Citizens' Assembly actually is going to allow for participatory democracy. Mind you, it won't have any effect on an election until 2009, but let's be grateful that it may have an effect then.

Democracy is not just about counting votes. It's not just about these 77 MLAs from one party traipsing into this Legislature and thinking that they can get away with anything, that they can ram through legislation without public consultation.

It actually is this. Democracy is this. Democracy is about how we govern ourselves after the votes are counted.

The people in Kamloops are shaking from comments made by the member for Kamloops–North Thompson to them last week, where he basically thumbed his nose at 300 or so people out to say that they weren't asked about the privatization of the Coquihalla. They weren't asked about keeping tolls on the highways for 55 more years. They were outraged about that. They were outraged that the member for Kamloops–North Thompson wouldn't hold his own public meeting to hear back. It was up to the opposition to go into Kamloops and hear about the outrage.

In the course of that outrage being expressed, people raised other concerns about pressures on their pocketbooks. They raised concerns about the fact that Pharmacare costs were going up, and they didn't have the money to pay for it. They were worried to death about the minister's very own speculation about how much hydro rates were going to go up — not words out of the opposition. The opposition wasn't fearmongering. I haven't…. Maybe I have; I won't say…. I can't remember when I predicted how much the hydro rates were going up. One person showed me where the minister himself said that hydro rates would go up by 6 or 7 percent.

There's nothing in this document, A New Era for British Columbia — oh my gosh — about hydro rates going up, absolutely nothing. There's nothing about the privatization of the Coquihalla Highway, nothing about Pharmacare costs going up.

Here's what one older chap — he was retired; I think he was in his late sixties — told me in Kamloops when I was up there last week. He was furious, because he had just been to his pharmacist for his heart drugs. I can't remember exactly what the drugs were, but he'd been taking them for several years. It was heart medication. When he went to fill his prescription this month, in May, the pharmacist said: "You owe me $149." The guy said: "I paid you $25 for this last month — $25." Of course, the previous year he'd paid $10 for them. The pharmacist said: "You're not registered yet for Pharmacare. You're not in the system." The guy said: "But I sent my form in." The pharmacist said: "You're not on the system, so I have to charge you $149. If you've registered, you'll get it back at the end of the year." The senior said: "I can't afford to give the government $125 out of my own pocket for them to keep till the end of the year. What am I to live off in the month of May?" That's what he said. That's the Pharmacare system.

Then he was concerned about all the speculation around the toll increase, and that's actually why he

came out to the meeting. He's got family that live at the other end of the Coquihalla Highway. He was fretting about not being able to see them as often, because he wouldn't be able to afford it.

As a final worry, he was very concerned about his electricity costs going up. He said he couldn't afford for his electricity costs to go up one cent, let alone one dollar, because he was now in the hole. This is a senior on a fixed income. He has a pension, but it isn't enough to make up for all of these increased costs that this government is putting on him.

So, democracy. He certainly didn't think his MLA was representing him well. If truth be told, it wasn't what he voted for, because he actually voted Liberal. He actually voted Liberal in the last election. Democracy is not just about counting votes; it is about how we govern ourselves after those votes are counted. That means that ordinary, everyday British Columbians should have access to the decision-making process. That's the real importance of agencies like the B.C. Utilities Commission — not just to do the bidding of the government, but to allow those who own our public resources the opportunity to examine and challenge the effects and the impacts of government decisions. As we know, that simply doesn't exist in this legislation.

As we talked earlier in this debate, there are certain major projects that simply won't be reviewed by B.C. Utilities at all — not at all. I gave the list of the size of the projects that won't have to be reviewed anymore or require the approval of BCUC to be built in British Columbia. Those projects, of which there are many configurations, can now be constructed and power can be exported without review.

Oh, but this government claims that it will be wonderful — absolutely wonderful — about how they're restoring the integrity to the B.C. Utilities Commission. Well, if that is the case, the B.C. Utilities' area of authority would cover the space of this desk rather than this room in comparison. The reason why it is so reprehensible that this legislation is limiting the authority of the B.C. Utilities Commission is because we know rates are going to go up. We know they're not going to go down. We know rates are going to go up, and yet there's going to be major areas of hydro generation in this province where the B.C. Utilities will have no authority over how high those costs can go up, and therefore rates increase.

When the Liberals were in opposition, they were horrified that the B.C. Utilities Commission couldn't review electricity rates. I don't have the quotes here, but I remember the now Minister of Finance saying this: "They should be reviewing rates so they can go down — not frozen, down." That's what the current Minister of Finance said: "How dare you keep the B.C. Utilities Commission from reviewing to see whether rates should go down further? Frozen isn't good enough. Six, seven, eight years of frozen B.C. Hydro rates — that's not good enough."

What do they do when they get in government? They promise rates will go up not once but twice — for the B.C. Transmission Corporation and for B.C. Hydro. Both will have their separate times to get at that B.C. Utilities Commission to justify rate increases. Isn't that interesting? I guess that's just like the member for Kamloops–North Thompson, who forgot to tell his constituents: "Vote for me, and you'll have Coquihalla tolls for 55 years." I guess he forgot to mention that.

I guess the Liberal MLAs are forgetting to mention: "Well, when we meant re-regulating, we didn't mean that hydro rates could possibly go down, like we said they should in opposition; we meant that they should go up."

Well, you know, science is exact and democracy is not. Democracy is not a science. It is a process, and it is a commitment. Unfortunately, this government, in the dying days of this Legislature, again demonstrates its contempt for both.

Maybe the Minister of Energy is going to surprise me and stand up and say: "Last week I held public meetings on Bill 40." Maybe the Minister of Energy is going to tell me he wasn't just meeting with business types — or not even that. Maybe he'll be able to tell me he went out and consulted on Bill 40, and he'll be able to quote from those consultations about where there was great success and that people support it.

Or maybe the Liberal MLAs are going to stand up and join this debate and tell us how they met with their constituents and explained to them the B.C. Transmission Corporation, the breaking away from Hydro and the B.C. Utilities Commission changes that will guarantee increased rates. I expect maybe that's what they're going to do — enter the debate and show how wrong I am and how it didn't matter what the government promised in the new era, British Columbians were content and happy with having more taken out of their pockets now. Yeah, I expect there will be Liberal MLAs joining in the debate. I notice they have lots to say from their seats about how wrong the opposition is on this matter.

I'll tell you what I spent my time doing, besides going to several communities in the province: I examined what promises were kept or broken. The Premier likes to stand up and give out a statistic. The Premier must have been deprived of a statistics course in — I don't know — high school or university. I mean, even though you can do a lot with statistics, he really misuses statistics. He stands up and talks about a certain percentage of promises being kept. Well, it is interesting to see how many promises have been broken: 25 major promises in this new era that have been not just not kept, but they've actually been broken.

My colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I put that document together, and we had an anniversary party — a two-year anniversary review of this Liberal government. It would make interesting reading for all those Liberal MLAs, because maybe you'd like to take that document and figure out how you're going to explain that to your constituents.

Well, this is another broken promise today. This is another broken promise, this Bill 40, on what the Liberal

government said they would do for their constituents. And it's being rammed through at the last minute. It's been on the order paper, but I actually know that not one Liberal MLA consulted with any of his or her constituents on this matter — not one, including the minister — even though people have written them, even though the public has expressed concern and asked questions, because we actually got copies of them. We got copies of those concerns being raised, and we checked to see whether any Liberal MLA had responded to their constituent before this debate, and we haven't found one — not one, including the minister.

So it's a very sad day again for British Columbians in terms of another broken promise but becoming a fairly routine event here in the province.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to Bill 40, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003.

My fellow MLAs and former colleagues in government, I believe many of you were listening intently on Monday, May 12 when I spoke in my speech opposing the Hydro bill, Bill 39, in which I appealed for each of you to vote your conscience. I do not believe that my appeal to you fell on deaf ears but instead on silenced and intimidated members of caucus, particularly backbenchers. I was disappointed, but not particularly surprised, at the vocal stance in favour of the legislation some of you took following my speech, which ran counter to the position expressed to me by some of you in private.

Can a mountain stream produce pure and poisoned water at the same time? Apparently so. With some of you, is it a case of "You go first, and we'll see what happens"? Well, I went first as you suggested, and you know who the "you" are that I am referring to. Guess what. When I stuck my neck out on hydro — surprise, surprise — no one followed.

You said you wanted your concerns raised and that it was the right thing for somebody to do, but just not you — not at that time. But now I've learned, not at any time. Let me ask you: where has your silence gotten you? Where has your vote in favour of something you don't believe in gotten you? Think about it.

The story of this one man's stand is not yet over. The proof is in the pudding. There are two more years to go. A lot can happen in two years, and a lot has happened already. If you don't believe it, then you're not reading the papers, and your TV viewing is limited to Barney and Friends.

Of course I'm going to vote against Bill 40, the Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003. No surprise there — right? But the big surprise would be if any of you plucked up the courage to vote against it. That would be news. All the papers would carry it. Your mug shot would be everywhere — not in Maui, of course. Sorry. I couldn't resist that.

"Aha," you say. "That's why Nettleton did it." No, that's why you didn't do it. You don't want to be identified for fear of repercussions.

I did not expect to be scrummed by the media when I took my stand last fall, and at the beginning I did not anticipate the non-stop media attention each independent action I continue to take receives. Some of you ask me: "Why don't you ask more questions in the House, like we do?" What questions or, better still, whose questions? My answer is that I'd rather ask my own questions.

That brings me to the question of the day. Which of you will come alongside me and vote against Bill 40 just for moral support? It won't change the legislation — you and I know that — and it won't stop it. But by voting no, you will be saying: "The buck stops here."

So, can I count on your vote? I'm not holding my breath, but miracles do happen. We will soon see, won't we?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Interesting to listen to the remarks that were just made by the Leader of the Opposition in regards to Bill 40, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003.

I know that member would be a little averse to any changes to the B.C. Utilities Commission, because her government didn't believe in a body that was arm's length from government actually setting hydro rates in British Columbia. That was a government that decided they would set the rates for B.C. Hydro within a cabinet room, totally secure and sealed from the public.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That was a group, as I said, that sat in the cabinet room and decided that they knew better than the experts, that they knew better than people who actually deal with electricity all over North America — in rates and how you set cost-based rates in British Columbia.

The member conveniently brings up when our now Minister of Finance talked about how rates should go down. That was a number of years ago, about six years ago, or — in fact, longer than that — 1995. Rates should have gone down. In fact, that was the speculation — that rates were too high, that they were actually going to go down. The government of the day decided in the cabinet room: "Wow, we can't let B.C. Utilities Commission actually review these rates. We're going to set the rates ourselves in a cabinet room and take that authority away from the B.C. Utilities Commission."

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member heckles me about what's changed. Well, what's changed is that the B.C. Utilities Commission will now review B.C. Hydro's requirements for rates. They will now set the rates at arm's length from government.

I know that's novel to that member over there, but what will happen is that a group of experts who actually know about electricity will review all of Hydro's costs, all their acquisition costs for new hydro, and they

will actually set the cost-based rates. We have said in our energy plan that we want to maintain the lowest rates possible, moving forward into the future. This is actually moving British Columbia ahead.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member behind me says, "We're turning the lights back on in B.C.," and that is entirely correct. We're letting the public actually review what's going on. In fact, the heritage contract that's already before the B.C. Utilities Commission has 62 companies, individuals, unions, Citizens for Public Power — all of them — as interveners. They actually get to go there and talk about what the rates should be or shouldn't be. That's a first in many years in the province. It's bloody high time. Its time has come.

The member talks about Ontario's and Alberta's rates. I totally agree with her. Those rates are way out of whack for what should happen in British Columbia. That's why we developed an energy plan in British Columbia. That's why we said we were going to maintain the core assets of B.C. Hydro — generation, transmission and distribution — in public hands. It's a publicly owned Crown corporation, owned by the people of the province, and with cost-based rates that will be set by the B.C. Utilities Commission. That's where we're moving to — unlike Ontario and Alberta, which went to market-based.

You are right: the rates are high there. How we will actually manage B.C. Hydro in British Columbia is that we'll sell it south of the border high and sell it to our.…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Just a moment. Will the Leader of the Opposition please come to order. She was accorded the attention of the House during her speech. I would ask that she reciprocate.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We want to move forward with keeping rates low. Our advantage in British Columbia is our hydro rates. We know that, and we're going to actually put in place — or back in place — a system that keeps those rates at the level they should be, so that industry will continue to come here.

After ten years of a wasteland in investment in the province, actually, we're starting to see the mining industry come back. They're starting to invest more money in British Columbia. You know, the oil and gas industry is investing more money in the province. Actually, I know that's pretty novel for that member over there. They took ten years to boot them all out. It's going to take us a while to bring them back. But guaranteed: the Premier of this province is concerned, and he's going to bring those industries and those jobs back to the province.

So with those few words, I look forward to the debate in committee stage when we can actually go through clause by clause and find out further, in depth, about how good Bill 40 is — and Bill 39, even though we're not talking about it, but it was spoken about earlier.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the question is second reading of Bill 40, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 40, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. Kwan: On a point of order. Earlier today the Government House Leader introduced a motion. According to that motion, at this time we're supposed to be debating the Minister of State for Mental Health in the small House, yet we've been debating the Minister of State for Long Term Care.

When I raised the question with Madam Chair and sought her guidance, she advised that we would pro-

ceed until we located the Minister for Mental Health. It appears that the Minister of State for Mental Health is here. I would just like your clarification. Will we be proceeding with the Minister of State for Mental Health in the small House according to the motion?

Mr. Speaker: The Chair would prefer that you work these things out with the Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Abbott: I call second reading on Bill 45. For the information of others, in Section A it's continuing estimates debate for the Minister of State for Mental Health.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that Bill 45 be read a second time now. This bill continues the legislative work that began with the Forestry Revitalization Act, and it is part of a strategy that the government has presented to the House and the people of B.C. to reinvigorate the B.C. forest industry by taking a fundamentally different approach to forestry regulation and the management of our vitally important public resource — that which is the forest.

This bill continues to build on the forestry revitalization plan and that plan's blueprint for strengthening British Columbia's number one industry. Just to summarize relatively quickly, because we have been through this discussion with respect to several other pieces of legislation that have passed through the House, that revitalization plan is held together by three broad principles.

The first principle says that we need to create new opportunities with respect to our forest industry: new opportunities for first nations who see the forest resource surround them, in most cases, where they live but who to this point have been largely excluded from participating in that all-important aspect of our economy; new opportunities for communities generally who similarly have watched as decisions have been made about this resource that surrounds them in their communities and yet are now saying, "We want to have a more direct say in the utilization of that resource via an expanded community forest program," for example; new opportunities for woodlot owners — perhaps more woodlots, perhaps larger woodlots. We are in the midst of having those discussions with members of the Federation of British Columbia Woodlot Associations. We need new opportunities for the value-added sector who, for as long as I can remember and certainly during my time in this office, have articulated their frustration around accessing fibre, accessing the resource that they need in order to produce the products that come from their processing facilities. We've talked about that in British Columbia, but we have, over the years, done precious little to give it actual effect and provide those opportunities in that sector of forestry that I think represents the future of the industry. So creating new opportunities is the first principle at work.

The second principle that is a key feature of the forest revitalization plan is to maximize the value of the fibre we grow in British Columbia. Clichés are often dangerous, but this one is, I think, fairly apropos: getting the right log to the right mill or the right processing facility — something we've talked about, again, at length in British Columbia and yet have maintained statutory constraints on our ability to actually achieve that objective. It's to maximize that value for the trees we harvest in British Columbia.

I cannot discuss this without speaking about something that I often mention in discussions with groups outside of this House, but I'm not sure if I've actually said it inside of this House. That is, when we talk about harvesting our forests, it's surprising how many people have strange ideas or inaccurate notions of how much of our forest we actually do harvest. Our annual allowable cut today is around 74 million cubic metres. I don't think I'm that different from a lot of people in that, certainly, prior to getting this job I would have asked, "What's a cubic metre?" with Noah-like precision. What is a cubic metre?

The fact of the matter is that a better way to think about this is that in British Columbia, as big a place as this is, we harvest one-third of 1 percent of our forest lands, excluding parks. We replant 200 million trees each year. I wanted to say that because I don't think I have thus far, in terms of the debates that have taken place in this House. Maximizing the value is a theme that is very prominent in the forest revitalization plan.

Thirdly, we said that we intended, as part of this strategy, to ensure that British Columbians who own this precious resource were actually receiving a fair return for selling access to the trees. That's what we sell. We have a Crown land–based system, and that will continue. What we sell, via our tenure system, is access to those trees — sometimes for a short period of time, sometimes for a longer period of time. That's what lies at the heart of our tenure system.

We said that British Columbians who own the resource deserve to know that they are receiving a fair return for the sale of that resource based on the market value of the timber. We said that the people who are purchasing access to that fibre deserve to know that they are paying a fair price based on the market value of this timber. It's that market pricing component of the revitalization plan that is dealt with in the legislation contained within Bill 45.

A main component of this bill is amending provisions relevant to competitively awarding all timber sale licences. That is a feature of our strategy for ensuring that the people of British Columbia receive a fair return. This bill will facilitate the introduction of a truly market-based timber pricing system to our tenure allocation. Developing that market-based timber pricing regime and making changes to the way that tenure is awarded to obtain fair value for the province's timber resource is, as I've said, fundamental to the overall strategy tying together the forest revitalization plan. I'll say it again. I think that approach can be justified on the basis of the fact that it is the people of British Columbia who own this resource and will continue to own this resource.

So how do we do that? How do we actually accomplish those goals? How do we make the move to a market-based timber pricing system? That's what lies at the heart of this legislation, because it contains amendments to the Forest Act to establish that any new forest licences — tree farm licences or timber sale licences — are issued only on the basis of a competitive bid from an eligible applicant. It's simple to say that. As the legislation demonstrates, however, making that change represents a fundamental shift and involves making significant changes to one of the two or three guiding statutory instruments that deal with the management of our forestry resource.

The bill also deals with and embraces something called the take-or-pay approach to timber pricing, and it is an intrinsic part of the market-based pricing system. Bill 45 cements what is an existing revenue-administration concept into the provisions for a market-based timber pricing system.

Take-or-pay means that a licensee must pay for the timber it harvests as well as any merchantable timber it may decide not to take, perhaps because it is of lesser quality. So no licensee is going to be forced to harvest wood while that is the case. The take-or-pay approach enshrined in this legislative regime guards against a practice we don't want to see occur, where all of the high-grade timber is logged and only the low-grade timber is left behind as waste. What we're after is a regime that will encourage and ensure that the actual timber profile is harvested by those who are granted the licensed right to engage in harvesting activity.

At the same time, the bill strengthens provisions to protect stumpage revenue from inappropriate behaviour. That's important because it allows a market-based system to exist and occur and flourish while at the same time providing a measure of protection for the public purse. The bill clarifies how stumpage is calculated and how those stumpage rates may be appealed.

The legislation also introduces new penalties for illegally harvesting Crown timber. Those details are set out in the legislation, but I will summarize it as follows. On top of the penalties of up to $1 million that exist, this legislation will ensure that anybody convicted of cutting Crown timber without authorization will also be paying the stumpage fee that would have been collected had that cutting been authorized in the first place.

The legislation also establishes new penalties to prevent the uncompetitive practice of collusion in timber or log markets. That's important because in a system predicated upon the notion of competitive bidding, any action that perverts or constrains that process will have the effect of providing data that is unreliable. So a key part of the provisions contained within this bill is to ensure that the tools, the mechanisms, exist both to deal with any examples of collusion that might take place and to ensure that there is sufficient sanction to act as a deterrent to those practices occurring. In that respect a licence agreement may be cancelled if the holder has tried to fix a bid price through any sort of threat, intimidation or collusion. In the case where such a finding is made, the person who is found to engage in that kind of activity may be disqualified from bidding on any form of tenure for up to ten years as a signal of how seriously that violation is considered within the realm of the timber pricing system being established by virtue of the passage of this bill.

The bill does one other thing. It does several other things, but one other thing that I would like to take a moment to speak of in this second reading debate is that it creates a new form of licence; that is, it creates an opportunity for community associations and smaller operators. This is an initiative that developed out of some consultation that took place between communities and many of my colleagues in this House. Again, it gets back to this notion — and perhaps this falls more squarely within the ambit of that notion of creating new opportunities…. But communities said to us: "We want, in addition to expanded opportunities with community forests…. We see opportunities out there to deal with the waste that has occurred in the past."

There are two things — and I've said this before in the House — that I have learned offend British Columbians with respect to forestry — at least two things. One is the notion that logs would leave British Columbia unprocessed — raw log exports. The other is this notion that we waste a great deal of fibre. I must say that based on my limited experience, there is an element of truth to that. We have to be more innovative about how we go into the woods and take out and capitalize on fibre that otherwise would sit there and rot. There are opportunities. There are opportunities with respect to timber that might be utilized for things like shakes and shingles. There are opportunities that operators have identified for timber logs. You don't think of something with a two- or three-inch diameter stump as actually being a log. We might think of it as a pole or stick, and yet there are opportunities that processors have identified in the post and rail business where they can use that fibre. Yet we have not, as governments past and present, to this point done a good job of providing access and removing the constraints that have existed to accessing that.

I think an argument can be made that people located closer to that fibre at the community level — whether

it's a regional district, a civic government or a non-profit agency — actually have in many cases the knowledge and the expertise, if given the opportunity, to do a better job in terms of realizing our intention to minimize to the greatest extent possible the waste that takes place within our forests. So the community salvage licence applications for salvaged timber — and there will be regular stumpage rates paid on the volume harvested — will be considered and awarded based upon criteria such as their potential for revenue contributions and employment benefits to the community. Here's a tangible example of how communities will play a role that heretofore they have never enjoyed in terms of guiding the use of that fibre that surrounds them in their communities.

I must say I'm very much obliged to a number of members in this House, too many to mention today, but also to a number of community groups. I can think of the North Okanagan regional district, for example, which I thought made a tremendously persuasive argument for the creation of this kind of tenure opportunity during the course of the consultation that took place over the last year. That's why it's here, because it is an argument that makes eminent sense to me and to the government and, I hope, to the vast majority of members in this chamber.

Bill 45 also amends the replacement provisions for major tenures to reduce the regulatory burden being borne both by government and by licensees. The replacement period for existing tree farm licences and forest licences is extended from five to ten years, and a flexible replacement period is created that allows the ministry, the government and the licensees to more effectively deal with the increased consultation requirements that exist in the world in which we live today.

As we have moved through this and dealt with other components of the forest revitalization strategy, the creation of new opportunities, the attempt to ensure that we are maximizing the value of the resource we are blessed with in British Columbia by getting the right timber to the right processing facility….

This legislation largely deals with the third component of that plan, which is to ensure that the people of B.C. are getting a fair return for the resource they own. Admittedly, with a degree of pride I acknowledge that the mechanism we have chosen to accomplish that objective is to ensure that, henceforth, licence opportunities — tenures — are awarded on a competitive basis. What we have endeavoured to do, as well, is ensure there are sufficient protections built into this legislative instrument to give people the confidence they need to know that that competitive process will operate fairly.

J. MacPhail: It's interesting — the title Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, (No. 2), 2003. As I was reading through this legislation in preparation for debate, I thought about the saying: "We're fiddling while Rome burns."

In our absence from this Legislature — we were all home working in our constituencies, but we were absent from here — there were more announcements of mill closures — several mill closures. Some of them are temporary, some of them are indeterminate, and some of them are permanent. The mill closures that were announced last week were on Vancouver Island, but they follow announcements made in the weeks before that of mill closures from the northwest corner of the province through the Kootenays to Vancouver Island. Forest mills are closing around the province, and here we are debating the Forest Amendment Act (No. 2) introduced on May 8. This follows several pieces of legislation. We must be up to about a half-dozen pieces of legislation, at least — major pieces of legislation. There have been some minor pieces as well. A half-dozen pieces of legislation were introduced by this Liberal government, all intended to deliver on its new-era promise to revitalize the forest sector, and still the industry falls into despair, I would say.

Now, of course, some would say: "What can we do about the high Canadian dollar?" Well, one can anticipate that. That's the Minister of Finance's job to do — to anticipate a high Canadian dollar and prepare for that. It's the government's job, no matter what stripe, to assist industry, which faces a high Canadian dollar. Still nothing.

We still have no resolve to the softwood lumber dispute. While we were in our ridings, meetings were held, and all that came out of it was a disagreement about what took place in the meetings. The federal voice says one thing; provincial voices say another. There are rumours abounding that the provincial government is urging the federal government to meet the requests of the Americans that they've put on the table. There's discord across Canada on how to resolve the softwood lumber dispute, and we're nowhere near its resolution. It's government's responsibility to assist troubled communities while that dispute remains unresolved — and yet nothing from this government.

But we do have a piece of legislation that we're debating tonight, which will be rammed through along with everything else that's happening in here. It was introduced on May 8.

Let's just look at exactly what this particular Bill 45 does. It would almost be suitable for a comedy routine for the press gallery dinner tomorrow night if it weren't so important. The Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act, 2003 was introduced on March 26 of this year. The government finally got around to calling it for debate on May 6, and we still haven't got through committee stage on that very important piece of legislation. There are many, many issues still left to discuss, but the bottom line is: that first forest amendment act hasn't been passed yet.

I mention that only to illustrate something I find very confusing. The minister — and, indeed, every Liberal MLA who has spoken to any of the forest bills — mentions how thoughtful and thorough the process has been to get these bills before us. Now, it's a secret, backroom, thoughtful and thorough process, we must assume, because it certainly hasn't been done in the

public. But lots of Liberal MLAs like to get up and say how thorough the debate has been inside their caucus. None of that is public. We have no idea what goes on there, but we have to at least take them at their word — that they think it's been thoughtful and thorough.

If this were indeed the case, why do we have two bills right now dealing with exactly the same changes to the Forest Act — or really, more accurately, five bills? We have bill upon bill amending the same sections over and over again before they've even become law. Could it be we have this confusion because the consultation process was not the big, happy and inclusive affair that the government members like to portray it as? Could it be that the reason why these bills are being jammed into the Legislature is because the Premier had to take a whole bunch of time convincing or arm-twisting his own caucus that these bills had to be tabled? Could it be that there's a split in the Liberal caucus about whether this is indeed the right way to go and whether this is indeed the right way to spend their time — on revitalizing forestry, when the industry is in such deep despair?

Could it be because the government simply could not get its act together to bring in all of these changes in one comprehensive rewrite of the Forest Act? What part of the legislation didn't the Premier approve of? Why did it sit on his desk for so long? We know it did. We know legislation sat on the Premier's desk. We have our sources even in the Premier's office.

Legislation upon legislation sat in the Premier's office, with him fussing over it, fretting over it, demanding his caucus support it before he would agree to let it be put into the Legislature. That's why the last week that we were here 16 bills were dumped on this chamber, knowing that there are only mere hours left to examine or debate them.

What was the Premier doing while all that legislation sat on his desk? Was he trying to figure out what part of the legislation the Americans didn't like? Was he trying to see what he could give to the American lumber lobby before he tabled the legislation, because he had to have something to show it was a good thing for the lumber industry, the forest industry? Were there sections of the legislation that he didn't think went far enough in meeting the Americans' interests?

Were there some Liberal MLAs that actually said, "Listen, this is going to hurt my community," and: "Oh, by the way, I'm in the heartlands"? Did he have to spend more time convincing them to forget about their constituencies, just like the member for Kamloops–North Thompson forgets about his constituents when he tells them they're wrong to object to the privatization of the Coquihalla Highway? Is that the discussion that happened in caucus? Or were there private little group meetings of caucus members being brought into the Premier's office where the legislation sat, and him convincing them they must support this legislation? Is that why there's such confusion? Is that why we're debating this legislation before we've even passed the first Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act? Just why are we doing this in such a disjointed, ham-fisted way?

And how do you think the forest industry feels — those communities, those workers, those forest company owners? They don't have all day, like the Liberals do, to sit around and figure out how this all works. They actually have to run a business; they actually have to work in their communities; they actually have to support families. They actually have to manage communities that are forest-dependent. So if I know how disjointed and confused this is, just think of how vulnerable and helpless they must feel about what this all will mean for them when this legislation passes. Let me just give some examples of what I mean.

The first section of this Bill 45 amends section 1 of the Forest Act. But it does so by amending an amendment to section 1 of the Forest Act that was implemented by Bill 27, which was introduced on March 26 and passed on May 6. So we have an amendment that I don't even think has been proclaimed yet by the government, and we're amending that amendment. Oh yes, I'm right. The first bill hasn't even received royal assent; it hasn't been proclaimed yet either. They're two different things — receiving royal assent and proclamation. So neither of those steps has gone forward, but we're amending the amended section 1 without any rhyme or reason for why that's happening.

We're being asked, in this process of amendment upon amendment before any bill has even been passed and implemented, to believe that this revitalization of our single most important industry is being stewarded along by a Forests minister and a Premier who know what they're doing. Now, if that isn't the makings of a Monty Python skit, I don't know what is — or maybe a Yes, Minister program. Some of you may be old enough to remember Yes, Minister, the British comedy about parliamentary politics. It wasn't flattering to those of us who are in public service. It was funny. But this legislation would be a prime example, actually, for a whole season of Yes, Minister comedies from Britain.

Unfortunately, it doesn't stop there. No, it goes on for quite some time. Section 2 of this Bill 45 amends section 8 of the Forest Act. So does section 1 of Bill 29 amend section 8 of the Forest Act. And again, Bill 29 we haven't even passed yet. That'll be an interesting committee stage debate on Bill 29, a bill that affects the whole forest industry — families, communities. And now we're passing a piece of legislation that will affect another bill that hasn't even been passed yet.

I feel like I should have a giant flow chart so that I can explain all of this to the public. Or else I'd like to be like one of those hockey commentators now who can actually draw blue lines on the screen and show us where the puck's going, where it's been and where it missed. Unfortunately, this government doesn't provide that kind of path of sanity or consistency to British Columbians.

Section 3 of this bill re-enacts section 12 of the Forest Act. Interesting — so did Bill 27. Section 5 of this Bill 45 amends section 14 of the Forest Act. Well, so does Bill 29. Section 11 of this bill repeals and re-enacts section 20 of the Forest Act. Guess what. So does Bill 27. Just

The section 12 of this bill repeals section 21 of the Forest Act, yet just three weeks ago — can anybody in the Liberal caucus remember three weeks ago? — in Bill 27, this House amended section 21 of the Forest Act. Now, wasn't that a useful time? Of course, none of the Liberal MLAs paid any attention, so they wouldn't have noticed. But there we are amending section 21 of the Forest Act just three weeks ago, and today we're repealing it. That actually may be a first. Sections of a bill are made redundant before they're even made law. Indeed, it is a first. Section 13 of this bill repeals and then re-enacts section 22 of the Forest Act. Just three weeks ago we amended section 22 of the Forest Act. Weeks ago in Bill 27 we amended section 23 of the Forest Act. Today in this bill we're repealing section 23 of the Forest Act.

Won't this make for an interesting debate? But I'll tell you: no one will even have a chance to understand it, because just 72 hours from now this legislation will be rammed through — done. Kaput. Not a Liberal will look at it again, nor will they explain it to their community.

Section 30 of this bill amends section 43.3 of the Forest Act, just as Bill 29 does. Section 22 of this bill amends section 35 of the Forest Act, and lo and behold, both Bills 27 and 29 amend section 35 of the Forest Act. So here we have the third piece of legislation to amend the one section of the Forest Act.

Section 33 of this bill amends section 44 of the Forest Act, just as Bill 27 did. Section 34 of this bill amends section 45(1) of the Forest Act. Now, section 45(1) was implemented by section 11 of Bill 27, so it's brand-spanking new. It's a bright, shiny penny, and already this government is amending that section.

Section 38 of this bill amends section 52(3) of the Forest Act that was also amended by Bill 27 on May 6. I actually think that you'd need more than a year of Yes, Minister shows to explain all of the comedy of errors around this little ditty here. Section 39 of this bill amends section 53(1) of the Forest Act, just as Bill 29 that is before this House — not passed yet — amends it.

I hope nobody is getting bored, because we're only at section 40 in showing the ridiculous aspect of this bill. There's lots more to go.

Section 40 of this bill amends section 54.4(1)(b) of the Forest Act. But guess what. Section 54.4(1)(b) is added to the Forest Act by Bill 29, and Bill 29 is still in the committee stage of this House. We have a new section by Bill 29 that hasn't even passed yet, and now we're amending it, and somehow people are supposed to know what's going on in this legislation and in this "revitalization" of our forest industry.

By the way, when I asked the Minister of Forests during Bill 29 debate whether Bills 44 or 45 would have any impact on our Bill 29 debate, he assured me that they wouldn't. I hope he had time to do his homework in the interim to understand just how confusing and overlapping these bills all are.

We're being asked in this House to debate at second reading a provision that amends a portion of the Forest Act that has not even seen debate at committee stage in this House, let alone been proclaimed into law. I guess the government pretty much takes for granted those votes of their Liberal backbenchers. I guess the government pretty much takes advantage that those Liberals aren't going to raise any concerns, because they've actually taken completely for granted that the bill won't even raise any questions that might need to be addressed, let alone have members voting against it. They feel comfortable to amend a bill before it's even been debated by the 70-odd members of this chamber. Interesting, isn't it?

It is only because of the incompetence of the Premier and the House Leader that we are facing such a ludicrous situation as I have described. Earlier today this Legislature adopted a legislative timetable for the remainder of this week. Now, the opposition — my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I and the member for Prince George–Omineca — voted against that closure by schedule. That's what it is — closure of debate by schedule. But of course the Premier and the House Leader can count on the Liberal MLAs to say: "Oh, let's not debate that. Maybe my constituents will figure out what's going on. We can't debate that legislation." According to that schedule that was rammed through by this Liberal government, this bill will receive committee stage approval by six o'clock tomorrow. No doubt that will be followed by third reading, so Bill 45, according to the government's own schedule, will be law by six o'clock tomorrow evening.

Oh God. I don't even know whether I should bring this to the public's attention, but provisions of this Bill 45 that will be law tomorrow night amend provisions found only in Bill 29, and Bill 29 is not scheduled to be debated until Thursday afternoon. So we'll be passing a law tomorrow that's meaningless, because it's based on a bill that isn't law. Go figure. Do you think there's something illegal about that, Mr. Speaker? Do you think that's as much of a joke as the other ways this chamber operates? We'll have legislation that will amend sections of another act when that act isn't even law yet. Wow. There's good management by an overwhelming majority on behalf of the public. Boy, that's fabulous consideration of the most important industry in British Columbia.

I guess when the minister said that these changes in the legislation will be the biggest in the last 50 years, he meant they're the biggest because they're the most confusing, ridiculous, ham-fisted and illogical. That's what we're doing with the schedule of events that this government has planned for the forest industry. Yet we — we in this chamber and all British Columbians — are being asked to take as an article of faith that this government's plan to revitalize the forest industry is being handled competently. What possible evidence do we have of that? What evidence is there anywhere in forest-dependent communities, in forest companies, amongst forest worker families or even inside this chamber that these changes are being handled compe-

We see this again in section 42 of this Bill 45. It amends section 58.1 of the Forest Act. But if you actually go to the statutes of British Columbia and you pull out the Forest Act, you simply won't be able to find section 58.1. Why? Because section 58.1 doesn't exist. It's in Bill 29, and we haven't passed Bill 29 yet. It will be interesting to see how the members of this Legislature who are Liberal vote on this legislation. Do they time-travel? Maybe they can do out-of-body travel so that they'll actually be able to zip forward to Thursday night and see that they voted like sheep to pass Bill 29, and therefore it's okay to stick up their hands tomorrow and pass Bill 45. They'll be able to see what all of it means to come together. For those who can't do out-of-body travel — although I understand more and more of them are doing it; it's mostly inside their caucus now — maybe you need more hair to do it or something. I don't know.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I withdraw that personal…. I actually think it's a plus in this government to not be able to do out-of-body travel. For those who can't, how will they know what they're voting on tomorrow when this legislation is rammed through? Will they have any idea? The answer is no, they won't, because what I'm telling them tonight is coming as news to them — absolutely coming as news to them.

Tomorrow — Tuesday, May 27, 2003 — members will be asked to vote on an amendment to a section of the Forest Act that will not exist in law until Thursday, May 29, 2003. We thought George Orwell could see into the future. This government puts Orwellian thought to shame — absolutely to shame.

Section 44 of this bill amends section 60 of the Forest Act, just like Bill 27 did. Sections 72, 73 and 76 are all amended by this Bill 45, just as they were by Bill 27. Now, is Bill 27 old legislation? No. It was rammed through this Legislature, I think, on March 31. You remember that night when the government broke its own rules about how they're going to have orderly parliamentary debate and rammed it through late into the night. The only person standing against it was me, debating it. It's not like it's old. It's less than two months old. It hasn't even been implemented yet, but we're amending it again. We're here amending it again. Isn't that great?

Section 109 of the Forest Act is amended in section 59 of this bill, but section 109 was just repealed and then re-enacted by Bill 27 weeks ago. Those provisions enacted by Bill 27 in section 143 of the Forest Act are amended in section 65 of this bill. Getting confused, anybody? Maybe we need a PowerPoint presentation to have it all explained to us or maybe a colour-coded presentation so that we can figure out what's law, what isn't law, what's imaginary law, what the imaginary friend of the Forests minister wants introduced. It sure as heck doesn't make sense, and it sure as heck isn't logical if one is trying to revitalize the forest industry.

So there you have it. The government proposal to revitalize our forests spread out and over three pieces of legislation, half of which contradict rather than complement, and all of them together confuse and obfuscate when what is needed is clarity and certainty. It truly is a plan worthy of an Escher lithograph. You know those lithographs where it's a window inside a window inside a window inside a window. Yeah, and you can't ever see the end of it. That's what this package of legislation is.

Just in case there is anyone not confused by this mishmash of a legislative process, the minister also has a late amendment to this bill on the order paper. The order paper, for those of you who are watching, is a little document we get every day that tells us changes to legislation. It's fair enough. It's a parliamentary practice and requirement that's absolutely correct. I don't know whether it was put in the Orders of the Day today — we get these every day — but here we have an amendment to a bill that will amend legislation that hasn't even been passed yet.

Boy, maybe it's in the best interests of the forest industry that we do get the heck out of here, because being here sure isn't helping them. The work this government is doing in the Legislature is harmful and is moving the industry backward. But there we have it: a late amendment, a late-breaking amendment. It will be rammed through tomorrow, I guess.

Here we have what the government heralds as the most important rewrite of the forest policy and legislation in a generation, and nobody can make sense of it. Let me tell you this, Mr. Speaker: I'm sure as heck going to try, in committee, to make sense of it, and the minister better be prepared for it. He is going to have to go back into the previous legislation and explain why these changes have been made before previous legislation has even been enacted. What consultation did he have? What secret meetings did he have that gave rise to those amendments? Who's yanking his chain? Did they arise out of the discussions at the softwood lumber table last week? There has got to be logic to it. Or else, if there is no logic, then it's incompetence.

Maybe it's the Premier's office that has the incompetence. That's a possibility. It doesn't matter; the minister isn't allowed to get up and explain how the Premier's office is incompetent. He'll have to provide the answers. The answers must be forthcoming because they won't make sense to an industry that is reeling from the last two years of this government — absolutely reeling.

Unlike the previous major policy shift that took place in this industry, there has been absolutely no public consultation. There has been stakeholder consultation but not one iota of broad-based consultation that we saw with the Sloan and Pearse royal commissions. Absolutely not one. Piecemeal — sure. Pick and choose. This government likes to pick and choose who they talk to. The minister will stand up and tell of all

the groups that he spoke with, but it's him deciding about who gets listened to. He then gets to go to secret meetings of his cabinet — secret meetings like we've never seen before — and he gets to decide about what he wants to report about the opinions he heard. Then he gets to make the laws — the laws and the laws and the laws and the laws.

There isn't somebody independent of this government hearing those same voices and trying to rationalize those voices — perhaps sometimes competing interests, sometimes complementary interests. No. Nothing. Just layer upon layer upon layer of confusing legislation. British Columbians were not engaged in that process. They were simply told what this government and the giants in the forest industry think is good for them.

I went up and attended a town hall meeting organized by forestry workers a couple of weeks ago, and it was very interesting to hear those workers speak. It wasn't just the workers, actually. It was small business people, family members of forestry workers, second-generation adult children working in the same industry their dads did. They're confused, and they're scared. They honestly don't know what the future holds for them. They thought they were participating in a helpful way with this government in reforming the forest industry. They agreed that the forest sector needed reform. Everyone agrees with that — everyone. They thought they were giving helpful suggestions, and now they're scared. They're confused because they've been ignored. They have no idea about the future of their community. They certainly have no hope that their children will able to remain in the community — all because their voices have been ignored by this government.

What is in this bill? What actually is the content of this bill? Well, it starts off by eliminating the requirement that the chief forester consider the ability of a company to actually process the timber it cuts when it awards the allowable annual cut to that company. Isn't that interesting? The chief forester is probably busy. Why would he have time to actually consider — need to consider — that? So let's just eliminate that requirement. Of course, I'm sure the minister will stand up and say: "Well, hey, didn't you realize that we're not requiring those forest companies to process the timber they cut? Didn't you read it? Why would we want the chief forester to have to worry about that?"

This minister tries to make a big deal out of the fact that, yeah, yeah, they've got to cut it, and they've got to actually…. They don't have to maybe cut it in Pouce Coupe or Clearwater, but they have to mill it, process it, in British Columbia. The minister has told me that over and over again. Well, how the heck is he going to know whether they can actually do that? This bill eliminates the requirements of the chief forester to make an assessment of whether a company has an ability to process the timber it cuts down. So a company can log and then go: "Oh golly, we made a mistake. We don't have anywhere to process this timber." Nobody's going to check up. The chief forester isn't. That requirement is gone.

This bill changes the criteria that the minister must consider when awarding a forest licence. Now the only requirement that must be considered is the money that will be paid for the licence. Applicants only need to show how deep their pockets are. They no longer need to demonstrate to the minister how they will create or enhance employment or manage the Crown timber appropriately. All they must show is the cheque and how deep their pockets are, and the wood is theirs.

How does that go along with the minister's claim that the wood will stay in British Columbia? Who the heck is going to know? Who the heck is going to know what is surplus to requirement now, when nobody can determine the capacity in the province to process? It's like a gimme to the companies. The minister stands and says: "Oh, there won't be any new ability to export raw logs." Well, under the old law, logs surplus to requirement could be exported if the company could demonstrate that there was no mill capable of using that wood. Now that requirement is gone. This government isn't even going to keep track of the capacity at all for processing in this province. I guess we'll have to take the word of those good corporate forest companies. They'll just be able to stand there and say: "These logs are surplus to requirement. I can export them raw now." Who's going to know the difference? Nobody, because this legislation removes any criteria to prove processing capacity, and the watchdog for all of that, the chief forester, is having that responsibility of his repealed under this legislation.

This legislation redefines and introduces new types of licences. It also says what companies can do with that licence and what the government and the people of B.C. can expect from the government and those that control our greatest public resource. Unfortunately, as you can see, those major issues won't be debated — not here, not in the communities affected — because of an arbitrarily imposed deadline for debate. By cutting off debate, this government is precluding anyone from finding out what this mishmash of bill upon bill upon bill means for our forest sector.

When I was up listening to forest workers in Kamloops a couple of weeks ago talk about this legislation…. They weren't even talking about this legislation. They were talking about Bill 29, that major piece of change to the forest sector that hasn't even been debated in this chamber yet and passed. They expressed surprise about Bills 44 and 45 being introduced. They were completely unaware of this legislation. I outlined it for them briefly, because it was that very afternoon prior to my evening visit to Kamloops that Bill 45 had been introduced. When I explained to them what it meant, they were sickened because their worst fears had come true.

In the past the IWA had expressed worry that the jobs they now have could be outbid or sold right out from under them. At that time they thought it was just a worry, and it hadn't come true yet. But this legisla-

tion, Bill 45, gives reality to that fear and makes the nightmare real for those forest workers.

I don't see anyone in the Liberal caucus who represents those forest workers. While I have some forest workers in my riding, as does my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, the vast, vast, vast majority of forest workers are represented by Liberal MLAs. They have expressed despair that any one of their local Liberal MLAs would stand up for them, although one has. One has shown that he understands the effect this government's legislation will have on his community, and he did vote against this horrendous legislation.

I expect that at the end of this week people will go home and continue to say to those families and those community leaders and even those forest company executives: "Oh, we did wonderful work for you in the Legislature. We made major legislative changes." Not one of them will actually be able to explain what it is exactly they have done because it would take a sleuth, a scientist, a researcher and a legislative writer — all working together for hours and hours upon hours — to figure out what this government has done with this conglomeration or mishmash of overlapping bills.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you that my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant and I are picking our issues in the very precious hours left in this Legislature, and Bill 45 is one that, while we despair and are confused by it, we'll just put our comments on record and not call a division on it.

We'll see. We're actually going to watch as the Liberal MLAs find out from the Forests minister what this piece of legislation means. I can hardly wait for the Liberal MLAs to stand up and say: "Now, this repeals an amendment you just made three weeks ago, Mr. Minister. Could you tell us why and what that means for my community?" I can hardly wait to see what that means, because that's their job. That's why they're here. That's what they're supposed to do — not cheerlead through five pieces of legislation that are incomprehensible, not just stand up and say, "What a great job" but to explain what it means to their constituents. I can hardly wait to hear that explanation, based on the information I've put on the record today.

P. Bell: I'm feeling like we're at a different place in time than the member who just spoke prior to me here. Certainly, when I look through the same legislation and this package of legislation, I see hope and opportunity and certainly not the despair that has been described here in front of me.

In fact, I look back at the despair that was caused by that particular member's government right here, and I think of the 27 mills that have closed in British Columbia over the last five years. I think of the 13,000 workers who are unemployed now as a result of the direction and the decisions and the policies implemented by that previous government. I think, quite frankly, of the $600 million in revenues that the province used to garner just five short years ago, and of the schools and the hospitals and all of the social services that could be provided by that $600 million. And that's all gone. That's all gone.

Clearly, the status quo of yesteryear has not worked. It's time for us to move ahead, and the opportunities are out in front of us to work towards and to recreate and rebuild the industry we had. So when I hear the member for Vancouver-Hastings talk about how we need to stick to the good old days, I just wonder: are 13,000 workers not enough? Should we wait for 15,000? Should we wait for 20,000? What number is enough before we are actually bold enough to step ahead and challenge this industry and work towards a revitalized industry? And that's what this bill's all about.

The member complains about wasting time. Well, I know Bill 45 intimately. I understand the details and components of that bill. What the member just spent the last 40 minutes or so discussing had little to do with this bill. It had very little to do with this bill and really had a lot to do with complaining, I think. And what she's really complaining about is the election results of two years ago, because two years ago the people of British Columbia sent most of her party packing as a result of the types of decisions they made.

I think of the 27 mills. I think of the 13,000 workers. I think of the $600 million. But do you know what I also think of? Skeena Cellulose. The $450 million that the previous government threw at Skeena Cellulose. And for what? They accomplished nothing, and yet that was their proposal for a revitalized industry.

I think of the much-hallowed jobs and timber accord, the big announcement in Prince George. What did the jobs and timber accord do for us? I'll tell you what it did for us. There were 13,000 fewer workers. Clearly, what the member for Vancouver-Hastings is speaking about is not the direction this minister and this government intend to take our forest industry.

I want to just take a few minutes to talk about some of the initiatives that this minister and the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management are working on to revitalize our industry and move us forward. There are many, many initiatives. This government is being very, very bold, in fact, in working towards developing a revitalized forest industry. Certainly, the first one — not a bill of this particular minister, but an initiative that this government's working on — is the working forest concept. As the Speaker will know and as all members will know, the previous government chose to take 13 percent of our land base and dedicate it to parks — an admirable goal, one that was achieved. Certainly, I don't think many folks would argue that that was not a worthwhile thing to do. But in the process, we never designated any of our land base as something that we in the heartlands would earn our incomes from as we move forward.

I understand that we used to get about $1.8 billion in revenues just five short years ago from this industry, and we're down to $1.2 billion now. I can tell you that the heartlands are feeling it. The people that are unemployed in the heartlands are the ones that are unemployed because of the policies and the conscious deci-

sions made by the member for Vancouver-Hastings' government. There's no question that's why we are where we are today.

The working forest concept is a very, very integral component of the forest policy reform as we move forward, as is Bill 74 from last year, the Forest and Range Practices Act — a significant piece of legislation that will allow our industry to move forward and develop more of a model of third-party certifications, more of a model where we can move to area-based tenure, more of a model where we rely on professionals to actually…. When they sign off on a forest development plan, they're accepting responsibility for that forest development plan. That just makes so much sense for me. When you think about how an engineer will design a building or a bridge and millions of people will be on that bridge or in that building over the years, we rely on that engineer's stamp on that print. But we won't allow someone who spends a significant amount of time being educated as a registered professional forester to cut down a single tree without multiple stamps on that same plan. It makes no sense to me at all.

The Forest and Range Practices Act — a significant step forward. I think it will be a significant step forward towards third-party certification as well, and that's something that I believe is very, very important. In fact, I challenge the folks with the Forest Stewardship Council to come forward and bring us a set of regulations that will work for British Columbia. Bring us a set of regulations that is comparable to other countries and provinces, which will allow us to move forward and become certified. I note that the Harrop-Procter community forest, as the member from Nelson will know, has been recently certified under the FSC — a bold step for that community forest and a very positive one — so the results-based code and the Forest and Range Practices Act are significant.

None of the steps that we have taken is probably as significant or as important as the timber reallocation. This is a very bold move on the part of the Forests minister at developing what I see as our opportunity for a value-added industry, and we talked about this earlier today in the House during private members' time. In fact, we passed a motion promoting the notion of a value-added industry this morning, so I think it is very timely to talk about this particular issue.

For years and years government after government has paid lip service to the notion of developing a value-added industry. Yet no one has ever executed on it, because the product that we produce today is not significantly different from the product that we produced ten years ago, 20 years ago or, in fact, 50 years ago. My father-in-law was in the business 50 years ago. The product that we produce today is, for all intents and purposes, the same product we produced at that point in time.

Why is that? It's consistently come as a result of the inability of the value-added manufacturing sector to access fibre. They never complain about the notion of paying an appropriate price or paying a competitive market price for that fibre. They're okay with that. They simply need us to be able to package sales, to put sales together and offer them on a competitive basis to develop their business plans.

As I said earlier today, I was very pleased last week to tour a new facility that is being built in Fort St. James. It will employ about 40 people or so. This facility is being developed specifically to manufacture an underutilized product, something that is currently considered a waste wood product, and to build a value-added product that's worth much more than any 2-by-4 that we would normally sell. They're taking a low-value item. They're manufacturing it through a couple of different processes and producing a product that's going to be high value. In the process of that they're employing a significant number of people. There will be about 40 new jobs in Fort St. James, a number of new jobs in Prince George and also some trucking jobs moving product back and forth.

We're creating a wealth base out of a product that is really underutilized, and this individual is investing millions and millions of dollars. I don't know the exact number, but just looking around at the size of the facility and knowing what they have had to purchase to make this deal work, I'm thinking certainly it could easily be $20 million or more. This individual told me specifically that the reason why he's prepared to make the investment is the direction that this minister and this government have taken in developing its forest policy. Clearly, we've got some early movement and early investment there by one particular individual who wants to work ahead. I know of others as well.

Certainly, many of what we refer to as the mini-majors, or the licensees who are not the large licensees that dominate — the upper four or five licensees — but the small ones that have perhaps one mill and represent something in the order of 2 or 3 percent of the cut in the province…. All of those folks are very excited about where we're going.

Dunkley Lumber, located roughly between Quesnel and Prince George, has some very bold initiatives that they are currently working on because they see an opportunity out there. They're excited that this timber reallocation is taking place and that there's an opportunity for them to actually bid on that additional 20 percent. You know what? They were one of the late entries in the business. They only had about 30 percent of the total volume they required within their umbrella or in their annual allowable cut, and they relied on the market to purchase 70 percent of the volume. When we moved ahead with the timber reallocation, they were very excited. On that basis they're looking at significant options for expansion.

There's another example: Carrier Lumber. Again, it's the same thing — a relatively small volume of tenure and very excited about what we're doing in this initiative.

Then you look at the big guys too, and you ask: "How do they view this thing?" Let's look at Canfor, the largest licensee in the province. They are very posi-

tive about the changes that are taking place. They have some significant plans for investment and development. I see very, very positive things coming out of Canfor.

We've got everything from the new entries, the very small folks, what I call the mini-majors or the middle-sized guys, and the big guys. They all are looking at significant investment, and investments mean jobs. Ultimately, they mean jobs.

The timber reallocation is significant. That revolves into two other initiatives, the first one being the B.C. timber sales program. B.C. timber sales program is a restructuring of what we used to think of as the small business forest enterprise program that really brings it to a sound financial footing. One of the things that I find very exciting about the new B.C. timber sales program is that we are actually putting it on the basis of a business accountability model, where B.C. timber sales will have revenue, B.C. timber sales will have expenses, and their contribution to government is the net of their revenue minus their expenses.

Most people watching tonight will think that's just common sense. That's exactly what it is. It's common sense, but it's the first time it's ever been done in the province of British Columbia. So it's a significant initiative. It makes a tremendous amount of sense to model it that way. Now B.C. timber sales can do what they need to do to best manage return to the Crown.

The 20 percent timber reallocation also goes directly to the process of capacity-building, treaty-making, and so on, with first nations groups. I can tell you there has been tremendous movement just in the last six weeks or so in my end of the world. We have a completed treaty that was signed, I guess, about two years ago with the McLeod Lake Indian band. They are very pleased. They are developing aggressively. They have a very, very sound financial model. They're building tremendous capacity in their community.

The Lheidli-T'enneh band share their representation between the member for Prince George–Mount Robson and myself. They are in the process of signing an agreement-in-principle that also does a tremendous amount to build capacity. It's going to take some of the timber from the 20 percent reallocation and move it over to their Lheidli-T'enneh first nation. That's very, very important because without that, would we have been able to do the deal that we did with the Lheidli-T'enneh, build the capacity that we need and also build the security on the land base? They're all integral parts of building long-term certainty for our industry.

Moving on to some of the other key initiatives that have taken place over the past year or even more recently are the entirely new rules around maximizing the value of timber. That's really what this bill speaks to. For a long time we allowed different companies to create models that did not maximize the return of the value of timber to the Crown. If you ask, "How did we lose that $600 million over the last five years?" — or I guess I should say, "How did the member for Vancouver-Hastings's government lose that $600 million?" — it was pretty clearly because we did a bunch of social engineering, and we didn't require the bidders on the various forms of tenure to maximize the return. So that's a significant thing.

Another thing that we've done is create the new small-scale salvage tenure. That's within Bill 45. We've created a model that allows for a community salvage licence. I can tell you that the folks from McBride are very, very excited about this. This is a significant move for McBride and the community. They have a tremendous number of people involved with salvage in that particular area because they have a number of different types of salvage. They salvage cedar and hemlock along with spruce, balsam and fir. They have quite a wide variety of salvage. McBride is very excited about the opportunities they're going to have in front of them with the new small-scale salvage programs.

The other thing that I think is extremely important about this whole salvage piece is that, really, one of the primary targets in small-scale salvage is that it is going to minimize the amount of waste in the forest. When you go around and talk to folks — it doesn't matter, almost, who you talk to — one of the things that irks them more than anything else is the amount of waste that gets left behind in our forest. They see trees lying on the ground; they see dollars lying on the ground. They see trees in big piles going up in smoke; they see money going up in smoke. People absolutely despise the thought of us wasting fibre in our forests.

This new form of tenure — the small-scale salvage tenure, the community salvage licence — will give us the ability to maximize the return from the forest to all British Columbians. When you do that, it's a huge win-win situation — just no question about it. We've done that within this bill.

So you look at all those different initiatives. You look at the working forest concept, the results-based code, the timber reallocation, the new B.C. timber sales program, the first nations initiatives, new rules to maximize the value of timber and new small-scale salvage system, and you've got just a ton of things that are happening to revitalize our forest industry.

It's a very, very exciting time for us. Clearly, when you look back five years, you say: "Where were we? Where was that $1.8 billion that we used to get out of this forest industry, and how come we lost that?" Had the previous government taken the types of initiatives that this government has taken, perhaps we would not be in the position we are today. We would not be in a position where we're finding it difficult to fund all the services and where we have to manage things very effectively.

Just think: $600 million. What could we have done with that money? That's $600 million that could have been spent on health care. That's $600 million that could have been spent in the education system. That's $600 million that could have been spent in social services. It's just a tremendous amount of forgone opportunity there. Really, the status quo is what has gotten us to where we are today, and it's what we could have

lived with if we did what the member for Vancouver-Hastings is suggesting, which is for us not to move forward.

I just want to focus for a few minutes on Bill 45 itself because unfortunately, we, I suspect, will have a limited amount of time to speak to Bill 45. We want to give the opposition full opportunity in committee phase. There are a few things that I think are worthy of pointing out, and I would like to do that while I can in second reading.

Certainly, one of the key things that I think is very, very important about this bill is that there is a specific component that I shouldn't say will eliminate the ability to high-grade, but it will put severe penalties on any licensee that chooses to high-grade our forests and extract only the maximum-value products. I think that's very, very significant. I've had lots of people comment to me: "How are you going to ensure that our forests are not high-graded? With some of the stories that you heard when the previous administration was here about the high-grading that took place on the coast, how can you make sure that doesn't happen?" There are very specific and severe penalties outlined to ensure that it's not possible for a licensee to high-grade the stand. In fact, ultimately, they'll pay stumpage on all of the stand, regardless of whether they high-grade it or not. If they take the fibre, they pay for it. If they leave the fibre, they're going to pay for it. I'm sure we'll see a minimal number of folks that are going to be interested in trying to high-grade the stand.

Another key initiative in this particular bill is how we manage undercut volumes and, specifically, in area-based tenures. This is not something perhaps a lot of people have put thought to. When you have a licensee that has a significant amount of undercut volume within their particular area or their tree farm licence, how do you manage that undercut volume? The minister has been very thoughtful in terms of coming up with some solutions to that problem. In this particular piece of legislation there is a component of the legislation that allows for the management of undercut volumes. I think that is a very positive and significant step.

As I said earlier, this new act, Bill 45, also lays out the opportunity for what we are calling a community salvage licence. This is a very, very significant move, as I said earlier. The community of McBride is really looking forward to this model, and I know there are many other communities out there…. I know certainly Vernon, as well, is very excited about this opportunity.

Really, what we are offering here is a situation where a community can manage the salvage in its given area. If a community such as McBride expresses an interest in managing their particular territory for salvage, we've created that ability through this new form of licence. Further, we can direct-award this licence, which is important as well, I believe. So when a community comes forward, we're able to direct-award that licence.

We also have a new form of licence called a forest licence. That forest licence can be direct-awarded, as well, for a volume of up to 500 cubic metres. That, I'm sure, will be useful, particularly when you're dealing with small community groups and small direct-awards where it's in the best interests of the particular stand of timber, if it's a smaller stand, to get in and get that timber out in a reasonable time frame. You do that, of course, through a direct-award process. Again, the maximum volume that you can direct-award is 500 cubic metres, so that makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Another one of the quite interesting initiatives that this bill proposes is that of moving community forests to an area-based annual allowable cut model. Again, that's starting to sound awfully technical, I realize. But this is a significant thing we can do. When communities or licensees are offered an area they can manage, instead of simply managing a licence by volume of cut and just working in a large area, they actually start farming the area, and they get in the business of growing trees instead of simply cutting trees. That's a very important difference. When you start talking about growing trees, you start talking about cycles and rotations and where you can maximize your return, and there are new thinning proposals that come out. There's a whole bunch of different positive things that come as a result of that.

I mentioned earlier the company called Dunkley Lumber, just south of Prince George. Their tree farm licence, when they first acquired it, had an annual allowable cut of about 153,000 or 154,000 cubic metres. Now, they have practised very, very intensive forestry and done a lot of things that make a tremendous amount of sense, and as a result of that, they now have an allowable cut on that particular tree farm licence of 240,000 cubic metres, and that's per year. That's off the same land base; it's the same number of hectares. But what they've done is gone in and made sure they don't have any areas that don't have trees planted in them. When they replant, they actually plant the roads and the landings as well as the conventional areas that were harvested. So they make sure every square foot of soil that can grow trees in that particular area has trees growing on it. They perform very, very intensive forms of silviculture in terms of ensuring that the trees are growing as quickly as possible.

Even in our end of the world — certainly on the coast — people are used to rotations that are in the order of perhaps 50 or 60 years. In the interior the traditional thinking has been that an adequate rotation cycle should be something in the order of 120 or 140 years. What we're actually finding is that if you follow the growth curve in a typical northern interior stand, there's no reason you can't maximize your return on that stand in something in the order of 70 to 72 years.

That's quite a bit different from the traditional thinking. That expands the amount of annual allowable cut we can take out of this province. You know, we still

take a little over 70 million cubic metres per year out of this province, and we said very clearly in the New Era document that our intent was to grow the AAC over time through good science. This is the type of thing that makes a tremendous amount of sense — moving to area-based tenure. And what better way to do that than with the local communities? A community like Fort St. James is a good example. Prince George, I understand, is putting in an application for a community forest. McBride has a community forest in place. Harrop-Procter community forest has recently become certified. There are all kinds of really good reasons to do this, and there are great opportunities out there.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings talked about some of the horrors of what this government is doing. I look back quite honestly at the time when that member was in office, and I think: how dare they talk about us? We are the ones rebuilding this industry. We're the ones putting it back on sound financial footings. We're the ones who ultimately have taken the bull by the horns and are developing the value-added industry that her government only paid lip service to over the longest period of time. It's very, very frustrating for me to sit there and listen to that sort of rhetoric, because she and the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant both talk about this notion of how they're the heroes for the heartlands. They come flying into Prince George and tell everyone in the community: "You know what? They're doing terrible things down there to you, and you're going to pay the price for this if you don't vote for us next time."

Well, I can tell you pretty simply that where we are today is a result of the policies entertained over the last ten years by those two members' government. The job losses — the 13,000 jobs — the 27 mills that were closed, the $600 million in forgone revenues or in lost revenues are a direct result of the actions of those governments. So who is it that's really committed to the heartlands here? Who is it that's really stepped up to the plate and has made the types of bold decisions that you need to make and created the foundation for the heartlands to move forward?

As we move forward, we have to have treaties. We have to create a sustainable future on the land base. This government's been committed to that. It's moved forward on that, and we're accomplishing that today. You have to have a sound taxation regime. You have to have a sound regulatory regime. We're doing all those things as well. They're absolutely critical for us as we move forward.

But I hear the old rhetoric of "you're not for the heartlands," and I ask people to look around and ask themselves: what has that government done? What did the other government do for the heartlands? Why did rural British Columbia depopulate over the last ten years? Why are we suffering the types of consequences that we are today? It's because of the policies from that period of time.

I look at our school district, school district 57, and we've had tremendous challenges — just tremendous challenges. I believe seven schools closed last year. Likely a further seven schools will close this year in my riding. But you look at the population in that particular area — not in the riding, but in school district 57 — and it's gone from a population base of about 20,000 students just five years ago. Next year we're going to be down to around 16,000 students, a loss of 20 percent. Why does that happen? It happens because people leave. When there are no opportunities there, people leave.

This government is headed in the right direction. We're absolutely committed to change, whether it's the working forest, the results-based code, the 20 percent timber reallocation, the new B.C. timber sales program, the new rules around stimulating the value of timber and ensuring we get maximum value from every piece of timber that is harvested in our forest or the new small-scale salvage tenures. They're all key components to revitalizing this forest industry, and I have every confidence in the Minister of Forests that we're moving in the right direction, whether it be this bill or all the other bills.

I'm very excited about our future. I know this government has created the initiatives that we need to have the revitalized forest industry that will put us back on the map in British Columbia and actually create the revenue sources that we need to fund the social services that everyone desires. That's absolutely what it comes down to: creating the revenue sources through a revitalized industry, an industry that promotes value-added opportunities, an industry that certainly minimizes waste and controls that whole component.

R. Harris: It's a pleasure for me to rise to speak in support of Bill 45. Bill 45 really just continues the legislative work that was done by the Forestry Revitalization Act, the Forest Revitalization Amendment Act, the Forest and Range Practices Act and the working forest legislation that is coming. It builds on things like our direct awards for first nations.

I absolutely agree with everything, actually, that the member for Prince George North just spoke about, especially when we start talking about what the Leader of the Opposition has to say when she stands up in this House consistently, with every one of these bills, and continues to rail away about how these bills and this direction that this government is going are going to take the whole forest industry and drive it into the ground and ruin it. I don't know where she's been for the last decade, but I can tell you where I've been. I've been moving from town to town as the forest industry that they have legislated over has, in fact, been driven right into the ground. When I went to the Charlottes back in 1972, I was a member of a local union working in a camp called Juskatla, local 171. It had 6,000 members. It covered the Queen Charlottes, the coast to Bella Coola, into Terrace and the north end of Vancouver Island. Today that local doesn't even exist. It doesn't even exist.

We talk about the 27 mills and the 13,000 workers that have been displaced. We hear that number a lot in this building and for very good reason, but it's a real num-

ber. That is the history of rural communities and how forest policy that hasn't changed over a decade to meet the changes in the world has just driven this industry from the lowest-cost producer in 1990 to the highest-cost fibre producer by 1999. It's an interesting stat, but it simply means that in good markets you're the last one in, and in poor markets you're the first one out. All that equates to is unemployment. It equates to mill closures.

That member, the Leader of the Opposition, continues to sort of rail away and seems to imply — if not more than imply — that, in fact, under their reign the forest industry absolutely boomed. It completely ignores and doesn't recognize at all the devastation that occurred in that industry.

It is time to make a change. It's time to make a dramatic change, because if we're going to rebuild this industry, we're going to have to do things a lot differently. It starts with good legislative policy that takes us in that direction. What this collection of bills does is really create new access points for individuals, communities and businesses to finally get access to the fibre.

When we talk about 20 percent timber reallocation, what does that mean? It actually gives communities an opportunity to have community forest licences. For a long time communities in the heartlands have talked about how you actually retain revenue in the area you live in. Community forest licences truly give us an opportunity now to finally engage in some kind of vehicle where communities can start to benefit from the resources that surround them. A community forest licence will do that.

I know that in the city of Terrace, they are tremendously optimistic about what a community forest licence means to them. It gives them an opportunity to find new sources of revenue without having to constantly go to the taxman, the individual in each community. This is a tremendous tool for them to actually help build local small enterprise and build new industries. The community licence really gives some independence to communities. It gives them an opportunity to access resources, and it gives them an opportunity to benefit from the resource that surrounds them, and that's important to them. It's very important to them.

Likewise, it gives us an opportunity to expand the woodlot program. What is that woodlot program? Anyone that's been in the forest industry for a while has always looked at the woodlot program as a great example of how small business, managing a timber base in a fixed area, can generate so much wealth with so little. They generate a tremendous number of jobs for the volume. They are run entirely by community-based people. They provide opportunities for multi-tracking on functions of logging. The woodlot program — and under this set of legislation where we're going to see the potential for it to be doubled — is going to be of great benefit to rural communities.

We're going to finally see truly a working salvage program. I had an opportunity this last weekend to sit down with the salvage community in Terrace and Kitimat and talk about how the salvage program is not working for them. It becomes very clear that what they're looking for is a program that provides them continuity — access to the fibre.

The member from Prince George very clearly and accurately pointed out that the greatest benefit of a salvage program is its method of dealing with forest health issues. Blowdown. I know in the Prince George area the pine beetle is a big one, but as you get out to the coast the effects of blowdown and the loss of the value of that timber as it stays on the ground and isn't harvested is absolutely…. It's criminal in many ways, because we're taking a product that has a lot of value, and without a good salvage program it doesn't allow us to access that. It doesn't allow us to get to it when it's at its prime level and get it into the marketplace.

But more importantly, salvage operators are the kind of people that create work. They're those unique individuals who, with 500, 1,000 or 1,500 cubic metres, can generate a tremendous amount of employment. It's the kind of group that if you give them 2,000 metres, they can find work for five or six people and keep them busy for six months. They buy all their supplies locally, they live locally, their families are local, and they're incredibly innovative.

Most people see salvage operators as the guys who sort of run out of the back of their pickup, and that's it, but you'd be surprised to find out that most salvage operators are the kind of guys who use helicopters. They use a lot of the real high-tech stuff. They have some of the best forest health standards. Their actions are the most uninvasive systems that you can have. They are real custodians of the forest. A salvage program under the multiple approaches of the timber reallocation is just going to be a tremendous asset.

We're going to see an expanded timber sale program. What does this mean? This means that the Bill 13 contractors, the larger operators and those that want to get access will now have truly greater access to the fibre. It's that access that's going to allow them to maintain their efficiency, their continuity of wood. The concern for most Bill 13 or medium-size contractors has always been the inability to find constant supply. This actually works for them, but it works for them in an entirely different way. Now they have a chance to be market loggers, and market loggers are really what this entire package is going to create in all of these segments — a whole new range of market loggers.

Why that's so important is, as the member for Prince George North spoke earlier, that what we want to do in this industry is create new opportunities, especially in the value-added sector. We want to start to develop new industries, design new products and get better value out of the fibre that we harvest from our forests. The only way we're going to do that is if we can guarantee a continuity of supply to those people with those unique ideas, with those dollars to invest, to be able to get access to fibre when they need it. That's been the barrier in the past. That's why we've seen no growth, because we've seen no opportunity.

The value-added sector, with the creation of log yards, with access to salvage operators for purchase, small busi-

ness sector, community forest licences — and one that I actually brushed over here was the first nations, the direct awards to first nations and their new participation in the industry — provides a whole new vehicle and range for these unique individuals and innovative people to finally get a secure access to fibre. That is really the critical component of this package of legislation that we've seen in this House over the last couple of weeks — what it means to this industry. It is about revitalizing the industry by taking a whole new approach.

Even though there is a 20 percent reallocation, there's significant benefit to the major licensees in terms of the flexibility they need in order to run their businesses so that they can start to run them in a manner that just makes sense. That's the rationale we have to bring to this industry; that's the revitalization that we have to bring to this industry. This bill goes a long way to do that, but it's part of the package. That's why it's so easy to support.

I think one of the interesting parts of following all this legislation through the House over the last two or three weeks is the recognition of how much consultation was involved with all of these groups to bring us to this point. This package of legislation truly represents a very broad appeal to the industry and an understanding, I think, of what we need to do as a province and as a government in how we guide this industry into the next decade and beyond.

We are dealing in a new world of forestry out there. We're dealing with a significant increase in suppliers in the world market. It's a new competitive regime. It's not 1980 anymore; it's not 1990. As a matter of fact, it's changing radically and quickly every day.

You know, I brushed over the first nations piece, but I want to come back and talk about that, because for me and my community and in our riding that's going to be a very big part of revitalizing the Pacific Northwest. We've seen, with the situation that's occurred around Skeena Cellulose, that what's going to come out of this now is a number of first nation initiatives that are going to put the control of a lot of the fibre in the hands of those communities that reside in our area. We're talking about a partnership for Kitsumkalum and the Kitselas band and their entire approach around developing an open log yard in Terrace.

Today we have a log yard in Terrace with the market logging that has already started. With those log yards we're now seeing a new competition for fibre. We're seeing new opportunities arrive in value-added sectors, where people are starting to come in and look around because they now know they have secure access to the logs they need. If we can get another primary breakdown facility working, it will make that opportunity even greater.

We're looking at a proposal for Hasler that will allow them to establish a shake mill in their community and bring them into the forest industry in a way they have never been before and in partnerships with businesses that border their communities and are run by people in our own communities. It's that bringing together of those partnerships that's going to really rebuild the strength of heartlands communities, rural communities — Terrace, Kitimat. That's where our strength lies.

It's also because we're bringing the resource in the forest under our control locally. That's really critical, because it's those local businesses, those local partnerships and those local first nations communities that will spend their money locally. They hire locally and they train. That's where this collection of bills is taking us. That's good news. It's really good news for the heartlands. It's very good news for Terrace and Kitimat. It's good news for Hazelton. It's good news for Prince Rupert.

When I hear the Leader of the Opposition get up and go on and on and on about trying to recreate the past, I'll be damned if I know why, because the past hasn't been very good to us in the forest industry. Her continual desire to get there is a complete lack of recognition and, more importantly, a lack of understanding on her part of what her government did to the forest industry in forest-based communities in the north.

She rails a lot about Skeena Cellulose. That is interesting. Yes, they did bail them out in 1997 and restructured them and promised to invest capital in a pulp mill. Did they invest it? Not even close to the promise. They promised to give local contractors membership on the board so that those local businesses could keep an eye on the company and make sure that it was being run in a business fashion. Did that ever occur? Not in your life. They ran it like they ran everything else, and by 2000 it never will happen again. When I hear her say that she's standing up and defending workers, it's those workers that have been victimized by some of the worst management practices ever — continual interference.

This collection of bills is going to go a long way to providing a new set of controls on the fibre baskets that surround our communities. That's important, and it's very good news. It's important, because it's with that local control, that expertise and the creation of log yards and log markets and the creation of access to fibre that we're going to see new investment in new industries.

The Leader of the Opposition rails away that the sawmills will be closing. It's not that your sawmill is going to close; it just may look a little different. That's a good thing, because if we're going to be out in that global market, we want to be bringing in mills that make things entirely different. We've got to get out there and be competitive. We've got to come up with new products. The competition we face globally today is tremendous.

I am very pleased to be able to support this bill and stand up and speak to it, because it is an important thing. I think this bill, as the member from Prince George alluded to earlier, talks about some really important aspects. One aspect that we don't talk enough about is the responsibility we have to ensure that the citizens of this province always get fair value for the resource that actually belongs to them.

This bill creates a market-based timber pricing to tenure allocation. It actually starts to ensure that British

Columbians are getting the maximum return for the use of their forests, and that is important. It's important for health care. It's important for education. It's important for all those services that we want to deliver because, in fact, this is about growing the pie, not continuing to redivide it. If we're going to be able to pay for the services that all of us cherish so much in this province, then we have to grow that pie. A big part of that is revitalizing this industry.

It does create a model for new community salvage licences, and that's important, as I said earlier. One of the interesting things it does — and the member talked about — with the take-it-or-pay approach is that it actually stops the creaming of our forests in any fashion by holding companies accountable for the wood they leave behind as much as for what they take. From a forest health point of view, that's absolutely critical and essential as we move forward in this industry.

It is with a great deal of pleasure that I stand here to support Bill 45. It is one more piece of the puzzle that we as a government bring to this industry but, more importantly, that we as a government bring to the individual communities we represent in the heartlands, because they're depending on us to bring in the policies in this industry that, in fact, are going to revitalize it. This bill will go a long way to doing that, and it's with a great deal of pleasure that I stand here to support it.

R. Hawes: Like my colleagues, I too stand to support this bill. This is it — 37 little pages that carry an awful lot of punch, especially when added to the other forestry bills that have already been introduced and put through.

Just for a minute I want to go back a few months. The Minister of Forests was heavily criticized for moving far too slowly. Nothing was happening in forest reform, although it had been promised. There was nothing coming. You probably remember the newspaper articles and the report cards they put out on the Minister of Forests, saying he was failing. In fact, what was happening was consultation. Massive reform was underway in forestry, but it was out for consultation — consultation that never happened under the previous bunch. They never consulted about anything. They just did what they were going to do, most of it bad, and had no consultation — particularly with industry, those evil people that make profit. Not under them, though. Losses were occurring in company after company.

The Forests minister suffered a great deal of criticism. Then he comes forward with the bills. After consultation, he comes forward with the much-promised and highly effective revitalization of the forestry sector, and now he's criticized for moving too fast.

Both of the opposition members stand up and rail about how we're now ramming things through. There is no time for consultation. It's just terrible. The fact is that the consultation has been there. We haven't necessarily consulted with those particular members, but they are the ones who destroyed forestry and don't want to be held accountable for it. I think the minister is to be commended for delivering exactly what he promised.

What I wanted to do was just go back a little bit further and take a look at what happened over the past decade here, and what this bill and all of the other revitalization bills do to correct that situation. The member for Prince George North talked about the jobs and timber accord, which was going to create all those new jobs in this province. The fact is that the day the jobs and timber accord was signed, jobs started to go south. Jobs started to disappear, and it was a massive failure. But with it came Forest Renewal B.C. and the famous Roger Stanyer who ran Forest Renewal B.C., who had a great deal of experience. He was a union leader from somewhere brought in by the former government because of his affiliation with the labour movement. He knew absolutely nothing about what Forest Renewal B.C. was supposed to do, but it collected billions.

I don't have the exact figure of how many billions of dollars were just blown out the window by that organization. I do know that when it started, after it had spent over a billion dollars, I talked to people who worked there and who were just now starting to figure out that some of the programs they wanted to get into…. But they had spent a lot of money on experimenting and setting up a bureaucracy that had really nothing to deliver — just fairly typical of what the previous government did.

There's been some talk about the movement to 12 percent of the province that was to be parks. Yes, that happened, and parks are wonderful. But I wonder how many people in this province really understand things like the Tatshenshini park and what that kind of policy did to us. A huge amount of money — not in forestry; it was in mining — was invested to prove up a mine that could have gone into production, Windy Craggy, which would have paid this province $100 million a year and provided a huge number of high-paying jobs. But the former government decided to turn it into a park. The 4.5-square-kilometre area that that mine would have covered in this park of hundreds of thousands of square kilometres was now not to happen. The mine was absolutely written off and with it the investment that had been made by the mining community in proving up that ore body. That destroyed mining in this province. More than any other thing that could have happened, that particular move destroyed mining.

It's not just mining, Mr. Speaker — investment in anything. We gained a reputation over the last decade as being more unreliable than some of the South American dictatorships. We would just confiscate wealth at will because those in the environmental community, whose vote that party was pandering to, demanded it, and they got what they wanted.

Now we have the working forest designation across a part of this province, which ensures that those who want to invest in forestry and who want to grow trees in this province and want to be in that business on a long-term basis can be assured that their investment

isn't going to be confiscated, that the use they are putting to that forest is going to continue and that if for some reason there's to be a change, there's going to be some compensation paid. The investment community can sleep well at night knowing this is a safe place to invest once again, whereas for the past decade it has been more dangerous than some of the South American juntas that seemed to change like you change your shirt. That was the doing of that government.

The Forest Practices Code. I remember listening to former Forests minister Zirnhelt speaking about and having a stack of documents explaining why the Forest Practices Code wasn't working. They developed a set of regulations that would choke a horse. In the small community that I live in, we have a community tree farm. We had to hire someone simply to cut through the paperwork. That's his job — no new trees cut, no new efficiencies, simply someone to administer the enormous paperwork load created by the Forest Practices Code. This, frankly, did absolutely nothing for the industry but cost well over a billion dollars — admitted by the former government — and did nothing, advanced nothing. It was there to do nothing other than provide some jobs for a few people in administration. That is not production. That, again, is a job-killer, and that's what it did. It killed jobs.

We had the "cut it or lose it" philosophy. If you had a forest licence, you had to — over a five-year cycle, for the most part — meet your allowable cut, or you would lose that cut. Even when the markets were down and it said you were going to lose money, you had no choice. You had to operate at a loss, or you would lose your cutting rights for all time. That created a situation where, again, huge numbers of jobs were lost and companies went bankrupt. There's absolutely no sense to that kind of thinking.

That has been eliminated, and yet there are safeguards to make sure companies aren't stopping cutting just to artificially control log markets. Now what you don't cut can be awarded to another company during that cut cycle, so you would lose it for that cut cycle but get it back in the next cut cycle. That keeps the companies that hold licences pretty honest, and I think it's a very wise way to handle this.

My two colleagues that spoke before me spoke about the uncertainty with first nations. That has caused huge concern to a lot of the licence holders throughout the province. First nations, whether some like it or some don't like it, are entitled to both accommodation and consultation. The Supreme Court of Canada has basically dictated that, so we have moved to try to create a situation for first nations where they know they are now being included.

We've moved, through the Attorney General's department, to AIPs with a number of first nations that were absolutely impossible for the former government to arrive at. Over ten years in trying to make treaties, with zero success — nothing. We started basically from scratch, with a referendum process that many decried but has actually been very beneficial to us and has helped us move towards the beginning of settlement and AIPs with a number of first nations that will bring some economic certainty.

Economic certainty is very, very important. Through the 20 percent takeback and reallocation of some cutting rights to first nations, that's going to allow a lot of accommodation, I guess, and it creates the kind of atmosphere in which discussions with first nations are made much easier. That's going to help our forest industry tremendously.

The small business program. Both of my colleagues also spoke about the small business program and the social engineering that went with it, where timber was put up for tender. With it you had to create jobs — or whatever it was you were going to create — and you would issue a tender that would…. You could put anything you wanted in it.

You're going to open a mill with hundreds of new jobs for the community and all the rest of it, based on that stand of timber that you would get the rights to cut. In almost all cases, these mills never happened. Nothing was delivered on. The timber was high-graded. The best timber was gone, and then the companies would just leave, and they would not deliver on the building of the mill or the jobs or whatever was promised. Frankly, there was no real follow-up, and there were no penalties for not delivering. This was a sham of a program that thankfully has ended.

At this point the highest bidder and social engineering are out the window. We will be making sure that the taxpayers and residents of this province get the best dollar they can get for the timber they own. I think that's a really important concept. The public owns the forests, and the public is entitled to get the best return it can for its forests.

The 20 percent takeback, as it was first discussed, had some concern certainly for my community, which has a community tree farm, and for many of the woodlots around the province who have very small annual cuts. At one time it was thought that it could come out with no threshold, that everyone would lose 20 percent. That, for the small woodlot owner or a community tree farm such as Mission or Revelstoke, would be devastating. I know that I, on behalf of my community, voiced my concerns, and I know the member from Revelstoke did the same for her community. I know that the woodlot owners association had a lot to say about it. The Forests minister listened and established a threshold that would make sure those small licence holders with a very small annual cut were allowed to keep their cut intact, and they are not affected by the takeback.

That also recognizes something the member for Prince George North spoke of, and that's growing trees rather than just cutting trees. The small woodlot owners are tree farmers. These are people who specialize in the growth of trees and in silviculture. To a big extent these people can almost walk around and point out individual trees in their woodlots; they're that intensively managed.

Last summer I visited a woodlot in part of my riding. In fact, I went with the Minister of Forests, and we

had a pretty good look at the BCIT woodlot. In fact, they have students come out; they teach forestry. They have a forestry centre there with a bit of a dialogue centre. They've got a catwalk built up in the trees — it seems to me it's about 100 feet up in the trees — that goes from tree to tree. The Forests minister decided not to climb the catwalk at the BCIT. He decided to take part in some other activities there of a more jocular type, but not to climb the catwalk. I myself wanted to climb the catwalk, but he asked me to stay with him to keep him company as we took part in some of the soft drinks they had there at that little bit of a showing of their woodlot.

From that, I personally was so impressed with the kind of intensive management these folks have on the woodlots. I know that went a long way to convincing the Forests minister of the value of the woodlot program, how great these people are at running forestry and how taking back any of their tenure would have been a disaster for them.

I want to touch for a second on the environmental side. We hear a lot from the two members opposite about how we are abandoning the environment and all the rest of it. Well, let's just take a look for a minute at what they did over the last ten years. When you think about it…. Things like the spotted owl program. They had people walking through the forests. They would hire part-time people with owl callers who would walk through the forest and make some noise, and if they thought they heard a spotted owl, it would then be designated spotted owl territory. It would be redlined on the map, and all cutting would have to cease in that area.

There have been examples, and there are some in the riding next to mine, where one forest company invested several hundred thousand dollars in roads in preparation to get in to cut an area only to have it designated spotted owl territory. Their investment was completely lost. No compensation — nothing — and not a spotted owl seen. There is no evidence other than the verbal evidence of a part-time person who was walking around with an owl caller, who said they thought they heard a spotted owl. That's quite common in the spotted owl program in this province. This is something that was pushed so hard by that government.

You turn on the radio and you listen to people like Joe Foy of the Western Canada Wilderness Committee talking about how terrible it is, what we're doing in the forests. He comes, in fact, to my riding and sets up a table and tries to have declared a park an area that now has two woodlots on it, including the BCIT woodlot. He's out there with his table set up trying to get people to come and sign petitions, and while they're signing the petitions: "Oh, by the way, would you sign this little envelope and give me a cheque and pledge some money so I can keep my good work going?" This is someone who makes his living by putting people out of work in this province.

I can tell you that the forestry sector isn't just important, as my colleague from Prince George North talked about, to the heartlands. Forestry is important on Howe Street in Vancouver, and it's important on Borland Street in Williams Lake. It's important on the main street of every community in this province because it's the number one industry in this province, and it has been driven to its knees by repeated blows from that previous government, which didn't value forest workers and their families. They did through lip service, but through their actions it's very clear they did not value forest workers. They did not value their right to live decent lives in this province, and so they drove them by the thousands out of work.

The legislation that we have here, combined with the other legislative package that's been put together by the Forests minister, with a lot of help from around the province from many, many different people that have been consulted with, companies and workers…. That package is going to put forestry back on the right side of the ledger, and it's going to put many people, over time, back to work. But this isn't a quick fix. This isn't something that's going to be tomorrow morning.

One of the things that this government is not thought of is being a real big friend to organized labour. In fact, we are. I don't know a member in this House who isn't concerned about employees in this province, who isn't concerned that their families are well supported through them earning a decent wage and through them having good and safe working conditions. All of us are concerned with those things, and I can tell you that there isn't a better friend in government than this government for the IWA and the forest workers in this province.

I think almost all of the IWA workers throughout this province, if they sit back and reflect on what's been going on for the last decade, know who their enemy really is. That previous government and their friends, the friends of that previous government, are the ones who drove forestry into the tank and who took jobs away from thousands of forest workers. The IWA, I think, understands and knows it's us; it's this government that's actually their friend. It's this government that's the best friend of organized labour, because the best thing that organized labour can have is jobs for its members, and the best thing we can do — and we are doing — is put those people back to work. That's how you build an economy, and that's what we're doing.

We're trying to go from tenth place and sinking rapidly — where that previous government took us — to climbing out of the hole, and, you know, we're almost there. The indicators are all there, and we are hearing from industry. We're hearing from almost every industry there is that our programs are the right programs. We're building confidence in every sector of the economy that counts as far as making investment in this province. That's where jobs are going to come from. They're not going to come from the offices of the ministers. They're not going to go out and hire a bunch more people to make regulations and to go around and take jobs away from people. That's not going to happen anymore.

We're going to create jobs in the private sector the way it used to be, the way it still should be and the

way it's going to be very soon. Our province is going to be back on top and is going to be number one, and it's because of things like the Forests minister is doing. I think all of us need to be very, very proud — and I know we are very proud — of the job he's done both in consulting and in putting together a series of acts that completely revitalize forestry. All the time that he was doing that, he's been busy fighting the softwood tariff. I can tell you, he will be successful with that as well.

I know the Forests minister is going to get up. He has a considerable amount of wonderful things to say about this bill as, I think, he's going to close debate. With that, I'm proud to have had an opportunity to speak.

B. Suffredine: I'll try to slip in a few remarks in the little bit of time that remains. I wish to, of course, speak in favour of Bill 45 and the package of forestry revitalization legislation that's been put forward. Now, I do that with a little bit of caution because it's fundamental and dramatic change that's being brought to the forest system.

Our system of forestry is long overdue for change. Perhaps it's half a century, I believe, since it's been changed significantly. We're about to embark on a new system that will see us take back 20 percent of the quota from major licences and create large, economically viable community forest licences and salvage licences. It will see us reselling uncut quota instead of requiring licensees to cut it when they haven't a market for it.

Now, all of those are major changes. As the minister knows, I'm working on a bill to sponsor some changes to an act called the Woodworker Lien Act. The original concept of woodworkers' liens was something which came about in the early 1900s. It's a system that wasn't changed and wasn't changed. It's an ineffective tool. It's completely outdated. Woodworkers' liens must be made workable, too, or be thrown away.

The forest sector is our most important industry, and just like the woodworkers' liens, it's out of date and needs wholesale change. I remember in the early days, long before I ran for office, when the NDP was talking about forestry as being a sunset industry. That wasn't the case then, and it isn't the case now. But we do need to make some changes to it to deal with the realities of free trade and the fact that the major market we have is in the U.S. We have to change that system in order to be competitive and avoid trade disputes.

There are those in opposition who suggest that the concept of the working forest is not appropriate. They describe it somewhat more strongly. I think the forest industry is entitled to the same certainty that every other business is. They have to be able to plan for the future. As government, we now have three-year rolling budgets in every ministry. The business plans that are three years at a time are mandatory, and we expect compliance from each of the ministers. In the forest sector I have licensees who actually don't know whether they'll have wood to cut in 18 months because of uncertainties created by government. They need and deserve some certainty.

To create a market system is what the industry needs so trade disputes can be ended and peace achieved in the business — well, to some degree. I'm not too optimistic we'll ever avoid all disputes, but that comes with some risks that are inherent with that change.

Formerly, the stumpage system charged on wood was adjusted around the province through what was called the appraisal manual. It was a thick, complex set of guidelines that made appropriate adjustments for the costs of logging where there was steep ground or complex environmental challenges like wet areas.

The new system is very simple. That's a good thing, but it also has some risks. Many mills in my area are worried that it will be difficult to adjust for differences in costs. In the north there's a huge supply of decadent wood because of beetle kill. Auctions of that wood may set a price that will not be easily balanced with the costs of logging in steep terrain like the Kootenays. The mills in my area worry that the appraisal manual needs to be a little more fleshed out before we proceed. I know the minister is very alive to that and is working hard to ensure that an appropriate system of adjustment is in place.

I note that there's takeback of quota and that takeback is going to be achieved by, in some cases, giving that quota to other licensees. What's most interesting is that in my region, many of the large licence holders are supporting applications for that quota by small communities like Nakusp, Creston or Kaslo. Those large licensees see those communities as partners. It's an opportunity to begin to use salvage as a way to improve the forest, to make a vibrant forest and to create a great bidding system in that process.

I believe the minister would like an opportunity to respond. I'm going to cut my remarks short and give him priority to conclude debate tonight.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 45. The Minister of Forests closes debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me first say how obliged I am to all members for their participation in this debate, members of the government caucus and the Leader of the Opposition as well. I will briefly comment on what I have heard from all participants.

I will begin, though, by making this observation about the comments from the Leader of the Opposition. It took a while. I wasn't sure we were actually going to get a clear indication from the Leader of the Opposition about where she and her party stood with respect to the specifics, the substantive portions of this bill, but here is what I have heard or what I think I heard. In fairness, I want to put it on the record, because if I'm mistaken, then I want the Leader of the Opposition and the NDP to have an opportunity to tell me that I am wrong.

She has once again during the course of this debate emphasized her and her party's opposition to the notion of severing the historical link between the harvesting and processing of timber. That's fine. That's the position she has taken. I and the government and the vast majority of members here have said clearly, by

virtue of this legislation and other parts of the Forest Revitalization Act, that we believe the government should not force someone to be in one business or the other or both, but that that should be a choice left to the individuals who participate in forestry.

The Leader of the Opposition has again confirmed that she disagrees with that. That's fine, but there is a clear difference of opinion and difference of approaches to that very important issue. With respect to the essence of this bill, the Leader of the Opposition has, in the short time she spent actually dealing with the substantive provisions of the bill, said — I think fairly clearly — she and her party are opposed to the competitive award of timber, and that they and she embrace a different historical approach that says government should be more involved in determining who gets timber on the basis of other considerations.

I felt and feel compelled to say at the conclusion of the debate that this bill represents, I am proud to say, a seminal shift from what has existed before. The people of British Columbia deserve to have the asset that they own, the timber resource, sold on a competitive basis, and they deserve to have the maximum return to them for the sale of access to that resource. That's what this bill represents.

Again, there is a clear difference of opinion, and I think people need to know that. I am not comfortable but proud that the government and the majority of members of this House have opted for that approach which says the government will get out of the business of picking winners and losers, because the track record has not been a very good one particularly over the last decade.

The last thing I want to say in the time available is this, because oftentimes my colleagues, despite making valuable contributions to the debate, find themselves on the receiving end of less-than-flattering comments from members of the opposition. I want to say this: the contribution of the members of the government caucus goes far beyond the comments they have made here tonight. This bill is a shining example of what happens when MLAs stand up for their constituents and bring ideas to this chamber and to the government.

It was the members of this government caucus — and many of them are sitting here today at this moment — who said to me and to the government: "You know, there's a better way to do small-scale salvage, minister. There's a better way to eliminate much of the waste that's taking place. Let's get communities involved. Let's get the people who actually understand the small-scale salvage business, who are interested in small-scale salvage, involved. Let's create something new."

When I said to them, because of the advice I got from officials, "We can't do that under the Forest Act," do you know what they said? "By God, let's change it. Let's change it to do something that actually makes sense." That is but one example of the contribution that my colleagues within the government caucus, the B.C. Liberal Party caucus, have brought to the creation of not just this bill but an entire forestry revitalization package.

I want to say thank you to them. I want to say thank you for standing up for their constituents and for the ideas that their constituents have had. It's because of that that I am confident this bill and the overall forestry revitalization package are going to have precisely the impact we want it to have and get B.C.'s number one industry firing on all eight cylinders once again.

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

Bill 45, Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. K. Whittred: Mr. Chair, I'm just awaiting my staff. I wonder if we could….

J. Kwan: I was asking the minister: what is the breakdown of the 5,000 new beds?

Hon. K. Whittred: First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce my staff: on my right, my deputy minister, Dr. Penny Ballem; and on my left, Tamara Vrooman, also deputy minister.

The member opposite has asked about the status of the 5,000 beds. As the member knows, this is part of a long-term strategy to redesign home and community care in order to meet the needs of an emerging seniors population. It is an ongoing commitment. Our commitment for the beds is for 2006. Part of that is the development of a long-term bed plan that will meet the needs of the growing senior sector.

I am working within the Ministry of Health Services, with the health authorities, with B.C. Housing, with various profit and non-profit organizations to ensure there is this broader spectrum of care options for seniors. This is a work in progress. All the health authorities are engaged in this process and are assessing the needs of the people who live within their health authorities in order to meet this commitment.

Hon. K. Whittred: Since June 5 of '01, 811 residential care beds have opened. Also, 602 independent living units have opened since June 5 of 2001. That is a total of 1,413. In addition to that, requested and awarded but not yet opened via the Independent Living B.C. program in the form of rent supplements, these are rent supplements that have been requested: 479.

The next category is independent living units that are requested but are still to be awarded. In other words, these have not been tendered. They total 1,941. The total is 2,420. That is the total tendered and requests for proposals.

If you take those two totals, you have a total of 3,833. That leaves 1,167 that are still in the planning phase.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that within the total of 3,833 there are 479 that are rent supplements. Rent supplements, as I understand them, are not beds attached but rather are units to be rented from the private market to which the ministry then provides a supplement to pay for the market rent. Those, in essence, are not beds that are being built. They are just in the public market out there. Is the minister saying, though, that of the 5,000 new beds of the new-era commitment, 479 are actually rent supplements?

Hon. K. Whittred: The member is correct when she notes that there are 479 rent supplements that have been contracted by health authorities with existing private sector facilities. These are, in fact, new, publicly funded beds within the sector. It is completely consistent with the history of long-term care in that the private sector and the non-profit sector have always played a very active role. It's also very consistent with the direction in which we're moving, which is to enhance the independence of seniors and add to the quality of life.

Further to that, it is fiscally responsible because the public sector is…. There is no cost for capital. The capital is there. It already exists. The public money is funding these beds for the benefit of the people who will be using them. It is consistent with what we're trying to accomplish and is part of our model for the future.

J. Kwan: Actually, for the minister's information, rent supplements require the government to give money to landlords, essentially. They take the money because that's the rent that they receive. You know what? What happens then is that the government is not investing that money back into the public asset like you would with properties or beds that are owned by the public in the public community — in the public realm. That's the difference.

When you have rent supplements, it's not necessarily, in my view, a good investment of government money, because you have no asset to show for it at the end of the day. That's the difference between rent supps versus an actual unit or community- or government-owned asset. This is very interesting to note; 479 units are now going to be rent supplements. Those are not assets to be owned by the community at all.

I want to canvass the 5,000 and the difference between the new-era commitment. The minister says, setting aside the rent supplement issue, of the total of 5,000, there are still 1,167 still in the planning stage. Of that total there are 3,833 that are now either in place or going to be in place for 2006. Yet, in the new-era promise, the promise was: "Work with non-profit societies to build…an additional 5,000…long-term care beds by 2006."

I want to canvass, first of all, the 5,000 number. Then I'm going to go back to rent supplements, because when the statement says, "Work with non-profit societies to build…an additional 5,000…long-term care beds by 2006," it's not the same thing as rent supplements. I'll go back to that.

Let's start with the 5,000 number. The 5,000 number, if the New Era document is correct, what this minister campaigned on and what the Liberals have campaigned on…. It actually states that they will build an additional 5,000 beds. Is it an additional 5,000 beds that this ministry, this government, is now building, or is it just 5,000 beds, so therefore, they've actually broken their promise in the New Era document?

Hon. K. Whittred: First of all, I would like to clarify the issue around rent supplements. Rent supplement units allow the provision of independent living with-

out the time lines involved in new development. They are, in fact, a way that we can get services to people very quickly and provide them with these services without large capital construction costs to the ministry. They also encourage the private sector to be involved in the provision of services.

The issue is not about assets. In the health business, we are not concerned about what assets we own; we are concerned about what services we deliver. This, in fact, is a way in which we can deliver a service very well and very expeditiously to the people who require that service.

Secondly, in response to the member's question, I would like to talk a little bit — just to set the context — about the vision we are working toward in home and community care. This vision is to provide a much broader range of services for this very rapidly expanding population. We want to get away from this idea that there is only one thing for people to do when they become elderly and require some level of care, and that is to go into a residential care home. We have a vision of many, many services across the community that will address the client's needs, whatever they may be — whether it be a meal program involving nutrition, whether it be transportation needs, whether it be some personal care help. There are a variety of ways that those can all be addressed in the community.

The 5,000-bed commitment is, of course, part of that vision. We know that with an expanding seniors population, and even a disability population that is growing, we do need to have more services available. The 5,000 beds are an additional service, and they are in addition to what is available at the present time.

J. Kwan: Pardon me, Madam Chair. On a point of order. My apologies to the minister.

Given that the Government House Leader has just foisted on the opposition today a motion relating to the time allocated for each of the respective debates…. In the big House, the debate was just shut down on Health Services at 4:45 to proceed to Bills 40 and 45. I'm quite conscious and concerned about the orders that are appearing on this motion and the proceedings in this House.

According to the motion paper, in this committee here, from 5 to 9 o'clock, the Ministry of State for Mental Health is supposed to be debated first, and then we were to move to the Ministry of State for Long Term Care. Given that the government has actually followed these very strict rules in the House, even though it is my understanding that there were other negotiations going on with staff….

Obviously, we're not proceeding accordingly. I want to make sure that the opposition actually has the right information here and is proceeding accordingly, so we don't end up losing our opportunities to canvass questions to the Minister of State for Mental Health and then to the Minister of State for Long Term Care.

I seek your advice, Madam Chair, in terms of what is the proceeding here. Are we going by the motion, or are we just sort of going willy-nilly to whatever the government feels like at the time?

The Chair: Minister, would you want to respond with any further information?

Hon. K. Whittred: I am open to the direction of the Chair on this matter. I was under the understanding that it was, in fact, me to be first, but I have not seen the….

J. Kwan: Madam Chair, on a point of order. According to the motion paper…. It was moved by the Hon. Gary Collins, who is the House Leader. It reads as follows, and I'm quoting it directly: "That the following schedule be adopted for the conclusion of government business for the week of May 26 to May 29, 2003." Monday: 2:45-4:45, Health Services, Committee of Supply; 4:45-9:00, Bills 40 and 45 respectively — Bill 40 listed first, then Bill 45 — in second reading.

Then section A. It goes: 5:00-9:00, Minister of State for Mental Health, Committee of Supply, and then it lists the Minister of State for Long Term and Home Care.

Given that this is as listed per the motion, given that the government is following it to the T even though staff have negotiations elsewhere outside of the House, to allow for perhaps some flexibility here…. That is obviously not proceeding, and the opposition wants to make sure that we have the opportunity to canvass the respective ministers accordingly. I'm raising this matter. If we're to follow the motion, then we should be debating the Minister of State for Mental Health first.

Hon. K. Whittred: Madam Chair, if the member opposite wishes to proceed with the Minister of State for Mental Health, we will try to get him down here. If the member would rather proceed as we have started, and the Minister for Mental Health would follow, that is also fine with me.

J. Kwan: The reality that the opposition is faced with is this. It is the government who is shutting down this House. It's the government who is dictating the timetable. The opposition did not agree with this timetable. There are many questions that we have. My colleague would prefer to continue discussion. There was just a vote in the big House on the Ministry of Health Services, but it was shut down by the government, with this minister voting for that motion.

Hon. Chair, I'm simply seeking your advice as to what it is that we're doing. It appears that there are no

schedules to follow. It appears that the government just decides to do whatever it wants at every turn without any notice to the opposition, when they feel like it. Then, all of a sudden, the opposition finds themselves in the position that they cannot get their work done to hold this government accountable.

Madam Chair, I'm seeking your advice as to what it is that we're doing. It ought not be just at the whim of the Government House Leader or this government to decide what it is that they want to do, because there's no accountability if we proceed that way.

The Chair: Pursuant to the orders of the House, I'll ask the minister to continue on Intermediate and Long Term Care, and we will try to get the Minister for Mental Health down here as soon as possible.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that there is some semblance of order for proceedings in this House.

On the question around the 5,000 beds. The minister was starting the explanation around the 5,000 beds, and because there are the procedural issues, I interrupted the minister. The minister, I assume, will continue to answer that question, but I do want to then….

Perhaps we can do this in chunks. The minister wanted to canvass the issue around rental supplements. She says that the ministry is not in the business of creating assets in our community but, rather, is just providing the service. Well, part of the issue around providing service is to make sure that the assets stay within the community. Long-term assets that belong to the public belong to everyone. When the government invests in those long-term public assets, do you know what? They stay there in perpetuity. When you actually pay private landlords for rent supplements, those beds, those units, do not stay in the public in perpetuity.

When the government takes away the rent supplements, those units are then gone. That is the issue here. Obviously, the minister does not understand the fundamental difference between rent supplements versus an asset that's owned by the public purse that will belong to the public and be used for the public's long-term benefit. That is the issue I take with that — the fundamental difference.

The other piece I want to raise with the minister is this. According to the New Era document, it says: "Work with non-profit societies to build…an additional 5,000…long-term care beds by 2006." It says to build an additional 5,000 beds. It does not say to get rent supplements to replace the 5,000 beds. It's a fundamental difference. I would like the minister, first, to explain the discrepancy between the New Era document and this campaign promise by this government and how that has now changed from the reality of what this government is delivering.

Hon. K. Whittred: Before we changed pace a little bit, I was talking about our vision and how it is…. We have made a very conscious decision to change the design, to change the way in which we offer home and community care services. Part of this vision is to provide our seniors with a much broader range of services. The key underlining factor there is that we want to be sure our seniors are able to live independently.

When I go out and talk to seniors, and I do this a lot, that's the one thing they always tell me: "I want to be independent." I hear that over and over again, so it's our job in government to ensure that we do have a range of services that are going to enhance their ability to remain independent and their ability to have a very high quality of life. By the same token, we want to ensure that those people who do need 24-hour nursing care are going to have that care available.

We don't want to be forcing people into a residential care facility that gives them 24-hour nursing care when, really, all they need to be independent is some help with the activities of daily living. That is the guiding principle which drives our vision.

I just want to share with you one or two examples of what really gives me so much personal reward in trying to meet this goal. I was in Kelowna just this last weekend to officiate at the opening of a new assisted-living facility. The residents told me over and over again, when I asked them what it was they liked about their new home: "It enables me to be independent." We even came across a kind of love story: a couple that had been married and were living together in their new apartment. This was a very rewarding experience.

I met a lady who had actually moved from my home community in North Vancouver to Kelowna because her son lived there. She had this very comfortable suite, she had her meals provided, she had the personal care that she required, and yet she still had the independence of her own suite with a locked door and her own mailbox. It wasn't as though she was living in a hospital. That encapsulates the vision we are trying to achieve.

Moving on to the position of the 5,000 beds in this. We have said from the very beginning that 5,000 beds are part of that vision and that these are in addition to what has been available in the past.

Now, I would like to just refocus for a moment on the member opposite and her remarks around rent supplements. In fact, the member is quite incorrect. The majority of the home and community care sector are, in fact, profit and non-profit facilities. That is the case today. It was the case when that member's organization was in government. It was the case 20 years ago. It is the history of the sector. It has never been a sector that has been operated exclusively in the public domain, and rent supplements are a way that the Ministry of Health can deliver service to people who need it quickly and with every regard to the kind of service that fits into the vision we are trying to accomplish.

J. Kwan: It's very interesting to watch how this government and this minister try to evade questions and

then actually do not look at the issues they are faced with. I am quoting from the New Era document, to which this minister made a commitment. It states: "Work with non-profit societies to build…an additional 5,000…long-term care beds by 2006." Nobody's disputing whether or not rent supplements have a role to play. Where I'm disputing the issue here now is this minister's and this Liberal government's promise to the people that they would build an additional 5,000 long-term care beds. It does not say that they will provide for these long-term care beds through rent supplements. It does not say that.

It is this member's own vision — by which she is breaking not the NDP's record but rather this minister's commitment and this Premier's commitment during the election campaign — that I am now questioning and holding this minister accountable to. Which is it? You can't have it both ways. Through you, Madam Chair, to the minister: you either broke your promise or you didn't. Did you break your promise in the New Era document, which says you will work with non-profit societies to build an additional 5,000 long-term care beds by 2006? Are you doing that now or not? Did you break your promise — yes or no?

Hon. K. Whittred: In response to the member opposite: yes, we are, in fact, working with non-profits. I work with non-profits on a daily basis.

The Ministry of Health Services — together with health authorities, which are public, and B.C. Housing, which is a government Crown corporation — works with many, many non-profit societies. I mentioned being in Kelowna. That particular new home for our seniors was a partnership. It was a partnership with the Good Samaritan Society. That is certainly a non-profit organization. It was a partnership with B.C. Housing; it was a partnership with the interior health authority.

A few weeks ago I opened Nikkei Home in Burnaby. That, too, was a partnership, involving the Nikkei Housing Society, the Fraser health authority and, I believe, other partners in that particular project.

Two or three months ago I went to Dawson Creek. In Dawson Creek I opened a wonderful new facility. It consisted of both a housing component and a residential care component. It was the Rotary Club. The Rotary Club is a non-profit organization. That project was, again, a partnership between the northern health authority, the Rotary Club and B.C. Housing.

To the member opposite: we do work with non-profit societies. We work with non-profit societies on a daily basis.

Hon. K. Whittred: To the member opposite: our commitment was to work with non-profit societies for an additional 5,000 beds. We are doing that. We are also working with the private sector in partnership. We are also working with the public sector in partnership in order that we may achieve the goals we have laid out to provide the array of services, the continuum of care, for our seniors.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister did not answer the question. I asked the question: how is…? Let me put it another way. How is rent supplements working with a non-profit society? I first asked the minister: how are the 5,000 beds coming? What's happening? What's the breakdown? The minister gave a list of numbers illustrating to us what's happening with the 5,000 beds, of which she said 479 were rent supplements — rent supplements which are supposed to constitute those 5,000 additional long-term care beds.

I am asking the minister: how are the rent supplement units — 479 of them — working with the non-profit sector?

Hon. K. Whittred: For the member opposite, I think I'll just go through the numbers I gave before one more time, just to remind….

Hon. K. Whittred: Out of the total number of beds I spoke about — 3,833 — 12 percent of those are rent supplements. Those rent supplements are a way in which the ministry was able to get services to seniors right now rather than having to wait until something is built.

I was at the opening, again very recently, in this city, Victoria, when the rent supplements for the Vancouver Island health authority were granted. Again, I had the opportunity to visit with people who were enjoying their brand-new suite. The elderly person who is in that suite does not care whether that suite is private or non-profit or whether the funding is through a rent supplement or some other means of subsidization. All that elderly person cares about is that they are in their home and that they are getting the services they need. I am very pleased with the way the health authorities have responded and that they've been able to get these services on track very quickly.

J. Kwan: The minister says that of the 5,000 additional new beds to be built by 2006, only 12 percent are rent supplements. Does that mean to say that on this issue, this minister only broke their promise by 12 percent? Is that what she's saying?

You can speak to the notion that yes, the ministry is providing housing to people. I appreciate that. There are needs to be met, and these units are not yet built. Fine. Provide for rent supplements in the interim, but do not count those rent supplement units toward the 5,000 additional new beds, because that's not what they are.

To quote the minister: "We just need to get the services in until the beds are built." If that's the case —

that they're just getting the services in, 479 of them, until the beds are built — then you do not count the 479 toward the 5,000 new beds that are to be built. Isn't that the right accounting?

What I'm trying to do here is to hold this minister and this government accountable to what they said they would do. That's all I'm trying to do. Provide the services by all means. Rent supplements fill a void until the beds are built — fine. Provide for that service. I'm not disputing that. What I'm disputing, though, is for this minister to count those units towards additional new beds when they're not additional new beds built with the non-profit sector for 2006.

Isn't it the case, then, that the minister, according to their own statement and her own admission now in this House, has broken her promise at least by 12 percent just on this issue?

Hon. K. Whittred: I have not broken any promise. We are well on our way to meeting this commitment. The commitment is to provide 5,000 beds by the year 2006. We are well on our way to meeting that commitment. The commitment says that we will work with non-profits. The commitment does not necessarily say that every single one of those must be a non-profit. Some of them, in fact, might be public.

Hon. K. Whittred: I have just given several examples of how not only is the non-profit sector involved, but the public sector is involved, and the private sector is involved, and we are going to use whatever means are at our disposal in order to provide services for seniors.

In virtually every case, the beds are in fact a partnership between a variety of service providers, usually involving the health authority, which provides the health services, and perhaps a non-profit society that provides some of the personal care services. There are many, many other kinds of arrangements. There are various means of providing these partnerships that are going to meet the goals.

I might just remind this member, seeing as she is so adamant about non-profits, that in fact it was her government that amalgamated the non-profits, that in fact took away their assets and amalgamated them into the health authorities. This is something that I deal with, too, on a daily basis. In fact, some of those people really didn't want their services amalgamated, so I find it a little bit hypocritical for this member to be espousing the virtues of non-profit organizations, given the behaviour when her government was in power.

J. Kwan: Two weeks ago when we were canvassing with the minister about the budget for the mental health component of Health Services, the minister advised that within the global budget he does not know what the breakdown is for each of the health authorities. When I questioned the minister about Arrowhead, which is an operation that provides mental health services in Sechelt which had shut down and had not received their funding, the minister said that it is not his responsibility, but rather, it's the health authority's responsibility.

I'd like to canvass the questions around Arrowhead again in light of the recent court decision. To quote from Justice Macaulay: "The functions of the PHSA are administrative and advisory. The minister remains legally and politically responsible. The minister sets the applicable provincial guidelines, not the PHSA. The PHSA was required to develop its redesign plan in accordance with guidelines provided by the minister." Essentially, this decision would counter any of the Health ministers' claims that they can avoid a question or dodge answers by placing responsibility on health authorities. The ministers are responsible for guidelines and approvals of their plans. Therefore, as the judge pointed out, they remain politically and legally responsible.

This warrants clarification when considering the following quote from the ministry's website:

I would argue that the recent decision maintains that description, but it clearly outlines that it is the minister who is accountable, legally and politically. No more passing the buck to health authorities during estimates.

On the question around Arrowhead, the minister had advised that it is not his responsibility. We now have a court case that says otherwise. Is Arrowhead getting their funding? If so, how much?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me first answer the first part of her question. As the member is aware, the ministry sets the guidelines, and the guidelines approval process is done by the ministry. Then the health authority is responsible for the delivery of services. That's what this decision says, and we agree with that.

J. Kwan: The decision also says it is the minister who is ultimately responsible, legally and politically.

Now, on the question around Arrowhead. As we understand it — as the opposition understands, as the public understands — Arrowhead has had its funding withdrawn. They have to shut down as a result of this government's decision around mental health services. In addition to the court decision, and to quote the minister in his own government website…. He actually states: "I will continue representing the concerns of British Columbians with mental illnesses directly to cabinet and ensuring they receive the services and support they need." This is a direct quote from the minister himself when he was appointed as the Minister of State for Mental Health.

To the minister: the questions around Arrowhead and its closure and, therefore, the services that have now been taken away from the people who need them in Sechelt, who will no longer get them…. How does that compare to the minister's own statement that says he will ensure that they receive the services and support they need — "they" meaning British Columbians?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me just try to explain to the member again. Ultimately, we are legally and politically responsible for setting the guidelines, and that's what the decision has said. We have also given the health authorities those guidelines, and they are responsible to deliver the services in their regions. That's their job, and I think we need to let them deliver their mandate.

Particularly for this question now…. This member has said many times that we have cut the Arrowhead services, that we have made this decision, and that's causing difficulties for the patients. That's not true. It's the decision of the health authorities. They are responsible for delivering services.

Let me just explain to her. There are a number of services available in this area, in Sechelt. There are outreach programs. We have case management programs. We have vocational programs, crisis programs, psychogeriatric programs. There is a housing program. There is individual counselling in that area and a drug therapy program. We have the availability of psychiatry services. The Ministry of Children and Family Development also runs a program for children.

In this province we serve approximately 650,000 patients, who receive a variety of mental health services in this province. Those services are delivered by the province, and they are delivered by all the health authorities. We have given them clear guidelines, and they follow those guidelines. I think they have to make the best decision to make sure that the services are delivered in the most efficient and effective way.

J. Kwan: Well, maybe I can break this down for the minister by way of a question. Did the minister make this statement: "I will continue representing the concerns of British Columbians with mental illnesses directly to cabinet and ensuring they receive the services and support they need"?

J. Kwan: If the minister admits that this is his statement and that he stands by it, then how does closing the Arrowhead Centre Society ensure that British Columbians receive the services and support they need? The fact is that they're not providing services to a segment of the population in B.C.

The Chair: The member will wait until the minister is finished, please. Thank you.

Hon. G. Cheema: I said that I stand by my statement. My responsibility is to ensure that services are delivered across the province. There are specific areas that we want the health authorities to deliver programs in, and these programs are in many forms. I'll repeat them again. They are outreach programs. We have case management programs. We have vocational rehabilitation programs. We have crisis programs. We have psychogeriatric programs. There is a housing program. We have individual counselling, and we have many other programs.

Mental health is very complex. Let me just explain to this member now. Traditionally, people have viewed mental health as only including community-based health services, when in reality, it's much broader than that. The mental health and addiction services sector includes the following: acute and tertiary care programs such as in-patient services in regional and community acute care hospitals; in-patient services in spe-

cialized tertiary psychiatry facilities, including Riverview Hospital, Seven Oaks, Iris House, South Hills Centre in Kamloops; in-patient services at a forensic psychiatry hospital in Coquitlam and forensic community clinics. We have community-based mental health programs and addiction services across the province. They are being delivered and coordinated through the community-based centres, including the following continuum of services: residential care, case management, crisis services, day and evening hospital programs. We have community emergency care beds. We have psychiatry services across the province. We have rehabilitation services, early intervention programs, respite care and support for families and caregivers. We have withdrawal management services.

We have payment for physicians for treatment of mental disorders and substance abuse disorders, including payment to general practitioners and psychiatrists for assessment and treatment services provided to the clients in their offices. We pay the general practitioners and psychiatrists who provide services on a salary basis through the health authorities. We have payments for psychiatry sessions for general practitioners and psychiatrists working on a contractual basis through the health authorities and providing services in the community mental health centres and in acute care and tertiary facilities.

The Pharmacare program, including all prescribed medication used to treat mental illness and addiction, pays under plan C for individuals receiving B.C. Benefits, plan G for individuals requiring assistance related to the cost of acquiring medication for the treatment of mental disorder, and plan I, the Fair Pharmacare program.

We have public and preventive programs, including harm reduction initiatives such as needle exchange programs, HIV/AIDS programs focused on prevention and harm reduction, methadone treatment programs.

The Chair: Order, member. The minister has the floor, and we'll hold the decorum of these premises. Thank you very much.

Hon. G. Cheema: We have prevention and wellness initiatives such as information lines and Prevention Source B.C.…

Hon. G. Cheema: …best practices and research such as the mental health and addiction information plan; chronic disease management for depression and anxiety disorders; nursing strategy for best practices in research and evaluation and supportive, competitive employment. In addition, other initiatives such as primary care and shared-care projects and other service integration initiatives provide services for individuals with mental disorders and substance use disorders.

These are some of the programs we are providing all across the province. That's true in every health authority. I'm just letting this member know that that's our responsibility. Those are the goals, those are the guidelines, and that's what we're delivering in this province.

J. Kwan: This is embarrassing. The minister gets up and reads a script and does not answer the question. Now, maybe that's a strategy of this government: to rag the puck. It is now five to seven. The government has just brought in closure for estimates for the Ministry of Health Services and, in fact, for every business that is to be debated in this House. There are only three more days left in the session to debate these critical issues, and then the government brings in closure.

You ask the minister a direct question, and you'd think he might take the time to answer the question instead of reading some script that some staff person has given him. You'd think he'd actually be accountable to being the minister, as the court says he should be. You'd think he'd actually be accountable through his own statement, when he says: "I will continue representing the concerns of British Columbians with mental illnesses directly to cabinet and ensuring they receive the services and support they need."

When asked a direct question around Arrowhead Centre Society — the funding that has been pulled for that society and, therefore, the services that the community is not getting…. How are they getting the support and services they need, when the minister says he will stand by his own statement? The reality is that the community is not getting the services they need.

If the minister thinks he can get up and rag the puck by reading some statement that's irrelevant to the questions being asked of him and sit and smirk, he could do that. I suppose that's his prerogative. But he's not being accountable to British Columbians, and he's not being accountable in earning his salary.

If he's not doing his job as he said he would and as he committed he would, then he should step aside and not waste taxpayers' money — that salary could be funding mental health services right now in our community — or, in the minimum, have the decency to admit that he cannot do what he said he set out to do — admit like the Minister for Long Term Care that she broke 12 percent of her promise in providing the 5,000 beds. At least 12 percent of the long-term care beds are not being provided for, because those are not in accordance with the statement that the minister and this government, the Liberals, made during the new-era campaign, as stated in their own New Era document right here. If you can't meet your commitment or if you break your promises, in the minimum, have the decency to admit to it. Don't waste this House's time by reading some document that's not relevant to the questions that are being asked of the minister.

I want to ask a very specific question now, and I'd like the minister to please pay attention so that he

doesn't end up getting up and spending half an hour reading some document that's not relevant to my question — a specific question, now, to the minister. Two weeks ago, when we were debating this matter in the big House, the minister said that if Arrowhead did not get their funds, or if potentially there were misappropriation of funds, then those issues should be turned to the health authority for their attention.

Now the court case has just had a decision that it is this minister who is accountable legally and politically — legally, if the funds, as was alleged earlier, have been misappropriated. The member from the Sunshine Coast had actually stated in a televised interview that in fact the money is there for Arrowhead Centre. Arrowhead Centre has written to the minister to say the money is not there. Maybe the money is there. If that's the case, then it's not being utilized towards the services by Arrowhead Centre.

What has happened to the money? Is there a misappropriation of the funds? Is this minister legally responsible, as this court case has now established he should be?

Hon. G. Cheema: As I have said, legally and juridically I am responsible for the delivery of mental health in this province, but I am not in the process of telling each and every health authority how to manage individual contracts. We have set the guidelines, and I have explained to the member how we expect them to deliver all the health services.

J. Kwan: So this is how it works: the minister is legally and politically responsible, but he's not going to do his job. "Don't ask me any questions about how mental health dollars are being spent. Don't ask me those questions, because I'm just not going to do the job, even though the court says I'm legally and politically responsible."

That's what's happening. That's exactly what's happening with this minister. If the minister is not going to earn his salary, will he then step down? Why is he taking a position that he will somehow protect and be the advocate for people with mental illness when he can't even answer a question in this House about the spending of mental health dollars in the broader community and how, when those monies and those services are taken away from the community, the community's needs for those services are being met? Obviously, they're not being met.

This minister doesn't care, and he's not doing his job. He only wants to pretend that he is. He's a figurehead to go and cheerlead for the government when in reality he cannot deliver mental health services and ensure that mental health services are being delivered to the broader community.

When funds may have potentially gone missing, you'd think the minister would be alarmed about that and look into the matter. He's saying, "Don't ask me; ask the health authority," even though the court says it is this minister who ought to be responsible, not the health authority.

We've established that. The minister is not going to do his job. He's not going to be responsible for health care dollars. He's not going to ensure that the services needed in Sechelt are being provided for, contrary to his own statement that he would ensure British Columbians receive the services and support they need. Clearly, they're not getting the support and services they need, at least in this one instance, with Arrowhead Centre Society.

The minister says: "Don't worry. We have a mental health plan. Don't worry. Everything is fine." Well, let me ask the minister this question: what is the status of the mental health plan?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me just give this member the update on the mental health plan. We made the promise during the campaign that we would implement this mental health plan. That's on page 23 of the New Era document. If this member has ever read the plan, she would know that the second phase of the plan and….

Hon. G. Cheema: I gave her the opportunity to ask her question. Now I think I should have the opportunity to answer the question.

One part of the mental health plan was emphasis on adults with the most disabling functional impairment due to serious mental illness. We have achieved that by performance measures for increased accountability. We are also spending an additional $138 million as part of the Riverview redevelopment project. We have already built 24 beds at Seven Oaks in Victoria, 20 beds at Iris House in Prince George, 40 beds at South Hills centre for rehabilitation in Kamloops. We have provided transition funding for the provincial health services authority to support client-centred planning and training.

A second issue of the mental health plan was to have emphasis on early identification and treatment of individuals and related support for the families. We have implemented that by the early psychosis care guide, a peer support resource manual. We have provided families with parental mental illness guidelines. Support for the child and youth mental health plan has been provided. A mental health and addiction information plan has been provided. A depression and anxiety disorders strategy has been developed in this province.

The third part of the mental health plan was implementation of the best practices in mental health care to enable consumers to benefit from the most current knowledge about program and service design that provides positive health outcomes. We have achieved that by providing best-practice guidelines relating to reproductive mental health, guidelines for elderly mental health care planning for health authorities. A mental health addiction information plan has been provided.

As I have said already, B.C.'s provincial depression strategy has been developed. A provincial anxiety disorders strategy has been developed. We have provided ECT guidelines. We are also developing standards for information resources, and a mental health and addictions information website and database. Mental health toolkits have been developed. Information on community action and mobilization initiatives have been developed. We have also developed clinical care guidelines for physicians on depression and anxiety disorders. We have also developed self-management tools for depression and anxiety disorders.

The next issue for the mental health plan was to provide more responsive services for individuals with multiple problems, who historically have been poorly served by the existing services — for example, people with a mental illness and substance misuse and/or who have been in conflict with the law. To fulfil this part of the mental health plan, we have developed integration of the mental health addictions in this province.

We have developed addiction planning and frameworks and best practices. We are in the process of developing best practices on mental illness and development on disabilities. We are also developing best-practices documents for offenders with a mental disorder, a resource handbook for first responders and other health care professionals. We are also developing guidelines for mental health clinicians working on suicidal adults.

We are also working to achieve the next goal, which was to have a shift in the service delivery to better respond to individuals' complex needs through outreach, assertive case management and appropriate medical care in non-hospital settings wherever this was consistent with quality care. To achieve this goal, we have provided 42 telemental health sites across the province. We have provided $15 million in new operating dollars to augment community services in 2001-02 and again in 2002-03. We are also developing a mental health patients' rights document. We have also integrated the long-term planning and policy structures for mental health and addiction services within the Ministries of Health Services and Health Planning.

We have also developed integration of forensic psychiatry services with other elements of the mental health system to provide improved community support and assertive case management services to low-risk mentally disordered offenders and to reduce the number of people who come into conflict with the law. To achieve this goal, the Ministry of Health Services has transferred the responsibility for forensic psychiatry services to the provincial health services authority in order to provide better coordination and delivery of these services.

The forensic psychiatry community clinics are also working more closely with the mental health centres to collaborate on care planning and on assisting people who are in conflict with the law to manage their mental disorders. This will help reduce the number of readmissions into the justice system for repeat offences.

We are also working to improve policy coordination with other ministries to better address income security, housing, training, employment and social support needs. To achieve this goal, in my role as the Minister of State for Mental Health, I have worked across the government with the Ministry of Children and Family Development; the Ministry of Human Resources; the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; and B.C. Housing.

As part of my responsibility to achieve this plan as a minister of state and as an advocate for mental health, my office has undertaken over 400 meetings to improve mental health and addictions in this province. This does not include our correspondence, our phone calls or our follow-ups. It also does not include the work of our ministry, our health authorities and the ministries we are working with.

I have regular contact with all the provincial mental health and addiction organizations, including the Canadian Mental Health Association, the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, the Kaiser Foundation, the Anxiety Disorders and Mood Disorders associations and the Association of Awareness and Networking around Disordered Eating. In fact, I encourage this member to contact any of these organizations to see if the work my office has done has been valuable. I can supply her with the names of all the organizations if she wishes me to put them on the record. I can mention a few names. Bev Gutray is the executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, and Gary Glacken is the executive director of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, just to mention a few of the names. To date that's what we have done for the mental health plan.

J. Kwan: You know, this is really quite embarrassing. Let me try and figure this out here. I think this is a strategy of the government. The government has brought in closure. We have now — what? — an hour and fifty minutes for debate. Every time I ask a question, the minister reads off some script — some book — that somebody's given him. On the last question I asked him, it took him at least ten minutes. I only started timing after I realized, my God, he's just going to read a book and not answer the question.

At this rate that would mean we could actually get fewer than 12 questions in for this minister. That's what he's doing. He's not answering the question. Now, if he actually answers the question, that's fine, but he doesn't answer the question. He reads off some script somebody has given him, and then he pretends he's answering the question, when in fact he's not, and he's not being accountable to British Columbians.

Then he goes on to say: "Phone these people. They say I'm doing a great job." But you know what? It's for the people who are contacting the opposition, who say this minister is not doing a great job, that I'm canvassing these questions with the minister.

J. Kwan: He says: "Name the people." Well, I will. I just actually named Arrowhead Centre Society, who have grave concerns with the minister and his actions. Then the minister says, "Don't ask me; I'm not accountable," even though the court has just said he's legally and politically accountable.

He sits in his chair and says: "Name a person." Well, I will. Rev. Ray Niebergall wrote to the opposition around his concerns on this issue. He is very concerned about what's happened to the state of mental health funding and programs in British Columbia.

I asked these questions two weeks ago in the big House. The minister says: "Don't talk to me. I'm not accountable to that. I don't want to answer those questions." That's the reality of it.

So there's one person who's concerned. Then I have a whole stack of letters from people who are concerned with what this minister is doing, what this government's doing, in the area around mental health services.

J. Kwan: The minister says: "I'm doing a good job." I get it. If I only ask myself and answer my own questions in the way that I want to, then everything is fine. Well, a piece of advice to the minister — through you, Mr. Chair: take your head out of the sand, look around you, and stop being an ostrich. Stop telling yourself that you're doing a good job, and talk to real people, because they'll tell you something else. That's the reality of it.

The minister says: "I will answer the question." Well, let's try another one, and I'll time him once again. It's almost a quarter after seven.

It's a simple question, really. What is the spending plan for the mental health plan? What are the time lines, and what are the specific deliverables?

Hon. G. Cheema: If the member would have a look at the service plan, on page 14, our numbers are very clear there. Let me just give her the exact number. We will be spending close to $1.067 billion. That's $220 million more than last year.

J. Kwan: I'm asking the minister for a specific breakdown of those amounts, the spending plan in terms of each of the programs. How much is being put into each of the programs, into what region, and who is it servicing? What is the time line for each of the programs to be delivered? What is the deliverable for each of the programs?

Hon. G. Cheema: The estimated health authority expenditure for mental health and addiction for 2003 and 2004 is approximately $687 million. For the Pharmacare program, it's approximately $152 million. For psychiatry and addictions through the MSP program, it's approximately $197 million. For public and prevention programs, it's about $16 million. For the ministry's initiatives, it's about $4.1 million. For capital financing, it's $23.812 million. It's approximately $1,067,448,000.

J. Kwan: Within each of the categories that the minister has read out, would the minister outline what the specific planning dollars, programs and time lines are. The minister has not provided any time lines to date. What I'm asking are some very specific questions. How do you measure the deliverables under these time lines? Under the program for psychiatric addiction services, what services are there? How are they allocated? How much is being allocated? How much money is being put into which health authority? How does it all break down? I'm asking for specifics of the minister. How does he measure the deliverables that he continues to champion, saying that his government is doing a great job?

Hon. G. Cheema: I will give the numbers to this member. For the Fraser health authority for 2003-04, the projected numbers are approximately $142 million. For the interior health authority, it's approximately $82 million. For the northern health authority, $40 million. For the provincial health services authority, approximately $190 million. For the Vancouver coastal health authority, it's $152 million, and for the Vancouver Island health authority, it's approximately $108 million. The total estimated health authority expenditure is $713 million, and that also includes $23 million for the capital financing.

J. Kwan: The minister has answered part of the question. Each of the health authorities — this is the budget they're getting. Let's start with the Fraser health authority — $142 million. What are the specific programs? Who is getting what? What is the measure of deliverables for these programs?

Hon. G. Cheema: We expect all the health authorities to implement evidence-based best practices. We expect them to develop provincial tertiary services and support health authorities to implement evidence-based, integrated community infrastructure. Those are the three main objectives we want all the health authorities to achieve.

J. Kwan: I didn't ask for the broad objectives. You can talk about objectives all you want; I'm asking about specifics in terms of what the programs are. What specifically are the programs? How much money is being funded for the specific programs? What are the time lines for these programs? What are the deliverables for these programs?

I'm starting with one health authority — the Fraser health authority to begin with, with $142 million dollars. How is that broken down — into what programs in that community?

Hon. G. Cheema: We expect all the health authorities to achieve certain goals. I'll just repeat those goals

again: (1) accessibility and responsiveness of mental health and addiction services, (2) appropriateness of mental health and addiction services programs, (3) program and client outcomes, (4) consumer and family participation in care and treatment, (5) mental health and addiction system management. All these programs will be monitored by the mental health evaluation and community consultation unit at UBC.

No budget letter has gone to any of the health authorities yet. Once we send them the letter, then we'll verify their plan, so they can explain to us how they'll be meeting our goals and objectives as set out in our service plans.

J. Kwan: I'm asking how the minister can show that these moneys are resulting in specific programs or services. Is he saying that he doesn't know — that he doesn't have the information, and he doesn't know? If he doesn't know, how can he rise in this House and claim that everything is going fantastically well? How can he make that claim when he actually doesn't know what programs are being funded in what health region, what the deliverables are, what the time lines are — when he can't answer those basic, fundamental questions? I wish the minister would answer the question, providing the information to all the members of this House.

Hon. G. Cheema: As I've told this member many times, we have given the health authorities goals and guidelines. They also have to fulfil their performance agreements. In the performance agreement, there are certain special indicators. Those indicators must be met. We will be measuring all the outcomes from their plan, and as I have outlined earlier, they'll be monitored by the mental health evaluation and community consultation unit out at UBC. We'll be measuring outcomes to ensure that the mental health system will meet the needs of the patients. We are just waiting for the health authorities to send their plans to us so that we can have a look at those plans.

I'll just give some more examples. For example, the Fraser health authority is developing an integrated mental health and addictions service delivery model that will include prevention, early intervention, treatment programs, supportive and specialized services and recovery-based services. Service enhancement will be done at the Fraser health authority. They are in the process of allocating additional funding for early intervention programs — for example, ensuring annualized funding for shared care programs where general practitioners work in collaboration with mental health staff and also expanding the youth crisis intervention program in Fraser east.

The Fraser health authority has expanded their CRESST program, the community crisis stabilization beds in Surrey, from eight beds to 15 beds. The Fraser health authority is also providing vocational rehabilitation counsellors in Fraser north and east. Geriatric mental health staffing has been increased by three full-time staff. The neuropsychiatry program has been expanded by one full-time staff. The eating disorder program has been enhanced by three full-time staff. A clinical pharmacist has been hired to work with mental health staff and clients across the Fraser region.

The Fraser health authority is providing $165,000 for consumer and peer support. The dual diagnosis program for persons with developmental disabilities who also have a mental illness has been increased by one full-time staff. A housing plan is being developed to enhance residential and supportive housing in that region. The Fraser health authority is also working on data information collection and analysis to better inform their planning and the evaluation process of services.

The Fraser health authority is working on their addiction programs. One of their main priorities is to develop a withdrawal management service delivery plan that will allow persons with an addiction to have access to withdrawal management services and to follow-up for treatment and recovery. Another priority is to focus on better access to treatment for persons with dual diagnosis of mental disorders and substance use disorders and how best this can be achieved.

The Fraser health authority has implemented across the Fraser region an additional seven full-time staff and two contracted services positions to enhance treatment to persons with mental disorders and addictions. The Fraser health authority has also created a chemical dependency resource team which will include a clinical nurse specialist, a social worker and a physician. The team will work with patients in the emergency room with either primary or underlying alcohol or drug problems. Having this team in the emergency department will create a more understanding environment to identify and support people with addictions to get the help they need. The Fraser health authority and the Surrey municipality are also now working together to ensure a continuum of addiction services in the municipality.

J. Kwan: Is the minister measuring how well things are going by how many staff there are? Is that the measurement here? I'm asking the minister specific questions in terms of how much money is resulting in specific programs and of how you measure the deliverables. Is that how the minister is measuring the deliverable? The minister actually hasn't spoken to any of the time lines.

I would have expected, as an example, that the minister would actually say: "We have created, with this funding, this many hours of crisis centres that are operating across the province providing services for people who are in direct need." I expect the minister will say: "This much money is actually going directly to patient care in each of the different regions." I would expect the minister to say that there are this many delivery rooms in the community for drop-in centres that are now operating so that people can actually access the supports they need. I would expect the minister to say: "This is the number of counselling hours that are now available to the broader community." I would

expect the minister to say, for the community who needs crisis intervention, that there are this many lines that are now operating in the community, etc., etc.

One would then have a better appreciation, at least, that the minister has some knowledge of what the programs are out there in the broader community that are being delivered or not being delivered. Maybe the minister doesn't know. Maybe I'm just wasting my time. Maybe British Columbians should just simply have no faith whatsoever in this minister in anticipating and hoping that somehow he will be the advocate that he claims he is, when, in fact, he doesn't even know what the programs and services are and what really is going on in the broader community around mental health services.

J. Kwan: I guess the member has no comment, so he just simply concurs. He says there are no questions associated with that. Then, isn't that right that the minister actually doesn't know the answer to the questions I'm asking?

Hon. G. Cheema: I have said the same thing so many times. I'm not in the practice of repeating the same answers. I have given the answer very clearly that we expect the health authorities to deliver those things, and we expect them to do that. We know they're working very hard, but I'm not in the practice of telling each and every health authority how to manage their contracts.

We are very proud of our work as a section within the Ministry of Health. We have achieved within 21 months what this government was unable to achieve for the last ten years. I didn't want to go into that, but now I'm forced to speak on that, and I will.

Let me just give an example now. This member was asking me about the update on the mental health plan. I gave her the update on the mental health plan. She wanted me to answer the questions on the funding formula and the breakdown of the funding. I have given her the breakdown of the funding. She wanted to know the performance agreements. We have explained them to her. She wanted to know how I'll be ensuring that the services are provided. We have done that.

Let me just tell this member that she should get out of this House and go and meet the community, talk to the workers and speak to the professionals. They are the best source for us. We respect them, we value them, and we will never interfere with their work.

J. Kwan: We're obviously operating in different worlds. The minister claims that he's answered the questions I've asked, and he hasn't — not the specific questions that I've asked the minister. He's read some documents onto the record that someone has given him, and he thinks that he's somehow answered the question. He thinks — that's the minister — he's being the advocate for the public. You know, the issue here is not about his staff. The issue here is about the minister himself. That is what the public takes issue with. This minister claims he is the advocate for the community on the issues around mental health.

He claims that I should actually go out and talk to the people. Well, maybe he should read his correspondences and answer them. Maybe that would be a good start so that he can actually provide some information to the public and be held accountable for his position and the salary he's making as the Minister of State for Mental Health. In fact, he's not responding to correspondences, and then when I ask the questions in this House on behalf of these constituents, these British Columbians, this minister can't provide the information. That's the reality we're faced with, with this particular minister today.

He claims that he actually is answering all the questions. He claims that I should go out and talk to people. Maybe the minister should start by looking towards himself in terms of his own conduct. The minister says: "I know what's going on, and everything's great. We had 21 months to do all this great work, and we know everything is fine." Well, then, let the minister answer this one specific question: how many after-hours crisis centres have been opened or created since this minister became the Minister of State for Mental Health?

Hon. G. Cheema: It would be very difficult for me to know how many hours there are for post-crisis admissions, but I can tell her that there has been a vast improvement in this province. We are providing a continuum of care. We are focusing on acute care and chronic care as well as the community care complement. Mental health is not just for one issue. It's more than that. I'll tell her how many beds we have created in this year: in the Vancouver Island health authority, 33 beds; in the interior health authority, 40 beds; in the northern health authority, 9 beds.

J. Kwan: I didn't ask the minister how many hours of crisis intervention services are being provided. I said: how many after-hours crisis centres have been created since the minister became the Minister of State for Mental Health? He doesn't know the answer, and that's the truth. He can say: "Hey, don't worry. Everything's fine. We've done great out there in the mental health realm across British Columbia." He doesn't even know how many after-hours crisis centres have been created on his own watch, as an example.

Let me ask the minister this question. The minister claims the health authorities are going to ensure that mental health services are going to be provided and that all these dollars that have been allocated to them will be spent in the mental health area. What happens when they don't spend those moneys in the mental health area? What is the fallback position? What will governments do if that should happen?

Hon. G. Cheema: Our way of delivering health care is based on the outcome. We will hold the health au-

thorities accountable to deliver, which is part of our performance agreement, and we expect them to do that.

J. Kwan: The minister just said the Fraser health authority is receiving $142 million; the IHA, $82 million; the NHA, $40 million; PHSA, $190 million; the VCHA, $152 million; and the VIHA, $108 million; totalling $730 million. Is the minister getting, at the end of the day, a list of services that will add up to these amounts from each of the health authorities so that he knows those dollars allocated for mental health services will in fact be spent on mental health services? Is it safe to say that next year when we come around to the estimates process, the minister can actually deliver a list for the opposition so that we could see what programs have received what dollars under what health authority?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me just give this member a rundown on the past history of mental health funding. In 1997 the NDP government transferred the responsibility for delivery of community mental health services to the 52 health authorities. With this transfer, the health authorities assumed the responsibility for making independent decisions and exercising control over mental health spending in their geographical areas. However, as a result of that decision, the NDP government lost the ability to track detailed community mental health spending.

Since 2000-01 our government has been working to improve this situation. For example, we have made mental health a main priority for our government. We have reduced the number of health authorities from 52 to six to promote effective planning and the delivery of a range of health care programs and services, including mental health.

We are working with health authorities to improve the quality of expenditure reporting through a health authority management information system. This will also improve accountability. Our focus is no longer solely on funding. We have given health authorities the responsibility to make the best use of their funds to better meet the mental health needs of the population.

We are focusing on improving the reporting of expenditure data to improve accountability. We will also be improving outcome measures at the same time that we are improving the expenditure data, so we will be able to determine the cost of providing improved services.

With these initiatives, we will be able to track global funding, expenditure at a regional level on mental health programs and the impact of spending on outcomes in the population. If one health authority spends more on a set of programs with the same outcome as a health authority that spends less, we will be able to improve program service delivery. This will also help health authorities to refine best practices. These improvements take time, and time is well worth this effort.

J. Kwan: In other words, the minister does not have the accountability measures in place to make sure that the health authorities spend the amount he has prescribed in this debate — that those dollars will actually go into mental health services. Is he not going to get a list of mental health programs and the breakdown? I'm talking about specific programs, not broad categories, and the breakdown for each of the health regions.

The minister says: "Well, if the health authority spends more money in that area, then it's fine." What if the health authority spends less money in that area? How could the minister then claim these specific amounts will actually be spent in mental health? Under the NDP, mental health was a dedicated subvote. There was a specific line to say how much money would go into mental health. That's no longer the case now.

Given the added pressure that exists with this government in virtually every ministry, there is no guarantee that those supports, those programs, would actually receive the money from the health authority, because the health authority is faced with added pressures elsewhere. The government has removed the protection of funds targeted for mental health funding, and because the health care sector is a whole, it means that there are additional pressures elsewhere.

As an example, the health authorities are absorbing years 2 and 3 of the HEU settlements, which effectively means that they have less money to spend on programming in some areas. They have to take the moneys from somewhere else. Who's going to lose out?

How do you ensure that mental health services will actually get the funding they need — that that protection is in fact in place? How could the minister say that they are spending $730 million collectively in these health regions on mental health when he doesn't know? There seems to be no assurance that there will be monitoring in place and a list of the programs so that one could add them up and show the dollars that have been allocated for mental health services.

Hon. G. Cheema: As in the beginning, the member was asking me questions about the numbers and how much money we will be spending. I gave her the breakdown in each and every health authority. Those are the projected expenditures for mental health, and we are looking for outcomes. We are not only focusing on the input but also on the outcomes of the funding priorities.

Our government took over in 2001. No attempt was made by the former government to hold the health authorities accountable for what was being achieved in return for their expenditures. To promote accountability, our government has instituted these three processes to monitor the performance of the mental health and addictions system. These include (1) health authority performance agreements; (2) Ministry of Health Services

plan — and this has never happened before; and (3) provincial reporting on the performance of the mental health and addictions system.

Let me clarify. The performance agreements are not merely reporting on four or five indicators by health authorities. These agreements require…. I quote:

I would also like to emphasize that these indicators included in the performance agreements are all selected as proxy measures to monitor the performance of the full system of care for people with a mental illness — just like blood pressure is used as an indicator for general health but is not the only information you use to determine health status.

In addition, performance agreements require health authorities to continue to provide comprehensive, accurate and timely reporting of data to allow the ministry to monitor the performance of the total mental health and addictions system. The ministry has a number of data systems in place to support health authorities in meeting their reporting requirements.

These systems include (1) patient information management systems for community mental health data reporting; (2) addiction information management systems for community addiction health data reporting; (3) discharge abstract databases for hospital reporting; (4) health authority management information systems for financial reporting. The ministry is also working on enhancing and linking these data systems to allow measurement and reporting of performance indicators such as early intervention, which is not very measurable.

J. Kwan: In other words, the minister has no accountability measures in place to ensure that the actual amounts are being spent. He says, "Well, outcomes will be there," but $142 million is supposed to be spent, the targets are supposed to be spent, in the area of mental health in the Fraser health region. If those moneys are not there…. He actually has no measure. Is he saying that there's no measure in place to ensure that the $142 million targets would actually be spent?

He talks about outcomes. It's fine to measure outcome. I don't have a problem with that. Go ahead and measure outcome. I'll be looking forward to debating the outcomes and having that information next year when the information is available. Right now what I'm asking is this. The minister says that they are dedicating about $1 billion in mental health services. Then he's broken it down in terms of targets in each of the regions and approximately how much is being targeted towards that. What specific accountability agreements — maybe I shouldn't actually say "agreements" — are now in place specifically related to mental health services with the health authorities to ensure that those dollars will actually go there?

The reason I pursue this line of questioning is this. In the Ministry of Education, the Minister of Education says: "Don't worry; education services are being protected. We have actually devolved the dollars to the trustees, and then they will do everything. We have given them all the tools to do everything to make education the best system there is in British Columbia — in fact, a better system than there was under the NDP administration." Yet what we have as a situation is this. As a result of increased pressures in the education system that this government, this Minister of Education, have put onto the education system, the trustees are faced with tough decisions — decisions that they do not want to make. They have had to close schools. They have to increase class sizes, and the list goes on.

Now we are potentially faced with, I think, the same situation with the health authorities. The health authorities are being asked to pay for contract agreements and so on and so forth and increase pressures that are now there. Yet the minister can rise in this House to say how great their government is doing in the area of mental health, how great are the services being provided in the community and how much money is there.

Yet when I ask the question, "Will the minister get a list of the programs and the dollars attached to them from each of the health authorities to show that the projected targets of the respective amounts are actually being spent?" the minister cannot give me an answer in the affirmative. All I'm asking for is that list, for the minister to commit to providing that list at the end of the fiscal year so that we can see that these projected targets are in fact being met as one accountability measure towards mental health services and their delivery to British Columbians.

Hon. G. Cheema: By the end of this year we may be able to provide the breakdown of all the services which are being provided, and the member can have a look at that at that time. Right now we have given them the projected expenditures for mental health, we have given them the clear guidelines, we have given them the performance agreements, and we expect them to deliver those services.

J. Kwan: Well, I need something a little bit more definitive than the minister saying: "Maybe we can provide you this information." Either he can or he can't. When he says, "Maybe we can," chances are he won't. That's my concern. I'd like to actually have confirmation from the minister that he will provide the opposition with a list of the breakdowns of the programs that are being funded in each of the health regions.

When I say "programs," I don't mean broad categories; I mean specific programs and what societies…. Arrowhead is an example. Are they getting money or aren't they? I want to know what services are being delivered in the broader community, how they're being

delivered, who is delivering them and how much money is being allocated accordingly. I would like to get that list. I would think that the minister would want to see that list himself to make sure that his projected targets are being met, as one measure towards accountability.

Hon. G. Cheema: By the end of the year, we'll definitely try our best to provide her as much information as possible.

J. Kwan: Look, if the minister can just provide an answer that says, "Yes, we'll provide that information to you; it may be incomplete information, but we'll provide that information to you," then we can move on so that we can maybe get some work done here, and the minister can actually make some commitments to British Columbians, through the opposition, so we can actually see and judge for ourselves — not the minister's own words about how great they're doing.

Let someone else do that work. Let the opposition do that work. Let us see how you're spending that money, where you're spending it and in what region, what programs are being funded, how many beds are being provided for what program, etc. so that we can make the determination for ourselves whether or not you are doing a good job.

Hon. G. Cheema: I will repeat it again. I will do my best to provide the information to this member.

I'm really astonished that for the last so many…. In the time we have spent, she has never asked a single question about how a patient is doing. How are they getting better? How are the services being provided? How are these patients being transferred from the Riverview Hospital? — the immediate part of the mental health plan. Our focus is on the patients and their families. Our mental health system is going to be based on best evidence practices as well as on the outcomes. That's my role. That's my job, and that's what I will do.

J. Kwan: I'm astounded at the minister, because if he would actually answer my questions, then we could move on and get into other substantive issues. The minister has refused to answer the question. Therefore, we've actually spent a whole lot of time trying to get the minister to commit to being accountable to British Columbians. That's part of the problem here.

In fact, I did ask the minister about patient care. I asked him how much money he spent on patient care. I asked the minister two weeks ago, when we were in the House, about performance measures for dual diagnosis in terms of how he can ensure that the people who are faced with multiple diagnosis get the services they need, especially those who are faced with drug addiction issues. When drug addiction can sometimes overshadow the mental health challenges, how do you make sure they don't fall through the gaps so they get the services that they want?

When I asked the question about Arrowhead and the services there, what does the minister think — that the centre and the people who access the services from that centre…? Is that not about patient care? Is that not about the community? If the minister doesn't get the link, then I would say that's the problem here. He doesn't get the link in the community and how it all translates down for the people in the community when they see a centre being shut down and the members of the community cannot get the services that they need. That's how it gets translated.

Maybe the minister will just open up his brain and accept broader visions of how one can look at these issues and how he could be held accountable and accept that responsibility that has been assigned to him as the Minister of State for Mental Health.

Please do not lecture me about whether or not the opposition cares about patients. What we care about and in this House right now I'm trying to canvass with the minister is some accountability to him as the Minister of State for Mental Health in his own statement when he says he will make sure he is the advocate for mental health services and that he will ensure that services are being provided to British Columbians who need mental health services. If he cannot account for how the program dollars are being spent, I don't know how he can even begin to say that he is living up to that statement. Please do not lecture the opposition about patient care and patient services.

The minister says he will do his best to provide that information. He's an honourable member, I presume. The opposition will accept his word and will await that information at the end of the fiscal year. Next year, when we're back at the estimates process, we can canvass that program by program, community by community, region by region.

I'd like to ask the minister questions around the consultation process — and I want to be very specific — with respect to Riverview and its downsizing and, more specifically, the consultation process that has been undertaken to involve families and friends of the patients. Before we go into Riverview, I just want to know this from the minister. He mentioned there is $730 million that accounts for all the health authority regions that are receiving dollars for mental health services, but he said the total budget is actually about a billion dollars — $1.06 billion, to be exact. What happened to the other approximately $270 million?

Hon. G. Cheema: I'll just answer the last question first. There is an additional $350 million more for provincial initiatives such as Pharmacare and the physicians' fees and other programs we manage provincially. That will come to a total of $1.067 billion. I will get the information for the Riverview Hospital in a second.

J. Kwan: Is the amount cited for the Pharmacare program specifically related to mental health services only?

Hon. G. Cheema: Pharmacare spends approximately $152 million on mental health.

J. Kwan: When the minister states that there's some $300 million or so spent on Pharmacare programs, what does he mean by that? I'm sorry. I don't understand, actually. He says there are the Pharmacare programs, which have over $152 million being spent, I think he said, and then he says there is $300 million for Pharmacare. Maybe the minister can clarify that.

Hon. G. Cheema: Out of $354 million as a part of the provincial initiative, we spend about $152 million on a Pharmacare program for patients with a mental illness.

J. Kwan: So out of the $1.06 billion, you have $730 million for programs for the different health authorities, and then you have $152 million going to Pharmacare. What about the rest?

Hon. G. Cheema: Out of that approximately $193 million for psychiatry and addiction services…. That's part of MSP's payment to the physicians, and there is approximately $2.07 million for public prevention programs and about $23 million for capital financing.

I would like to explain to the member about the Riverview redevelopment project. I think the question was….

As a part of the redevelopment of Riverview Hospital we are developing beds across the province. I can give the breakdown of beds that will be developed, but let me just explain how this process is working. We have a provincial health services authority. The executive director of the provincial health services authority, Leslie Arnold, is responsible for managing the transfer of these patients. She is working with the families, the patients and the caregivers. She has a committee.

This committee is responsible for ensuring that no patient, not even a single patient, is being transferred out to the community without the family's consent, without the consent of the receiving facility and without the consent of the health care professionals. On June 25 this committee, this panel, will be meeting with the various stakeholders to review the families' concern again to ensure that whatever the families' concerns are, we are addressing them.

This Riverview redevelopment project is very important for us. We don't want to do anything wrong. We want to be very cautious, very careful. We are meeting with all the interested parties. If the member has some ideas, we will welcome those ideas also.

J. Kwan: What happens if there is no consultation with a particular family or patient?

Hon. G. Cheema: That patient or that family then should be in touch with the provincial health services authority. This family should speak to Leslie Arnold or call our office, and we will respond to them.

This Riverview redevelopment project is one of the most important components of the mental health plan, and we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past. What the NDP did before we came into power, we don't want to do. We don't want to repeat any mistakes. We want to ensure that every patient is taken care of properly. When the patient is being transferred to a community, there should be community placements put in place. A transition plan must be there, and the families must be consulted.

J. Kwan: Just for the record, because I can't let this slip by, you know what? It was the Socred government that began the downsizing of the Riverview Hospital. It was the Socred government that did not attach dollars to the patients who were downsized from Riverview. It was the NDP government that actually attached dollars to the patients who were moved from Riverview as a result of the downsizing.

For the minister to accuse the NDP of not doing its work around the Riverview issue is simply untrue. It was the NDP who actually attached those dollars so that they followed those persons to the community, so that the services would be provided for them. For the minister to say that those have been mistakes of the past…. I would ask him to be careful with what he says, because it simply is not true.

My understanding is this. I'm glad the minister says that if a person is not consulted, someone will actually deal with them accordingly — first, the person from the health authority and then second, the minister himself, through his office — because some people have come across to the opposition to say that they have not been consulted and that they've been left out in the cold as a result of the downsizing.

There are people who are in that situation right now, and yes, there will be calls going to the health authority as well as to the minister — make no mistake about it. We'll make sure they get this information, and the minister is now on record to ensure they get the protection they deserve, as he claims it is being provided to them.

To the minister: I'd like to know about the dollars following the patients as they go out to the communities. If they move to another community from the first community that they arrived at out of Riverview, would those dollars follow them accordingly? Some of the concerns from the mental health service delivery advocates, as well as providers in the community, are fears that those dollars would not follow the patients as they move from community to community if that should take place.

Hon. G. Cheema: I want to assure the member again that a consultation process is taking place. If there are difficulties, if any patient is experiencing any problem, if any family is having difficulty, we would like to know. We want to ensure that this process will work

well, because patients have been there for a long time. It is a very difficult issue for the families and the patients.

When the patient will move to a community, and from that community a patient will go back to the facility, or if the patient would go back to the community, funds will flow with the patients.

J. Kwan: The funds would flow through the patient, so therefore the monies will follow the patient wherever the individual goes.

Is the assessment of the dollars for the patient on the basis of the needs of the patient in terms of how much money is attached to the individual, or is it some fixed formula? What is the formula that is being utilized to determine how much money will follow that particular patient?

Hon. G. Cheema: The funding formula will be based on the needs of the patient. I also just wanted to give more information to the member with regard to her previous question. As part of the evaluation of the Riverview redevelopment project the Ministry of Health Services is providing funding to the provincial health services authority to track patients.

In addition, the mental health and community consultation unit at UBC is working with the PHSA and health authority partners to ensure a proper evaluation is conducted. Approximately 74 patients have been transferred under this project. The provincial health services authority reports regularly on the Riverview Hospital redevelopment on their website. Their site is at www.bcmhs.bc.ca. Any person, any family and anyone in health care can have a look at that.

J. Kwan: As I say, for the people who've contacted the opposition, what we'll do is make sure that the person the minister had named would be an individual that they could contact. I don't want to give, as an example, some website for someone, the family member, to look into if they're not getting the consultation they should be receiving. I want them to actually have someone to speak to specifically who will then follow through with the problems or challenges they're faced with. If those issues are not resolved, then it actually goes right up to the minister for those issues to be looked into and to be resolved accordingly.

Now, I asked the minister the funding formula question, and he said yes, there will be some funding formula that will be applied, and it would be on the basis of need. What I'm interested in is what the formula is.

Hon. G. Cheema: I will take that question on notice and will be able to provide you with the information at a later date.

J. Kwan: I take it, then, that the minister doesn't know the answer to my question and that he will undertake to provide the information in writing to the opposition — taking a question on notice. This is the estimates process. The estimates process is for the minister to actually answer the opposition's questions at length and in detail. When the minister says he's taking that question on notice, what does that mean? That means that he doesn't have the information here, he doesn't know the answer, and he will, therefore, provide that information to the opposition in writing at a later date.

Hon. G. Cheema: I was trying to give her the accurate information. I can give her some guidelines as to how this formula is being worked out. The provincial health services authority is working with the other health authorities to develop a formula based on the needs of the patient.

As each and every patient who is part of the Riverview redevelopment is a different patient, their needs are different. We don't know how they will do when they go back to the smaller communities. Some of them may need more care; some of them may need less care. We don't want us to be tied into any special formula, because that may impair patients' wellness in the long run.

I want to assure this member and anybody else who is a part of this Riverview redevelopment project that our interest is the patient. We're going to focus on the patient. We'll ensure not only that the consultation is done at the initial part when the patient is being transferred but also, when the patient is sent, for example, to a Kamloops facility, that we have a team of professionals there visiting the receiving end of the community also. They will see how the patients are functioning, and if there are patients who may not be able to function in their community, they will come back to this institution.

J. Kwan: The reason why I ask the specific formula for these individuals is this. What I do know is that on the ground in communities across British Columbia health services are being downsized and closed. We just earlier talked about Arrowhead. There is a whole host of others. In my own community, I know that the Kettle has received less money, and they're faced with difficulties, as an example, in delivering services. There's a whole host of them. I can read out the list of the programs that are losing funding and therefore are not able to provide the services to their membership, who are the consumers of mental health services in the broader community.

When an individual is being moved from Riverview into the community, how does one ensure that the services or the resources that they need are actually available in the community? I cite a recent article in the Vancouver Province, May 4, 2003. Just putting onto the record some components of this article, it reads:

Here are some of the issues that I'm concerned with and others are concerned with. They're wondering — I'm wondering — what kind of funding formula is in place to ensure that when they are moved out, the necessary resources are available to these individuals. What kind of tracking system is the minister putting in place?

Hon. G. Cheema: As I've said earlier, a part of the mental health plan…. The Riverview redevelopment is one of our main focuses. We are developing facilities across the province. When we develop these facilities, we are ensuring that we have staff available there and that we have appropriate services available. When these patients are being transferred, they are being taken care of.

I have a couple of examples. I don't have the exact story, but I will repeat those stories again now. There is one patient we moved to Kamloops. He said: "This is the best thing that happened in 42 years." We have one patient who met with their family after 23 years.

As I said, we have a team in place at the Riverview Hospital level. We have a team which is visiting these facilities. They are evaluating the process. They are talking to the patients and their families. We will ensure that the proper transfer is being done.

I just want to assure her that everything that should be done is being done. If there are deficiencies, I would like to know so that we can correct those.

J. Kwan: Well, then, I would anticipate, given the minister's answer, that he will provide the opposition with a funding formula that would apply for the patients who are being removed from Riverview and that he will provide the information with respect to the resources that will be attached to them in the respective communities, wherever or whatever community they end up being in. Then, of course, as I mentioned, for the people who don't get the consultation, who are facing challenges or problems in that process…. Those individuals could contact the name the minister has identified, and then if they are not able to resolve the issues, those individuals can go to the minister directly.

On that note, then, I want to move on into another area. Could the minister provide a list of program cuts that have taken place in the area of mental health for the province?

Hon. G. Cheema: We have not cut any services, any program, in this province.

J. Kwan: The minister had better be careful with what he says in this House. He says he has not cut any programs. Well, let me just put some of the programs the minister did cut onto the record.

The Ministry of Health Services adult mental health division staff has been reduced by 70 percent. As of March 31, 2002, the Minister's Advisory Council on Women's Health was eliminated. The MAC had selected women's mental health as an ongoing area of concern and had a designated mental health position. MAC had also created a gender perspective of the mental health plan and had planned to monitor its implementation.

The provincial mental health advocate has been eliminated, and this role has not been adopted by the Minister of State for Mental Health. Reduction in the number of health authorities and more flexibility and autonomy in how health authorities allocate funds to mental health areas are just some of the issues that the minister should be aware of in terms of cuts related to his ministry.

The impacts. On the staffing side, staff that have been involved in women's mental health issues and who have established links with mental health practitioners and women's organizations have been cut. This may mean the loss of expertise in women's mental health issues and attention to the links between violence and mental health problems.

Let's start with this one in terms of the reduction of 70 percent of staff in the Ministry of Health Services adult mental health division and the potential and known impacts associated. Maybe the minister can elaborate on those cuts in his area.

Hon. G. Cheema: I reject all this member's preamble to her question, and all her stories are totally incorrect. We have increased the mental health funding to $1.067 billion. I have given her the outline of our funding formula. As far as the mental health advocate's office is concerned, that's my responsibility, and I have given her the outline for what I have done so far.

In my role as Minister of State for Mental Health I have met with almost every possible organization in this province. I have told this member that she should talk to them and maybe get to know them so they can give her some feedback on what's actually happening at the ground level.

Part of my responsibility is to work with other ministers, and I have done that. I have worked with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Human Resources, the Solicitor General, the Attorney General, the Minister of Education. My role is to protect mental health at the cabinet table, and I am doing that.

We have a different way of delivering health care. We have given the health authorities all the responsibility. We have given them the performance agreement, we have given them the guidelines, and we expect them to fulfil those obligations. They are professional. They are ethical and efficient. They are effective. There is no way that I will second-guess them.

J. Kwan: Is the minister saying that his ministry did not reduce the staff by 70 percent? Just to clarify, when I say "his ministry," I mean the adult mental health division.

Hon. G. Cheema: Part of the reorganization at the ministry level was to have the policy shop for mental health and addictions. We have an extremely good, competent staff, and they have done great work for the last one year. The rest of the work is being done by the health authorities, and we are very satisfied with the way our ministry staff is working.

J. Kwan: I asked the minister about the adult mental health division staff — in terms of its reduction. Could the minister just give me a simple answer, either in the affirmative or in the negative, that 70 percent of the staff has been reduced — yes or no? If the answer is no, what is the percentage of staff that has been reduced?

Hon. G. Cheema: The member is right. There is approximately a 70 percent reduction of staff at the ministry level, as far as mental health and addiction are concerned. We have transferred the responsibility to the health authorities. They have hired their own staff, and they are performing those duties.

J. Kwan: The minister says that the staff have been transferred to the health authorities, so he says they have not been cut. Have there been any layoffs from the health authorities for the individuals who formerly performed the tasks under the adult mental health division?

Hon. G. Cheema: I've been informed that approximately 40 to 60 positions have been transferred to the addiction services and the mental health services across the province. I can provide her the exact number maybe in a day or two, but I don't have the exact number — somewhere between 40 and 60 positions.

J. Kwan: So 40 to 60 positions have been transferred from the ministry to the health authorities. In the health authorities how many people, how many positions, have been laid off, if any? Can the minister provide the percentage for that?

For members of the House to follow, the reason why I'm asking the question is this. The minister states that he's made no cuts around mental health services and programs at all — zero whatsoever. Now he says the bulk of that work is being done by the health authorities. If the health authorities are making cuts, in essence, it translates into this: it is this government who is making these cuts. The minister can't shirk that responsibility. The court says it's this minister who is responsible, politically and legally. They can't just pretend that they didn't do any of this. It won't wash. The minister is responsible at the end of the day, so I would like clarification from the minister in each of the respective health authorities. With those transfers, how many positions have been laid off?

Hon. G. Cheema: I am interested in the patient outcomes. I don't track each and every staff. That's not my job; that's not my responsibility.

J. Kwan: The minister just said that he made no cuts whatsoever in the area of mental health. I'm challenging the minister on this statement, Madam Chair.

The food chain goes like this: here's the Minister of State for Mental Health, then there's the health authority, and then there's the broader community. Within this lineup of groups, the head of the food chain is the Minister of State for Mental Health. If the health authority cuts programs, cuts staff — which, in my view, will impact patient outcomes — then the minister cannot rise in this House and say he has made no cuts. He cannot do that. He cannot pretend that: "I didn't make the cuts, but the health authorities did. So don't blame me; blame someone else." He does not get to do that when he is the Minister of State for Mental Health, when he is responsible for mental health services being provided to British Columbians. He doesn't get to do that.

Will the minister answer the question? How many people dealing with mental health services have been laid off in each of the respective health authorities?

Hon. G. Cheema: Let me try again now. It looks like we are definitely on different planets.

As I said, we are spending close to $1.067 billion dollars on mental health, and that's increased from last year. We are basing our health care system on the outcomes of the health care delivery system.

It's not my job to tell each and every health authority who to hire, who to fire and how to manage their contacts. It's their responsibility, and we have full confidence that they are managing those responsibilities in a very respectful and meaningful way.

J. Kwan: I'm not asking the minister to go and hire or fire individuals. I'm simply asking him for the information on how many people have been laid off.

He says he has made no program cuts. He says he has made no cuts whatsoever in the area of mental health services and programs. Well, I'm trying to get to the truth of the matter to see whether or not the minister's statement is truthful. I suspect that the minister's statement is not truthful. I suspect that the health authorities have cut mental health services and programs and the people who deliver them, which impacts patient outcomes.

The minister can't just sit back and take his salary as the Minister of State for Mental Health and say that he's the advocate for mental health, say that he's the protec-

tor of mental health services for British Columbians, making sure that British Columbians get their services, and say unequivocally in this House that no services are being cut when, in fact, they are. Now I'm asking the minister: what programs have been cut, and how many staff have been cut from each of the health authorities?

Hon. G. Cheema: As I've explained, and I will do it again, the numbers are very clear. From $1.05 billion last year, this year we are spending approximately $1.067 billion. We have given the health authorities all the funding. The funding has been reallocated. They are changing programs to meet the needs of the patients, and we are looking for the best outcomes. We want to base our mental health care system on the basis of best evidence practices. My objective is to provide the best possible care across the province, and we measure that best possible care on the basis of outcomes. We have the mental health evaluation unit from UBC, a very knowledgable, very reputable department that will be monitoring how these health authorities are performing. We will also be reviewing their outcomes.

I think this process is in evolution, so we just have to see how they are delivering. For me, this year of providing $1.067 billion is not a cut. It is an increase in the funding from last year. It is an increase in the services. It's a reallocation of the funds. The funds are being used more appropriately, and they're based on the best evidence available to them, based on knowledge and expertise. They have the best people who are delivering mental health in this province.

J. Kwan: The minister obviously does not know what programs are being cut. He does not know how many positions have been reduced in the delivery of mental health services to the broader community. Let me just give some information to the minister — information that the minister ought to know — and therefore directly contradict the minister's statement that no programs are being cut and that there is no funding reduction for programs and services in the area of mental health for British Columbians.

At VGH there are 10 psychiatric beds that are closing. Closing: a total of 523 intermediate care nursing homes to be replaced with 516 assisted living units where the care is greatly reduced and residents must pay if they need more support. These are specifically related to people with mental health needs. Reducing: mental health services for older adults, adults, children and youth. Reducing: mental health rehabilitation and recovery programs. Closing: 67 mental health residential care beds. Closing: supported employment programs. Reducing: drop-in centre hours. Closing: alcohol and drug day treatment programs. The list goes on.

For the minister to sit there and close his eyes tight and say, "We are not cutting any programs," the minister is wrong, at a minimum. If not, the minister is telling this House a big untruth about what is happening around mental health services in and around the province. I'll give the minister an opportunity now to rise and correct his statement, now that he knows at least some information from the opposition that there have been cuts in mental health programs across the province.

Will the minister rise in this House and correct his statements? If he doesn't, it will come back to haunt him, and there will be further information to indicate that the minister is misleading the House.

The Chair: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I would ask you to retract the word "misleading."

J. Kwan: All right, Madam Chair, I'll retract the word "misleading," but I'll give the minister the opportunity to rise in this House and correct his misinformation for the members of this House, potentially providing untruths to members of this House.

Hon. G. Cheema: I will not go into unparliamentary language. That's not my style. Let the public make a judgment call on mental health in this province.

The Chair: Could I ask the House to please come to order so that we can hear the answer. Thank you.

Hon. G. Cheema: As I said, we are spending $1.067 billion this year for mental health across the province. We are focusing our resources on intensive services for clients with complex mental disorders and substance use disorders. We are ensuring barriers are removed, eliminating policies that prevent clients from entering addiction programs. We are applying evidence-based and best practices to ensure resources are focused on treatment that works. We are basing health care systems on the outcomes, and we will not change on that.

J. Kwan: What's the status of the Quesnel hospital with respect to mental health services in inpatient beds?

Hon. G. Cheema: I don't have the specifics for that hospital, but I'm trying to get the information. As soon as I get the information, I'll provide it to the member.

J. Kwan: There's another area that the opposition is aware of where health services — mental health services, to be specific — are being cut. The minister has just made that unequivocal statement that no mental health services are being cut.

J. Kwan: I've given the opportunity to the minister to retract that statement, and he won't. So I will be rising at the end of the day to reserve my right to raise a matter of privilege.

J. Kwan: Now I want to move on into another area with the minister: the gaming funds issue. There's con-

cern from the broader community with respect to gaming dollars. Could the minister advise in terms of the changes in gaming funding and its impact for the societies that provide these services? What is the minister's intention in terms of making sure that the services are being provided for as a result of the gaming funding changes?

Hon. G. Cheema: I just want to clarify something. There is no reduction in the funding for mental health. I just want to clarify that situation.

To answer her question specifically, I think she has to ask the Solicitor General. I don't have the information on that question.

J. Kwan: The minister's earlier statement was specifically around that there were no cuts whatsoever to programs. I was asking the minister about staffing in terms of how many layoffs are taking place, and he said there were none whatsoever. Is he now retracting those statements? I need a clarification.

Hon. G. Cheema: I am clarifying that there is no reduction in the funds for mental health in this province. I have pointed out to the member a number of times that this year we are spending $1.067 billion for mental health.

J. Kwan: The minister can clarify to say that here is the amount of money, but he has not clarified whether or not there would be program cuts, and that's my specific question. He has not clarified whether or not there would be layoffs, and that is my other specific question. He stood in this House and unequivocally said that there would not be, and if he's not retracting that, then he had better be prepared to deal with a matter of privilege at a later time. I'm giving him yet another opportunity to rise in this House to either retract those statements unequivocally or not. If he doesn't, fine — then we'll move on.

Hon. G. Cheema: The question was initially asked of me whether there were any funding cuts, and I said there are no funding cuts for mental health.

J. Kwan: Fine, don't retract what the minister had stated. That's fine with me, and I will be asking the Speaker with respect to ensuring that I have the right to raise a matter of privilege at the end of this debate here in the small House.

On the question around gaming funds, here's the situation. This is from the mental health service providers about proposed changes to charitable gaming eligibility criteria. It is a letter actually written to the Minister of State for Mental Health. My apologies; it's written to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, but it impacts the mental health service providers directly, who this minister claims he is the champion for. I'm raising the matter with him, and he can't just pass it on to say that it is somebody else's responsibility. I know it's his thing to do, but he can't do that.

It is signed by a number of the associations that are part of the Association of Mental Health Service Providers, including the Canadian Mental Health Association Vancouver and Burnaby branches, Coast Foundation Society, Katherine Sanford Housing Society, Kettle Friendship Society, Lookout Emergency Aid Society, Mental Patients Association, St. James Community Service Society, THEO-BC and Triage Emergency Services and Care Society.

The minister can't just say it's somebody else's responsibility. The cuts and the changes around gaming directly impact mental health service providers, and he's the advocate and protector of these agencies and these providers of mental health services. I ask him to rise in this House and provide an answer to these organizations.

The Chair: Minister, following your answer, I wonder if, noting the time, you would move to rise and report.

Hon. G. Cheema: As part of my responsibility I advocate on behalf of all the patients in this province. I will discuss this issue with my colleague and see how the funding formula is developing and how this will ensure that this funding comes from all parts of the

province. There are many organizations that apply for this funding. As long as the funding is used in a most effective way to improve the patients' outcome, we support those things. I will certainly speak to my colleague and see how we can work together on this issue.

J. Kwan: I have a whole host of questions for the minister. It's very dismaying for this government to…. Two weeks ago, when we were debating the estimates for the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of State for Long Term Care, the House Leader had actually asked the opposition to not ask questions during that time and to wait until today and we would have ample opportunity to canvass questions with the ministers. Now, we find ourselves in a situation where we've only had, I'd say, less than two hours of debate with the Minister of State for Mental Health on his estimates. Then, I think, we've only had probably half an hour of debate with the Minister of State for Long Term Care. Yet they consume a significant area around Health Services in its delivery of programs and services to British Columbians.

The opposition would not have the opportunity to ask those questions because the House Leader today put forward a motion that restricts and puts time limits on debate. Then earlier today — actually, the House resumed at 10 o'clock today — this House was open and available for discussion and debate around the estimates for these ministers. The House Leader did not call the House so that we could engage in that debate. Then, even after 2 o'clock, the House Leader did not call for this House to debate these two ministers' estimates and waited until almost 5 o'clock for that to take place.

Effectively, what the government has tried to do through the House Leader is to limit accountability for these ministers in their areas of responsibility, to limit the opportunities for the opposition to ask questions and to hold them accountable for the public. For that, Madam Chair, I would suggest that we continue on debate tomorrow.

A Voice: Sorry. Go ahead on that. Do your motion again. Rise and report progress and ask to sit again.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

	YEAS — 69

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Campbell
Collins	Clark	Bond
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr	Manhas	Hunter


	YEAS — 62

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Hagen
Murray	Campbell	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Stephens	Neufeld	Coleman
Chong	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

	YEAS — 56

Falcon	Coell	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	Collins
Bond	de Jong	Stephens
Neufeld	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Locke
Nijjar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 3

Nettleton	MacPhail	Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY