Hansard -- Tuesday, May 27, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 16, No. 4 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6985

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6986
	Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003 (Bill 67) Hon. T. Nebbeling Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 59) Hon. G. Collins Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 60) Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6987
	2010 Olympic Winter Games benefits to B.C. B. Suffredine Management of Coquihalla Highway J. MacPhail Economic development in Surrey-Tynehead area D. Hayer

Oral Questions		6988
	Alcan power production in Kitimat J. MacPhail Hon. R. Thorpe Hon. R. Neufeld Boliden mine operations in Strathcona Park J. Kwan Hon. J. Murray Government action on mad cow disease P. Nettleton Hon. J. van Dongen B.C. economy and enterprise zones T. Bhullar Hon. R. Thorpe Softwood lumber negotiations and World Trade Organization ruling P. Bell Hon. M. de Jong Management of Coquihalla Highway J. Kwan Hon. J. Reid

Petitions		6991
	H. Bloy R. Harris

Tabling Documents		6991
	A Review of Performance Agreements between the Ministry of Health Services and the Health Authorities, auditor general report No. 1, 2003-04 Statement of 2002-03 Borrowings, Schedules A, B, C and D

Motions without Notice		6991
	Appointment of Patty Sahota to Finance and Government Services Committee Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills		6991
	Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 64) Hon. J. Reid J. MacPhail P. Nettleton Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 66) Hon. G. Plant P. Nettleton Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 58) Hon. G. Collins Community Services Labour Relations Act (Bill 61) Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		7002
	Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7002
	Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 40)

Committee of the Whole House		7002
	Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45) Hon. M. de Jong J. MacPhail

Reporting of Bills		7015
	Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45)

Third Reading of Bills		7015
	Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003 (Bill 45)

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7015
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued) J. Kwan K. Krueger Hon. K. Whittred B. Lekstrom Hon. C. Hansen V. Anderson R. Lee J. Nuraney

J. MacPhail: I'm pleased — along, I'm sure, with other Members of the Legislative Assembly — to welcome people from Kitimat: Gaetan Pozsgay, Ray Brady and Ruth Brady, all of the Save the Northwest coalition. They are also joined by Rick Belmont, president of the Kitimat CAW; Gord Lechner, recording secretary of the Kitimat CAW; and Ross Slezak, vice-president of the Kitimat CAW. They're down here to meet with many of us, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Harris: I also would like to take this opportunity to welcome some guests from Kitimat, who have come a long way today: Mayor Rick Wozney and his wife, Christine; councillors Bob Corless, Linda Campbell, Trafford Hall and Monika Lange. The CAO is Trafford Hall. Also, from the Save the Northwest committee, we have Tony Deni, Allan Hewitson, Reg Stowell, Tom Goyert, Cindy Goyert and Carl Whicher.

Over the next two days, this group of people will be meeting with a number of ministers and ministries in this precinct to try to find a strategy so that we can work together again to find not just how we can achieve a rebuild and an expansion of the Alcan facility in Kitimat but how we can attract additional investment into the northwest and get that area really rolling again. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Cheema: I would like to introduce Capt. Balbir Singh Bath. He's a member of the official opposition party in the Punjab Legislative Assembly in India. Presently he's the MLA for Shri Hargobindpur Sahib in my family home's constituency. He served as a captain in the Indian army for six years. He's visiting Canada to meet with his family and to attend his niece's wedding. He's accompanied by Mr. and Mrs. Kalhon of Victoria. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

K. Stewart: Joining us today is Janice Elkerton, a councillor from Pitt Meadows. Janice is here today in her position as chair of the Municipal Insurance Association and is here to talk to members on insurance liability issues. Will the House please make her welcome.

B. Penner: It's my honour and privilege today to introduce a friend and colleague from Washington State. Jeff Morris has been a representative since 1996. In that period of time he's been elected four times. Think of the perpetual campaigns he's been involved in. He currently chairs Washington State's legislative committee on telecommunications, technology and energy.

He's a past president of the Pacific Northwest Economic Region, and he has been instrumental in Washington State in sponsoring a resolution supporting British Columbia's 2010 Olympic bid proposal. In fact, once that resolution was endorsed in Washington State, other states throughout the Pacific Northwest also endorsed the resolution, modeled largely on the Washington State model. We're very grateful for Washington State's support and for the leadership shown by Jeff Morris of Washington State. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce Rod Niedermayer and Scott Niedermayer today. They can't be here this afternoon because they're both busy in New Jersey this evening. I know that a lot of British Columbians were disappointed when the Vancouver Canucks were beaten out of the playoffs and then the Ottawa team, so we have no Canadian representation there. But one thing is for sure: we will have the Stanley Cup coming back to the great city of Cranbrook this year, because either Scott Niedermayer or Rod Niedermayer will win the cup. Best of luck to both of them, and thanks to their parents for spending all the time that they did when those kids were growing up, teaching them how to skate and be good athletes and good people.

J. Bray: Joining us in the House today are 23 grade 5 students from St. Andrew's Catholic Elementary School in Victoria. They're accompanied by their teacher, Ms. Kathleen O'Neill, and two parents, Monica Chiu and Melanie Umali. These students have been here for a couple of hours, and I can assure members that I endured a question period during lunch that was quite intense. Our future is bright with these young people, and I ask the House to please make them all very welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 44 grade 5 and grade 4 students visiting from Dogwood Elementary School from my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them are their teachers, Ms. Reena Chohan and Ms. Lynda Eccleston and Mr. Bruce MacPherson, as well as five parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

K. Krueger: Although I can't see him, I understand there's a young man from Smithers in the gallery. His name is Murray Huxtable. He married the younger cousin of my legislative assistant, and her name is Christine Puhallo. If the sergeant-at-arms let him get away with it, he'll be wearing a Stetson. They turn up at the sides like that so we can fit three of them in a pickup truck. His family are big supporters of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine — he and his wife and his parents. It's a pleasure to have them here. I ask the House to make him welcome.

L. Mayencourt: In the gallery we have a couple of guests from Simon Fraser University. Mr. Ernie Love is

the dean of SFU school of business, and joining him is Marg Vandenberg, who is the associate director of special projects. Marg is a frequent visitor to Victoria, and she always makes the most of her time here

always makes the most of her time here, making sure she gets to be in front of a variety of people to make sure that she does her good work for Simon Fraser.

We've just had a meeting with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise on the Telus new ventures project which our government has supported for the last three years, and I know that we had a breakfast for MLAs with the SFU group as well. They'll also be having a meeting with the Minister of Advanced Education. Would the House please make these good friends of ours very, very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's been a good day for a couple of reasons, not the least of which is that my parents, Ann and Jack de Jong, are here in the precincts. They are squiring across beautiful British Columbia Betsy and Piet van Hal, who are visiting from Schyndel in the Netherlands. Please, everyone, make them welcome.

COMMUNITY CHARTER
TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS,
CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
AND OTHER AMENDMENTS ACT, 2003

Hon. T. Nebbeling presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I move that the bill be placed…. Sorry, that's the wrong slip.

Hon. Speaker, I move that the bill be read for the first time now. Oh, you said it already. Sorry about that. I'm still confused about Schyndel.

I'm pleased to present the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003. Recently we honoured the longstanding request of local governments and introduced a community charter. The charter provides the foundation for a new relationship between local and provincial governments based on mutual respect and public accountability. Typically, transitional provisions and consequential amendments are at the end of a bill. However, today we're introducing these provisions and amendments separately in legislation due to the volume, particularly with regard to the Local Government Act. The vast majority of today's provisions are minor technical updates which are part of the legislative process. We are carrying through the intent of the community charter, and this act is part of the transition phase.

I move that the Community Charter Transitional Provisions, Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, the first question is introduction and first reading of Bill 67.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Once again I move that the Community Charter Transitional Provisions…

Hon. T. Nebbeling: …Consequential Amendments and Other Amendments Act, 2003, be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House.

Bill 67 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2003, which amends the Financial Administration Act. The bill serves two main purposes. No. 1, it updates the debt management provisions of the Financial Administration Act to bring it in line with the current financial market practices and provide the flexibility to accommodate future changes. No. 2, it clarifies the Minister of Finance's authority to borrow for the government and government bodies and manage the provincial debt. Since enactment of the Financial Administration Act in 1981, the financial markets have undergone significant change, which in turn has impacted how issuers borrow and manage their debt. As part of the government's commitment to restoring sound fiscal management, it's important that we adapt the Financial Administration Act to better reflect changing business practices and support effective debt management. The amendments are technical in nature and ensure the transparency and accountability of government for debt management.

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

Bill 59 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm pleased to introduce the Business Corporations Amendment Act, 2003, which will amend the Business Corporations Act. The Business Corporations Act was passed by the Legislative Assembly in the fall of 2002, but has yet to be brought into force. The act will replace the existing Company Act as the comprehensive code for the organization and governance of companies in the province. It's a significant and substantial piece of legislation and contains many cutting-edge features intended to enhance British Columbia's business environment.

The amendments in this bill are primarily technical in nature. They correct errors, clarify language and address issues identified both by the public and during development of the corporate registry's automated filing systems. As well, the act contains consequential amendments to over 100 statutes that reference the current Company Act to reflect the new language and the new corporate registry processes of the Business Corporations Act. Together these amendments represent an important step on the road to implementing the new Business Corporations Act.

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

Bill 60 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

B. Suffredine: Today I have more good news. Some people say they don't want the Olympics. They want proof that heartland residents will benefit. Well, I have proof.

I received an e-mail from the Creston tourist information operator that in a single day recently, they had two unique visitor groups. First came a couple from Switzerland on their honeymoon. While in Salzburg they heard of Vancouver's bid, saw pictures of how beautiful British Columbia was and decided to come here instead for a month-long honeymoon.

Next came a couple from Italy, where the 2006 Winter Games are to be held. The gentleman works with the Paralympic Games and was here looking at training facilities and training opportunities in the Kootenays. He was excited about the Kootenays, its spectacular beauty and how accommodating the people are here.

It's only May of 2003, and the benefits have already begun in the Kootenays. Money spent by tourists and others we've not heard about yet will create profits and jobs for tourism operators and small businesses. That will boost our economy and provide more resources for government that can be invested in health care, education and other services. We in heartland communities in the Kootenays can benefit from higher tourist revenues until 2010 and beyond if we take this opportunity to promote the Olympics.

The best news is that tourists want to see ski hills, golf courses, lakes and mountains. Those are found in the heartlands, not the heart of Vancouver. We have an opportunity of Olympic magnitude. Let's use the Olympic bid to showcase our communities and our province to the world. Julius Caesar would say: "Carpe diem." I agree. Let's seize our time to shine.

J. MacPhail: I rise today to speak about the government's plans to sell off the revenue stream from the Coquihalla, though "selling off" might more accurately be put as "borrowing against the revenue stream to mitigate the effect of failed economic policies."

I attended a town hall meeting in Kamloops last week, as did the member for Kamloops–North Thompson. The meeting was packed with citizens from all walks of life, from every age group. In my years of elected politics, I have never seen a community so united in opposition to a government initiative in the way that communities up and down the Coquihalla corridor have united in a matter of weeks.

These communities accepted the toll when it was brought in 17 years ago in good faith, believing that, as promised, it would be eliminated when the capital costs of the highway were paid for. That promise of elimination has been amended slightly by the government to now read "55 more years." It's not surprising that the residents are feeling betrayed. It's not surprising that there's anger. But this is a unity of opposition that actually transcends partisan affiliation, as I'm sure all MLAs from the interior and the Okanagan are finding. Chambers of commerce, mayors, city and town councils and just plain ordinary folks are dismayed by these actions.

The government is very proud of the fact that it has renamed the interior and the Okanagan as the heart-

lands. Apparently, however, that's not the only name change being contemplated in British Columbia. I don't mean to be cheeky, but residents of Kamloops have told me that if this sellout goes through, they'll be petitioning the government to rename the Coquihalla the Krueger-bahn.

D. Hayer: We have accomplished a great deal this last legislative session and in the first half of our government's mandate. We are making some difficult choices, but I feel they are decisions that will help turn this province around and benefit all British Columbians in the long term.

As we wrap up this session, I would like to touch on the some of the government's achievements that are having a positive impact on Surrey-Tynehead constituents. Barnston Island constituents are extremely pleased by the decision not to have a levy on ferry tolls. Construction will soon begin in Port Kells on the new crossing of the Fraser River. Progress is being made on the completion of the South Fraser perimeter road after significant input from many constituents. We are also looking at twinning of the Port Mann, new overpasses and crossings in many key interchanges in my riding, as well as four-laning 176th Street and Highway 10.

In partnership with the federal government, over $200 million is being invested into transportation upgrades in Surrey alone, and $30 million more to fund the border crossing initiative. Another $6 million is being invested into Surrey's infrastructure — meters that will improve water conservation.

We have committed $716,000 to the Surrey Public Library to ensure that our local libraries remain an effective community resource; $20,000 for SHARP, Surrey's salmon enhancement program; a $650,000 grant to the B.C. Family Hearing Resource Centre, and much more.

Yes, it has been a busy session, but it will also be a busy summer. One of the first events is the South Fraser child development centre walk-run fundraiser on Sunday, June 8, in Bear Creek Park. Another big event will be my annual community barbecue picnic on August 10 in Fleetwood Park. We had thousands attend last year, and I look forward to another successful event where constituents can meet and chat with me about their ideas for making our community a better place to live. I will also continue having my monthly coffee mornings with my constituents on the first Saturday of every month.

J. MacPhail: Three days after the election of the Liberal government, Alcan smelting operations in Kitimat were reduced by 40 percent and the surplus power put on the open market. Some were not surprised. They point to statements made early on by company officials that they are "in the power business, not the aluminum business."

For 50 years the government of British Columbia has held Alcan to its original commitment of cheap power for economic development in the community. It's a publicly held resource used in a sustainable way for the benefit to the immediate community, as well as the province as a whole. Surplus power might occasionally be exported from the community, but the priority was always clear.

Residents of Kitimat here in the gallery today and the thousands back home they represent want to hear from the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise that despite whatever backroom discussions took place before the election, despite whatever secret handshakes are taking place, this minister will not allow Alcan to abandon its contract with the people of Kitimat and of British Columbia.

Will he rise today to commit that power generated by Nechako water will be used for the community?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I might remind this House that it was that member there and her government that signed the last agreements with respect to Alcan and the use of power and those outstanding issues. Secondly, let me say that we take our role very, very importantly. We see that the northwest has tremendous economic opportunity. We see that we have a base there that we can grow and have a vision of prosperity.

I very much look forward to meeting with the delegates, some today and some tomorrow, so that we can work together and forge economic opportunity and job creation throughout the entire northwest part of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's not a moment too soon. This problem has been going on since three days after that minister's election. The community is now in a state of devastation. Clearly, that's just more evidence that the heartlands strategy is nothing more than a devious political strategy, devoid of any real care for the well-being, or this minister would have been meeting with the community well over a year ago.

But even assuming that that minister is sincere in his defence of the indefensible, there's more to the story. The Minister of Energy and Mines has made much of this government's initiative to encourage the development of small, independent power producers through a new power pricing structure, a pricing structure that actually sees prices of approximately $35 per megawatt-hour. Currently, the facility operated by Alcan produces power with public resource at $5 per megawatt-hour.

Can the Minister of Energy tell this House whether the power that Alcan wants to put on the transmission

company's lines to sell to British Columbians will be given the old price or the new price? If Alcan will be getting the open-market price, will he also tell this House why the enormous profit, based on some of the cheapest power available on this continent, will go into the pockets of European investors and none to the people of British Columbia who own that resource?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We as a government have committed, in our new energy plan, to involve independent power producers in developing new power projects in British Columbia. This is good news for British Columbia, because it will allow us to maintain our rates as low as we possibly can, going well into the future.

On the member's question about Alcan's power, it remains to be seen what takes place. As I understand, and as the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise has just explained, he has met and I have met with that community a number of times in the past number of years in regard to economic development and continuing economic development in the Kitimat area producing aluminum in the province. We want to continue that.

We will move forward with working with that community and with Alcan as best as we possibly can, so we can actually have production and jobs carry on in the Pacific Northwest — much better than what was done by that member when she was in government.

J. Kwan: Earlier this month the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection told this House that this government did not receive any formal proposals by Boliden mines for activity in Strathcona Park. Yet on April 9 of this year the Minister of Energy and Mines responded to citizens inquiring about the safety of Strathcona Park by acknowledging a proposal from Boliden. He said, for example, that the proposal would save Boliden mines $500,000 in fuel costs. Here's the letter that backs it up.

Where did he get that number? He got it from this PowerPoint presentation from Boliden's proposal. This is a proposal to conduct hydroelectric generation activities in a class A park. You could expect the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management — the very same person who, as a Socred minister in 1987, was promoting mining and logging in Strathcona Park…. Surely the term "protection" was included in this minister's title to actually mean something.

Can the minister responsible for parks tell us today if she is being deliberately kept out of the loop on the proposal to siphon off water from these pristine high-alpine lakes? Perhaps she has simply decided to ignore this threat to the park. Or is she deliberately hiding government's involvement with the proposal from this House?

Hon. J. Murray: There have been presentations by Boliden. We welcome presentations in this government from businesses, individuals and organizations in any particular activity that they would propose to government. There has been no formal proposal or application to this government, and until there is such, there is not an application or formal proposal for this government to consider.

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

J. Kwan: The Friends of Strathcona Park, who met with the minister yesterday, left the meeting shaking their heads. Today those who care about the park and are listening to this question period must be shaking their heads now.

I'm told that the minister told the Friends of Strathcona Park at their meeting yesterday that if somebody has another idea of what to do with provincial parks, the minister felt she has an obligation to entertain that application. The minister herself said, when questioned in this House, that this project would not be considered "until the proposal is received."

The Friends of Strathcona Park and British Columbians concerned about the status of parks throughout this province don't want to hear from a minister who won't take action until she receives a proposal for alternate use of their precious park. A park is a park. They want to hear the minister say today that she will protect the parks that we've cared enough.…

J. Kwan: They want to hear the minister say that she will protect the parks, that we've cared enough to write legislation on them and that no one should bother writing any proposals for them.

Will the minister commit to this House today that no proposal for alternate use of this park or any other park will be entertained? Will she tell the Liberal Party big-business campaign donors that the parks are not for sale in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Murray: As I previously said, Boliden has made presentations to a number of different groups, including some ministries in government, but there has been no formal application.

I want to reiterate that the park system in British Columbia is one of the jewels in our crown. It's incredibly important to British Columbians. It's the core of our tourism industry. We have made a new-era commitment that we will not have logging or mining in parks.

We are protecting our parks. This ministry has been working in a number of ways to finance the very park system that that member's government failed to fund so that we have a $40 million backlog in parks as we speak.

P. Nettleton: BSE, better known as mad cow disease, is now a very serious concern to ranchers and consumers in British Columbia, since it has been disclosed that mad cow–contaminated feed may have been fed to cows here in this province. I know there's more than one rancher, in fact, here in this House. One of the three farms placed under quarantine is in Prince George. Is the minister in touch with the federal investigators, specifically the Canadian Food Inspection Agency?

A further concern, even with the federal ban on feeding cows food containing cattle carcasses, is that small farms do not have the facilities to sufficiently separate bovine chicken food from non-bovine feed. In light of this, would the minister consider pursuing a complete ban on cattle carcasses and remains being processed into any and all feeds here in British Columbia?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for his question, which is of serious concern to consumers and ranchers alike. We are in daily contact, through staff and myself, with the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the federal minister.

I think it's important to note that this investigation is still an investigation about one cow, so while the investigation widens, it's still only about one cow. The quarantine of the three farms in B.C. is a precautionary measure. It is important to note that pigs and chickens, on a scientific basis, cannot pass on BSE. The current regulations that we have, which have been developed by the CFIA over the last ten years or more, are based on the best possible evidence and science. If they need to be amended on the basis of experience, we will certainly support that, and we will continue to work with the CFIA in a support role to protect our food supply.

T. Bhullar: My question is to the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. Has he given any thought or contemplated creating enterprise zones in the interior of British Columbia, given what's happened with the softwood crisis?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Our government has been committed to making British Columbia one of the very best investment climates in North America. That's why we've made sure we've had a competitive tax code; that's why we're cutting red tape by one-third; that's why we're balancing the labour laws. We are making British Columbia competitive. In fact, exports are up, oil and gas is up, mineral exports are up. The economy is starting to grow in British Columbia.

With respect to enterprise zones, I would very much like to receive from the member his ideas on that, because in this House we should all work together to make sure that the economy grows for the benefit of all British Columbians. I look forward to receiving his ideas.

P. Bell: My question is for the Minister of Forests. Today, I understand that the WTO ruled that the United States erred in applying the stiff tariffs to Canadian softwood lumber. Certainly, this reaffirms B.C.'s position in this trade dispute. Can the Minister of Forests tell us how this ruling will impact the negotiations on softwood lumber moving forward?

Hon. M. de Jong: We did get a WTO ruling today. It's what we expected. It's a reaffirmation of earlier rulings, and it's a win for Canada. In fact, what the WTO has said is that the U.S. is conducting itself not in compliance, contrary to its international treaty obligations. That's an important ruling, and that's good news for British Columbia and Canada.

What we really have to take from this is the realization that this doesn't solve anything overnight. What it does do in my estimation, however, is dramatically improve our negotiating position with the Americans. In the days ahead, what I am….

Hon. M. de Jong: What I am saying, what the Premier is saying, what I hope all members of this House are saying to the Americans is: "Your position is eroded. Let's roll up our sleeves, let's get back to the table, and let's negotiate a durable, long-lasting solution to a trade dispute that is inflicting pain on both sides of the border." Let's get B.C.'s number one industry moving again.

J. Kwan: In the last few weeks there has been a wave of opinion pieces and letters to the editors in the interior papers from the Liberal MLAs, justifying the sale of the Coquihalla. Clearly, these letters are not working. The people, the businesses and the municipal leaders in the nearby communities are furious, and these letters are just confirming that their MLAs are not listening. This government has kicked it up a notch with a wave of taxpayer-funded ads in newspapers throughout the interior.

Could the Minister of Transportation tell this House how much the government is spending on propaganda advertising to convince British Columbians that paying tolls for the next 55 years is actually good for them?

Hon. J. Reid: We inherited a transportation system that was broken. We inherited need all over this province for investment into transportation. We have been

asked for information, and that is what we're providing to people. There's a myth out there saying that this highway is paid for. In fact, it has not been paid for, and it is a long way from being paid for.

In fact, there is about $2.5 billion that has been invested in this highway. The tolls have been $550 million. It's important to respond to people, to their questions for information, with good, solid information back to them.

H. Bloy: I rise today to present a petition from the B.C. Bottle Depot Association of 17,000 signatures regarding the full refund of domestic beer containers.

R. Harris: I'd like to present a petition to the House signed by 3,131 residents of Kitimat. This petition is asking the provincial government to insist that Alcan honour its contractual commitment to use the water power from Kemano for the purpose that was intended, and that's the production of aluminum.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's report No. 1, 2003-04, A Review of Performance Agreements between the Ministry of Health Services and the Health Authorities.

Hon. G. Collins: Pursuant to the Financial Administration Act, I'm pleased to present reports for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2003, on amounts borrowed by government for making loans to government bodies, as well as the corresponding report on loans to government bodies, amounts borrowed in foreign currencies and amounts borrowed for authorized disbursements.

These reports provide an overview of the province's borrowing activity in fiscal 2002-03. The reports indicate the gross new borrowing by the government for purposes of lending to government bodies and excludes borrowing for government purposes. The 2002 budget forecast total for new borrowing is $7.043 billion for fiscal 2002-03, and the unaudited actual gross borrowings for fiscal 2002-03 totalled $3.615 billion. That includes a net decrease in short-term borrowing of $227 million as well.

The lower borrowing requirements are due to lower-than-expected government financial requirements, lower borrowing requirements due to the improvement in the deficit, lower working capital and financing transaction requirements, lower capital spending and forecast allowance not being required.

Hon. G. Collins: By leave, I move that Ms. Sahota be added to a list of members comprising the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the present session.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members we'll be continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services.

This bill addresses a number of transportation-related priorities and deals with seven existing acts. The purpose of the bill is to eliminate 228 obsolete or redundant regulations, facilitate planning for a variety of transportation improvements and encourage economic development in the tourism and commercial transportation sectors.

Consistent with our new-era commitment to cut the regulatory burden and red tape by one-third within three years and to revitalize our economy, this bill amends the Railway Act to remove 162 unnecessary or outdated regulatory requirements and eliminate red tape. The Railway Act was largely written and enacted in the early 1900s, when railways were regulated as monopolies. Over time many provisions of the act have fallen into disuse, and railways are no longer subject to provisions that are either out of date or constitute an unwarranted degree of regulation in today's highly competitive commercial transportation environment.

The majority of provisions to be repealed deal with economic regulatory requirements, including the regulation of railway, telegraph and telephone tolls and tariffs; the prescription of structure for tolls and tariffs; and the requirement to provide traffic information to the minister. The provisions proposed for repeal are no longer used for regulatory purposes, so their repeal will not impact the operations of railways under provincial jurisdiction.

Repealing the Riverbank Protection Act will eliminate an additional 66 obsolete requirements. Repealing this act is an excellent example of what our government's deregulation initiative is meant to do: eliminate redundant legislation that has been superseded by more current statutes. The dike production rights are

still protected under the Dike Maintenance Act and the Drainage, Ditch and Dike Act, and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is now responsible for the management of dike repair.

A third change is to exempt snowmobile trails from section 4 of the Highway Act. Without that exemption they could be considered public highways. This change is in keeping with our government's heartlands strategy. Provincial agencies may wish to invest in these snowmobile trails because of the potential local tourism benefits they could generate. If a trail were deemed a highway, various provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act would apply. This is not practical or desirable from either a law enforcement or a recreational perspective.

That would be counterproductive to the work done by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the B.C. Snowmobile Federation to develop a back-country snowmobile tourism industry. Similar snowmobile networks have already been established in Quebec and Ontario. We applaud this initiative as a way to increase the tourism potential of the province. A previous exemption to section 4 was provided to the Trans Canada Trail to allow the government at the time to invest in the trail without creating a public highway. This amendment will exempt all previously created snowmobile trails.

We're also proposing amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act to facilitate the addition of the proposed Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project into the authority's existing strategic transportation plan. This is an enabling amendment. It allows the GTVA — or TransLink, as it's commonly known — and the GVRD to deal with a resolution to provide funding for the RAV project in a more timely manner than would be possible under existing legislation. We have done this to accommodate both TransLink and the GVRD. The RAV project is a major opportunity for the region, one which we have worked hard to facilitate and have committed to support financially.

While this amendment shortens the process for consideration, it does not affect the ability of either TransLink or the GVRD to accept or reject the proposal. The shorter time frame is necessary to confirm TransLink's financial commitment to the RAV line. Both the TransLink and GVRD boards must approve the project in order for it to proceed.

That commitment is required if the project is to obtain funding commitments from the federal government. If the federal government joins us, it will bring more than $1 billion for transportation into the region from outside TransLink's normal sources.

Finally, the bill proposes changes to the Transportation Investment Act, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act and the Weed Control Act to facilitate a new long-term services and operations agreement for the Coquihalla Highway. Specifically, the amendments will provide for a future partner to assume responsibility for weed control along the highway right-of-way, toll collection and the provision of frequent traveller passes. In exchange, the partner will assume all obligations associated with operating, maintaining and rehabilitating the highway.

The amendment to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways Act takes the form of repealing part 3 of that act. Part 3 provides a regulation-making power respecting tolls for the Coquihalla Highway. This authority is to be repealed, as a requisite authority is now provided in the Transportation Investment Act.

The amendment to the Transportation Investment Act involves adding a provision which expressly provides that a person may dispute a toll if the person is entitled, under a program or contract with the concessionaire, to travel for free or for a reduced toll amount. The amendment to the Weed Control Act ensures that while the highway right-of-way will remain publicly owned, a partner undertaking operations and maintenance is responsible for weed control along that right-of-way.

J. MacPhail: I want to address one part of the Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. It's not something that got much attention with the flurry of bills being loaded onto this Legislature. I listened intently to the minister to see whether she would actually address the significance of her actions in this legislation, and of course she didn't.

These are the amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. She just glossed over those. Well, I absolutely know that if any other government tried to introduce that amendment, and this group were in opposition, they'd have this Legislature going for weeks — not hours, for weeks — in protest, because the amendments to the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act are going to have many effects. They're heavy-handed. They're one-sided, and they're interfering in a community body, a community decision-making body.

Here's what's going to happen. There will be a definition added because of this act, and the definition will now define the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project, and this legislation will entrench that plan into all future planning for the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act. Moreover, the TransLink board will be empowered, by resolution of the board, to amend the strategic transportation plan by adding the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project to the plan. The comprehensive consultation requirements of the statute that previously existed are waived — gone bye-bye, outlawed — when it comes to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project. That's because the project is exempted from sections 14, 15 and 16 of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act.

Now, if any other government did this to this government, oh, they'd be up in arms. If a senior level of government interfered in this government's business, oh my gosh, wouldn't the Liberal government just be outraged? Despite the second introduction of community charter transition legislation and amendments, despite this government's claim that they're going to let

local governments have autonomy, despite this government's claim that they're going to be out of the business of downloading onto local governments, here we have a piece of legislation that interferes at all levels. This government is forcing the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project on not only TransLink but on the community in the greater Vancouver regional district.

Let me be very clear. I haven't had time to know whether the RAV line is the best priority in tight fiscal economic times — disturbingly tight fiscal economic times, given this government's economic record — and neither had the people in the greater Vancouver regional district. There's confusion and disagreement about how to proceed — but not this government. This government doesn't care. They're going to say: "Proceed, TransLink, with RAV, and don't worry about community consultation."

Section 14(2) of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act currently requires that the strategic transportation plan define the relationship between major actions and plans of TransLink and balance it with the growth strategy of the region and air quality objectives and economic development of the region. Section 14(2)(c) says the strategic transportation plan must include a long-range capital and financial plan.

Here we have a situation where a billion-dollar project — some say a $2 billion project — is going to be rammed through with no requirement by anybody to see whether it makes sense that that is where the money's spent, no requirement to see whether that project actually contributes in a positive way to the growth strategy of the region and no idea about whether the pursuit of the RAV line would actually improve air quality objectives and economic development of the region.

This government has outlawed examination of those factors when it comes to this project. None of these steps or requirements need now apply and, in fact, are outlawed when it comes to the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver rapid transit project, since the RAV line will simply — plop — be inserted into the existing plan.

That existing plan has taken years of community consultation to produce. It was a thoughtful, open, inclusive, detailed community consultation to develop the existing TransLink plan. There was much toing and froing; there was much giving and taking. The city of Burnaby had strongly held views. The city of Coquitlam had strongly held views — the city of Richmond, the city of Vancouver, North Vancouver, just to name a few who were part of the development of that plan. They reached agreement. The TransLink board and the GVTA reached agreement, and then that plan was approved by the greater Vancouver regional district.

What does this Liberal provincial government do? It says: "Oh, you know that plan you guys have? Plop. Here's the RAV line going to be put right in the middle of it. Don't worry. Don't bother redoing your plan. Don't bother consulting. Don't bother trying to balance. Just plop it right in the middle and get on with it. By the way, we're going to set a deadline."

And this government claims to be open and inclusive and to not download? They're doing this in the context of not knowing where the money's going to come from. This provincial government hasn't committed to the RAV line. The federal government hasn't committed to the RAV line. TransLink has, contingent upon other funding, but they're taking away funding from the completion of the Millennium Line out to Coquitlam, which has completely upset the cities of Coquitlam and Port Moody, because the Millennium Line was part of a strategic plan agreed to by everybody on TransLink. This government has ground to a stop that plan, which had lots of community consultation — ground to a stop the completion of that plan that everybody had agreed to — and is now shifting funding to the RAV line or forcing the shifting of the funding. They're using the same RAV line, or forcing the shifting of the funding.

They're using the same RAV line. I guess this now-government has come right on board with the Bombardier technology they claimed was such a backroom deal before. I guess they've embraced it now. Isn't it funny what a difference two years make? No community planning, no community consultation, using the same technology — all of which they objected to so vociferously when the community was going through that decision-making process in the 1990s. Shame on this government. Shame on the Premier, who stood so strongly against all of that community planning when it was happening for transportation. But here we have this government ramming through a project.

Section 14(3) of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Act currently requires that the authority, TransLink, prepare all its capital and service plans and policies and carry out all activities and services in a manner consistent with the strategic transportation plan. It seems they haven't been doing that with all of their RAV planning so far, since the RAV hasn't been part of the strategic transportation plan until now. That's why the government wants to force this RAV line into the plan — just insert it. It doesn't matter what effect it has or not.

Before the strategic transportation plan could be amended in the past, prior to this government introducing this legislation, section 15 of the current act required a plan for consultation with the public, municipalities, organizations, the greater Vancouver regional district, government and trade unions, as well as anyone else likely to be affected by the amendment to the strategic transportation plan. Oh. Public consultation — open and inclusive consultation before anything changes. Well, that's outlawed now by this minister. Forget it. This government's not interested in that kind of planning. TransLink was required to consider those comments before taking action. That's all gone now.

Bill 64, the bill that we're debating right now, deems that requirement for openness and transparency and everybody's opinion being heard to have been met

with regard to the RAV. Poof. Again, the transportation fairy comes down and says: "Poof!" That consultation is deemed to have occurred. God, the power of this minister. It is unbelievable. She can just say: "Oh my God. All that requirement to actually do thoughtful strategic planning is gone." There hasn't been any actual consultation of any sort on an amendment to the strategic transportation plan in reality — none. But does that make any difference to this government? No.

If the board of TransLink passes a resolution to amend the strategic transportation plan by adding the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line, the amendment must be submitted to the greater Vancouver regional district for ratification. The greater Vancouver regional district board must respond to that request by a resolution made on or before May 30. That's all in this legislation. Wow. What happened to the Community Charter wanting to give independence to local governments? Oh. The greater Vancouver regional district's autonomy will be in part two of the Community Charter. So, while this government may be breaking the spirit of what they claimed with the Community Charter, they're not actually breaking the law yet, because they haven't introduced that part of that law. I guess that's why this government feels comfortable ramming through this dictatorial deadline on the greater Vancouver regional district. I guess that's why they feel comfortable saying: "May 30 — that's all the time you've got, GVRD."

Seems to me like a pretty heavy-handed approach taken by the province. If the greater Vancouver regional district board fails to respond to the request on or before May 30, the GVRD board is automatically deemed to have approved the request anyway, so long as the request was received by May 27. This kind of legislated dictatorship on a lower level of government by a senior level of government is unprecedented and a heavy-handed action never before taken by a provincial government. This minister says: "Oh, don't worry about this amendment. It's just consequential."

Of course, none of the lower mainland MLAs are standing up. The member who represents Coquitlam and Port Moody should be standing up in outrage because it's her community that's going to be lost out of this, her community that actually has the strategic transportation plan dictating that the next expenditure on public transportation will go to Coquitlam and Port Moody. They've lost out. There's no money for them — none, not a cent. But where's that person standing up to speak? Silence. Dead silence.

Now, just to be clear, this doesn't require the GVRD to necessarily approve the request — not necessarily. They can respond to the request before May 30, and I'm hopeful that the GVRD will take the option to deny the request to ratify the amendment. I'm hoping that they will actually see their way clear to push back on this government and not allow the heavy-handed, automatic ratification to go through. I expect that's what the GVRD will do, because they know the consequences of allowing an automatic ratification. They know the consequences of that to their bottom line, so I am hopeful that while this provincial government is irresponsible, the GVRD will actually act responsibly. I have every indication that they will do so.

The amendment to the strategic transportation plan will take effect once all of the following has occurred: the amendment is ratified by the GVRD board, the province provides notice to TransLink that the government has received a commitment from the government of Canada for funding for the RAV in an amount and on terms satisfactory to the government, and TransLink enters into an agreement with the province and the airport authority in which all three parties agree on the terms for construction of the RAV.

Gee, that's a lot of work to do. I wonder why the minister is so anxious to have this amendment pass. What is she possibly interfering for? What is the hurry? What is the hurry that over $1 billion — some are estimating $2 billion, of which a pittance is going to be provided by the private sector…. What's the hurry to spend so much money without consultation and without examining the effect on the transportation plan that took years to produce? Did she not have confidence that the parties were going to do those things? In fact, they were going to do all of those things that are required. They were going to do it without the heavy hand of this government.

But no, this province, who's getting quite used to using the tyranny of its majority, feeling quite…. I don't know. There's an adrenalin rush they get by the tyranny of their actions. We see it in the Coquihalla. We see it as this minister gets up and makes it up as she's going along about what the real…. She says now there's $2 billion in debt around the Coquihalla. I wonder whether they just found that information out. Did they? They certainly didn't make that information clear when they were talking to the community leaders. They didn't make that clear at all. That tyranny of the majority is saying to the community in the Coquihalla area: "Tough beans what you think. Sorry. We didn't want to mention it to you that we were going to impose 55 years of tolls on you."

We have the same situation here for the lower mainland. Tactics by the province that are heavy-handed: they are attempting to corner the regional transit authority into accepting an expensive public-private partnership. In its haste to get the Olympics, the province is rushing in to build an expensive rapid transit line at the expense of proper public consultation and — who knows? — maybe even at the expense of proper public transit in the lower mainland. I don't know. I have no idea, because the consultation hasn't been done on that yet.

It will be quite exceptional if the tyranny of the majority of this Liberal government is used to attempt to pass the RAV rapid transit line by fiat. I will indicate to the House that in committee stage the opposition will be voting against that amendment.

J. Nuraney: We have in the gallery today, I am told, the best students from the Maywood Community School who have joined us this afternoon. I would request the House to please make them welcome.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak in second reading to Bill 64. My comments today will be in reference to amendments to the Railway Act.

B.C. Rail was founded in 1912 as a private enterprise. In 1918 it was acquired by the government, and for a reason. The government acquired B.C. Rail at the time for the express purpose of opening up the northern resource regions.

With Bill 64, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003, the government is doing the opposite. The B.C. Liberals are closing down the northern regions — make no mistake. In so doing, this legislation truly represents the end of an era.

That era in this province was one when it did not matter where you lived. Governments did their best with the resources they had to treat all British Columbians, regardless of their address, roughly the same. Now we're entering into this B.C. Liberal new era in which it does matter where you live, an era in which there will be two classes of British Columbians: the first class in the lower mainland and greater Victoria; the second class, those that reside outside the lower mainland and Victoria in regions such as the one I represent, the so-called heartlands. Make every region a heart, and they'll be happy. Yes, I have heard the sound bites from the minister. I have heard the minister's proposal to sell B.C. Rail. The minister states, in fact, that this proposal will make B.C. Rail more competitive and will better serve British Columbia. On the one hand, we have the minister — all smiles — saying that sunny days are on the horizon, that a phantom private sector saviour will suddenly appear.

The B.C. Liberal government has, in fact, for the third time completely reversed its position on the essential Crown asset known as B.C. Rail. In this House on April 4, 1995, and again on March 23, 1995, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, stated his position quite clearly — so we thought. He said: "Let's sell B.C. Rail. " He repeated that on several occasions.

How did this scheme play in the north at the time? What did the good people in 100 Mile House and Prince George think of this scheme? They hated it; they fought it. They won; the Premier lost.

I recall the Premier telling us after the 1996 election that a prime reason the B.C. Liberals lost the election was because of the promise to sell B.C. Rail. So for the 2001 election, that was the promise. B.C. Rail would remain in public hands. That was a relief to northerners.

How fragile and fickle memory can be, even when that memory is the Premier's. Now we're back for the third time, in the third reversal. The north can now expect to be auctioned off again.

Anyway, hidden in an omnibus bill — deliberately so, and let's not pretend otherwise — we have something I find quite peculiar. We have the Transportation minister, again all smiles, promising economic health for the northern heartland. Hidden in the changes to the statutes is the real reason for the request for proposals for B.C. Rail. It's in the fine print.

Now, if we were to put this request for proposals in layman's terms, what would it look like? Here is what it would look like with Bill 64. A private operator is wanted to assume responsibility and control of B.C. Rail. That private operator can have it all but must pretend public ownership of the railbed is important, just to make the government feel good. Furthermore, the private operator must provide worse service at a higher cost with slashed jobs and reduced public accountability.

Let's go through the legislation to flesh out these points. How about we start at what I believe to be a requirement of worse service? The legislation ends a requirement that a train must be run at practical, regular hours. This would provide less reliability for shippers. After all, when looking at the north, B.C. Rail received more than 60 percent of its total revenue from forestry for the year 2002.

The legislation also ends a requirement that train schedules must be set by public notice, and it ends a requirement for stations to post information about trains that will be late. B.C. Rail has 1,441 route-miles in four regions: the coast, the Cariboo, Prince George, and the Rocky Mountain and Peace River area. The government is saying here that there's just no point or need for a private rail operator to ensure that the services it provides will be constant and consistent. Taking this legislation at face value, it appears the government is not, in fact, interested in setting up B.C. Rail with a private operator to provide better and enhanced service. That is not the case.

But, hey, with worse service you would expect costs to go down, especially the cost to shippers. After all, the 2002 core services review called for scaling back B.C. Rail to an industrial freight line only. You would think that with this focus, much effort would be dedicated to making sure that freight service was the best it could be. But again, that is not the case with Bill 64. I am saying that despite the reassurances of the minister, we will see higher costs for shippers with a private operator under Bill 64.

This bill pretty much ends all requirements regarding the setting of tolls, not only for passengers and freight traffic but to ensure that tolls do not unjustly discriminate between localities. No more. Instead we get higher costs. In particular, this legislation would appear to hint that the north would pay additional costs to subsidize, possibly, more lucrative routes elsewhere on the line.

If that wasn't enough, the legislation appears to end ministerial approval for toll rates — no government

oversight for the toll rates that are set. Again, what a deal. It's not like a shipper has many alternatives to get their product to market. Worse service, higher costs, and nothing you can do about it too. That's because Bill 64 would reduce public accountability for whatever form B.C. Rail will take by the end of this year.

For example, the legislation ends a requirement of ministerial approval for a railway company to change its location. Does that mean B.C. Rail could be headquartered in Montreal or El Paso? How would that benefit industry in this province? The legislation ends ministerial approval for the location of new stations on a railway as well, I will just mention.

But that's only a minor quibble compared to the next one when it comes to government accountability for B.C. Rail. The legislation appears to end any requirement for railway companies to produce financial and other information to the minister. Beyond an annual report, British Columbians will have little window into the operation, the service, the future of rail in this province. There will no longer be ministerial oversight of B.C. Rail. The railway is supposed to be for British Columbia, but British Columbia will be out of the picture officially. What about the safety of a private operation? Not much talk about that around here. Further, the legislation ends a requirement that employees of railway companies be paid wages similar to or current with similar industries. I see this as a government giving the new operator the leeway for the job cuts that will surely come. This one's got the government scurrying as we speak, in fact, with reference to 1,200-plus jobs currently at risk.

Here, once again, the government is selling off a vital Crown asset at the expense of the needs of northern communities. Let's be honest with ourselves when we hear the sound bites, the government spin. There is no guarantee that competitive, affordable rail service as we know it will continue with the private sector operator. The disruption is already apparent. How can the government, before a suitor has supposedly even been found, promise more competitive rates, promise a better integrated system and promise things like economic development for rail-dependent communities? How do they know this? I would like to know.

I have pointed out what I see from this legislation. It's sad, and it's a sad day. It's sad to talk about B.C. Rail in the past tense. B.C. Rail has played an integral role in opening up the northern part of this province, and B.C. Liberals have played an integral role in shutting down the north. Think about this. It is truly an awesome responsibility to be the Premier of this province. He has invested in his office the power to build a province and the power to break it. These are choices, and there are voices urging the Premier to rethink this and to rethink his options.

Mr. Speaker: For second reading of Bill 64, the Minister of Transportation closes debate.

Mr. Speaker: The question is second reading of Bill 64, Transportation Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. J. Reid: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 64, Transportation Statutes 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.

In addition to minor housekeeping items, Bill 66 includes a number of amendments that are deregulatory in nature. In keeping with our new-era commitment and with making British Columbia a national leader in regulatory reform, many amendments in Bill 66 reflect our continuing review and upgrading of regulation. This ongoing review is a key aspect of our deregulation framework and our commitments, and it builds on our progress to date.

Bill 66 repeals two antiquated acts, the Barbers Act and the Cosmetologists Act. These two acts regulate many aspects of these trades, and they establish mandatory associations for their members. Anyone who wants to work as a barber or a cosmetologist in British Columbia must join an association and pay annual dues. As a result of the core services review undertaken by government in this ministry, it was found that these acts duplicated other laws already in place and that they imposed unnecessary regulation and an annual fee on working people just to work in their occupation. The amendments in Bill 66 bring barbers and cosmetologists in line with how most other trades are treated in British Columbia.

Housekeeping amendments are required to the Commercial Transport Act to incorporate by reference recent additions to the Motor Vehicle Act. These provisions permit ICBC to refuse to issue licences, permits or plates for motor vehicles or trailers that have not been presented for inspection or for irreparable — not repairable, that is — and salvage vehicles. The amendments also incorporate into the Commercial Transport Act vehicle impoundment and street racing provisions that were made last year.

The amendments to the Commercial Transport Act and the Motor Vehicle Act will streamline the requirements applicable to light utility trailers, including home-built trailers, under 1,401 kilograms. Trailers

licensed under 1,401 kilograms will no longer, by law, require a vehicle identification number. Trailers licensed under 1,401 kilograms will be classed as non-commercial, and requirements typical for larger commercial trailers will not apply to light utility trailers. These amendments will simplify registration and licensing processes for owners of trailers and adopt a common weight threshold for the application of requirements applicable to trailers.

The amendments in this bill to the Correction Act permit the transfer of responsibility for inspections of correctional centres from the investigation, inspection and standards office to the corrections branch of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. This transfer will allow a more efficient and effective management of correctional centres. The investigation, inspections and standards office will continue to conduct investigations of complaints and critical incidents.

The Election Act is being amended to remove the disqualification from voting of prisoners serving terms of imprisonment of two or more years. The reason for removing this disqualification is that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that a similar provision in the federal election legislation is unconstitutional, and the rationale behind the Supreme Court of Canada's decision is, in our view, equally applicable to the Election Act of British Columbia.

Elections B.C. currently provides an opportunity for prisoners serving shorter sentences to vote. The amendments to the Election Act will ensure that the Election Act respects the constitutional requirements imposed as a result of the Supreme Court of Canada's decision interpreting section 3 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Amendments to the Estate Administration Act increased cost-recovery for the public guardian and trustee services by allowing the public guardian and trustee to have discretion to decline to administer estates in some circumstances and to clarify the authority of the public guardian and trustee to charge for certain services. Consequential amendments to the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, the Public Guardian and Trustee Act and the Trustee Act are also required.

Bill 66 amends the Expropriation Act to empower the chair of the Expropriation Compensation Board to designate any member of the board to hear any matter and make any decision, order or determination that could be made by the board, the chair or the vice-chair, except the power to make a designation under this section.

These amendments also serve to give the board authority to make rules subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council respecting pre-hearing conferences, mediation and other dispute resolution processes. These amendments to the Expropriation Act are part of government's continuing commitment to administrative justice reform.

The amendment to the Family Relations Act will provide express statutory authority for the court to order blood or tissue testing where parentage is denied in an application for child support. Rule 15 of the provincial family court rules allows a judge to order the alleged parents and the child to have blood or tissue samples taken for testing where parentage is denied in a child support case. Rule 15 has been challenged on the basis that there is no statutory authority underlying the rule.

Accordingly, an amendment is being made to the Family Relations Act to ensure that the statutory authority that is required is in place. A consequential amendment is being made to the Interjurisdictional Support Orders Act to bring that act in line with the changes made in the Family Relations Act. That will allow the court to order paternity testing in contested child support cases where one of the parties lives outside British Columbia.

This bill provides an amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that, in turn, provides clarification regarding a previous amendment to that act. The previous amendment provided the information and privacy commissioner with the authority to delegate the examination of information protected by the law enforcement exception of the FOI Act, but permitted the Attorney General or the head of a police force to request that the commissioner not delegate examination of this information. The amendment now before the House would allow the assistant Attorney General, criminal justice branch, to also request that the commissioner not delegate examination of this type of information.

Additional changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act amend schedule 2 of the act to remove public bodies that are no longer active from the list of public bodies covered by and subject to that act. The amendment also adds the Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal to the schedule of public bodies covered by the act. One other change removes provisions of the act that have been deemed obsolete.

Bill 66 amends the Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Act by repealing obsolete provisions related to the crash responsibility charge that was cancelled in September 2000. The CRC applied to all non-fleet vehicles that were found to be at fault in accidents that caused property damage. The vehicle owner or driver nominated by the owner was responsible for the first $250 of property damage caused by his or her vehicle, depending on the driver's percentage of liability. The CRC was replaced with a program that uses more selective criteria to target a small number of higher-risk drivers with chronic claims histories through additional premiums attached to their driver's licence.

The Liquor Control and Licensing Act is being amended to reference an additional section of the Criminal Code. The effect of this change will be to permit liquor service in the gaming areas of horse-racing facilities. The amendment will bring the liquor licensing policies for horse-racing facilities, including teletheatres, in line with the policies that exist for casinos and bingo halls.

The amendment to the Lobbyists Registration Act will remove the requirement for registrants to list the

names of every single public servant and other government official that they have lobbied or intend to lobby. This amendment will address the legitimate concern brought to government's attention by the users of the registry about onerous registration requirements, and it will not impact the effectiveness of the registry. What the public wants and needs to know is which ministries, which cabinet ministers and which MLAs are being lobbied. That information will still be required. The amendment will be brought into force by regulation to ensure that the registry software is updated and operating correctly.

Amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will allow for the duration of drivers' licences to be extended through regulation as opposed to having a fixed expiry date in legislation. This will allow ICBC and government to provide flexible and convenient service to customers throughout the province.

The purpose of the amendments to the Offence Act is to clarify the process to be followed in prosecuting a violation ticket matter. The amendments distinguish between the front of the violation ticket and the instructions contained on the reverse side, as well as clarify the jurisdiction of the Provincial Court to hear these prosecutions.

This bill amends the Patients Property Act to implement minor changes in the act flowing from the core services review of the public guardian and trustee. While preserving safeguards for vulnerable adults, the amendments will reduce the reporting requirements for committees and streamline the services provided by the public guardian and trustee when private committees are appointed.

The amendments to the Supreme Court Act link the masters' salary and benefits package, including pension benefits, to those of Provincial Court judges. This amendment is in recognition of a longstanding recommendation that masters have the same qualifications as Provincial Court judges and should be employed on the same terms and at the same rate of pay.

I look forward to the comments of members in the debate that follows. Of course, as this is a miscellaneous statutes amendment act, it may well be the case that some members may wish to focus their remarks during committee stage debate on the particular provisions that are of interest to them.

P. Nettleton: Briefly, then, some comments with respect to Bill 66 in second reading. I'm pleased to say today, at second reading, with respect to the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, that I'm certainly on safe ground when I say there's a lot in this legislation.

The minister had to talk rather quickly to get through the information that he did get through, and as he points out, there will be opportunity in committee to focus on particular areas of interest. But I would like to take a brief run-through, if I may, that will show that in my view, in this one piece of legislation there are many changes that government is making in a hurry to many things — changes, for instance, to barbers, fingernail technicians; changes to cemeteries, semi-trailers; changes to the Election Act in terms of who is permitted to vote, along with DNA tests for paternity disputes; changes to freedom of information and protection of privacy; to liquor, to lobbyists, to museums, to public guardians, to judicial remuneration.

This identifies only some of the changes in this bill. I think a reasonable person would assume that even a handful of these changes should or could require introduction in separate legislation which would allow, then, for adequate time for debate in this House and consideration by those affected in the general public. That is not, alas, what is happening here.

What is occurring is that the government has introduced a catch-all, omnibus style of bill to tie up what they perceive as a bunch of loose ends. They may refer to it as housekeeping, as just some tidying up, but a closer look at some of the proposed changes clearly shows that in fact there's a lot more going on here in this bill.

There are significant changes here, buried, which will greatly impact real people in the real world — a world that we sometimes lose touch with, I'm afraid. I suppose I could go through each section in terms of the effects and changes on ordinary British Columbians, but I will confine my brief comments to two areas: the barbers and cosmetology changes.

I met recently with the Northern B.C. School of Hairdressing located in Prince George, and I had a great time, actually, meeting the students and instructors and discussing their concerns. Of course, I want to note that their concerns are not addressed by this legislation but in fact, in my view, are run over roughshod instead.

In fact, this bill, Bill 66, would completely repeal both the Cosmetologists Act and the Barbers Act. While there may be areas within these statutes that require some attention and revision, in my view, their complete elimination is unnecessary and detrimental. Hygiene and public health factor in under the heading "Detrimental Consequences of Bill 66."

Barbers and cosmetologists in their day-to-day work frequently use chemicals for hair treatment, for example, which, if misused, because of the relaxing of controls, can have serious implications and consequences. Likewise, lack of knowledge about proper sterilization techniques could contribute to the spread of infectious diseases.

Not to take this lightly, but we've all received a bad hair cut at one time or another in our lives, and we know what an experience that can be. How much worse would that be when one's health is endangered in what would otherwise be a simple, safeguarded procedure, duly regulated? In repealing these statutes, the government is leaving itself wide open to this sort of thing happening.

It is a public safety matter and a matter of consumer protection as well. These statutes that the gov-

ernment intends to repeal with this legislation — what purpose do they serve? They set the standard for these industries. They assisted it in the selection of curriculum so that those who perform these services do so in a professional and safe manner.

Let me also add another important role of these professional organizations. They provide legitimate recourse for public complaints. If these statutes are repealed, where will a dissatisfied client turn? In short, you are on your own, and if something bad happens, then too bad.

In this, Bill 66 will muddy the waters between reputable and disreputable operators in this service-oriented trade. I see nothing but a backward step in these proposals. It seems again to be a case of unnecessary government tampering with something that works. It seems again to be a case study of the hidden, secretive agenda of this government to somehow make an ideological change that in both the short and long run is harmful to the average British Columbian.

When is this kind of nonsense going to stop? If the people whom it affects the most say no, shouldn't government be listening? Apparently, government is closed to such input.

Hon. G. Plant: 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 66, Miscellaneous Statutes 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.

Bill 58 amends the legislation creating and governing the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to bring the corporation under the regulatory jurisdiction of the British Columbia Utilities Commission. The changes that we're introducing are intended to accomplish two main goals: one, to enable the British Columbia Utilities Commission to set ICBC's basic automobile insurance premiums and to supervise ICBC's service levels; two, to enhance competition in the optional insurance market.

As background, it's important to know that ICBC is in three different lines of businesses. First, it provides basic mandatory insurance coverage to every vehicle and driver licensed in British Columbia. Second, it provides most of the optional automobile insurance in British Columbia in competition with private insurers. Third, it provides other functions related to vehicles and drivers such as administration of the licensing regime.

Basic automobile insurance includes $200,000 third-party liability coverage, $1 million uninsured motorist protection, hit-and-run protection and personal injury accident coverage. Every vehicle and every driver licensed in British Columbia must carry basic coverage, and only the Insurance Cooperation of British Columbia provides it.

Optional insurance, however, includes additional liability and underinsured motorist coverage beyond the minimum provided as part of that which is included in basic insurance, as well as collision and comprehensive coverage for the vehicle. It's up to the consumer how much, if any, of these optional coverages to purchase and what insurer they wish to purchase them from.

As well, this bill replaces the authority of cabinet through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to set ICBC's premiums. Instead, the bill provides authority for the BCUC to regulate ICBC's basic insurance business as a monopoly. The Utilities Commission has a long history of regulating public utilities which are monopolies in other fields such as natural gas and electricity. This change will make use of the expertise the commission has in monopoly regulation to ensure that the Insurance Corporation's basic insurance business is as efficient and its performance as high quality as possible. ICBC premiums will be set in an open and transparent manner, ensuring that ICBC remains financially sound and continues its recent progress in becoming more efficient.

The Utilities Commission will also have jurisdiction over the level of service provided by ICBC. That's a common feature of monopoly regulation to ensure that the monopoly does not react to pressure placed on its revenues by reducing the level or quality of the service which they provide. The commission will be able to regulate ICBC's practices and procedures but not to intervene in individual claim disputes or change the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage.

Competition in the optional automobile insurance market has been limited in the past because of several natural advantages that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia has in that market, which are both financial and operational in nature. As a result, while private insurers are able to provide optional insurance in B.C., they currently have a very small percentage of the market. Consumers suffer from the lack of choice in the market and because the benefits of competition, in terms of downward pressure on premiums and upward pressure on quality services, are not fully realized.

This bill addresses this issue by making several changes that will equalize the opportunities afforded to private insurers and ICBC. ICBC has financial advantages, as a result of its tax-exempt status and lack of a

requirement to earn a revenue return for its investors, which will be eliminated under the bill. The corporation will not be required to pay tax, but it will be required to earn a profit from its optional insurance business equal to that earned before tax by private insurers, placing them in an equal and competitive position.

Another financial advantage arises because minimum capital requirements are currently imposed on private insurers by the financial institutions regulators but not on ICBC. ICBC's optional insurance business will be required to meet the same capital adequacy test as their competitors after a reasonable phase-in period. So long as ICBC meets the profit and capital targets for its optional insurance business, the Utilities Commission will not regulate optional premiums.

There are other items that I will be raising in committee stage of the bill to focus attention to those issues. I move second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, pursuant to the motion passed in this House yesterday, the time for debate on this bill has elapsed, so I will call the question. The question is second reading of Bill 58, Insurance Corporation Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: 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 58, Insurance Corporation 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.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the Community Services Labour Relations Act be read a second time now.

I'm pleased to stand before the House to begin second reading of the Community Services Labour Relations Act. This legislation creates a new social services labour relations structure that is streamlined and reflects service delivery structures.

This legislation both recognizes and simplifies the Community Social Services Employers Association's role as a social services bargaining agent. In the past the employers association bargained on behalf of agencies, which voluntarily assigned their bargaining rights to the Community Social Services Employers Association. This legislation establishes the Community Social Services Employers Association as the sole accredited bargaining agent for its member agencies, consistent with the practice in the health sector as well as the education sector.

The legislation will create three bargaining units for the sector: community living, aboriginal services and general services. The cabinet will have the ability to consolidate the bargaining units into one if it is deemed in the future to be more appropriate. The legislation requires unions in the sector to be part of an association of unions for the purposes of collective bargaining. This model, as well, is patterned on the model used in the health care sector, where unions come together as bargaining associations. The unions will be expected to create and agree to articles of association. In the event that they're unable to do so, the Labour Relations Board will step in to help them complete that task.

The legislation provides the Minister of Skills Development and Labour with discretionary power to require a vote to determine a single union for social services. This discretionary power would be a tool to promote labour stability. It would be exercised to improve service delivery or flexibility, cost effectiveness or if it was in the public interest.

Government also believes that the role of volunteers in the social services sector is vital and must be preserved. The presence of volunteers involves the community in planning, development and delivering services to improve the lives of British Columbians. That role will be protected. The collective agreement in the social services sector will not be allowed to prevent an agency from using a volunteer. However, under this legislation the positions held by unionized employees are protected as long as the use of an unpaid volunteer cannot result in the layoff of an employee.

Finally, the Community Services Labour Relations Act will provide legal clarification for the purposes of collective bargaining of the status of employees, contractors, subcontractors, family home providers, employers and the government.

J. MacPhail: This legislation, Bill 61, is entitled the Community Services Labour Relations Act. It is interesting to note that we have very little time to debate this bill, given that the government has decided to ram this legislation through at the last minute. So I am going to make my comments brief. Nevertheless, I do want to be on record about what exactly is going on here.

In the 1980s, when some of the current Liberal ministers were Social Credit ministers, they privatized and contracted out many community services that were then part of the public service. Now the Ministry of Children and Family Development and the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services have close to $900 million of taxpayer money going to contracted agencies between the two ministries. All of those services used to be in the public service. Throughout the 1980s and the 1990s those services stayed as contracted agencies but were publicly funded.

The relationship between those contracted agencies and the government is entwined in such a way that the

government cannot exist without those agencies because the agencies actually do the direct delivery of services for children and families and women's groups and day care, and those agencies cannot exist without the government because the vast majority of their funding comes from government. It is these very organizations that are now part of the reorganization of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Given the chaos that exists in the reorganization of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, I wonder what the rush is in passing this piece of legislation. Bill 61, the Community Services Labour Relations Act, is supposed to set up the structure for collective bargaining under the new regional authorities for child and family services. There'd be no need for this legislation if the government weren't reorganizing the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

But here we are, taking time away from debating the Health Services budget in this chamber in order to pass this legislation, and yet the government is slowing down the transition to the new community governance model completely. In fact, the whole transition to a new governance model for the Ministry of Children and Family Development is in chaos. It's been thrown into chaos; it's ground to a dead stop. The ministry is reviewing its strategic plan, its service plan, because they missed targets. Treasury Board is reviewing the funding allocated to the transition, and the auditor general is investigating the regionalization scheme.

The opposition provided evidence in this House in question period that the move to regionalization is putting kids at risk. A risk register produced by the service providers that are now having their bargaining structure changed — produced by those service providers and Ministry of Children and Family Development staff and obtained by the opposition — predicted catastrophic consequences for kids, given the government is making massive budget cuts at the same time that it's completely restructuring the system. Front-line workers say that you can't undertake such a restructuring when cutting the budget by 23 percent. It puts kids at risk. Yet the government is doing just that.

Despite these complications in the move to community governance, this government insists on ramming this legislation through this House without thorough consideration and debate. Why is it important? What's the link? Well, I assume, given the failure of this government to actually make the budget cuts that the Minister of Finance has asked of the Minister of Children and Family Development, that the government will now turn to the bargaining table to make up for its inability to make those cuts in service.

I am glad the government is moving away from cutting the services, because it would be chaos. Children would be at risk and fall through the cracks. But is it fair to turn now to the people who are delivering those services and force a collective bargaining model on them, which this government will now use to seek that 23 percent cut? They're putting in place a new collective bargaining structure, and who knows whether it's balanced? We can't possibly have time to debate it thoroughly. Instead of slowing down and seeking consultation from employers, workers and perhaps even their own MLAs, the government decided to introduce this bill last week in a flurry of legislation and ram it through by the end of this session, just two days from now.

There are a number of concerns that I wish to raise about this bill. I spent some time last week canvassing the very organizations that will be affected by this bargaining change, including the people on the ground and the front line. I will canvass them now briefly, given the fact that there's minimal time for debate, but I will pursue them more vigorously at committee stage if indeed there is time.

This bill does reorganize unions into three bargaining units. The Minister of Finance likes to claim it's the same as the way the health sector at the community level was reorganized. Well, when he was in opposition, the Minister of Finance disagreed greatly with that reorganization of bargaining, even though that had been done with huge public consultation.

Now we have three bargaining units imposed: community living service agencies, aboriginal service agencies and then other general service agencies. Each unit must then establish an association of unions to represent them in bargaining.

There are concerns that some workers have been excluded from the creation of these three units. For example, it was suggested, as I did my consultation last week, that child care workers are excluded from these bargaining units. This exclusion denies early childhood educators the opportunity to be paid a fair wage through a negotiated agreement. Those are the concerns raised by the front-lineworkers.

This bill also gives the minister the option of calling a vote to bring all members of a bargaining unit under one union. There is very little detail provided about when the minister can do this or under what conditions. Given the record of this government in imposing rather than negotiating, it is with a great deal of fear and concern that workers on the front line look at that particular provision. They look at it with trepidation. The consequence for workers is that they may find themselves represented by a union that's not of their choice, or they may not feel adequately represented at all.

The bill also limits what can be negotiated as part of the collective agreement. Instead of negotiating the use of volunteers through the bargaining process, the government has included a blanket clause that says no agreement can prevent the use of volunteers. The legislation says that jobs will not be lost to volunteers, but there are no details about how this will be monitored or enforced.

I have to claim surprise at why this provision is in here at all. Every agency I talked with said: "What is the issue here? We need volunteers and our experienced

workers. There's never, ever been an issue of a volunteer being inappropriately excluded from doing his or her contribution — ever." The people on the front line looked at this and said: "What are they getting at? What problem is it that doesn't exist and that they're trying to solve? What's really behind the intent of this clause?"

I actually talked to organizations around the province. It wasn't just in high-density urban organizations, and it wasn't just in rural organizations. It was across the board, across the spectrum. Not one could claim to have had a problem where a volunteer was excluded from making a contribution in any way.

The bill also says that agreements cannot prohibit contracts with family home providers. Well, that's interesting. What is a family home provider? Group homes, group home workers are not protected now, because of that addition, from job loss in the event that family home providers are now used.

What does that mean for the foster care sector? What does this mean for the mental health sector? Will there be a big conversion with the government now funding family home providers, and the group home workers are then excluded? It could mean that the government could choose to contract with family home providers at the expense of the unionized group home workforce, and there is absolutely nothing that can be done.

Finally, there are concerns regarding the successorship following the shift to community governance. It appears that once the services are downloaded to regional authorities, successorship provisions will not apply. I would say that this poses a great risk to workers' benefits. In fact, because there is such confusion and chaos in the move to the regionalization of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, nobody can possibly know what the bargaining structure should be as a result of that reorganization.

Wouldn't it make sense from a practical, pragmatic, proper, commonsense use of tax dollars to finish the reorganization of the community sector affected by the Ministry of Children and Family Development? Finish that, put the governance and structure in place — the regional authority model — and then determine the bargaining structure for the workers in that sector. But no, here we are just hours away from this Legislature shutting down, and we're designing a bargaining structure where there's no model in place to which the bargaining structure will apply.

What happens if it's decided that there will not be separate aboriginal authorities? That discussion is going on in the community right now. The community living sector has huge concerns about the way their authority is being set up. Once again, it's the cart before the horse, where we're changing something based on a new system that doesn't exist. It will be on that basis that I will be pursuing comments and questions at committee stage about the intent of this bill and the consequence of this legislation.

Hon. G. Collins: 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 61, Community Services Labour Relations Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 40; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 40, Utilities Commission Amendment Act, 2003, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 45.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 45; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

The Chair: Before we proceed, there is an amendment on this section. Possibly we should deal with that

amendment first of all, because it may have some bearing on the rest of the debate.

Hon. M. de Jong: I do move the amendment on the order paper standing in my name.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain the amendment, please, and why it is necessary?

Hon. M. de Jong: In the drafting of the bill, the reference to the various licences neglected to include the term "community forest agreement," which is a defined term and type of tenure, and that is why the term "community forest agreement" needs to be included after the words "definition of. "

J. MacPhail: So we're repealing the definitions of community forest agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: Not unusually, section 1 sets out the definitions used throughout the Forest Act. The definition of the B.C. timber sales agreement is being amended, and that is consequential to amendments that are occurring, I believe, to section 109 of the Forest Act made by this bill.

In addition to that, under subsection (b) the definitions of a number of terms — Christmas tree permit, forest licence for use permit, road permit, and there are a number of them — are repealed, and they are replaced by the new definitions that exist under, I believe, subsection (5) of the bill.

J. MacPhail: This section deals with the consequences of the new definition of B.C. timber sales agreement. I'm wondering why, given the ruling of the WTO today, we need to pursue this legislation so vigorously that we're actually assigning time allocation to the debate on this legislation.

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. I'm not sure if her question was "Why are we doing that?" or the assertion that we are. I just apologize. I didn't hear what she said.

J. MacPhail: We've got less than two hours to debate this legislation. I put on record yesterday about two days' worth of questions in terms of the overlap of legislation, and what the consequences of it are, at second reading. That wasn't even a clause-by-clause analysis. That was just trying to take a poke at this government about the chaos in which they've got forest legislation now.

I read this morning a direct quote from the Government House Leader. Here's what he's saying: "The government has been completely transparent, and the bills which are being moved ahead are the ones that have to be passed this spring. For example, the forest bill deals with market-based reforms that form part of the province's position in the softwood lumber dispute…." It's not me linking it to the WTO or the softwood lumber dispute. The Government House Leader linked the two.

My understanding is that the WTO ruled this morning that the provincial stumpage system is not a subsidy. Am I correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am relying, first of all, not on a reading of the entire judgment. I'm relying upon the advice that I have received from our counsel in Washington. That advice is that today the WTO, similar to what they did last summer with respect to the preliminary determination ruling that they made, found that although stumpage could in certain circumstances be construed as a subsidy, they did not make that finding in this case. Rather, they found that the methodology that the American commerce department had utilized in determining the numbers that they have since applied, which the member is familiar with, was a flawed methodology and inconsistent with their obligations pursuant to WTO treaty law.

I think that is an important distinction, and it is a ruling in which the WTO is saying to the Americans: "You have done this incorrectly, and you must now go back." I believe that is good news, insofar as supporting the argument we have been making that this utilization of cross-border comparisons that the American commerce department has utilized was incorrect. At the same time, I heard earlier in question period where the member was observing that it doesn't do a great deal for us now. I agree with her. There is no immediate relief that flows from this ruling that we have received today. But it does, I think, provide us with an enhanced position from which to negotiate further.

J. MacPhail: What exactly, if any, victory is the British Columbia government claiming today, then, from the WTO ruling?

Hon. M. de Jong: Throughout this process, we have argued a number of things. We did argue that stumpage in no case can be considered a subsidy. The WTO disagreed and, as I understand it, in their ruling suggested that there are circumstances in which stumpage

could, depending on how it is administered, be a subsidy. It did not make that additional finding in this case. I think that is a significant positive for us.

I think it is a win when the WTO says to the U.S. commerce department, "You have calculated these numbers incorrectly," understanding that our position on that issue is that there are domestic benchmarks within Canada that the commerce department should have been utilizing. It is improper, and not just improper but inconsistent with treaty law, for the U.S. to attempt to take data from the United States and apply it to a comparison of the Canadian circumstance. The WTO has agreed. It's consistent with a ruling they made last summer. I think that is, by any measure, a win.

It is my understanding, as well, that the WTO today also examined the whole argument around pass-throughs — and that is of particular significance to the remanufacturing sector which the member and I have talked about in this House in the past — and the disproportionate amount of problems this has caused for the remanufacturing sector. The WTO's ruling of today — preliminary ruling because it doesn't become final for another 30 to 60 days — as I understand it, is even stronger than their findings of a year ago. That is a significant victory, I would suggest, for the Canadian and British Columbia position.

There may be other aspects to this that, upon closer review of the decision, I could offer. But at this point those are some key features of the decision that I think qualify, on balance, as a win for us.

J. MacPhail: I would have thought, from what the minister said in question period — I listened very closely — that he should now be able to have enough confidence to know that, from what he said and in answer to a question from one of his own MLAs, we have the right, as a sovereign nation, to determine how our Crown assets are managed. Is that going too far in interpreting the WTO decision of today?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, but I believe we have always had that right. These decisions that we make, as they relate to the administration of our public lands and our publicly owned resources, fall squarely — and in the case of forestry — within the ambit of this House and the Crown in the right of the province of British Columbia.

We can negotiate, and the member has been part of governments where negotiations have taken place. The results of those negotiations, I suppose one could argue, guide at times the development of public policy, but the sovereign jurisdiction has, does and, in my view, will remain within the ambit of this House and the Crown in the right of the province of B.C.

J. MacPhail: As I've pointed out time and again after attending public meetings on this matter, this legislation is very controversial, and there are communities that have great concerns about this legislation. Yet the government is suggesting that this legislation has to be rammed through because the reforms are required as part of the province's position in the softwood lumber dispute. The Minister of Finance said that yesterday, less than 24 hours ago.

Hence my confusion. Do we have to do this for the softwood lumber dispute, or don't we? Are we doing this because this is the government's idea of where the reforms should go — in which case the communities would be very interested in hearing this — or is the government doing this as the Minister of Finance suggests?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a point I'm happy we get an opportunity to clarify. We are making this change to our timber pricing model system because we believe it is the right thing to do. I can tell the member this unequivocally: if we were not engaged in a trade dispute with the Americans, I would say that this is the right thing to do. The notion that timber would be offered for sale competitively and that we would base the stumpage that people pay on the market value of that timber is, one, a change.

I acknowledge that. It is a change from the way things have happened in the past, but it is, in my view, a change that is long overdue and should take place and, based on what I have learned in discussions around the province and with those involved, one that I would be advocating irrespective of the dispute that exists with the Americans.

I will say this — and I don't quarrel with what the member has said about some of the response or commentary she may have heard: conceptually, even amongst those people and groups who have expressed to me some concerns about some of the concepts enshrined in Bill 29, I have not heard the same degree of concern around the shift to a market-based timber pricing system. I have heard anxieties expressed about what it means for individual corporate bottom lines, but in general I have not heard from the same groups that have expressed concerns around some of the appurtenancy provisions we were talking about in Bill 29 and some of those other changes.

I think, broadly speaking, that this shift to market-based timber pricing is something there is widespread support for, particularly the provisions that would see timber made available on a competitive basis. Now, the specifics around the timber pricing model. Is it based on standing timber? Is it log transactions? There are differences of opinion on that, and I'm sure the member has heard some of those opinions. The notion that we would offer timber competitively and take that data to help drive a truly market-based timber pricing system, get rid of the old notion of the waterbed, which I think is a mechanism the member's government inherited…. It didn't create it, to my recollection, but it is something that her government inherited and wrestled with. I think those are, broadly speaking, changes that enjoy a degree of support across the fold.

J. MacPhail: Just one final question. Is it the minister's view that this legislation — Bills 27, 28, 29, 44, 45

— have to be passed before this government returns to the softwood lumber negotiating table?

Hon. M. de Jong: One is not a prerequisite for the other, in my view. In fact, unless we see and hear things from the U.S. side that we have not heard to this point, I'm not entirely certain — I am hopeful, but I cannot guarantee to the member or anyone else — that there will be a table to return to. We will need to see and hear a more reasonable expression of their desire to settle this than we have seen thus far. I'm hoping that will emerge, but, again, it is far from certain.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate the minister's candour, because that would be my view as well, but it is this very legislation that the Government House Leader uses as an example of why we have to have things rammed through the House. I quoted from it exactly. He used this legislation specifically as the reason why we are invoking closure in this chamber. I read again: "For example, the forest bills deal with the market-based reforms that form part of the province's position in the softwood lumber dispute," he said, meaning the Government House Leader. I thought it was interesting that he linked the two, when other people in the government have been careful not to. I guess any excuse to use the heavy hand of closure will do.

Section 1 illustrates the issue that I raised during second reading debate yesterday. Because we don't have a PowerPoint presentation and we don't have anything colour-coded that we can flash on the walls to follow things here, I'm going to have to do this by reading. This bill, in section 1, reads as this. Section 1 of the Forest Act, 1996, is amended "(a) in subsection (1) in the definition of 'BC timber sales agreement' by striking out '(b) to (e)' and substituting '(b) to (f).'" But as I said yesterday, if you actually go to the statute, you will not find any definition of a B.C. timber sales agreement. You won't even find it in the consolidated version that the ministry staff were so kind to give me, and you won't find it in the updated version of the act — that same version that's found on the ministry's website. The reason for that is the definition of the B.C. timber sales agreement is found in Bill 27, and Bill 27 has not yet received royal assent.

Perhaps the minister could explain to me how he's keeping track of what's in force and what isn't.

Hon. M. de Jong: To use the member's terminology, I'm not intending here to be cheeky, but all of us know — and this member does as well — that laws do not take effect following the passage of third reading in this House until they have received royal assent and until they have been proclaimed by whatever mechanism the statute at that point provides for.

What I think I'd like to point out — and I don't underestimate or diminish the point the member has made about the complicated nature of the amendments and sometimes amendments that refer back to provisions that have either just come through the House or are, in the case of Bill 29, still before the House…. It is a result of having approached the task of revising the Forest Act in something of a thematically staged process.

The member will know that Bill 27 was largely geared to the task of effecting a takeback of tenure and reallocating that tenure, along with some other ancillary features. Bill 29 — as we are engaged in that discussion — approaches the Forest Act from the point of view of dealing with specific statutory provisions around the link to processing facilities, cut control and the transferability of titles, and so there is a series of amendments that deal with that. Then this bill deals with the creation of a framework around which tenure would be offered competitively.

I will not quarrel with the member's assertion that it is a challenging task to make the linkages, taken in their entirety, through legislative drafting. I know that because I saw it from the perspective of watching it come together. I will also say to the member that if one could have taken all three of those features and in a timely way wrapped them into one huge omnibus amendment, I think that would have been preferable from the point of view of affecting the debate here. It would be stupid not to concede that. It leads us to a situation where we are cross-referencing back and forth.

I do ask the member to accept my candid response that this is something that has emerged out of the thematic approach to changing the Forest Act. But I don't quarrel with the difficulty it presents from the point of view of affecting the debate and, candidly, for a member who is confronted by the challenge of having to debate many pieces of legislation in this House.

J. MacPhail: I would be less troubled if it were thematic — the approach we're taking to this. But as I pointed out yesterday in my second reading comments, it's all over the map. It's not as if one piece of legislation deals with one approach, and then the next piece, another theme. It's all over the map.

Let me ask this of the minister. What would've been the problem with introducing an omnibus bill where all of this work had already been done and allowed proper consideration — not by me but by the public or perhaps by the Liberal MLAs, who actually represent the constituencies that are going to be forever affected by these changes? What happened between the introduction on March 26, the debate on April 29, the passage of Bill 27 on May 6 and then, two days later, the introduction of this legislation that amends the very work we passed on May 6, two days before?

Here's why I'm asking this. It's because we have already determined, by the minister's words, that this legislation is not required for the softwood lumber dispute, despite what the Government House Leader said yesterday. So we know that. That's his admission. It's actually one that I agree with. And now we're ramming it through in a way that — given the minister's candour, which I accept and appreciate — is terribly confusing. In fact, the people upon whom I rely, the ex-

perts in the field, cannot keep up. These are people who actually work in the industry, who live and breathe this stuff or else are running communities that are supported by the industry. So what happened in that time frame?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me try to deal with this in two different stages. The member has not, I think, incorrectly characterized my remarks. This is not essential from the point of view of the softwood lumber dispute. There is, in many instances, a symmetry or an overlap or a relevance to what the government's agenda is with respect to forestry revitalization and to our strategy with respect to our attempts to resolve the softwood lumber dispute.

For example, if we find ourselves confronted by a policy bulletin from the U.S. Department of Commerce — no secret, the member knows this — we will do what we can to quickly take advantage by filing a changed circumstance review that says, in effect, to the United States: "You guys say you want a market. Well, actually, in British Columbia the government of British Columbia wants a market-based timber pricing system, a market-based forestry economy as well, and these are the changes that we have made. Here we have the market. You claim that is what you want. Now put your money where your mouth is, and effect that changed circumstance review." We believe there is benefit — we hope short-term benefit — to taking that approach.

There is — and the member has heard me say this before — a desire on our part, on the part of the government, to get on with making the changes we believe are essential if we're going to reverse the declines within this industry in the past number of years. The member will know, based on her experience, that a legislative project of this sort engages individuals in various departments of government and that the work is undertaken in this case around some broad themes — the desire to create new opportunities by reallocating tenure, the stated political desire to deal with some of the mandatory requirements that existed within the legislation, and a team of experts and draftspeople that deal with that. Then a subsequent team….

I'll tell the member this with all candour. I don't know that you need five fingers to count the number of people in this province, government or otherwise, who fully understand our existing stumpage system. It is a horribly complicated affair. It all derives from a complicated legislative framework, so that work takes place as well.

Then there's a question of bringing it all together. The fact that so many of the technical features of that change tend to interrelate with one another…. I did listen, and not dismissively, to the member's comments yesterday. It seems to me there are two kinds of examples, and I'm sure we'll go through them. There are amendments to the Forest Act — particular sections in some of the bills, whether it's Bill 29 or Bill 45 — but they are amendments to different parts of the same section.

Then there are the other kinds of examples, and the member has just mentioned one, where you have an amendment via Bill 29 and a subsequent amendment to the amendment. That's confusing. It is a product and a result of how the project teams went about the work and also — and I accept responsibility for this — a product of my desire and the government's desire to move ahead with having this market-based regime in place at the earliest possible moment.

I don't think that's going to persuade the member, but I hope it illuminates a little bit how we find ourselves at this point.

J. MacPhail: If there are fewer than five people who understand the stumpage system, perhaps the minister could tell me who reviewed this legislation inside his government and who now understands it.

Has this government taken all of those five pieces of legislation introduced in the last several weeks…? Has there been a review by the government of what the legislation means with all of the incorporated changes from beginning to end?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to that is yes, and it begins by first saying clearly at a high level what it is we are trying to achieve. I know the member is going to remind me that it is the government's choice around the time allocation, but I hope at some point in the time we have for this debate that we will actually talk about some of the choices. The member touched on them in her second reading debate yesterday about what the effect of this legislation is, and it has a profound effect on that stumpage system and how we market timber. But yes, that analysis and that work have been done, and I will say it is difficult work. It engages the attention of expert draftspeople and experts within the Forest Service to ensure that at the end of the process, all of the pieces do fit together.

It is the member's debate to chart as she wishes. But I hope we also have a chance to explore in more detail that very point that she's made about what the impact of this is at the end of the day or what it's intended to be.

D. Jarvis: On behalf of the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale, I would like to have the House welcome 47 grade 6s and 7s from Queen Mary community school in North Vancouver–Lonsdale and the six parents and teachers that are accompanying them. Would the House make them welcome, please.

The exploration of the thinking behind what seems to be a chaotic and confusing introduction and passing of legislation is key to understanding what the real intent of this government is and who's in charge, quite frankly. Let's use section 1 of Bill 45 as an example. Section 1 amends Bill 27. Why the necessity of this amendment, section 1(a)?

Hon. M. de Jong: The technical answer to that valid question is that by virtue of this bill, we have created a new category of licence as it relates to the market-based timber pricing system and the manner in which we make tenure available for sale.

Section 1(a) adds that category. The member will see that under the previous section in Bill 27, it included references to (b) to (e). Because we now have a new category of licence to cut, that new category needs to be added and captured by that definition of the B.C. timber sales agreement.

J. MacPhail: Does anything in this legislation affect collective bargaining going on between forest worker unions and licensee holders?

Hon. M. de Jong: I took a moment to ensure that I had thought it through, but I think the answer to that question is no. This legislation does not impose itself in any way that I can think of into the relationship that exists between the employer and employee.

J. MacPhail: Just for the notice of the staff for the minister, I'll be asking that same question when we debate Bill 29 as well.

J. MacPhail: Section 2 repeals section 8(8)(c) of the Forest Act. The explanatory note says this will remove the requirement for the chief forester to consider matters relating to timber processing facilities when determining the allowable annual cut. Insofar as it describes the legislation, it's accurate, but I must say it's a bit vague. What this section of the Forest Act says currently is "(c) the nature, production capabilities and timber requirements of established and proposed timber processing facilities." That's what the current section 8(8)(c) says. That's repealed. That's eliminated.

As I read that, it actually eliminates any consideration of milling capacity of a company, present or future. As I said in my comments at second reading yesterday, just as there will be no requirements for the minister to consider processing capability when awarding a licence and no requirement for a company to explain its processing capabilities when applying for a licence, the circle is now closed by this amendment. Not even the chief forester — the expert public servant who is charged, in my view, with the management of our public forests for the public good…. Not even now is he required to consider processing when determining the AAC. Why?

Hon. M. de Jong: First, let me say that I don't think I disagree with the analysis of the impact of the section. It does, I think, do what the member suggests in terms of eliminating that consideration from the menu of items the chief forester must consider. I'll begin by offering this suggestion or posing this rhetorical question: what is it that the chief forester should be doing?

I have always thought of the chief forester as that official within the Forest Service who stands somewhat apart from the minister and the remainder of the Forest Service, and whose overriding issue and concern is management of the forest from a forest health and sustainability basis. So it is the chief forester and not, for example, the Forests minister who, as the member knows, sets the annual allowable cut.

There are reasons for that. I can't speak for the people who made that delineation, but I believe it is there because the chief forester is charged with the task of making that decision on the basis of sound science and what actually represents sustainable growth levels, not what some politician might hope or wish or desire in the short term.

That in and of itself causes me to ask why it is that the official who is charged with environmental stewardship…. Why should that decision — that is, the decision around AAC or how many trees we're going to cut down from a forest health point of view — be influenced by how many mills there are?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says — and I'll give her her moment…. Surely, the question is: how many trees can we cut down in a sustainable manner? What the chief forester is setting is the maximum annual allowable cut. From a forest health point of view, should that decision be influenced by a chief forester's being concerned about feeding logs into a processing facility? Those two notions can come into direct conflict. Should the chief forester say: "Well, I think that the annual allowable cut for this timber supply area should be a million cubic metres, but you know, we've got X number of mills, and that's not enough, so I'd better jack that up a little bit"? I think that would be a flawed approach to the chief forester exercising his responsibilities, and I don't think it's what British Columbians want the chief forester to be guided by.

There's another answer. I mean, there's an answer that flows from that, and that's a nice, theoretical discussion, I suppose. We have, by virtue of some of the other legislation, also effected this very clear severance between harvesting and processing, which I know the

member disagrees with, and she has articulated that passionately and effectively. She disagrees with that severance of the harvesting and processing that takes place, particularly in Bill 29. This provision is entirely consistent from that point of view as well.

J. MacPhail: Isn't this the nub of the issue? The minister sees no requirement for a chief forester to link the use of a public resource for public good. That's basically what he said. In fact, it's stunning that this minister would actually have the gall to stand up, given his government's environmental record — that they care about the sustainability of the forest….

Section 8(8)(d) — which to my knowledge has not yet been repealed by this government, and I assume we won't have a bill later today repealing that section — says this. It requires the chief forester to consider "the economic and social objectives of the government, as expressed by the minister, for the area, for the general region and for British Columbia" in the determination of the annual allowable cut.

Yeah, you're absolutely right. The minister has said in the past, in a debate a couple of weeks ago, that he envisions a future where there are companies that do nothing but cut down trees, and there are companies that do nothing but process those trees. But who's going to know what the balance is there? The chief forester isn't going to be monitoring that.

Perhaps he also attended his own caucus briefing a couple of weeks ago where the geography professor from UNBC presented to the caucus about the increasing depopulation of rural B.C. That person, who has dedicated his entire academic career to that issue, demonstrated that if there's anybody who's going to feel the pain of forest policy changes that close mills, it's the rural areas. What is it that your government likes to call it? I forget. You've got some new fancy name for that area. He presented to the caucus about how these changes depopulate rural B.C., and as I understand it, that presentation was very disturbing to the caucus.

Since I last asked the question whether the minister knows how many mills have closed down or will close down by this legislation, perhaps he's actually done his own analysis now or dug up the analysis of what technological change has meant for the depopulation and the consolidation of the forest industry and, therefore, the closure of mills. But what is clear is that with every restructuring in the forest sector of the industry, resource-dependent communities suffer.

The government of the 1990s got accused of that every day. We changed the Forest Practices Code, and this minister stood up — well, actually, he didn't, but others stood up — and said how awful it was that those changes were depopulating rural B.C. and closing mills. Well, it turns out mills are closing at an even faster rate now. As those mills close, as the restructuring occurs, resource-dependent communities suffer. The families suffer. The families move and businesses close. That was the presentation to the government caucus, and the government caucus found that very disturbing.

That's why section 8(8)(d) is there. That's why, to answer the minister's question, the chief forester should be concerned about timber processing capability, because it is also his responsibility to consider the economic and social objectives of the government.

Maybe let me ask this: is there any relationship between the economic and social objectives of establishing the annual allowable cut that this government considers important? Or will we be seeing the repeal of sub-subsection (d) soon?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe I can offer the member an example of where I believe sub-subsection (d) — which of course is not, as the member points out, amended here — maintains some relevance. We don't have to look much further than the pine beetle infestation, where there are obviously paramount forest health issues involved, and as well there needs to be a regard for the impact of inaction and the need to…. And it's happened where AAC levels have been adjusted upwards dramatically to take into account both the forest health and the impact of not doing anything to respond to that situation. There's one right off the top of my head — an example of where the chief forester would exercise the discretionary authority contained within that statutory provision.

J. MacPhail: Since processing capabilities or capacities are now done with, and the chief forester doesn't have to concern himself with them — and I use "himself" because the chief forester is a "himself," but it could be a "herself…." Now that that's gone, give me some specifics, please, that provide some guarantee to those rural communities being depopulated through mill closures that the economic and social objectives of the government will be met through the establishment of the AAC. How will economic and social objectives be determined, beyond the beetle kill?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me — and I probably did this clumsily and will probably do it again — restate in general terms what I see the role of the chief forester to be. The chief forester is neither a job creation officer nor a job protection officer. The chief forester is charged with the task of ensuring that we are harvesting at an environmentally sound and sustainable rate and setting AACs that reflect that fact.

In addition to that, governments make decisions around things like land use, protected areas, the establishment of parks. Those are social objectives that governments bring to bear in the determination and evolution of public policy from time to time. They can impact on the exercise of the chief forester's discretionary authority, and he has to take that into account.

There is a mechanism by which governments, through their Forests ministers, can provide direction. That is provided for statutorily. It must be written, and it must be formal. To the best of my recollection, the last

time such a direction was issued was a number of years ago. It was a member of the member's former government, Minister Petter — although I may be mistaken. He was the Minister of Forests a number of years ago, when that type of direction was given to the chief forester.

Although I cannot remember the specifics, as I say, it can relate to land use planning objectives, or it might relate to efforts to negotiate with first nations. Those are all social objectives, but they are different, in my view, than the notion that the chief forester must be guided by whether or not his environmental decisions will add to or detract from the government's employment figures. I think that would be an improper use of that office.

J. MacPhail: Well, reading sub (8)(d), does the minister think there's any role…? What would he say the role of the chief forester is now in allowing for the sustainability of rural B.C.?

Hon. M. de Jong: Broadly speaking, within the constraints that governments — all governments of all political stripes — might present around things like land use planning and other public policy decisions, I think the chief forester is charged with the task of ensuring that we engage in harvesting activity on a responsible basis. And I would probably go further.

I'm not sure I can point to statutory authority for this statement, but I think chief foresters generally would accept that the benefits that flow to communities from ensuring that we maximize the timber that can be responsibly harvested would be something they take seriously. Again, without harping on this, the pine beetle infestation is a good example. There is an effect or an impact to not increasing the AAC — a very direct social impact, a very direct economic impact — and I think this chief forester and those that have preceded him take that role very seriously and will continue to take it seriously.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister know how many mills have closed down since he and I last met on April 29 to discuss that question?

Hon. M. de Jong: There have been announcements — we saw some yesterday and today — of temporary curtailments or shutdowns for two and three weeks. I'm not aware, although I will check, of an announcement of a permanent closure since we last had this discussion.

J. MacPhail: There have been announcements from the Kootenays. They're indefinite. They're not permanent, but they're indefinite layoffs. As well, there were some on the Island and some in northern B.C. — indefinite layoffs.

So what happens? I'm wondering whether the Liberal MLAs are not asking these questions themselves because they are acceding to the floor…. But what happens when a mill closure leads to a decline in the economy of a town? Does it just happen now, under this government? Is it just hewers of wood that are going to benefit from the use of our public resource — hewers of wood being the term for people who cut down trees — and that's it?

I met with a group of people from Clearwater — and the minister may know that a major mill permanently shut down there — and the town of Clearwater is in desperate straits. They can't get Telus to deliver them phone service now because Telus isn't willing to invest in an infrastructure that would allow for the most modern phone service. Shops are closing in the town of Clearwater. It's like it is on its deathbed because of a mill closure.

So what happens to Clearwater? Is it just sort of the canary in the mine now for towns where there will be no determination of the wood being used in that area for processing? Who keeps track of it?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think what the member risks doing by…. It's appropriate for her to point to specific examples as we move through this. But first of all, I'm not certain — and I'll answer the question as best I can — whether the member is making the argument that the shift to market-based stumpage contributes to the closure of a processing facility, or if she is simply making the observation that of late — and this goes back now some years — we have been confronted by the phenomenon of mill closures in British Columbia.

If we take the example that was offered here, the licensee involved has made a decision around the economics of operating a primary breakdown facility. What I have heard and learned from my discussions with people from that area is that, actually, they are interested in exploring new opportunities, and new opportunities that could lead to increased employment — the kind of employment that is not directly tied to a primary breakdown facility. But access to a little bit of fibre that becomes available once you've effected a 20 percent tenure takeback and reallocation might provide Clearwater with opportunities that do not now exist when all of that fibre gets turned into 2-by-4s at a primary breakdown facility.

It is precisely to address the vulnerabilities communities have felt, particularly over the past decade, that we move ahead with these changes, because people in those communities don't want to have their lives hanging in the balance, based on the economics surrounding an individual 2-by-4 plant. As effective as that may have been in the past, there are other opportunities out there, whether it's in the reman sector, whether it's in…. Well, we can go through the list, and the member knows, so I'm not going to stand here and lecture her. She knows of which I speak. But all of those opportunities are severely constrained when all of the fibre surrounding the town is owned by a single licensee and going to a particular destination.

Though it is not what we are dealing with here, that is one of the features of the changes that we are trying to give effect to.

J. MacPhail: But this section goes much further than that. It says nobody's going to even know what

happens as a result of who gets the timber, who cuts it down. Nobody's in charge. There's nobody home when you go knocking on the door to see what the economic and social value is of the use of a publicly owned resource — our trees. At least in the past the chief forester had to take into account the social and economic objectives of setting the annual allowable cut. That's still there. But one of the ways he won't be able to determine that is through timber processing.

I think communities around this province are feeling completely abandoned by this legislation. By the way, it wasn't me who thought up these questions. These are coming from the very communities now who are resource-dependent. They want to know who's standing up for them. Who's actually going to take into account the effects of this legislation on the depopulation of rural B.C.? They turn to the legislation, and all they see — in the guise, in the name of market reform — is that the people looking out for their interests are having the requirement to do so taken away from them.

Hon. M. de Jong: I wasn't ignoring the member. I was asking, as she spoke, if staff who have been within the Forest Service for, collectively, a number of years could relay to me an example of a situation where the chief forester has utilized the section in the way that I think the member is suggesting she would like the section to be utilized. Without offering a definitive answer, we are unaware of any circumstance in which that is so.

The member can make and has made her arguments about how she disagrees with both the philosophy and the direction of the changes, but to suggest that the section we are dealing with offers protection in the way the member has described and somehow that is being ripped away from communities is — with the greatest of respect — I think, inaccurate. It has never operated that way in the past in the first place. It is illusory to suggest that the section has operated that way in the past, because it simply hasn't.

J. MacPhail: I was never Minister of Forests, but I spent a lot of time at the cabinet table hearing from the Minister of Forests and from the Forest Service, and it's very surprising to me how, now that there's a new government, none of this stuff was used in the past. It's all just words. It's very surprising to me. But God forbid, who am I to challenge the officials who know much better than me?

What I do remember, Mr. Chair, is spending hour after hour talking about concern about the effects of forest policy changes on rural communities. I recall hearing, hour after hour, presentations about this mill will close and this mill will close if we do this, or that when we make changes in policy, the ministry will need 600 more FTEs to hold the industry to account. Then that changed to 200 FTEs.

But all of a sudden the Forest Service played none of that role. These were just empty words. Well, who am I to say? Who am I to challenge the bureaucrats of the Forest Service? What I do know is that for some reason, the rural communities are taking a great deal of discomfort in the elimination of this language. Perhaps they didn't know anything, either. Perhaps they were just under an illusion that the words meant something.

I didn't make these questions up myself, so if the minister is saying that the rural communities don't have to worry about these changes, that their towns will prosper and that those mill closures mean nothing and won't get worse — great. I guess they just have to rely on the comfort of that, because there's nobody else challenging that except for me.

J. MacPhail: I pointed out yesterday that section 3 of this legislation, the section of Bill 45, re-enacts section 12 of the Forest Act. So did Bill 27. Why?

Hon. M. de Jong: This section was and remains something of an inventory of the types of licence agreements that can be entered into with licensees. In this case I can say to the member that something actually did change in the interval between the drafting or during that point in time, and that was the creation of something new.

It is these community salvage agreements. That is a new type of tenure. Therefore, it had to be added to the list of agreements contemplated under the act. As I said during second reading debate, I'm proud of the way that came about, because though the member takes proper advantage of her time in this debate to articulate on behalf of those who feel the government has not taken account of their wishes, the community salvage licence agreements are in direct response to submissions that we received from communities and from regional districts that were made firstly to MLAs and very quickly found a home in the new legislation. It is something that I think is going to operate effectively to reduce the amount of wasted fibre that continues to accrue within timber supply areas and provide new opportunities and a new means to administer access to salvage timber. In this case, there actually was a change that needed to be taken account of in this bill.

Hon. M. de Jong: I can't offer the member a specific date, but within certainly the last six weeks this was a proposal that had been made and talked about and then found its way into the legislation. As I say, I'm pleased it has, and I think it's a very positive feature.

J. MacPhail: Let's just use that as an example, then, of what table that decision would have been made at that is separate and apart from the decisions being

made around the other legislation that's being introduced. Convince me that it's not piecemeal.

Hon. M. de Jong: I may surprise the member, but in the case of the community salvage agreement I'm not sure what her definition of piecemeal is. I suppose you could argue that it was, because it was something that occurred and that we became aware of fairly late in the day and moved to add into the legislation.

J. MacPhail: Section 4 is a substantial section under this new legislation, Bill 45. I've labelled it in my notes here "section 4: money talks." The explanatory note to this section simply states that the repeal of section 13 changes the basis of the award of a licence so that it is based solely on the highest bid — so money talks. That's why I call it "money talks." You got the money; you get the bid. You got the most money; you get the bid.

What the note fails to mention is what the award will not be based on by the change in this legislation. From my research I have gleaned that the award of a licence now will not be based on an evaluation of the job creation potential or creation of social benefits, an evaluation of the competency of the applicant to manage and utilize Crown timber, the potential for the licensee to further the development objectives of the government or, lastly, how well the applicant will meet the objectives of the government in respect of environmental quality, the management of water, fisheries, wildlife and cultural heritage and resources. The only thing that the minister must consider is the level of the bonus bid, and the minister must award the licence to the applicant that tendered the highest bonus bid. Why?

Hon. M. de Jong: With the member's indulgence, I will take a moment to try to answer this because as she has pointed out, it's a substantive feature of this bill, and the philosophical underpinnings of what we are endeavouring to do and the changes we are making are captured in large measure by this section.

Here's what I learned when I became the Forests minister. Here's one of the things I saw. I saw a process that had developed under past governments, in many cases born under governments previous to the member's, and then evolved where governments developed a system where they put out tenure opportunities and a whole construct of criteria that attracted a certain number of points — but it was certainly something that was very subjective — and bids would come in.

People doing the bidding need the wood. I mean, it's the resource that they require in order to carry out their business. The government says to them: "You can have access to this timber, but you got to do what we want you to do." The people bidding say, "Well, I guess if that's what you want, we'll play that game," and they submit their bid where there are a certain number of points awarded in the job creation category, because that was a big deal. All of us want to see jobs created, so a certain number of points are awarded in the job creation category.

The person sitting down preparing the bid says: "I'm not sure. We might create five jobs, but if we have a really good year, we might create 50 jobs. Well, I'll put down 50. Why wouldn't I? I get more points and I'll be optimistic." We all want to be optimistic. These bids are developed and submitted, and the award is made on that basis.

The person who was perhaps a little more conservative and said: "Gee, I don't think the year looks too good, and I'm only going to create 25 jobs with my proposal, although I could create 50 jobs, but that's unlikely. I better play it safe and say 25, and then I'll get the wood. Then I'll get access to the licence."

Two or three years pass, and if and when the Crown gets around to doing the audit, the person who got the wood and said they were going to create 50 jobs actually created five. Now what do you do? Maybe they created ten. Technically, you take the wood back, and you put those ten people out of work. Well, that makes a lot of sense, and it never happens, or it rarely happens.

That system is fraught with inequities. Sure, all of us in this chamber would love to be able to sit in Victoria and direct all of the traffic. I'm not going to do this in an angry or partisan way. The step up from this was something the member's government tried. It was called the jobs and timber accord.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member says: "It's all b.s." It turned out it was, but it was an extension of the principle that says: "Your access to the fibre is going to be determined by your ability to convince the government of all these good things you're going to do, and we'll worry about whether you do them later." It's about fairness. It's about creating a level playing field.

You know something? I think the member has diligently done her work and talked to many people. I hope she's listened to what they say, because I have yet to come across anyone who has defended this structure that the member purports to defend. I will say this again candidly. We have a fundamentally different belief in what the role of government is in allocating this resource and how it should be allocated. I believe that the duty we have as stewards for the people of British Columbia of the resource that they own is to ensure that they get the maximum benefit for that resource.

I know what the member will say. She'll say you have to consider that benefit in light of other considerations. Well, you know what? Those things will flow, but in terms of fairness, I am sick and tired of seeing files where someone didn't get access to the fibre they needed

to employ people on the strength of another submission that spoke in glowing terms of some of these features of the job creation that was going to take place. Those jobs were never created, and because the person had a more conservative and realistic view of the world, those jobs didn't get created either. I think that's wrong.

I apologize. I'm not intending to lecture or anything, but I do believe that has been a flawed system. I think it arose with the best of intentions, but I don't think it's worked. Insofar as establishing that level playing field, I think creating a system in which access to the resource exists on a purely competitive basis is the closest we get to creating that sense of fairness, that level playing field. I know the member disagrees, and I'll listen some more.

J. MacPhail: I am constantly amazed at this minister making these radical changes, who wants to constantly hark back to what happened in the 1990s. Why doesn't he have some guts to just defend the changes based on his own need? The reason why this change is being made is because the Forest Service is being gutted; that's why. It's got nothing to do with the jobs and timber accord. There's not going to be anybody to carry out these assessments. The Forest Service is being gutted — 40 percent cuts in the Forest Service.

That's why the minister feels it necessary to denigrate the work that was done by the Forest Service. That's why he feels it necessary to say: "Oh, there was such nitpicking and hand-wringing and manipulation by the Forest Service in determining who should get the licence." When he denigrates the work of the Forest Service, which is the regulator of this industry, he can justify the cuts to the Forest Service. It isn't just jobs, Mr. Chair, in the list that I read out that used to have to be considered. It's an evaluation of the competency, and it's the potential for the licence to further the development objectives of the government.

Oh my God. God forbid that the taxpayer actually be protected, or those rural communities we were talking about.

Then how will the applicant meet the objectives of the government in respect of environmental quality? Well, we know this government doesn't care about that. The management of water, fisheries, wildlife and cultural heritage resources…. We know this government doesn't care a whit about that either, but surely the issue of competency of the licence holder should be key. It is, after all, a public resource we're giving to them to make a profit.

This clause is being deleted because this minister has gutted the Forest Service, pure and simple, and he stands up and tries to hide behind something else. Tell me: how is it that the money the licensee is willing to pay for the bid is the best determinant of sustainability of the resource?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm a bit surprised at the member, because she is a skilled parliamentarian. I could have hidden behind just about anything. I mean, she asked a pretty direct question, to which I gave her a very direct answer. She said, "Here are the criteria upon which these decisions were formerly made," and she said — correctly: "Under this legislation, you are largely removing all of that criteria in place of a financial consideration." And I said to her: "I think that's the right thing to do — to have competitively awarded timber licence contracts." I just don't know how much more direct I can be. There is clearly a difference of opinion.

I know this. I know there are people, and the member might be one of them…. I'm always hesitant about theorizing about what might be motivating someone to take a particular position, but there are people who just can't stand the fact that government is giving up its ability to control the unfolding of events. That's what those criteria largely represent in many instances: an ability to look at all of these things, to manipulate them and to direct things. Yeah, the government, under this legislative package, is giving up that control. It is saying to the world that is involved in forestry on a competitive basis: "You bid for access to this timber, and we're not going to be in the business of picking and choosing winners." You know what? Governments have a great record when it comes to picking and choosing winners — and not just her government but all governments. They don't tend to do very well at it.

I accept all sorts of criticism, and much of it is deserved, but I get a little bit upset when the member says I'm hiding behind something. I've given her as clear an answer as I can conceive of as to why we're doing this. I think this is the right thing to do, and it has nothing to do with what's happening elsewhere in the forest. The member may disagree with that, and I think she does, and that's fine. But again, the member and her government wanted to exercise a great deal more control over the allocation of timber than I think is proper for government.

There. We disagree on that point, and that's what is at the heart of what I admit is a fundamental shift.

J. MacPhail: This minister has this whole debate as if we're regulating something that was private sector. This is a publicly owned resource. It's the most valuable publicly owned resource. Well, it's equivalent to water. Water is a publicly owned resource, and our trees, our Crown land, are a publicly owned resource. What this minister is now saying is: "Forget any other criteria of determining who should have access to that publicly owned resource. Money talks. It's money."

I asked the minister a question. What studies or evidence does he have to show that the highest bidder will provide a sustainable resource?

Hon. M. de Jong: The questions to this point…. I disagree with the premise, but the questions have been good ones. I don't get the question. The member says: "What is the guarantee that money will provide a sustainable resource?" Well, none, but that's not what the process for awarding tenures is supposed to be about. We have an entire other regime dedicated to the task of ensuring that forestry is carried out in a sustainable

manner. What we're talking about here is the process by which you grant access to that resource. You sell access. I mean, her government did it. That's what we do. We sell access to the resource. It is that simple.

I think the people of British Columbia deserve to know that they are getting the highest possible value for selling access to those trees. The member apparently disagrees. I believe that when we sell a cutblock or a licence of trees that the people British Columbia own; we shouldn't give them away.

Someone comes to the government and says: "Hey, I got a great idea, and it's going to accomplish all sorts of wonderful things, but on behalf of the people of B.C., who own that resource, government, you give it to me for half price, would you?" Well, the number of people — and the member has dealt with this — that come to government…. They did it to her; they do it to us. "With my brains and your money, we'll make beautiful music together." We've all got a closet full of those folks. We try to bring some sense of fairness to that process. Anyway, there you go.

J. MacPhail: Well, if anybody knows about losing money in the forest sector in terms of government revenues, it's this government. The government revenues from forestry have plummeted since this government took over.

All right. Well, let me ask what factors the minister is going to consider in the awarding of a licence. Let's be clear. The awarding of a licence isn't a licence to drive a car; it's a licence to cut down a tree. That's what it's about. Now it's a booty call. That's what it is. It's a booty call.

Let me ask whether this is considered when you're awarding a licence: meaningful consultation with first nations and accommodation of aboriginal title and rights. What if that hasn't occurred?

Hon. M. de Jong: Sorry to the member. I missed the last part of the question. I think, though, the answer is that nothing under the present regime and nothing under the regime that would replace it alters the obligations that the government, the Crown, has to engage in consultation and accommodation with respect to individual awards. Nothing here alters that fact.

J. MacPhail: If the licence was going to compromise the maintenance and restoration of ecological integrity, the provision of clean water, the protection of domestic use watersheds or related aspects of good forest management, would the licence still be awarded to the highest bidder?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the question correctly, if harvest activity and the licence itself were going to have a deleterious environmental impact, the licence would not be offered.

J. MacPhail: What if the practices of the licensee would be contrary to the precautionary principle?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are two things. Under what will be section 13(c), there is a mechanism for examining the applicant's qualifications. Those provisions exist within section 13(3)(c). Of course, the other safeguard relates to the overall application of the Forest Practices Code and the Forest and Range Practices Act. All of that overriding forest protection legislation also governs any activity that takes place pursuant to the issuance of the licence.

J. MacPhail: That is precisely why I'm asking these questions. Clause 13(3)(c) says that the application for a forest licence must "include any information that the minister or a person authorized by the minister may require about the applicants' qualifications to (i) carry out timber harvesting operations under the licence, or (ii) perform specified obligations (A) under the licence, or (B) in respect of the licence or its holder, under this Act or another enactment."

That's what I'm asking about. A lot of the stuff the minister is claiming will be protective is in regulation I haven't seen yet. What's the process that's in place if the licensee doesn't pay up, fails to ensure that full payment of the full value of the forest resources is not paid when they're logged?

J. MacPhail: Whatever. Whatever way the minister is collecting revenue. I don't know what that way is yet.

Hon. M. de Jong: No changes to that regime or the menu of remedies that exist. If someone fails to remit the revenue they are obliged to remit — the stumpage, as a result of harvest activity — their licence is cancelled and their authority to cut removed.

J. MacPhail: Is this all stuff that is considered post facto of the awarding of the licence? In other words, you put out the bid, the tender, and somebody comes up with the biggest cheque. Government is obligated under this legislation, it seems, to give it to the person with the deepest pockets. How does the minister know that all of these other tests will be met, the ones I'm bringing up? What happens?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this will answer, in part, where I think the member's concern lies. You can go to the website for, I believe, the Revenue minister, and there is a public listing of accounts receivable for forest licences. They're all there — 30, 60, 90 days overdue. Under the existing legislation — and this will continue into the future — if you are in arrears on the payment of stumpage, your ability to bid on a subsequent licence opportunity is removed. You're simply not eligible under those circumstances.

In addition, in the bonus bid circumstance, the bonus portion of the bid is paid in advance. This is a valid point for the member to raise for a number of reasons. I

think in part it speaks to the issue of who is bidding on the timber and revenue security for the Crown. I think that's a valid point, but there's another concern that relates to speculative bidding. Where you are developing a timber pricing system built around the accumulation of data from these competitive sales, there is a requirement to ensure that the data is accurate and not the product of someone's speculation in which harvesting activity doesn't take place. There are a number of reasons that the issues the member has raised are valid, of concern and, I believe, dealt with in the legislation.

J. MacPhail: Does that system apply if a licensee who can now subdivide himself and sell off a portion of the licence…? Does that rule apply there too?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes. In the event of a subdivision and purported sale, the same credit check — if that's the correct word — would be done, and the sale would only complete once all outstanding accounts have been paid.

J. MacPhail: The ability of a licensee to subdivide his or her licence and sell it off is somehow controlled? There has to be final approval by the government, and therefore this credit check kicks in?

J. MacPhail: Where will these factors be determined in determining that the highest bidder is managing the resource properly — exporting raw logs; closing or reducing production of a timber processing facility that they own or operate; whether there's a pattern of recurring non-compliance with the Forest Practices Code, the Fisheries Act or the Workers Compensation Act? What if they exceed maximum cut control requirements in the current cut control period? What happens to a licensee who doesn't have to demonstrate any compliance prior to getting the licensing just because they had the highest bid?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize. I'll probably reduce this and oversimplify. What I think the member is getting at is the provision in this legislation for bad actors who have run afoul of various components of the legislation to be precluded from bidding on subsequent licence offerings. The answer to that is yes, although in each case the process may be slightly different or the statutory provision that governs it might be slightly different. There is provision for precluding bad actors and taking that bad conduct or bad history into account.

J. MacPhail: Section 12 repeals section 21 of the Forest Act, but just three weeks ago Bill 27 amended section 21 of the Forest Act. We amended something, we didn't even get a chance to put that legislation in place, and now we're repealing it. How come? Why?

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 27 gave effect to the name change to the program from the small business forest enterprise program to the timber sale program. Because, as we've discussed, Bill 45 represents the shift to a purely competitive model for the awarding of timber, section 21 became redundant under any name.

The Chair: Hon. members, noting the time and pursuant to the motion that was passed on May 26, I will begin to put the questions forward on the various sections.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the amendment to section 36 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the amendment to section 86 standing in my name on the order paper.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise, report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 45, Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, reported complete with amendments.

Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to the motion passed in this House yesterday, the question will now be put on third reading. The question is third reading of Bill 45.

Bill 45, Forest (Revitalization) Amendment Act (No. 2), 2003, read a third time and passed.

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

J. Kwan: I understand the government members have some questions for the minister as well. So as not to interrupt the flow of things I would yield the floor first to the members from the government side to ask questions of the minister, and then I'll begin my questions.

K. Krueger: The community of Chase has been aspiring for some time to move forward with some provision for seniors in that community. A local committee has been working very energetically on that. Land has been donated close to the medical centre.

The minister toured Chase some time back and met these people. I wonder if she could give Chase an update on that situation.

Hon. K. Whittred: I will, thank you. To my right is Deputy Minister Dr. Penny Ballem, and to my left is Deputy Minister Tamara Vrooman. Yesterday I neglected to introduce Stephanie Sainas, who is also part of those who advise me so well.

In response to the member's question about Chase, I do recall having a very nice visit in Chase with the member from that area and meeting with the people of that particular organization and viewing the on-site medical clinic there and their plans to build an adjoining facility. I am not sure what the status of that proposal is. That would be something that is being worked out between the community of Chase and the interior health authority.

I can tell the member that Chase has been allocated 20 assisted-living units by the interior health authority and that they have plans for enhancing their adult day programs, their home care nursing programs and their home support services. I believe it would be the responsibility of the society that was involved in this case to bid on the proposals that are put forth by the interior health authority.

K. Krueger: There are two different programs, one involving subsidizing units in existing private facilities — one of which has just been constructed in Chase — and the other, freestanding facilities. Is the minister referring to the former or the latter, or are both in process?

Hon. K. Whittred: The allocation of 20 assisted-living units would refer to the community. It could in fact refer to both organizations. That is something that I think is in progress, and it is something that would be, at this time, within the planning phase with the interior health authority.

K. Krueger: I think the interior health authority has, in almost all areas, done a really wonderful job shouldering their massive responsibilities, and I think they've shown leadership in a lot of what they've done.

One thing they did that I thought was unfortunate was to announce right off the bat that they would be closing Ponderosa Lodge in Kamloops. While we know that our government has no intention of any senior being asked to leave a facility when there isn't a better place for them to go to, that has not only caused some concern on the part of residents and their families and loved ones but has also given political adversaries a chance to fearmonger and really whip up concern in the community, which I think is a shame. It would have been better if the other facilities had already been constructed and the moves had been done, and then the move would make sense to everybody concerned.

I have spoken with the health authority about this and about their intentions for the building, which I agree isn't ideally suited at all to be an extended care

hospital. It wasn't really intended to be that when it was constructed. There is potentially a future for that building in some sort of supportive living. It already has life-lease apartments on its upper floors. George Cheyne, the person who brought on that construction, is still available and interested in getting the non-profit society back together that put those units together in the first place and potentially doing the same thing with the whole building.

The first concern is around the announcement of redesign around facilities such as Ponderosa Lodge. Common sense tells us there are a number of issues involved. Number one, I think that all people who work in health want to do the best for the people in their care. They want to give fair notice to families, and they want to be able to prepare individuals, and so on. That's all part of a care plan. We have put policy in place that demands that these very careful care plans be put in place.

We also acknowledge that in doing a design as big as we are doing in the Health Services ministry, particularly in home and community care, there have been some health authorities that have perhaps not done as much around communication as we would have liked. As a ministry we are working on addressing that issue. Those things sort of come together. Undoubtedly, it has caused anxiety for some family members, and undoubtedly, it has created some anxiety in communities, but we have done everything we can to assure people that nobody is going to be uncared for and nobody is going to be forced to go anywhere without a firm plan in place that is discussed thoroughly with their families. That's one part of the question the member addressed.

The second part is around what we do with facilities. I would like to just go back a little bit in time and remind the member opposite that in this province we have many, many facilities that were really built for the 1960s or 1970s.

One of the first things we did when we became government is we ordered that a functional and physical assessment of all residential care facilities be conducted so that we would know and we would have a firm assessment of exactly what we had — what was suitable for complex care, what was suitable to be renovated to assisted living and what, perhaps, was not suitable and worthy of any kind renovation.

That kind of assessment took place. It was then the job of the health authorities to match that information with the plans they have in terms of meeting the needs of their clients. When facilities were assessed relative to clients' needs, licensing standards and fire codes, 50 percent of the beds in the province were found to have a low likelihood of alignment to what we are now calling complex care standards. That means they really weren't suitable to be upgraded to care for people with very high needs. That's what we have frequently in long-term care. It became the job, then, to identify what the best use is for each and every one of these facilities and to align that with their plans.

I want to just say that for Kamloops, it has been determined that the best thing they can do with Ponderosa Lodge is to close it. It will be replaced with an 89-bed complex care facility. There will be 32 independent housing units that will be built under Homes B.C. There will be enhanced home nursing care, there will be enhanced home care services, and there will be expanded services of a variety of programs for evenings and weekends. The community of Kamloops is actually going to have new, bright, shiny accommodations for their seniors, replacing what was at Ponderosa Lodge.

The member raised a third question, which was: what do the owners do around Ponderosa Lodge? That becomes the next decision people have to make. When you're redesigning something, often you have to do one thing before you can do the next thing.

B. Lekstrom: Just a question with the transition that we're looking at through the supportive housing–assisted living models, coming from where we've been to where we're going. In working in cooperation with our health authorities — in my case, the northern health authority — I'm looking at how that transition is planned to take place. We have a facility, for instance, that is slated for closure, or indicated slated for closure. There's been an announcement made to that effect. Can the minister tell me what the transition plan is?

I have a lot of people in my area right now with high anxiety, not knowing how we're going to remove 60 beds from a facility that, as you indicated, may not be appropriate to deliver care in today's world. The unknown factor still leaves these people with a lot of high anxiety, wondering what's going to take place. There are 60 people who will need to look at a transition. I know that attrition, unfortunately, does take its course through the life we live. Maybe the minister could respond on that as to what the expectations of our health authorities are in going out and making a closure announcement without having the direction as to how we're going to resolve the issues on the other side.

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes. The first thing that happens in the redesign is that the health authority has to define its needs in a community. Then there is the need to define the care of the patient. We have made it very clear that no door will close until another door opens. That is an integral part of the promise we have made to residents in facilities. The third part of that is that the current owners or operators of every facility have the right of first refusal in terms of what is going to follow. That is part of the reason why this process takes a degree of time, because there are these stages to go through, and they cannot be rushed.

In closing, I won't ask a further question. Just maybe to elaborate on what I touched on, I think it is a major issue in British Columbia that we look after the people that helped build the province we all now get to enjoy. I think certainly communication is first and foremost. I think we're going to have to make sure that we work closely with the health authorities to make sure we don't have a situation where we talk about a closure of a facility without a transitional plan in place. I think that's all British Columbians are after — to say we understand; we agree.

The people I talk to agree that going to the assisted living–supportive housing model is going to enhance the quality of life for our seniors. What they're asking for though is: "Don't tell us we're going to close a facility here without having the transitional plan in place. Wait until you have all of the pieces of that puzzle together. Then let's get together, and we'll discuss what it's taking on."

J. Kwan: Carrying on with debate from last night or late afternoon, I suppose, around the long-term care beds, the minister was just saying how fond I am of non-profit sector support in this area. It's true. I am fond of non-profit sector support, but I'm not the only one who's fond of that, actually. For the minister's information and to quote the then opposition leader and now Premier, here's what he had to say around issues of the non-profit sector: "I favour not-for-profit because when you deal with not-for-profit in communities, you're actually building communities as well as health care. I just don't agree with them that we need to privatize it all. I am certainly not going to close down private seniors' facilities. We need them. I think what we have to make sure is that the quality of care is there for people when they need it."

In long-term care the mix is now 70 percent public non-profit provision and 30 percent for-profit. The question was asked to the Premier, then opposition leader: "So you wouldn't change that mix?" The then Leader of the Opposition and now Premier's response was as follows: "Except for the extent we're providing for more not-for-profit care facilities."

The points here are several-fold. One is yes, I am a big supporter of the non-profit sector. I came from the non-profit sector before I became a politician, so of course I support their work. I look at their work as a contribution in our community in a greater sense. I look at it from the point of view that when government invests in non-profit sector or public sector assets, those assets belong to the community and they're there in the community for perpetuity. Therefore, it benefits and builds and strengthens the community as a whole.

It seems that the Premier, when he was in opposition, agreed with that concept as well. I suppose that since the election two years ago, everything has changed.

The other point I want to raise with the minister is this. It is the minister's own New Era document that they campaigned on, that they said they would build 5,000 additional not-for-profit long-term care beds. When you put in 479 units — or beds, if you will — that are rent supplements, they should not be counted toward their commitment of building 5,000 additional long-term care beds. They're not. They're transitional in their nature. They are not there. They were not built by the government, as the campaign of this minister and the Liberal government said they would be.

There is a contradiction in the minimum of what the minister says she would do during the campaign versus what is happening now in reality. That's the point I'm making with the minister.

Would the minister please advise this House: are the 479 units of rent supplements actually being counted towards her New Era document commitment of building an additional 5,000 long-term care beds?

J. Kwan: I'm going to add this up, because we — the opposition, with my colleague — have a document that lists the number of broken promises. This is counted towards another broken promise. As the minister herself acknowledged yesterday, 475 units is approximately 12 percent of the 5,000 mix and 12 percent in terms of the rent supplements, in terms of the plans they were making. That's a 12 percent broken promise here on the long-term care component.

I want to carry on with that promise as well, because during the election the New Era document specifically said — and the minister campaigned on — that they would work with non-profit societies to build an additional 5,000 long-term care beds by 2006. After the election it seems to have become simply 5,000 long-term care beds. If the government, if this minister, is to commit to her New Era promise of building an additional 5,000 beds, in total that ought to yield about 8,000 units of long-term intermediate care beds.

I want to get some clarification from the minister. Which is it? Is it just 5,000 beds that count and includes the existing beds that have already been built, or is it new beds that are to be built?

Hon. K. Whittred: We are in fact honouring our commitment. We are working with the non-profit sector to meet the demand for the beds we are committed to.

I would like to give the member opposite the number of beds as they break down in the province: public beds make up 46 percent; non-profit beds, 22 percent; private-for-profit beds, 28 percent; and denominational beds, 4 percent.

We are also working with public and private organizations. The fact that we are committed to working with non-profit organizations — and we are working every single day with non-profit organizations — does not in any way preclude us from also working with public bodies, with denominational bodies or with private bodies.

J. Kwan: No, hon. Chair, it doesn't preclude the minister. But it should not be counted towards her

commitment of 5,000 additional new beds in building with the non-profit sector. That is the point here.

What the minister continues to fail to understand is that rent supplements is not building new beds. They are not. They are not building anything. Those rent supplements will come and go. When you build a unit into the community, when you build a facility, they're there for perpetuity. They stay in the community. With rent supps, when the person moves on, then those beds are lost. That's the difference. That's how people count it in the housing sector. That's how we count it in the housing sector. You cannot count rent supplements as though somehow that is building new units in the community. I wish the minister would actually learn the difference between rent supplements versus an actual asset in the community in that sense and how that differs from her commitment and how she has actually broken her promise.

I want to move on, because the issue here is this: it is now approximately 22 after three. The government yesterday brought in a motion that limits debate. I am told by the government members that they want to engage in debate today, as well, with this set of estimates. I am pressured here in a way that is absolutely unbelievable. I have a full binder of questions to ask the minister. By the end of today, even if those questions are not asked and we run out of time, estimates for this minister and for Health Services shuts down, and the opposition will have no opportunity to ask further questions.

I want to move on, because the minister obviously does not understand the difference between rent supplements versus building an actual unit in the community and what that means. At least the Premier, when he was in opposition, understood that. I know things have changed. The election has been held, so he's forgotten what he said, and it doesn't matter any more. He's moved on to other things, and he's forgotten what he said in the interview with The Guardian.

I want to canvass the 5,000 beds for which the minister did not answer the question. If it's additional beds, then it's in addition to the existing facilities. That should actually yield us over 8,000 long-term care beds. Since the election…. While the minister campaigned on 5,000 new long-term and intermediate beds by 2006, we now have reports that actually show it would not be additional beds but rather in conjunction with existing beds. That would actually reduce the number of beds available. I want the minister to clarify those numbers, because those are very important numbers. Is it 5,000 new beds that would be added by 2006?

Hon. K. Whittred: I'm going to take the member opposite through the numbers once again that I gave last night. First of all, we have 811 residential care beds that have opened since June 5, 2001. We have 429 assisted-living units. We have 173 independent supportive housing units, for a total of 602. Independent living units that are requested and awarded but are not yet opened total 479.

I'm sorry. I'm reading the wrong number here. These are rent supplements, and that is 479. Independent living units requested but still not are 1,941.

Hon. K. Whittred: Well, the member opposite obviously knows these numbers. This is the progress we have made toward honouring the 5,000-bed commitment.

J. Kwan: It would useful if the minister actually answered my question. She doesn't have to provide the same answer she has already given, because I have that information right here. That's not the question I'm asking of the minister.

Let me just go through this slowly, then, for the minister. In the New Era document the government promised to work with non-profit societies to build and operate an additional 5,000 new intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. In the open cabinet meeting on April 22, 2002, a presentation made by the minister on intermediate and long-term care referred to "5,000 intermediate and long-term care beds." Notice that the word "additional" has been removed and so has the reference to working with non-profit societies.

The breakdown of the 5,000 is 3,500 supportive living units and 1,500 new residential beds. So the additional 5,000 beds have been dropped to 1,500 beds. The breakdown of the 3,500 supportive living units is 1,000 are to be rent supplements in the private market, 1,500 are to be new apartments built and 1,000 are to be converted units from existing non-profit housing and health developments.

So of the 3,500 supportive living units, only 1,500 are now new apartments, and 2,000 units will be created within the already existing facilities. So in addition, the 3,500 living units are not only for seniors, they're also targeted for people with disabilities who have low or modest incomes.

Of course, people with disabilities need access to affordable living options — no doubt about that — but if some or all of the 3,500 spaces will also be available to them, the government cannot say it is providing 3,500 spaces for seniors.

This is also no base number for the current amount of intermediate, long-term and home care beds. It is essential to know this base number so that the 5,000 new beds will have something to be compared against. Also, the 3,500 supportive living units cannot possibly be classified as long-term care beds.

The government's commitment was to provide 5,000 additional intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006. This means there will be at a maximum only 1,500 long-term care beds, and there is no way of telling how many of them will be new.

The 3,500 beds are also not required to be licensed, merely registered. That means that not all of the 5,000 beds will be licensed facilities. This leaves the seniors with limited appeal methods. There has not been a cost

analysis study done in regards to any of these changes. Furthermore, cuts to the services of a non-medical nature — housecleaning, laundry, shopping, etc. — may actually be more costly.

A senior who is in the hospital because they have injured themselves — ironing, preparing food, shopping, for example — is costing taxpayers far more money than $30 or so in home care costs. But the government's making changes around that as well. I'll go into the home support services in a little bit.

So getting back to the 5,000, do you see what I'm getting at? There's a fundamental difference in terms of adding new beds, additional beds.

I'll ask the minister a simple question: is this minister still committed to building 5,000 new additional intermediate and long-term care beds by 2006 — yes or no?

J. Kwan: Good. Now we can get somewhere. What is the baseline of the number of existing intermediate and long-term care beds that are in the system right now?

Hon. K. Whittred: When we became government in 2001, the number was approximately 25,000 — I think something just under that. I stress that there is no magic one number to this because in the medical system, as we know, beds open and beds close all the time. So it is only possible to come up with a fairly ballpark kind of number.

J. Kwan: So there are possibly 25,000 intermediate and long-term care beds, and the minister just said on record that she's committed to building 5,000 additional intermediate and long-term care beds. That should bring the number to about 30,000 around the province.

All right, so those are the base numbers that I'm going to be working from. We're going to be comparing and holding this government accountable to see whether or not they actually achieve these goals.

If the minister could advise, how many out of the existing 25,000…. She said they're intermediate and long-term care. Does that include community living units as well? What's the breakdown of that 25,000? How does that split?

Just to correct myself, I think I said community living. I meant assisted living. My apologies.

Hon. K. Whittred: To answer the member's question, the baseline includes residential care beds, family homes, group homes and assisted living. I should add that there were very few assisted living — I think around 250, give or take a few — when we became government. Of course, that is the area where we are making the biggest change.

I would like to respond to something the member raised a little bit earlier in some of her remarks. She was implying that assisted living–supported living arrangements were not suitable to meet this commitment. This is a completely outdated line of thinking. Contemporary thinking shows us that in fact seniors have a broad variety of needs, and it is our intent to meet those needs.

The term "intermediate care" is quite old. That term is not even used any more in the new assessment given to seniors. People are evaluated according to their needs, and we know that what used to be called intermediate care is often called something different today. We also know, and the medical people have shown us, that people in intermediate care can live very comfortably with the supports. They can live independently. They can enjoy a quality of life.

The member opposite should know that when her government was in power, they made changes. We have gone a little bit further in terms of determining what the intermediate care needs are and how independently people can live with modern technologies, modern medications and with the right supports. The experts support this. The public supports it. Seniors support it. In fact, it's difficult to find anyone in the community who doesn't support the direction we're going.

J. Kwan: The difference is this: it's not that the opposition is opposed to assisted living, but the difference is substantive in terms of intermediate and long-term care beds and assisted-living beds. The difference is the support and the amount of support required for the seniors to live independently. What this government is doing, in addition to closing down long-term and intermediate care beds, is actually shutting down and reducing the amount of supports in the system for those who are living independently.

I've just mentioned home supports. I've travelled the province and talked to seniors. Do you know what they've said to me? It makes a person want to cry when this is happening. You know why I'm so passionate about it? I talked to seniors who said to me: "You know what? The government is going to take away my oxygen, oxygen that I've lived on for the last five years from the health services branch" — then because they think that they don't need it, that it's too expensive for them to have this oxygen that they carry with them, as one example.

I have another example of seniors who've said to me that the government is reducing their home services support. They have to choose between cooking, cleaning or shopping. You know what? Seniors said to me, "I don't eat that much. It doesn't matter; I can cook on my own," even though, regularly, when they cook on their own, they forget they've put the food into the oven and they burn their food.

You know what seniors said to me? "I am so old anyway that it doesn't matter. I don't make that much dirt. I don't need to clean." You know what they've opted for with the reduced amount of home support services? They've opted for a bath once a week. That's

It is simply untrue for the minister to sit there and say: "You know what? We're modernizing the system. We're putting more supports out there for people to live independently." It is simply untrue.

The opposition leader and I have travelled the province. We've spoken with seniors who have told us: "Perhaps I'm too old, perhaps I cost the system too much money, and perhaps I shouldn't be here." Is that the message the government and this minister want to give to seniors? That somehow, after they've worked all their lives in building and contributing to our communities…. That somehow in their golden age, when they should just sit down and relax and enjoy life and not feel like they're not relevant to our society anymore…. That the government actually gives them the supports they need without making them feel like they're costing taxpayers too much money…. That's what seniors have said to the opposition leader and myself as we've travelled the province.

Here is the difference with assisted living. Yes, in theory assisted living is supposed to provide a person with all the supports they need to live independently, but the reality of what is happening with the privatization model of this government and this minister is that people cannot do that. There has been research done into exactly those kinds of things.

Under the NDP government, it wasn't that the NDP would not provide for assisted-living support units; rather, we were going to build more assisted-living supports in addition to long-term and intermediate care so that there would be a continuum of services, not sort of do away with and replace long-term and intermediate care facilities. That is the difference between the NDP and the previous administration and the Liberals.

Let me ask the minister this question. I would like to receive the actual breakdown of the 25,000 beds. How many are residential beds, and how many are group homes? That makes a difference. How many are long-term care, and how many are intermediate care? I want to understand what the baselines are in terms of those numbers, and then we can determine whether or not this government is actually doing what they said they would do — that is, build 5,000 additional new intermediate and long-term care beds into the system.

Hon. K. Whittred: I would like to respond to the member opposite's little tirade about the support she believes is disappearing. The profile she gave is exactly the reason that we're introducing assisted living. Assisted living provides exactly the kinds of supports she described.

I would like to read into the record exactly what assisted living is. Assisted living is a housing arrangement that has, first of all, three things. It must have a private locking door. Now that's what makes people feel independent. Do you know that having a locking door with a mailbox makes people feel like they are worthy of being on this earth?

It involves what we call hospitality services — that is, meals and those sorts of things, going out, outings and activities. It involves personal care services — that is, help with mobility, help with bathing, help with dressing and help with transferring. Those are the services that we provide in assisted living.

In addition to that, up to two of what are always classified as care services can be provided. That is assisted living. The evaluations are done by people who are qualified and who make their clinical assessments. There is an appeal process.

I have never in my life heard a senior — and I have talked to a lot — who says: "Gee, I really want to go into a nursing home." Yes, we need that level of service for those who require it, but we need the level of support that enables our seniors to live independently with the quality of life they enjoy.

I have travelled every single inch of this province and probably visited more care homes than I think almost anyone can imagine. The story I hear over and over and over again from people is: "What I really like about this place is that I have my independence."

I met a lady in Prince George. She was actually being interviewed by a reporter. The reporter said: "Mrs. So-and-So, what do you like about your new suite?" She said: "I like my independence." She had her suite. She could go out for her meals. She had her activities. They had card games. She had her personal care attended to. She had all of her needs met, while at the same time had her own home where she could invite her family, invite her grandchildren. That, to her, was quality of life.

I am extremely proud that we have taken the step to say to our seniors that we are going to redesign the system and provide them with the kinds of services that people want and that support their needs.

J. Kwan: The minister can just go on about how great she's doing and how wonderful everything is. The reality is that this government is cutting home support services. You know what? I support community supportive living. I do. I support the concept if the support is there. The problem is that this government is cutting the funding in that area. It's cutting the services.

Seniors have to choose if they want to make a meal, go shopping or have a bath. That is what's happening right now. They have to make a decision and choose between those things. Home support services are being cut. Then, you know what? If you temporarily injure yourself, home support services are simply not available to you. If you've broken your arm or your leg or anything like that, you can't actually get home support services temporarily.

These are some of the fundamental changes this government and this minister have brought in. She can stand in this House and say: "Hooray! How great we're doing." It is absolutely unbelievable.

She did not answer my question. With the 25,000 beds, what is the breakdown for each of the categories?

I put that question back to the minister. In addition, I want the minister to answer this question: what is the breakdown of the beds that have closed in the last two years? How many long-term care beds have shut down? How many intermediate beds have shut down? What are the numbers?

Hon. K. Whittred: In the area of home support I have absolute confidence in the clinicians we have in this province. These are clinical people who make medical decisions based on their observations, using tools that are used not only in this province but in other provinces. The health authorities work to ensure that every single person is assessed according to their needs.

We have introduced a new assessment tool into the province. This was actually started when the previous government was in power. This has been extended across the province to bring some rationale to the assessment of individuals who require home support.

I have every confidence that every single individual is being assessed properly so that there is going to be some kind of level expectation between a person who receives a service in Victoria and one who receives a service in the Kootenays. We have to find ways to ensure that people are evaluated properly. I have every confidence that the clinicians in the field do that.

What we have found is that the number of high-needs clients has in fact gone up. There are more people in the system in home support for people who have higher needs. There are fewer clients being supported at the lower levels, and these people often have community supports in terms of meal programs or other things. What we have done is to ensure that people are targeted for services according to their needs — not according to chronology, not according to a whole bunch of other things.

On the issue of funds, the total budget for community care has increased each year over the past three years. In 2001 it was $1.454 billion; in 2002 it was $1.577 billion; in 2003 it is $1.697 billion. That shows a steady increase over the three terms we have been in office.

J. Kwan: Let me ask the minister again. I don't know how many times I have to ask the minister; she refuses to answer the question. She says 25,000 units exist right now. How many of those are independent living? Sorry. She did give the number for independent living. How many of those are long-term care? How many of those are intermediate care beds? I'm asking those questions of the minister. I'm also asking how many intermediate care beds and long-term care beds have closed in the last two years.

While the minister is looking for the answers for those questions, let me just put on the record here about home support services and the lack thereof and therefore the impacts in the community for our seniors. This is from the Elders Council in the Upper Nicola, in the Okanagan area. I didn't make this up; it's from their website. Let me just quote what they said into the record, at least part of it:

This is just one example of the problems people are faced with. There are other examples in terms of seniors not getting the home support they need.

The issue is not, I don't believe, with the people who do the assessment or their professionalism or knowledge thereof. The issue is the different guidelines the government has come up with and the lack of resources in those areas. The minister says: "Well, we increased the budget." But the budget does not meet the demands. I'm telling the minister that I have met with seniors who've said to me that the government is making them choose between getting home support for someone to give them a bath once a week for an hour or to do the shopping that needs to be done or to cook the food that needs to be done or to do the cleaning that needs to be done around their apartment. Seniors have chosen to take that one hour so they could get a bath. That is what's happening. This is not being made up. That's the reality.

It's not the people who are assessing whether or not those individuals need the care or not. They do. The problem is there is no budget to provide for the service that is required. While the minister can rant on about how wonderful they're doing and how this new concept is providing for and meeting the needs of the seniors out there, the reality doesn't match up. I would be so happy if it did; I would have nothing to say to this minister around this issue if that was the case. But it isn't the case.

I want the minister to answer some simple questions. Would the minister just please provide those numbers I've asked for on the record?

Hon. K. Whittred: An absolutely fundamental component of our redesign is that we are redesigning a system that is based on science and on best practice. That is why all health authorities are mandated to use the improved assessment tool that I mentioned before, the new classification system for clients who require care, whether it be at home, in assisted living or, in fact, in residential care.

We want there to be good scientific practice. We want there to be best practice in terms of caring for

these individuals. Part of this system involves the new assessment tool, which the member opposite knows was piloted when her government was in power. It was piloted in my community on the North Shore. We are simply extending that, as I'm sure her government would have done. This is not something that just fell out of the sky. This is something that any good government would do: base a system on good clinical practice and best evidence. It will result in better planning and better client placement decisions. All health authorities have a plan for implementing the tools in a phased approach, as set out in their performance standards.

The member spoke of not enough being invested in home and community care. I would like to point out that I gave some numbers a few minutes ago that represent a 16.7 percent increase over year 2001. That is a significant increase in the amount of money that has gone into home and community care. That is even greater than the growth in population.

J. Kwan: I don't know how many times I have to ask this minister the same questions over and over and over again. Maybe she's just ragging the puck, hoping that by not answering the question and just ranting on she'll run the clock. Maybe that's what she's trying to do here.

Government members say they want to ask questions at 4:30. You know what? The opposition is not even nearly done. We have barely scratched the surface. At this rate, the minister is never going to answer the question. I've asked I don't know how many times in terms of the breakdown of the numbers on the 25,000 beds, how many of those are long-term care and how many of those are intermediate care.

Why won't the minister answer that question? Why won't the minister put on the record how many beds have shut down in the last two years in terms of intermediate care and long-term care beds? I'm still waiting for the numbers. Does the minister have an answer or not?

Hon. K. Whittred: I apologize, actually. The member asks me so many questions at one time and goes off on so many tangents that it's difficult, sometimes, to remember and respond to all of the questions.

In terms of the beds she asked about, this is an issue of redesign. We are redesigning the system. There are beds closing. We've already discussed that. We have said we did an assessment, and some beds are no longer appropriate for use in this field. They will be closing. Some beds are going to be remodelled; some are going to be downgraded and remodelled for some other purpose; some are going to be improved for complex care. Beds are closing; beds are opening. We've talked about the beds that are opening.

This is an ongoing process, and the commitment is for 2006. This is a process that is ongoing. We have beds that are coming on line. We have new palliative beds. We have new assisted living. We have new supported living arrangements with various kinds of supports. This is an ongoing process that we do not track on a daily basis.

J. Kwan: The minister complains that I have too many questions in one sitting. Then she gets up, and you think she's going to answer the question on the numbers. Then she goes on some rant about her justification for shutting down beds or whatever her new plan is.

I'm not asking for the justification. I'm not asking for the minister's opinion on what she thinks of her plan. I can judge for myself what I think of her plan, thank you very much, so I don't the need the minister to tell me what she thinks. I have my own brain, and I can think for myself. What I need is data and information from this minister so that I can make that assessment.

I'll make it very simple for the minister. Over the last two years, how many intermediate and long-term care beds have shut?

Hon. K. Whittred: We have the information by health authority. We do not have it broken down, however, by care type. I believe that is something the member wanted. We can get that information for you, if you want it.

I can give you the information by health authority. The Fraser health authority has 8,539 beds; the interior health authority has 4,871 beds; the northern health authority has 1,012 beds; the Vancouver coastal health authority has 5,695 beds; and Vancouver Island health authority has 4,980 beds. That is for the year 2001.

J. Kwan: Yes. I would appreciate the minister providing information to the opposition, the breakdown of those beds in terms of their type and then how many have closed as well in terms of the breakdown by type. If the minister will put on record and commit to providing that information to the opposition — I don't know what's reasonable, a month? — within a month's time.

J. Kwan: Then I'll move on in terms of those questions around that. But I do want to put this on the record for the minister, because she talked about home support services, and how she knows of nobody who is not getting the service they need.

As usual, as the debate is going on, the opposition gets information from people who happen to tune into what's going on.

Here's a situation. I'm not going to use the individuals' names, just for their own protection. This person's aunt's home support care has been reduced from two two-hour visits per week to one two-hour visit per week. She apparently didn't receive anything on paper about this but instead was just told of the change by

the contractor who provides the service. This is happening right now in our community with the real, live situation of an individual whose home support is getting cut.

This person is faced with this situation and is also faced with a language challenge, as she speaks only Cantonese. That's why the nephew of this person is writing on his aunt's behalf. This is real. It's not being made up in terms of what the impacts are.

Here's another case. This individual apparently called yesterday, concerned about cuts to long-term care. Her mother is 92 years old. They were unable to get her mother into a home in Richmond — this was a Richmond constituent — so when a bed came up in St. Vincent's, they took it. When a bed came open at Minoru, they couldn't transfer her, because old people often die when they're moved. She's worried about what will happen to her mother if she has to move.

These are live cases. People are watching debates or hearing about it and then they are phoning in.

The reality is this. The issue is not assisted living or whether or not those are viable options. It's one option. The trouble here is that the support that is needed to be in place to make assisted living work as one component of a continuum of care is not available. Hence, people are running into problems with it.

Again, I don't want to hear from the minister about how great a job they are doing, because I have lots of questions for the minister, so I want to move on to ask the minister this question. What is the ministry's opinion on the interior health authority's decision to establish a utilization target of 75 beds per 1,000 people aged 75-plus?

Hon. K. Whittred: First of all, I'm going to respond to the member's first question, which was around home care assessment. Changes in care levels happen all the time, and I cannot, as the minister, comment on specifics to any particular case. If the opposition members wish to forward to me those circumstances, I have told them before that we will look into them at any time.

However, that does not mitigate the fact that we have, as everyone knows, a growing population of seniors. We are offering an array of support services, and these are based on a needs-based assessment. The only way we are going to ensure that all people have adequate access to services is to ensure that the services are granted with some degree of equity and that they are based on science and good clinicians doing fair assessments. I have every reason to believe that the professionals in the field, in fact, do that.

There is also, I should remind the member opposite, an appeal process so that any client who feels that their needs have not been adequately met can respond and can ask for an appeal.

J. Kwan: It's selective listening. I know that's what is going on in here. The issue, as I've mentioned, is not about the professionalism of the people doing the assessment. The issue is the lack of the resources there to provide the support to the seniors who need them.

The cases and the examples I've cited are real, live individuals who are faced with a problem in their community, and they're not getting the support they need. The minister can cheerlead all she wants about how wonderful her new plan is. The reality is this: seniors are not getting the services they need. That's the point I'm trying to get to the minister here. You can say how wonderful you are and your government is, but you know what? It's not helping the seniors who need the services.

I suppose we can belabour this point over and over again. As I said, I've lots of questions to ask the minister, so I want to move on. Actually, I want to clarify one thing. The minister committed she would provide a list of the beds that have closed in the last two years. I would ask the minister to please break down that list in terms of the care facility's name as well as the region and the community it comes from so that we actually know where these are from that point of view. I'm also asking if the minister would also provide a list of pending closures of the intermediate and long-term care beds throughout British Columbia that would be taking place in the next couple of years or so, in the same manner in terms of breaking down by their community and the facilities.

J. Kwan: Then so much for accountability. Is the minister saying no to the last question in terms of the pending closures, or is she saying no to any of the components in terms of what I've asked for?

Hon. K. Whittred: I apologize if the member thought my answer was a little bit brisk. Perhaps I can expand.

The member opposite knows that we are in a planning phase. We are in a phase of redesign. These are designs around very sensitive family matters. We have very carefully put transition guidelines in place. We have put a policy framework in place that health authorities must follow. Quite frankly, it would be premature of any government to share that information

J. Kwan: I get it. So that's the approach. What's happened is this. When seniors are being evicted, thrown out of their homes — and there have been some across the province — and when there are long-term or intermediate care facilities being shut down, they have to be in desperate straits. Then they contact the opposition, and we have to raise the matter in the House in question period. Then maybe the minister will look into it. That has been the pattern so far.

I won't belabour the number of people raised in these matters in the House in terms of specific cases of how it has impacted people. Now the minister says that she's not going to share that information with us; you can only know about it after the fact. You know what? It has been mentioned already and recognized by people that some people have the capacity to say no to this government.

Some people have the capacity to raise these issues, and some people don't, and those people who don't have the capacity are just stuck with it. I've actually come across seniors who are just too afraid to actually say anything and family members who are afraid to say anything. That's the reality of it. In terms of what the government's going to be accountable for in terms of the closures of beds, which we know are going to be coming down the road…. The minister would like to call it "transition." The reality is that people are going to be thrown out of their homes.

The minister won't provide that information. So much for accountability by this government, by this minister, as they committed to in this so-called New Era document that is not even worth the paper it is printed on. It's not worth the paper it's printed on because this government and this minister have no intention of being held accountable by British Columbians for their actions.

I want to clarify. If the minister will not provide information on the pending closures, then I want to go back to this question. Will she provide the information on the long-term care beds and the intermediate care beds that have already closed and then break it down by regions and the number of beds and the names of the facilities so that we actually know what the situation is out there and can judge for ourselves how the minister is doing and not have her judge herself about how great she's doing?

Hon. K. Whittred: In fact, this is not a simple yes or no question. I wish to clarify that we have already said we will share any information with the opposition. In fact, it's very public once it's announced by the health authorities. The health authorities make an announcement, and it is public information. We are happy to share that information.

However, earlier today we heard a very impassioned story from one of my colleagues, who told us about what happens in his community when there is premature information. Families become anxious and residents become anxious. As minister that is very, very unsettling to me. I do not want that kind of anxiety.

I want to make sure that when it's necessary for us to close a facility because it is no longer adequate to meet the needs of people…. I really want to make that clear. We are not closing facilities that are really, really adequate for caring for anyone. We are closing facilities that have hallways too narrow to get a wheelchair down, that have a bathroom so small you can't turn around in it, or that have four-bed wards, which really sort of went out with the ark. We are trying to bring this system into something we can be proud of — all of us as a province and certainly me as the minister.

I want to ensure that the families and the residents have the first knowledge about what is going to happen, and that is why we have been so insistent that there be really, really sound transition plans in place and that there be thorough discussion with families. When all of that is done, then the health authorities will make their public announcement, and the opposition will know that at the same time as the rest of the province.

J. Kwan: The problem here is this. The minister likes to claim she's only shutting down facilities that are no longer feasible for their purposes. Well, I know of a facility in my own community that this government has shut down. That facility had actually received moneys from the previous government to renovate and upgrade, but those moneys were yanked away. No upgrades, and the facility was shut down. That's Cooper Place.

I know of seniors who have been living in these units, in these beds, for over 20 years. The families came and talked to me as their local MLA, and they were in tears, not knowing what the fate of their relatives will be and just beside themselves and worried sick about what will happen. The minister can say how great she's doing, but the reality is that the comfort she says she's concerned about is not being provided to these seniors and their families. That is what's happening.

I asked the minister this question: "What is the minister's opinion on the interior health authority's decision to establish a utilization target of 75 beds per 1,000 people age 75-plus." She has yet to answer that question.

Hon. K. Whittred: First of all, I would like to address the member's first question, which was around Cooper Place. The member is correct. Cooper Place did, in fact, close. It was renovated. I have said before that this is an absolutely good-news story. It has been renovated in accordance with the needs of the people who live in the downtown east side. I understand that it's nearly ready for opening and that they have begun to take applications for residency there. I think that is filed in the category of good news.

Regarding the question around the model for residential care in the interior health authority, I have stated several times in the course of this conversation

today that we are redesigning this system on the basis of sound clinical practice and sound guidelines. The Ministry of Health and the people who work so diligently not only in the ministry but in the interior health authority have been looking to come up with a model that is going to serve us as we try to redesign a system to meet the needs of our seniors for the next half-century. We — people in the interior health authority — have looked at demographics. We have looked at patterns of needs. We know the demographics around how people are aging.

We also know that people are much healthier at certain ages than they were before. We know, for example, that it's becoming increasingly irrelevant, when you talk about seniors, to talk about people at 65. I personally think we should be talking about people at 75 as seniors.

We talk about care changes, the kinds of things we know keep people healthy. We used to put people in bed for weeks after surgery. We now know that if you get people up and walking, they're going to recover. I know from my own experience…. In North Vancouver, in the community where I live, my hospital designed a system where seniors actually have a separate intake. The reason for that was they learned that, hey, when you take a senior in and put them on a gurney and put them in the emergency ward…. They were perfectly healthy, with some little complaint, when they came in. After you leave them there for many hours, they're sick, and you've got a real problem. We've learned these things, and we've documented these things.

Out of all of this we designed models. This is not just happening in B.C. This is something that the ministry is working on with colleagues across the country to come up with some sort of model, some sort of guideline that's going to give us some insight, some guidance around planning not only for now but for the future. Remember that one of our commitments is to have not only an immediate plan but a ten-year plan. This is the kind of model we want. We want this model not to be based on people's opinions, and certainly not on the opinions of a minister who, in fact, used to be a school teacher, not a medical person. We want it to be based on good, sound medical evidence and best practices in medicine.

Out of all of that, the interior health authority has put forth a suggestion of a model. They think 75 beds per thousand for a population over 75 is about right. In fact, in rural areas it's 82½ beds per thousand, and that is for residential care only. That's only for complex care clients. That does not include supportive living or assisted living. The assisted-living component, which is for all those intermediate care people at the lower end of the care spectrum, is not included in that number. In fact, when that number is included, it's more like 100 beds per thousand.

J. Kwan: Let's cut to the quick. The minister likes to ramble on about stuff, but let's just cut to the quick on this.

The interior health authority, in their new target, is planning to reduce 1,555 residential care beds during a two-step process with this new target of 75-plus. That's what will happen. That means there will be 1,555 fewer residential care beds in the community.

As the minister acknowledged herself, we have an aging population. We have people who have more needs. At the same time, what we're seeing in the so-called transition or redesign plan is that there'll be fewer services in the community. We've already gone through the whole notion of independent living and the lack of home support services there. That's the reality.

The minister will just shirk her responsibility by saying: "You know what? It wasn't me who made the decision on whether or not an individual needs home support services. Some other professionals made that decision." I've already said the issue is not with the professionals but rather it's the government's lack of resources and support in those areas that's causing the problem. That is the reality of what is happening now.

The minister says she likes to be scientifically based. Let me ask the minister this question. Does the minister have information broken down health authority by health authority on the mortality rates in long-term care facilities for the last couple of years?

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes. Over the last few years there have been huge changes in how we deliver medicine.

Let me just comment for a minute on the acute care sector. Acute care beds have dropped enormously over the last ten, 15, 20 years. In fact, they dropped when that member's government was in power. Why have they dropped? Well, they have dropped because we have improved pharmaceuticals. We've learned, for example, that we have the ability to provide day surgery. If I go back many years to when I had my gallbladder out, I spent seven days in the hospital. Today people have it done, and they go home the same day.

We have the ability to monitor at home. I have seen wonderful demonstrations of telehealth models. For example, in congestive heart failure we can monitor things. We have all sorts of examples about how medicine is changing.

The same is true in long-term care. It would seem to me that the opposition is saying let's just keep it the same as it always was; let's not change anything. Well, I'm afraid that isn't good enough for the twenty-first century. Today, in terms of long-term care we have transitional care for people who, for example, have some sort of acute episode and need some transitional care before being put back in their homes. We have convalescent care. We have respite where many, many…. In fact, the majority of care is done by families, but sometimes families need a break, and we have respite to give the families a little bit of a break.

We have day clinics. We have a wonderful day care, for example, in my community, and I know that many communities have. We have geriatric assessment

centres where people go and are assessed, and their needs are looked after. We have hospice beds for people who are at the end of their life and where people can enjoy, to the greatest ability and the greatest quality, the end of life, whatever weeks and months they may have. We have the ability to have what is called hospital at home, which is 24-hour home care and response. These are the changes that are in the system.

Now, you asked about mortality rate. There has been no change in the mortality rate over the last six years.

Hon. K. Whittred: I will read these authority by authority. In 1996-97 the average provincial rate was 21.8 percent, the interior was 22.3 percent, Fraser was 21.9, Vancouver coastal was 20.5, Vancouver Island was 23.7, and the north was 18.2.

Hon. K. Whittred: All right, then, I'll jump up to 1999. The average provincial rate was 22.1, the interior was 23.4, Fraser was 20.9, Vancouver coastal was 20.6, Vancouver Island was 25 percent, and the north was 20 percent.

In the year 2000-01, which is the most recent statistics, the average provincial rate was 22.3. The interior was 24 percent, the Fraser was 21.4, Vancouver coastal was 21.5, Vancouver Island was 23.8, and the northern health authority was 19.

Hon. K. Whittred: I'm told that this is the way that mortality rates are expressed.

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, these rates are tracked by Vital Statistics. They are very carefully monitored by the provincial health officer. It is part of the provincial health officer's job to monitor the rates and to intervene if he notices anything out of the ordinary.

J. Kwan: Do the health authorities have any guidelines and policies that they have developed to mitigate the negative impacts of moving seniors from one facility to another?

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, the policy has been developed by the ministry. It is a policy framework that I have alluded to before. The individual placement plan must be developed in full consultation with the client and/or the family. The requirement to assess residents' needs and evaluate the suitability of facility preferences selected by the resident must be taken into account. The provision-of-care options for residents to identify residential care or assisted-living preferences that meet their needs is something that all health authorities must follow.

Of course, I would like to add that in addition to the policy, I also have confidence, once again, in the very qualified health care professionals that work in the field who know the residents and work with the elderly people. I have every confidence that they prepare individuals with the greatest of skill and compassion.

J. Kwan: First, could the opposition get a copy of the policy that the minister has just referred to? That's my first question. My second question is: have any of the health authorities developed their own set of guidelines or policies arising from the information they've received from the Ministry of Health?

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, the health authorities had input into the development of the policy, and we're happy to share that policy with the member opposite.

The policy is provincial and, as I say, there was broad consultation with the health authorities in developing that policy. The procedure and implementation of that policy would be done at the institution level, so it would be the job of the people who work in a particular facility to develop the procedures to actually make this policy a reality.

J. Kwan: Do each of the health authorities have their own set of policies for their facilities to determine how a person would be moved? Do they use the information they've received from the minister, and then develop their own set of policies, guidelines and procedures in terms of transferring seniors from facility to facility? If that's the case, could the opposition receive copies of those so that we can see what those guidelines are?

Hon. K. Whittred: I am not personally aware of any local policies. The standard, of course, would be that any policy would have to meet or beat the provincial policy that is in place. We will be happy to canvass the health authorities, if the member opposite wishes and share that information with her. This would be public information. If she wishes it, we will do that.

J. Kwan: Yes, we would like to receive any information. The issue here is this: there's a broad policy that the ministry has produced, and then of course there's what's happening on the ground and how those policies translate into procedures and action. I would like to see how the health authorities are implementing this policy that the minister has put in place.

As I've known in the last number of years from working in different areas, oftentimes the government may well have a set of policies or intentions. Some-

times when that gets translated on the ground, it's a completely different story. So I would like to receive the procedural steps of transfers of seniors and how it's taking place in each of the health authorities accordingly.

Could the minister also advise whether or not the health authorities have comprehensive transition plans for implementing the new-era commitments on home and community plans? I know the minister had asked the health authorities to produce those. Does the minister have that information now, and if so, could the minister just briefly outline each of the health authorities' transition plans and then provide the opposition with actual copies of these documents?

Hon. K. Whittred: I have made the point many, many times today that we are a ministry that wants to work on evidence and on good solid medical practice and best practice. The same is true of the mandate we've given the health authorities. It is the health authorities' job to actually row the boat, as my colleague likes to say. We mandate the health authorities to implement the health services. We set the policy.

In response to her question, it is the job of the health authorities to have their plans and to do this within the policies we set, but no, we do not ask them to submit to us everything they do.

J. Kwan: I don't know where the minister is coming from with that answer. I asked the minister if the minister herself had asked the health authorities to provide and produce comprehensive transition plans for the implementation of the new-era commitment on home and community plans. I asked how that's going. Where is it? Is it there? Does the minister have it? I would like to see it. I think British Columbians would like to see it.

Now the minister says: "Hey, you know what? Don't worry. Everything is fine, and I have every faith that the health authorities will do their job." Perhaps. But actually here's a recent case, May 15, 2003:

The minister can say, "Everything is fine; don't worry; we trust the health authorities to do their job," but the reality is that this is just recent, what is happening with the couple. The court case just said: "Yes, it's the government, the minister, who is politically and legally responsible."

I'd like to see the transition plans. I'd like to see how it's going. How is it being implemented on the ground? What are the procedural rules? The reality, it seems to me, is that people are having problems with this. I'd like the minister to respond to that.

Hon. K. Whittred: I think I misunderstood the member's previous question a little bit. Yes, I would be quite pleased to provide her with the transition policies of the government for each of the health authorities.

I would like to spend a moment on this issue that the member has raised as it relates to the couple in Atlin, because it's an issue that I'm very familiar with. I would like to take this opportunity to address this issue around couples, which has certainly arisen from time to time and which has been of great concern to me.

In October 2001 there were, in fact, very few couples that resided together in residential care facilities. We have to understand that it's very unusual for two people, no matter how long they've lived together or been married, to have the same kind of care needs. A far more cumbersome and realistic problem to deal with is couples where one person is ill and the other is fairly well. That is the more obvious and more common scenario.

In 2001 there were 306 couples living together. In all, there were about 6,500 married people where one person was in care and the other person was living at home. That gives you a little bit of an idea of the scope of the problem.

Specifically, to deal with the issue of the couple in Atlin, the last word that I had was that the gentleman was in a care home. In fact, he was originally in hospital in Whitehorse, and he had had an acute episode. He was being cared for. He was taken to Whitehorse because that was the nearest facility. His wife was also taken. She was placed in an apartment, and she was very near to him. I gather that the goal of the northern health authority is to try to find now a supportive liv-

ing arrangement where they can discharge the gentleman from hospital and where they can be together.

This is complicated, of course. They live in this very isolated community. I believe that the northern health authority has worked very hard at finding a resolution to this. The province of B.C. is footing the bills for this because that is the reciprocal agreement we have with other provinces and territories.

J. Kwan: On another case, this is Williams Lake. Recently, on April 28, 2003, there was a public meeting. A group of people, the Williams Lake health care coalition, got together and had these thoughts: keep the existing facilities open, renovate the existing facilities as required, new facilities should include successorship rights for employees, the community recognizes the need for more capacity, the IHA and Retirement Concepts are moving too quickly with their plans, expand existing facilities rather than build a new MLF, preference be given to Cariboo contractors, add additional floors to Deni House to accommodate required increase in capacity, and a private model may have lower standards of care.

Then they also have other thoughts. Boitanio Park should not be used as a site for the MLF. The site next to the Laughing Loon is not acceptable. Too many unanswered questions regarding privatization. New facilities should be in addition to what we really have so seniors are not forced to move. Upgrade existing facilities to the new requirements set down by government. The city of Williams Lake should create advisory committees on health issues in the community. The IHA should consult with the front-line workers and the homeworkers. The IHA should not discipline workers who are speaking out on behalf of seniors. The community should be the driving force before any changes to seniors housing. Keep existing staff and maintain high standards of care.

This is a summary of the general consensus arising from this meeting in terms of the changes in that community.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. What is the consultation process with respect to the changes in this community and the changes with proposed closures and replacements of the existing facilities?

Hon. K. Whittred: One of my very first assignments was to go to Williams Lake, where I had the pleasure of turning the first sod on one of the new assisted-living facilities that is being built there.

The member opposite mentioned that there had been some ongoing meetings and so on within the community of Williams Lake. I am very aware of those meetings, and I think those, in fact, are an example of democracy in action. I think there has been some very lively debate in the community of Williams Lake.

I also know that there has been active participation by the interior health authority. We heard earlier from my colleague from Kamloops–North Thompson. He asked a question about why the interior health authority had made so many of its announcements so early. Well, I guess one side of that coin is that it did cause some consternation. The other side of that coin was that it did give opportunity for communities to become engaged. Certainly, we have seen communities become engaged, and the end result of that engagement….

I know there have been votes by city council. In fact, I read something in the clips today about that. I must say that I can't recall the exact outcome of last night's Williams Lake council meeting, but it was over the rezoning of the land to build a brand-new facility.

I'm really pleased to say that the process is working. At the end of this, what's important is that the senior citizens in Williams Lake are going to have not only a brand-new long-term care facility, they're also going to have a variety of assisted-living and supportive housing options — to say nothing of increased, enhanced community programs. I think that is really good news.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that she went up to Williams Lake and actually opened a facility up there, and she talks about how great it is, but you know what? Those facilities were put together before the minister actually got involved. Maybe all the members of this government should keep it in mind, when they talk about opening housing projects and such in the early months of their tenure, that those facilities were actually put together by people other than this government. Maybe the minister would like to keep that in mind.

The issue here is this, with respect to Williams Lake. The community actually has a lot of issues and concerns. They don't feel that they've been consulted. They don't feel that they're getting the answers they need. I am asking about the consultation process that the health authority ought to be embarking on, to which the minister did not answer the question. The coalition — that is, the concerned community — is putting these public meetings together, not the health authorities. They're not responding to the people. They have a host of questions they're still awaiting answers on.

These are the questions. Let me ask the minister these questions, and maybe she will provide the information to me so that I can provide information to the folks up there. These questions have been asked to both Retirement Concepts Limited and the interior health authority, and as yet the information has not been received. In fact, they have actually FOI'd the information, and they still have not received the information, so let me ask these questions.

What is the definition of personal care? I'm going to read all the questions, and the minister can just answer each of them in turn. I see there are staff preparing to note down the questions: the definition of personal care, the definition of weekly housekeeping, the definition of other amenities, the maximum rent payable under the 70 percent of income rule and the minimum rent payable under the 70 percent of income rule.

Let me just pause for a moment here with respect to the 70 percent of income rule. The minister actually

announced in the Legislature a few months ago that rents in assisted living would be no more than 70 percent of the senior's income. The minister, of course, failed to explain what the minimum and maximum amounts are, so I would like the minister to provide that information.

The other question is on the details of the subsidy programs for low-income seniors, including qualification criteria and, finally, rent control information.

K. Krueger: As the minister knows, about a year ago the interior health authority made a decision to end the funding for chaplaincy services in the hospitals where it existed throughout the IHA. There were three chaplains' positions, as I understand it. Later, one of them was reinstated because of an arrangement that had been made with the Catholic Church some time in the distant past, but the Kelowna and Kamloops chaplains remained in a position of no longer being funded by the IHA. The IHA did eventually agree to allow the chaplain to return to work at Royal Inland, but he has been funded by the community through a fundraising effort ever since.

While the opposition member is out of the room, I thought that I'd put this question to the Minister of Health Services. We had been hoping that when the federal money was finalized, as it recently was, that some of those funds would be directed to spiritual care and palliative care. I'm wondering if that is a possibility.

Hon. C. Hansen: Every health authority in the province, I think, has a huge challenge trying to manage its cost pressures. At the same time, a challenge that is not new to hospitals and health authorities in the province is how to make sure they have the right professionals there to provide care that is of value to the communities. Those are difficult decisions, because there are never enough dollars in a budget to do everything.

In some communities there would be a real benefit from an increase in chaplaincy positions. In other communities there might be a benefit from an increase in certain specialty positions — for example, surgical specialties. The health authorities have that challenge of trying to determine how they meet those often-conflicting demands that are put on the system.

Some health authorities have approached this differently. There are certainly some funded chaplaincy positions in the province. The member is quite right. In those communities in the interior, there was a decision made to phase out those positions.

The federal dollars are not going to be the panacea to the challenges that we have in the health care system for a couple of reasons. First of all, there's simply not enough money to meet those demands, and secondly, they do come with certain strings attached. We're still trying to sort out exactly what some of those strings mean around the accountabilities there.

Some of the federal reform moneys are earmarked for post-acute care and palliative care. We still don't know exactly how that's going to be defined, and that's being worked out now in discussions with the federal government.

I know there's been some tremendous efforts in Kamloops by the community to raise money to sustain that chaplaincy position. Certainly, I would be quite willing to assist in any way I can with those community efforts to try to assist in raising the dollars necessary at the community level to try to provide for continuity in that regard.

K. Krueger: I think everyone in the community appreciates that there never is enough money. Also, we've made it clear that the funding for the chaplain equates to the funding for a dozen hip or knee replacements. These are difficult questions that the people who have been put in positions of authority obviously have to determine.

Spiritual care must have some level of priority in a hospital organization, in a health authority. Royal Inland Hospital, I would submit, is unique in that many of the patients there are from outside the region — that is, they don't live there. It's the third busiest trauma centre in British Columbia, so a lot of the people who end up as patients in Royal Inland were hurt on the highways that converge at Kamloops. When they find themselves in hospital, they don't have a support network locally. Their family isn't there; they don't have a church or a pastor. The chaplaincy for them and for their families is an absolutely vital service.

The doctors in Kamloops are tremendously supportive of the chaplaincy program. They sent us a petition that I believe was signed by every doctor in Kamloops. All the heads of the various departments at Royal Inland came together and asked me to meet with them. They put it to me that this chaplain's services are irreplaceable and that they are neither trained nor do they have the time to provide the services. He is a tremendous support for them and the families and patients that they deal with.

Apparently, we didn't put a standard for spiritual care in the measurements that we have for health authorities. I wonder if that is being considered or could be considered, and if funding from the federal commitment is directed to palliative care, if it wouldn't be a reasonable time to add a standard to measure health authorities by with regard to spiritual care.

Hon. C. Hansen: We certainly rely on the health authorities to determine the appropriate mix of professionals and caregivers, including spiritual care, that they think is necessary to meet needs. There are different models around the province as to how spiritual care needs are met. I think we need to explore some of those models, and I would certainly undertake to continue to work with the member to see if we can't achieve that goal.

Hon. K. Whittred: The member asked what was actually a several-part question. I'll try to take it one by

one. First of all, I think the member opposite made reference to a freedom-of-information request. That is beyond our control, and it will, I assume, be forthcoming at some point.

Now, the definition of personal care is, in fact, in the act. Personal care services means those services that assist a person with the activities of daily living and specific nursing and rehabilitation tasks delegated under the provincial personal assistance guidelines. Related skills include transferring, moving around safely and assistance with personal hygiene, bathing, dressing, grooming, eating and managing medications. That is the definition given.

The next was what is meant by weekly housekeeping and other amenities. This is something that the registrar, in consultation with all the stakeholders in the field, including the health authorities, the people who work in facilities, families probably, a broad spectrum of organizations — public, private, non-profit — will actually work out. The registrar will be appointed very shortly.

In general, the weekly housekeeping includes cleaning, linen, bed-making. Amenities would include social and recreational programs as well as a 24-hour emergency response.

Then the question was around the minimum and maximum rents. This is based on 70 percent of someone's income. The maximum rent that anyone would pay is $2,440 per month. That would be on an income of more than $60,000 a year. The minimum rent would be $714 a month. That would be based on the income of a person earning $12,240, which is old age and GIS. I should add that with the higher number, there may be a bit of change in that because it's based on different zones, what the rent is in an area. The numbers I gave you are the numbers we have on our chart.

The other question was around rent controls. I think that is not an issue. These are set rents according to income. I don't see where it is even applicable.

J. Kwan: I would like to go back and canvass some of the components of the answers that the minister has provided, but let me ask the other question around subsidy programs. Are there subsidy programs in place for the seniors?

Hon. K. Whittred: The whole program is subsidized, so the numbers I gave the member are all numbers that would be subsidized. Clients living in publicly subsidized assisted-living residences will pay one monthly charge for housekeeping, hospitality and personal care services based on their income. There will be a maximum rate set for high-income clients that reflects local market prices for assisted-living services. This means that clients will still be left with sufficient income to allow them to purchase other necessary items.

J. Kwan: So that one number the minister cites in terms of the cost for the individual would include lunch, dinner and all the personal care, which would be night checks, incontinence care, medication assistance — these are just some examples that I'm putting out — helping the person get out of bed, get dressed, take their meals, etc. Would those all be categorized under personal care?

Then housekeeping, as the minister had mentioned, covered three things that she had talked about. Presumably, then, anything to do with generally keeping a place liveable — clean and safe — would all be covered under housekeeping.

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes. The member was asking what the amount of money covers. One of the goals we had in mind when we developed this program is we wanted it to be simple. We wanted it to be simple to understand. There is one amount that is paid, and that amount is based on income. No person pays more than 70 percent of their income for the services. I'll just go over those services again.

The first service is the housing, so it includes the suite. The second service is the cluster of services around hospitality, which includes two meals a day, one of which must be the main nutritious meal; housekeeping, which I've already defined as cleaning linen, making beds, laundry service; social and recreational opportunities; and a 24-hour emergency response. Then the third cluster of services is the personal care services, which would be personal hygiene, bathing, dressing, grooming, eating and perhaps managing medications.

There are three clusters of services that comprise assisted living. For those clusters of services the client will pay 70 percent of their income.

V. Anderson: Following up on that discussion, I find in the community that there's some confusion in assisted living, but it's gradually getting sorted out. Where I find the most misunderstanding is in home care. A person is living by themselves. At what point do they begin to become eligible for home care? How do they go about it? What is it? Suddenly, they're not able to get meals or not able to look after themselves or not able to clean the house. We have hundreds of people in different categories of this home care. What is it that's really covered by home care as far as the ministry is concerned? How do they go about it? This is the area where I find the greatest confusion.

Related to that is that a lot of these persons now go to some help, either to a neighbour or to a seniors centre nearby. The seniors centre, in the past, had programs that kind of complemented these people in their home care — a meal during the week, or different things. They were a complement, helping a person to not yet need assisted living.

Assisted living is when you can no longer stay at home. What resources and opportunities do we have to help people to stay at home before they are required, out of necessity, to go into assisted living? Do we wish them to stay at home as long as they can, or do we wish them to move into assisted living as soon as possible?

Those are the two extremes. Can you help us to understand and help the community to understand how we work between those two extremes?

Hon. K. Whittred: We know, and I certainly know you agree, that our goal is to keep people independent and in their homes as long as possible. In order to do that, we do rely on community services. I am delighted when I hear people say that so-and-so goes to the seniors centre and that they have activities. They play games and they have sports. Many, many seniors centres have meal programs. Nutrition is one of the fundamental bedrocks of seniors care. Having social interaction is another one of the bedrocks of seniors care.

Governments can't do everything themselves. If communities can be engaged in providing opportunities for those sorts of services, then I think that is really something we want to commend and encourage communities to do.

On the more specific issue of home support and what does a client do if they think they need home support, in the community, if you have a neighbour that you think needs home support, the first thing you would do is contact your local health authority and ask for that person to be assessed. One thing about home and community care is that anyone can ask for an assessment. Doctors are not necessarily the gatekeepers of this particular part of health care. Any individual…. If you have a neighbour and you think that person just isn't managing anymore, you can ask them to come and do an assessment.

I've stressed over and over today that we are really trying to build a system that is going to be able to care for this large number of seniors coming on board and that is going to be based on needs, and so we're looking for assessments that are valid and that are based on good, sound evidence. Then based on that assessment, of course, the worker will determine the needs of the client.

I suspect the member opposite was also alluding a little bit to some changes that have been made recently in different parts of the province. I'd like to address that, because it has a bit of history to it. Actually, it started in 1994 when the previous government made some changes in policy around home care, basically changing it so that home care services were delivered to the more needy clients and determining that valuable health care dollars are probably not well spent on housekeeping.

Over time, that particular policy was very unevenly implemented across the province. Vancouver Island, for example, implemented it right away. Other areas didn't implement it at all. Remember that there were 52 health authorities across the province, and there was in fact very unequal implementation of that policy.

This certainly did not start with us; there were other changes made in '97. We in fact have continued, once we got the five geographic health authorities, with that pattern of ensuring that health care dollars in fact are spent appropriately on clients who need health care. The basic rule of thumb is that home cleaning services, or homemaking services, are given but in emergency situations — in instances of respite, for example, or in instances where the worker determines that the client would in fact end up in institutional care if they were not given the services. There are a number of sort of subjective opinions that come into that assessment, based on the person's clinical observations.

R. Lee: My question actually is related similarly to home care. We know that sometimes it's difficult to see what type of responsibility the home care workers has. For example, recently I received a call saying that an old-age person is not qualified for an oxygen supplement, yet the oxygen level in her body is marginal. If a home care worker is called in, they probably…. According to regulation, the claim is that she cannot turn on the oxygen tank if there's an oxygen tank in the house. For this specific question, I would like see what are the regulations regulating what home care workers can or cannot do.

Hon. K. Whittred: This gets to be little bit complicated, because it deals with what's often called in the field the scope of practice of the various practitioners. Oxygen is a drug, so it's treated like a drug in medicine. If a patient is on oxygen and if the home worker is a registered nurse and there needs to be some intervention, the nurse could call the doctor and operate according to the doctor's instruction. If the home support worker is simply a home support worker who is not trained as a nurse — many of them are trained as residential aid workers or actual home care workers — she would not have the ability to intervene. If it was an emergency, her instruction would be to call 911 or to call emergency or report back through her supervisor, who would take the appropriate action.

R. Lee: My second question is on the regional and capital spending. My understanding is that there are some funding allocations for supporting non-profit organizations so that they can build assisted-living facilities. For example, Dania Home, a non-profit organization in my riding, would like to expand their facilities. My question is: what kind of help is there for non-profit organizations so that they can help to fulfil the ministry's mandate to expand the facilities for long-term care?

Hon. K. Whittred: There are actually a couple of ways. One is, of course, that the health authorities in their bed planning will be putting out requests for proposals. In this case, if it's your community, it would be the Fraser health authority. Any non-profit is eligible to bid on those, in which case they would get the assistance of B.C. Housing.

B.C. Housing doesn't actually give them the money. What B.C. Housing does is help them to get the funding and to arrange their mortgage. That is the way it is

done, and it's the way it's always been done. There are a variety of programs out there — amongst them, of course, the Independent Living B.C. program, which we are partnering through the Health ministry and the health authorities with B.C. Housing.

The other way for non-profits to be involved is simply to go ahead without government intervention, in that non-profits frequently have assets. You mentioned Dania Home. I know that they certainly have assets. They, like any other business, can simply go to the bank and borrow the money, get a mortgage and proceed with their renovations. I know that in my own community there is an organization right now that's doing that. They have some seniors supportive housing and they want to add more, so they mortgage one part of it to build the new.

We certainly want to encourage this. I mean, this is one of our goals. Something I do on a daily basis, almost, is encourage not only non-profits but also others. Hey, let's get out there, and let's see what we can do for our communities. Every single project does not necessarily have to involve government money. There are many, many things that organizations can do on their own.

R. Lee: Thank you very much for that answer, but sometimes they need the health authority to commit the number of funded beds for those organizations so that they can have a budget to see how much of the income is from the health authority and how much they spend on the building of facilities. Sometimes they need the commitment from the health authority in order to start those projects.

My other question actually is on the additional funding from the federal government. Recently, there was $319 million in additional federal funding for health care. My question is: how much is available to your ministry for intermediate, long-term and home care?

Hon. K. Whittred: On the first question, which was around the funded beds, the suggestion is that non-profits like the guarantee of the funded beds before they go to the bank. Yes, we're very aware of that. However, I still go back to what I said before, that if they want only funded beds, then they are restricted to responding to the RFP process.

In your case, when the Fraser health authority comes out with RFPs, they can respond because that RFP will be about funded beds. I re-emphasize once again that there is another way, and I want to get everybody onside with this. This is where I'm really working hard with non-profits. I want them to get onside and realize that particularly when they own land, there's a lot of possibility for them to go ahead and build supportive living arrangements that are going to be not necessarily at the very lowest rent level but that are going to be at a level that a large number of people in the community could afford.

I think we really need projects like that in the marketplace, so I would be happy if everybody took that message back to their constituents.

Regarding the federal money, the $319 million, this is really not a question for me to answer because I am not a ministry. I share the budget for the Ministry of Health Services. The money that is coming in is, as I said, $319 million. There is an expectation around the health reform fund and the planning that's going around it that a portion of that is expected to be spent on home care. The dialogue around that is still ongoing. It's between various provinces, and the definitions and expectations are still being worked out.

It's still a work in progress. You may want to refer to Hansard, or you may want to ask the Minister of Health Services more directly those budget questions.

J. Nuraney: As we are moving into the implementation of this new model of taking care — which is, specifically, home care, assisted living and then long-term care…. I would suspect that we will see over time as this model begins to take effect that those people, or clients as we call them, who end up in the long-term facilities would be needing intensive care. The others who are there right now needing some care would then move into the assisted-living model, and those clients who would be left in the long-term care would, in my opinion, be needing really intensive care. Is there any plan in the ministry to review the compensation for the service deliverers on that issue?

Hon. K. Whittred: I thank the member for his question, because it's a good one. He is in fact correct. As we move to the model where only the sickest people are in residential care, their needs, of course, are greater. That's why we call it complex care.

Yes, the health authorities are addressing the funding of those beds, and we're aware of that issue.

J. Nuraney: My last question, then, would be specifically for Burnaby. Is there any specific plan, in terms of demography, as to where the Fraser health authority is planning to increase the capacity of assisted living, home care and complex care in the area of Burnaby?

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, in Burnaby, as the member knows, there are already new assisted living spaces that opened up at Dania Home and at Nikkei House. There are still another 200 to allocate. I am not aware of exactly where that is in the process, but there are 200 allocated to that area.

Also, I should just remind the member — I know he knows — that in that community, there's been the new hospice beds at St. Michael's as well as the new tertiary hospice beds that have opened at the Burnaby General Hospital. I really do want to commend the Fraser health authority, because they are the first health authority that's really been very imaginative about providing a range of alternatives around end-of-life care. I'm very, very proud of the health authority in that respect.

J. Nuraney: The minister raises the point about the hospice care that has been built in Burnaby — an excellent program that is. I think the minister had the pleasure of opening it only a year ago. Some of the concerns with that project, as well, are that it is one of a kind and the first one of its kind, so the original budgets that were made, they now find, in practical terms are way out of line. The actual expenditure in order for these units to be maintained is totally different than what was anticipated, because it was the first of its kind in offering that kind of service.

Is the minister aware that there are those very serious concerns about meeting their budgetary responsibilities?

Hon. K. Whittred: Yes, I'm very aware of the situation at St. Michael's. In fact, I thank the member for bringing it to my attention and raising the issue here. The issue, of course, is between the Fraser health authority and St. Michael's society. I'm not sure if that's the absolute correct name. I know that the two are working together. I think that sometimes what happens is when a program is the first out of the gate, perhaps the funding is not totally realistic, as you suggested. I'm hopeful that it will be worked out between the society and the Fraser health authority.

It is now a quarter to six, and I can't help but state this on record. I cannot tell you and express to the minister and to the government how frustrating this whole process has been. I want to make it very clear for the members on the government side who have been asking questions of the minister that they have very good questions, and they deserve to have the floor to ask those questions. I know more of them have additional questions for the minister.

Hence, here's the problem. On May 15, Thursday, the Government House Leader moved the following motion: "I seek unanimous leave of the House to permit Section A of the Committee of Supply to sit and consider a portion of vote 29 relating to the estimates of the Minister of State for Mental Health and the estimates of the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care at the same time that the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services are being considered in Section B, and that an official record be kept of the debates in Section A."

Unanimous leave was granted to the House, and then what happened that day? Simultaneously in the big House and the small House Health Services estimates were being dealt with. The Minister of Health Services and my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Leader of the Opposition were in the big House. I then came into the small House to engage in debate with the Minister of State for Mental Health and then, when we were done with that, with the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care.

I was in here and started debate with the Minister of State for Mental Health when I got called out by one of my staff. We'd been advised by the Government House Leader that he would prefer for the opposition to not ask questions of the ministers at this time and to wait until this last Monday, yesterday. In the spirit of cooperation, the opposition agreed, and I yielded the floor to the government members to ask questions of the ministers. Shortly after lunch — 2 o'clock, after the House resumes — this House did not sit, and questions were not asked from the government members to the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of State of Intermediate and Long Term Care. We now have closure brought upon us today by this government and not with unanimous agreement from the opposition.

I have a binder full of questions to ask, and I only got through a fraction of them. We have no more time left to ask these pertinent questions of the minister. The House is being shut down at 6 o'clock, so there will be no more debate for the Health Services ministry and its estimates. Approximately 40 percent of the budget is to be spent, and there's no more time for the opposition to canvass questions with the ministers responsible for their areas.

I sat there actually appreciating the government members getting up to ask their questions. They have every right to. But it is this government and the House Leader who are precluding and limiting debate just because they can do it, because they have the majority to ram it through. Where is the accountability?

I am frustrated, Madam Chair. I'm very frustrated because this government campaigned on accountability and openness and transparency. They said they would talk to the public and respond to them. There's a process in this Legislature to allow for that to happen, and that is for members of this House to ask the minister questions, including opposition members. That's not happening right now, not at all.

The government at every turn, through the House Leader, tried to prevent the opposition from doing their job. Mind you, there are only the two of us. There are only two opposition members to ask questions. It's not like we can actually ask questions for days on end without stopping. The Energizer Bunny can only last so long. But no, the government has to bring in time limits to stop that debate, even when at every turn we cooperated and yielded the floor to the government members to ask the questions. Then the Government House Leader deems it fit to not call the House even though the opposition said: "Yes, we will break the rules and allow for both Houses simultaneously to engage in Health Services debate at the same time."

It is a shocking, shocking mockery of democracy. That's what this government is all about. I find it astounding that government members would let that happen. Why wouldn't they go to the Government House Leader and say: "No. Recall the House last Thursday in the afternoon and let debate go on. In fact, change the motion that's been passed now and allow

for this House to continue to sit, so that we can continue to ask questions"? That is not the case.

I am just speechless, quite honestly, with the conduct of this government, with the shame that they bring to the democratic process and with the arrogance that the House Leader shows for the work that needs to be done in this Legislature. I am just speechless. I cannot believe what a mockery this government has made of this institution. It is absolutely shameful.

J. Kwan: Actually, no. I wouldn't want a response to it, because we only have five minutes left, and I actually have more work to do here. But I had to express how I feel. I cannot express how frustrated I am with all of this. It's just shocking.

This person has contacted the opposition, and she has a dire situation. I have to put these questions on the record for the minister. Sylvia Paulino suffers from MS, secondary progression, and used to receive a temporary reduction of client rates for her bath assist. The total she paid last year was $7.73 for once a week. She was reapproved initially after this year's assessment; however, she was later contacted by her co-worker's supervisor and told she was no longer eligible for the rate reduction. The new total she was quoted for services was $25.33. She has appealed to the Fraser health authority and the Ministry of Health Services to explain why her subsidy has dropped, but she has yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

In her estimation, her income this year is about the same as or even slightly less than it was last year, yet, somehow, she no longer qualifies for the same level of rate reduction. She has been unable to obtain a copy of the ministry's policy on rate reduction from either the FHA or the Ministry of Health. She wants to ask the following questions.

How is the temporary reduction of client rate established? Why are letters from health professionals not given weight in deciding who receives the reduction? Sylvia apparently has letters from three different doctors stating that she requires bath assist. What policy changes have there been from this year to last? Will the government be using any of the new federal money to go towards home care?

Sylvia was also told that the FHA made an exception for her last year. She did not qualify for the subsidy, but she received one anyway. She believes this policy is unfair and discriminatory to other disabled people. Certain people should not receive preferential treatment. Is it ministry policy to bend the rules for certain people? How is this fair?

The continuing-care staff also wanted Sylvia to reprioritize her income so she could afford to pay more for the bath assist, although Sylvia's net income may place her in a category able to pay $25.33 per month. No one has taken into account the expenses arising from her MS, including physiotherapy, medical supplements and a specialized van to enable her to travel. Do the regulations on continuing-care policy take into account the amount of income that people with disabilities often must spend on services pertaining to their disability? I'd like the minister to answer these questions for Sylvia.

Hon. C. Hansen: Just before my colleague rises to answer these specific questions, I did want to put on the record a response to the member's comments about time allocation. I think the member knows how the parliamentary calendar works, knows how time allocation works. The time allocation that was determined for the Ministry of Health estimates was made after consultation with opposition staff. There was clearly an indication through staff members, as I understand it, with regard to how much additional time opposition members needed in order to complete their questioning.

I think what is really quite regrettable in the circumstance is that there are a lot of government members who have a lot of questions they would like to ask on behalf of their constituents, and they're going to be denied that opportunity because, clearly, the opposition members have gone on much longer in their questioning than they had indicated to us.

I would also like to put on the record, before the Health estimates terminate, that we have, this year, put in more than double the number of hours in the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services that we did last year.

I think the whole estimates process has had an adequate time to canvass the issues necessary, especially when you compare it to last year when it was open-ended and the opposition members could have gone on for as long as they wanted to.

J. Kwan: I can't help but rise to respond. That is simply untrue, with all due respect to the Minister of Health Services — and I actually do have respect for this minister. There was no agreement to the closure of the time allocated. It was at the Government House Leader's request that we open both Houses for debate, and the opposition agreed by unanimous support to that.

This House opened and then the Government House Leader said to our staff that we should yield the floor to the government members to ask questions of the minister. You know what? We supported that. We yielded the floor to the Liberal MLAs to ask the questions, and then the Government House Leader saw fit that afternoon to not resume debate in this House. I could have continued to ask the questions and not yield the floor earlier on. Then perhaps I would have gotten all of my questions answered. But you know what? In the spirit of cooperation, we actually moved with that.

Furthermore, for the Minister of Health Services the agreement was for the Ministry of Health Services debate to not take place in the small House. It was to take place only in the big House. That was agreed to.

All of that is being cast aside. Why? Because the government sees that they have the majority, they can ram it through, and they can do whatever they want. They do not care about democracy in this House. That's not their priority. "Be damned! With only two opposition members, how dare they have so many questions to ask? How could that be possible?" That is the reality of what's happened.

Let's just be clear on the record in terms of what is happening. There was no agreement on the schedule. The opposition voted against it. The minister knows that.

The Chair: Noting the hour and pursuant to the motion concerning vote 29, it is time to put the question. The question is that the committee rises, reports resolution and completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Health Services, and asks leave to sit again.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

	YEAS — 17

Whittred	Hansen	Roddick
Lee	Collins	Jarvis
Anderson	R. Stewart	Hayer
Christensen	Bray	Locke
Visser	Hamilton	Hawes
Manhas		Hunter

	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY