Hansard -- Thursday, March 4, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 21, No. 7 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		9105

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9105
	International Women's Day
	S. Orr
	Assisted-living units for Surrey seniors
	D. Hayer
	Epilepsy
	G. Trumper

Oral Questions		9106
	Police investigation of government officials
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Hon. G. Collins
	Police investigation and role of Bruce Clark
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins
	Surgery wait-lists
	R. Hawes
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Funding for forest fire prevention and preparedness programs
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. G. Collins
	Traffic congestion tax
	D. Hayer
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Mental health in the workplace
	E. Brenzinger
	Hon. S. Brice
	Gravel extraction from watercourses in Hatzic Prairie area
	R. Hawes
	Hon. G. Abbott

Reports from Committees		9109
	Special Committee of Selection, first report, fifth session of the thirty-seventh parliament
	Hon. G. Collins

Motions without Notice		9109
	Special Committee to Appoint a Merit Commissioner
	Appointment of Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
	Appointment of Special Committee to Review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
	Hon. G. Collins

Committee of Supply		9110
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)
	Hon. C. Hansen
	J. Kwan
	E. Brenzinger
	R. Hawes

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		9130
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy and Mines (continued)
	D. MacKay
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	D. Jarvis
	D. Hayer
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. P. Bell
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services
	Hon. M. Coell
	B. Locke
	V. Anderson
	D. Hayer

D. Jarvis: It is with great pleasure that I introduce a young man whose voice will soon be echoing through these corridors of the hallowed halls of the Victoria Legislature. Born yesterday, March 3, at 5:28 p.m. to Linda Reid — better known as the member for Richmond East — and to Sheldon Friesen, and a brother to Olivia Reid, was a young man weighing 8 pounds 14 ounces. I'm told he was 21 inches long. Both the mother and the baby are doing well.

Now, get this. He will be called Will Nicholas Ivan Donnelly Reid-Friesen. Would you please make him welcome.

J. Reid: I would like to introduce two constituents who are with us here today. Both work for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and are at the Pacific Biological Station in Nanaimo, and they're here in town attending the species-at-risk conference. Dr. Jim Irvine is a research scientist with the conservation biology section and the father of leg. intern Sara Irvine, and Bill Shaw is a hook-and-line biologist with the resource management section. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Wow, two times in a week I get to introduce people from my constituency. They're here to give some good advice to government: Mayor Steve Thorlakson from the city of Fort St. John, and Mayor Chris Morley from the town of Fort Nelson. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Lekstrom: As my colleague from the North Peace says, more good news. It's a pleasure today to be able to introduce two guests in the gallery, friends of mine and people that work very hard to better the lives of people in northern British Columbia. Joining us in the gallery is His Worship Mayor Evan Saugstad from Chetwynd, along with His Worship Wayne Dahlen from Dawson Creek. Will the House please make them welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure to introduce several members of the Société de développement économique de la Colombie-Britannique that are here in the chamber today working on francophone economic development issues in B.C: the Société's director Donald Cyr, project manager Rita Couture, Victoria regional development director Mario Duguay, administrator Dominique Tregurtha and the director of the chambre de commerce francophone — the francophone chamber of commerce — Carole Fontaine-Helter.

P. Wong: Today in the gallery I have two guests: Mike Cunningham from Victoria and Ginger Zhu from Shanghai, China — the first time in Canada. They were able to join me for lunch today and are here to watch question period. Would the House please make them very welcome.

G. Trumper: Today has been a busy day for students from my riding. This morning we had 25 from French Creek school. I ask the House to please welcome 52 grade 5s from Qualicum Beach Elementary School who are here with their teachers, Ms. Bobbi Coleman and Mr. Roland Marion, plus numerous parents. Please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today are two citizens who contribute in a major way to the efficient and good government of the corporation of the district of West Vancouver. I refer to Mayor Ron Wood and to Colin Wright, the director of engineering. Would you please make them welcome.

S. Orr: It is with great pride as a woman that I rise today and remind everyone that on Monday, March 8 it is International Women's Day. This year Canadians will also celebrate International Women's Week from Sunday, March 7 to March 13.

International Women's Day was established in 1977 by the United Nations. This day gives us an opportunity to reflect on the progress made to advance women's equality, to recognize the rights and contributions of women in our societies, to celebrate future steps and to celebrate gains we have made.

But still a very serious women's issue exists, one that disturbs all of us — violence against women. So I am very pleased to tell you about a large corporate organization that over the past ten years has taken on this very serious women's issue and actively campaigned in raising awareness about violence against women. This organization is called the Body Shop Canada, and to commemorate ten years of action on this issue, they are planning a Power of Ten campaign and hosting special events to run in 114 communities across Canada during March. They are declaring March 8 as a day to speak out against violence against women, and I commend the Body Shop for taking corporate responsibility on this vile assault on women. This is a very responsible corporate decision.

On March 8, International Women's Day, let's remember all those women close to us. Let's remember those women that the Body Shop and all of us are fighting to help. Let's remember all women, regardless of nationality, ethnicity, socioeconomic or political background. Let's all remember to celebrate the efforts

that have made this help end inequality. True equality is still not a reality, but awareness will certainly help towards achieving this goal.

D. Hayer: Last week I was pleased to join the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead to participate in the groundbreaking ceremony for 171 new assisted-living units for seniors. This means Surrey seniors, the very people who helped build our community and this province, will have increased access to housing and care services close to their home.

The site is located at 16028 83rd Avenue in Surrey, just two blocks south of my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and the Fraser Highway and 160th Street. This complex, Fleetwood Villa, is being built as a public-private partnership between the provincial government, B.C. Housing, the Fraser health authority and private partners, the Lark and Ahmon Groups. The Lark Group, a very experienced Surrey-based company operated by Larry Fisher, is building Fleetwood Villa, while the family-owned Ahmon Group will operate the facility. Ahmon Group already operates four long-term care facilities, so I am certain it will be an excellent stewardship of care of seniors in my constituency.

Fleetwood Villa is expected to be open and welcoming Surrey seniors next year. Of the 171 residential spaces being built, 60 of them will be subsidized by the provincial government through the rent supplement program by the Independent Living B.C. program.

What makes Fleetwood Villa even more important to my constituents is that it is being built right beside Fleetwood Place, a 108-resident care facility on a five-acre campus for care that is due to open this June. The combination of the two will ensure plenty of opportunities for Surrey-Tynehead residents and seniors to obtain the residential care they desire close to their families.

G. Trumper: March is National Epilepsy Month. Epilepsy is a neurological disorder that affects more than 300,000 people in Canada of all ages and genders. People with epilepsy endure much physical and emotional hardship. Many people with epilepsy feel hopeless, isolated, discriminated against and often ridiculed. Added to the emotional burden are the physical difficulties of having unexpected seizures and dealing with the sometimes devastating side effects of medication. People with epilepsy of all ages live in the fear that at any moment in the middle of daily activities, their brain will short-circuit, causing them to lose control of their body temporarily.

The lavender flower is traditionally associated with solitude. The epilepsy ribbon is lavender, and this is somehow fitting, as often isolation is one of the primary difficulties facing people with epilepsy and seizure disorders. You will note that there are some people in the Legislature this month wearing lavender ribbons to increase visibility of this very important issue.

I might add that many people with epilepsy are able to live normal, successful lives. I know a couple of my friends who are leaders in the community suffer from epilepsy, although many people do not know that. It is important that we do whatever we can to provide the necessary support to people with epilepsy and that we encourage further research into treatment and a cure for this condition.

J. MacPhail: Up until yesterday the only explanation for the unequal treatment of David Basi and Bob Virk was that Mr. Basi's job was different. Now the story has changed.

Yesterday the Minister of Transportation explained to the media that the difference in the two cases is as follows: "In the one case, they — the Premier's office — felt that there were serious enough allegations being presented by the RCMP to terminate, and the other was much less clear. And so it was felt it was appropriate to put on paid leave until the RCMP investigation was completed."

Can the Deputy Premier tell us what the government knows about the RCMP allegations about David Basi's conduct that warranted his firing?

Hon. K. Falcon: Actually, the member opposite is correct in the sense that my comments were inappropriate. I had based them on media coverage that I had distilled over the last number of months. That was wrong.

J. MacPhail: Well, he didn't retract the comments. In fact, he still hasn't retracted them. Yesterday….

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, let's acknowledge that he's retracting the comments, but it still doesn't replace the fact that this is the first minister who has actually changed the story. The summary of the warrants

makes no distinction between the behaviour of the two ministerial assistants, and the Premier insists he knows nothing more than what is in the summary. The minister has been advised all the way up to the top, along with all of his colleagues, to be very careful of what they say in public. We know that. That direction has come from Martyn Brown. We know the Solicitor General briefed the Premier and his chief of staff the day of the raids on the Legislature. He obviously told them enough that the chief of staff felt compelled to fire Mr. Basi immediately.

Can the Solicitor General please tell the public what evidence he presented to Martyn Brown and the Premier that warranted Mr. Basi's firing? What is it that the government is trying to cover up?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, to the member opposite, I hate to disappoint her, but I think it's more a case of a minister in his portfolio for one month that was asked a question. I based my answer upon a distillation of media coverage that I've read over the last number of months, and that was wrong. I do withdraw that.

J. MacPhail: Well, I actually acknowledged that. I was going on to the comments that the Solicitor General has made in public. In fact, the Minister of Finance's explanation is that his job was different, so they had to fire him. Why didn't they just give him a new job or put him on paid leave, the same as Mr. Virk? No. They fired him. The summary of warrants tells us that the B.C. Rail influence-peddling investigation arose out of a proceeds-of-crime and corruption investigation. The link between the two investigations is David Basi. According to the summary, Mr. Basi was implicated in the first investigation. The link between Mr. Basi and Erik Bornman and Bruce Clark, whose home office was searched, was through wiretaps on Mr. Basi's phone. As we explained last week, the rules of the House dictate that the Solicitor General must consult with the Speaker before wiretaps can be installed.

My question to the Solicitor General. Did the Solicitor General consult the Speaker prior to those wiretaps being installed on Mr. Basi's phone, and when did he inform the Premier or his staff about the criminal investigation?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm not aware of any wiretaps, and I don't know where the member is getting her information from. I don't think it says that in the summary.

J. Kwan: To date, the focus on the warrant summary has been upon the key government players associated with the B.C. Rail deal and the lobbyist for Omnitrax. What hasn't yet been canvassed is the role that Bruce Clark has played in this situation. He isn't registered as a lobbyist for any B.C. Rail proponent. He doesn't work for government. We do know that he is the chief Liberal fundraiser in B.C.

Can the Solicitor General explain why a Liberal Party fundraiser is associated with a police investigation into influence-peddling in the privatization of B.C. Rail?

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, that question is not in order, and nobody could be able to answer it even if they did. The individual that the member mentions…. That issue is not under the purview of any member of cabinet.

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

J. Kwan: It's a simple question. It doesn't compromise the investigation, and clearly the government has had a heads-up on this case for months, given the knowledge of the wiretaps. Nowhere does the summary state that the Liberal Party is not touched on by this investigation. We have only the word of the Solicitor General, who since has….

J. Kwan: We have only the word of the Solicitor General who, since his initial high-profile statements on this matter, has clammed up. He clearly knows more than he's willing to tell about this matter in this House. He won't tell us what he told the Premier. He won't tell us what he told Martyn Brown. He won't tell us what he told the Speaker. The only minister who seems to be able to tell anyone what he knows is the Minister of Transportation, and it seems like there's a short leash on him now.

To the Minister of Transportation: can he tell this House what Bruce Clark, a key Liberal fundraiser, was doing in the B.C. Rail privatization scheme that led to warrants being served to his home?

Hon. G. Collins: The allegations and the comments made by the member opposite are a stretch beyond anyone's imagination. It's quite clear. Probably the Solicitor General does know more than he's able to tell the two members opposite, or anyone else for that matter. That's his job. His job is the Solicitor General. He's doing his job appropriately, properly, and the investigation will bring those results to the fore when they come.

R. Hawes: There's an ad running today in the major newspapers from the BCMA, which decries surgical

wait-lists in this province. The ad refers the reader to the BCMA website, which offers no thoughts at all from the BCMA as to their thoughts for a possible solution. I suspect somehow these ads are tied to the bargaining that's now underway between the BCMA and the province.

To the Minister of Health Services: can you reassure my constituents, who would read this ad, that you are working on the surgical wait-list problem? And what are you doing to alleviate it?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have seen some significant results out of the reorganization of health care in this province. We've seen an additional 38,000 surgeries and other major procedures performed last year over the year before. We've seen a significant increase in the number of British Columbians that are getting access to hip replacements and knee replacements, which is often the focus of these debates. On top of that, we are putting more resources specifically into dealing with wait-lists in this province.

I would like to put out the challenge to the B.C. Medical Association that they work with us and support our efforts to make sure that every dollar that we have available of increased funding in the health budget goes directly into patient care so that more patients in this province can get access to the care they need in a timely fashion.

P. Nettleton: The following public written statement was submitted by the leader of the B.C. Green Party, Adriane Carr, through the office of the Speaker.

"Filmon's Firestorm 2003 report recommends that the province act before the next forest fire season to reduce the risk of catastrophic fires by committing new funding for fuel management programs, more consistent fire preparedness training and to restore 27 forest protection branch type 1 crews, the number of crews we had prior to cuts made in the 1990s. Yet your 2004-05 fire preparedness and forest health budgets are cut."

This question is to the Minister of Finance. Can the Minister of Finance provide new financial resources, and in what amounts, to implement these recommendations before this summer?

Hon. G. Collins: At the time of the budget, on budget day itself, I was asked that question by members of the media and stakeholders as well. At the time the budget was put together, we were not aware of what the recommendations would be out of Mr. Filmon's report. We now are.

As the member will be aware from last week's open cabinet, the various ministries impacted by it are reviewing those recommendations. They'll be putting together a plan to implement those recommendations. Part of that would be coming to Treasury Board, possibly, with the request for additional funds over a certain period of time.

We haven't seen that yet. But when we do, as I said on budget day, there is room in the budget plan to accommodate those. We certainly look forward to seeing them and expect to have as many of them underway as soon as possible. Indeed, I think there are a number of things in the Filmon report that are already underway.

D. Hayer: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. As I'm sure you are all aware, driving at times can be difficult in Surrey with the congestion, leading to driving frustration and fatigue as well as increased costs faced by the local businesses. As a result of a transportation contingency plan, there has been some speculation that there could be a congestion fee or tax applied to parking lots. Given that many people in my riding are commuters to Vancouver, can the minister please tell this House and my constituents: what is the policy of the Ministry of Transportation on these new taxes?

Hon. K. Falcon: I believe the member is referring to the speculation around a congestion tax. In the city of Vancouver, that was a backup plan that the GVRD and TransLink were associating with some financing plans. What I can say is that there will be no new public levy or new congestion tax imposed on the public prior to a referendum. That is consistent with the new-era commitment we made here in British Columbia that there would be no new levies or taxes imposed on the public prior to a referendum.

E. Brenzinger: My question is to the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services. According to key business leaders across Canada, mental health is the leading cause of worker disability, and it is striking the most productive members of the labour force. They suggest that mental health problems cost the Canadian economy approximately $33 billion a year in lost revenue. Can the minister tell British Columbians what measures are in place to assist the public and private sector address mental health issues in the workplace?

Hon. S. Brice: I am pleased the member has raised this issue in the House, a very important matter of mental health, and in particular depression in the workforce — a largely undiagnosed and untreated mental illness. I can advise the member that through my office, I sit on the British Columbia Business and Economic Round Table on Mental Health, an organization of businesses dedicated to raising awareness about mental health issues. Members of that round table are in the process of raising funds to fund a chair at UBC on depression and have so far raised $3 million from the private sector.

As well, last year the provincial health services authority held a Bottom Line Conference. The Premier was the speaker at that, and I know the member for Surrey-Whalley attended. My office will continue to raise the issue of mental illness and depression, specifically depression in the workforce.

R. Hawes: I have stood many times in this House to try to alleviate or try to work on the problem of flooding in my riding, particularly in the Hatzic Prairie area, where creeks and streams are silted in with gravel. DFO has continued to stop people from cleaning their creeks and streams, causing great danger to both property and livestock — and at times even lives.

On behalf of my constituents, can the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management tell my constituents what progress, if any, is being made with the federal government to try to alleviate this unsatisfactory situation?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad the member raised the issue. It's an important one. Annually, there are between 400,000 and 500,000 cubic metres of gravel deposited as the Fraser River freshet is underway. Of course, it becomes a very important issue in terms of maintaining that so that we don't have the kind of flooding that the member and other members from the Fraser Valley region warn of. It's a very important issue.

I think we are making some progress in terms of our relationship with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This year DFO has approved 460,000 cubic metres of gravel to be extracted from the Fraser. Three of those areas are underway — at Big Bar, Spring Bar and Harrison Bar — all in partnership with first nations. There's about 255,000 cubic metres there.

We do hope to continue to improve our relationship with DFO. Clearly, we need an annual agreement — a five-year agreement, a long-term agreement — with DFO to ensure that, in fact, we can get those gravel deposits removed on an annual basis and to ensure that our communities are not subject to unexpected floods when the spring freshets occur.

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

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

I seek leave for the first one first. It's a motion to appoint a select standing committee to select the B.C. Public Service Agency head and deputy minister responsible for the agency and to hold office as the merit commissioner.

Hon. G. Collins: I seek leave to move a motion to appoint a Special Committee on the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform authorized to receive reports from

the Chair of the Citizens' Assembly on the progress of the Citizens' Assembly's work.

Hon. G. Collins: I seek leave to move a motion that a special committee be appointed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act pursuant to section 80 of that act.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO REVIEW THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION
AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Hon. G. Collins: Just for information, those motions are also in the hands of the opposition. I move the motion.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply in this House. For the information of members, we have the ongoing and continuing debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health.

In Committee A, for the information of members, we'll be calling Committee of Supply as well. It will be the continuing debate on the Ministry of Energy.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Chair, just prior to our adjournment this morning, the member asked me about the health benefits office and the process we're engaged in now where we're seeking a private sector partner to work with us to bring some technology solutions to the processing of MSP information applications and that type of thing. She asked if I could give an outline of the process to date, so I will try to give a quick snapshot of that.

This actually goes back to July of last year, where we put out a requisition document. It's known as a joint solutions procurement process, which is a type of procurement. Initially we had five companies that expressed interest, and we worked with those five proponents up to the closing date of September 8, at which time that was narrowed down to four different companies. From September 8 through to November 28 was

what we called the proponent qualification phase, where we looked at the credentials of the various organizations and selected two preferred proponents to work with in the next phase. As of November we were able to narrow that down to two preferred proponents.

We are now into the joint solutions definition phase, which should take us through to around the end of this month, at which point we are hoping to be able to identify a final proponent we would work with in terms of the due diligence. Then, finally, the contract negotiation phase that would be leading up to…. Hopefully, we'd be able to conclude this process by the end of August, at which time a final contract would be signed.

J. Kwan: Through that process there were two proponents that were identified. By the end of March, the minister will…. Sorry, by the end of August, I think you said. Did you say August or March? It was March. At the end of March, then, you'll be in a position to select that.

Hon. C. Hansen: The whole intent behind this particular initiative is not to save money. In fact, when we embarked on the process, it was primarily motivated by how to improve service. I think one of the most common complaints that I certainly hear from constituency assistants around the province who are trying to provide front-line service to residents is about the delays — the time it takes to get an application processed through the MSP or for premium assistance, for example, or the time it takes to get responses to telephone inquiries, just to get some basic information.

What we set out to do was to find a private sector partner that could bring some of the new technology. The approach that has been used in this office up till now has been primarily paper-based. It is very much out of date in terms of modern business practices. We had a choice of keeping it in-house. It would have been very expensive for us to bring in the kinds of computer technologies and software that would be necessary for us to run this as an in-house program. Yet when we put that huge investment…. It would have been, if I'm correct, in excess of $30 million of technology that we would have had to bring in to use just for this purpose, when in fact we can go out to some of these technology partners, utilize their equipment that they use for a broad range of applications, and thereby save the money that would otherwise have had to be spent if we tried to do all of this new technology as an in-house project.

I'm told that MSP handles more than 800,000 pieces of paper a year. I think we know that technology can help streamline that and give faster and better service. I guess one of the pleasant surprises for us as we've embarked on this process is that we realized that in addition to the cost avoidance that is there in the future, we actually are going to be able to see — we anticipate — some operational savings as well. But that was not the original intent when we embarked on this. It is primarily to make sure that the public gets better and faster service.

J. Kwan: Does the minister anticipate — and I would presume the minister does anticipate — that there will be public servants who will be let go as a result of this process? How many does the minister anticipate in terms of FTE changes?

Hon. C. Hansen: It is still too early in the process to know exactly what the impact is going to be on existing staff, because we still have to work through with the proponent to determine their staffing needs. We anticipate that the proponent will in fact want to provide employment continuation for many of the staff, but until we get through that process, we won't know exactly how many. We are also, obviously, making sure we follow the provisions of the collective agreement with regard to those staff if there are in fact going to be layoffs or if those jobs become redundant.

The other thing that would click in is provisions that are in the collective agreement around bumping. They would have those rights under those provisions. Also, we're looking at an early retirement plan that may be attractive to some of those employees as well.

Right now we're certainly looking at a range of options to make sure the interests of those employees get met, but at this point we don't know exactly what the specific impact is going to be on the employment numbers.

J. Kwan: On page 13 of the green book it actually provides the FTE numbers in terms of changes of the health benefits operations. Could the minister explain where those changes came from and what they are about?

The Chair: Minister, if you could just hold off on your answer for one moment. The member has gone to retrieve some information.

Hon. C. Hansen: With regard to the full-time-equivalents that are on page 13 of the document that the member referenced, what this does is take our existing staffing level in the health benefits operations of 229…. We anticipate that once we have completed this transfer or completed this partnership with the new provider, we will still need in that operation about 23 staff to maintain the policy initiatives and the contract management functions that would be there.

What we don't know at this point in terms of the reduction from 229 to 23, which is going to be 206 individuals, is how many of those individuals will be offered employment by the new contract provider. We will know that, basically, once we get through the next stage of our negotiations and discussions with the two proponents and we select a final proponent and then work with them in terms of that transitioning. I guess

the number that we start with now, which is 229, will be going down to 23 FTEs at the end of it.

J. Kwan: If the minister doesn't know necessarily what the change is going to be in terms of the FTEs, why would he then have the projected number of the reduction down to 23? Where does that…? Okay, the minister seems to know what I'm talking about.

Hon. C. Hansen: Once we have concluded our partnership with this new provider, we know that we will continue to need 23 FTEs in the ministry to provide for that contract management, the policy directions and the other corporate services that need to be provided from the ministry itself. What we're going from is an existing level of 229 to a future staffing level of 23 in that ministry.

We do know what the FTEs are going to be. What we don't know is how many of those 206 FTEs are going to in fact have continued employment with the new provider. That's what we still have to determine. For those that are not continued, we will make sure that there are programs in place — whether it's early retirement options or the ability to transfer to other parts of the ministry or other ministries based on the bumping rights that they may be eligible for under the collective agreement.

J. Kwan: Then it could be as high as 206 staff or FTEs that could be let go. Then they would go through the normal process of collective bargaining rights within the collective agreement in terms of bumping or whatever — early retirement and so on. But essentially at the end of the day — I guess, minus early retirement, however many individuals will fall into that category — somewhere along the bureaucracy there will be a loss of FTEs.

Hon. C. Hansen: The only thing we know today is that there are 206 individuals who are currently employed by the Ministry of Health Services in the health benefits operations who will not be employed in that particular division two years from now. Where those individuals will be — whether they will accept early retirement, whether they will be kept on by the new provider or whether they will transfer to other positions within the Ministry of Health Services or other ministries — has yet to be determined, and obviously we'll be working through that over the months ahead.

J. Kwan: In the bidding process, I guess with the two proponents that are yet to be selected, whoever they are — the collective agreement, the staff, the 206 individuals that would be impacted one way or another…. Is there language within the bidding process that deals with the staff?

Hon. C. Hansen: We don't have the exact bidding document with us here. But I understand from officials that there is language in the bid documents that flags the issue of successorship rights to make sure that the proponents are, in fact, aware of their obligations under B.C. law for successorship rights. That is something that is specifically flagged in the documents.

J. Kwan: What quality assurance is in place, or what would the ministry have to ensure that there is accountability once the successful proponent takes over?

Hon. C. Hansen: The contract language has obviously not been developed, but there will be specific contract language developed that will be signed by the proponent, which ensures a quality assessment process of the work that they do. There will be specific deliverables. There will be specific indicators of service standards and service quality that will be written into that contract because, at the end of the day, that's what this is all about. We want to ensure that British Columbians get faster and better access to quality service around their processing of MSP applications, etc.

The other thing that is also paramount and that will be written into the contract language is assurances around privacy. Privacy is a number one concern for us in this file, as it is in others, and we will make sure that the privacy of British Columbia's health information is certainly kept. It is our number one priority, and we will not allow for privacy issues to be compromised in any way.

J. Kwan: No matter who the proponent is, that organization would still be ultimately responsible to this minister? Therefore, the minister would be answerable to public complaints relating to that proponent's work. Am I right?

J. Kwan: I sort of just skipped over…. In terms of the FTE numbers, it went from 229 to 23. In between, for the '04-05 year, it's 138. The total 206 FTEs — are those all MSP administration positions?

Hon. C. Hansen: These are operational staff in MSP and Pharmacare processing. The reason you see the step-down in this coming fiscal year is that it is anticipated this transition will take place partway through the year. The goal is to go from the 229 to the 23, but it will happen partway through this fiscal year.

J. Kwan: What kind of assurance does the minister have that with this new process, with this new proponent that will take over the responsibilities of MSP services, the backlogs would be reduced and addressed? The backlogs are significant, even to date.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is right. There is a backlog. That is something that has been chronic, I think, going back many years. We've seen some attempts in the past of trying to put in more FTEs to try

to deal with the backlog. It doesn't necessarily result in the backlog being diminished. It's part of what prompted us to look at this solution — to go to technology, to start using some computer systems to deal with faster processing. There is and will be built into the contract and the quality standards that we talked about earlier the turnaround time for applications. Part of what will also be built in is the time at which we expect that backlog to be dealt with.

The document inventory has decreased from approximately 230,000 in October 2002 to approximately 65,000 as of December 2003. I think the backlog isn't as bad as it has been at certain times, but there's still a lot of documents that we know we can be providing much faster and at a higher quality of service using some of these technology solutions.

J. Kwan: The minister says that built into the process is the anticipation of turnaround time — or at least projected or expected turnaround time — and the expected reduction of backlogs at a certain rate. Could the minister advise: what is that expectation on the turnaround time and the expectation on the reduction of the backlog?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, just to compare what the actual was as of April of last year with the performance target we will expect under this new arrangement…. For enrolment application, the actual for April of '03 was 16 weeks on average. No, I shouldn't say on average. The actual is 16 weeks; the performance target is less than four weeks. For registration maintenance, the actual in April of last year was up to 24 weeks, and the target is less than four weeks. For premium assistance transactions, the actual as of last April was 12 weeks, and the performance target is less than four weeks.

J. Kwan: So the turnaround time is expected to be four weeks, really, all the way across for all the categories, and that was in comparison to last April. Just out of curiosity, what was the worst record so that we actually have a base to go by?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that in front of me, but I do recall seeing that charted in a graph that showed the levels of turnaround time. It was actually about 1999 that was the point at which we saw the worst backlogs. I could try to get that for the member if she's interested in it, because I know it's a document I've seen in the past. We just don't have it with us.

J. Kwan: Don't spend too much time looking for it. That was just out of curiosity because I know that, as the minister said, it's a chronic situation. I have to say, actually, that since I've been elected, the worst time for my office, in terms of people phoning us, just so happened to be last year. We had a record high of people coming into our office with problems trying to access MSP for one reason or another. I'm not being partisan here in terms of whether it was any better when we were in office. I actually don't know the numbers. But I can tell you it was the worst record for our office and certainly, I think, for my colleague's office as well — the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

Last year was the worst ever. We would actually have a pile of people with issues, problems — can't get their application in or whatever — and then our office phoning through to try and help process this stuff with the staff on the other side.

I should also add that whenever we do contact someone, although it's hard sometimes to contact someone at the branch with MSP, they're excellent. They do come through with flying colours. They solve all of the issues just like that. So it's a matter of actually getting hold of a body and being able to deal with it. I just want to put that on the record as well.

Now, the expected reduction of the backlog. The turnaround time is four weeks for all the categories, and the expected reduction of the backlog…. At what rate does the minister anticipate the new proponent would be able to process those through?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, first of all, when the member talks about the backlogs and the time it took for people to get through on phone lines and things like that, that was around the time of the Fair Pharmacare rollout. At least I'm assuming it was, because I certainly had the same experience in my constituency office. I think everyone in this House had the same.

The Fair Pharmacare registration process actually was a pretty phenomenal success story, except for one element of it, and that was when we had some of the third-party insurers sending out a message that individuals — everybody, 100 percent of the population — had to…. There was this deadline, and if they didn't get their application in by — I think it was the end of April — April 30, somehow they were going to lose all their benefits and lose all their Pharmacare entitlements. That was never the case. We tried to counter that message, but clearly a lot of people were spooked by that and clogged up the phone lines.

But at the end, if you look at how people actually registered, there were just under 400,000 families in the province registered by the website. I think that sort of speaks to the fact that we are increasingly becoming a computer-literate province. We need the opportunity to make sure people can take advantage of those tools. I think this information about the registrations on the public website underscores the opportunity that is there for us to use technology to help give better public service.

The other thing that was quite interesting out of that process was when you look at seniors' households. There were just under 43,000 that registered using the public website, so even seniors, I think, are becoming increasingly comfortable with that option.

To answer the member's specific question about the time to clean up the backlogs, that is something, during this due-diligence phase, that we will be working on with the proponent to look at how quickly their opera-

tions can be up and running and how fast they will be able to clean up that backlog. I don't have a specific answer for her yet, but that is what is actually unique about a joint solutions procurement process. It allows us to work through those issues while the contract language is being developed. There will be clear accountabilities by the time this contract is finalized.

J. Kwan: I would simply just caution the minister with this. While it is true that there are more and more people getting access to new technology and computer usage, and so on and so forth, there are still a significant number of people who do not have that access. Certainly in my riding, Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, I know we talk about computers and all kinds of technology advancements, but some folks in my community don't even have a phone. That's the reality which we live in. So I simply just want to caution that.

As well, I know a lot of seniors may not necessarily be using computers themselves, but they have children and others who could assist them in that process. Of course, on the flip side of things, there are seniors who don't have access to children or relatives who could provide that assistance. I just want to provide that caution there for the minister's consideration.

In terms of the winning bid, whoever the proponent might be, what…? I fully understand that the language of the contract with the winning bidder is not yet in place because you haven't yet chosen the proponent, but I would assume the minister is planning on ensuring that there's language in that contract, should the proponent not meet these targets. What accountability measures are in place to deal with that? Should the proponent not be able to meet the performance objectives as set out by the government, then what is the next step? Could the minister just outline that a little bit for this House?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I agree with the member entirely when she talks about the need to make sure those without computer access do have access to these services. I think the technology provides more options, and if those who do have computer access can take advantage of that tool, then it frees up the other options for other people. Certainly, we will continue to have the ability for people to do this over the phone or by mail or whatever other options are there and necessary.

Yes. There will be consequences for the provider if they do not deliver on the targets when it comes to the service expectations. I can't tell the member now exactly what those consequences will be, but they will certainly be written into the contract language, and the provider will be held accountable.

J. Kwan: I think my staff advised the minister that this afternoon I would like to turn to some hospital issues, particularly some local hospital issues, and then come back to the service plan. At this point I'd like to just advise the minister that I would now like to turn to some of the hospital issues, if that's all right.

I'd first like to focus our attention on Mount St. Joseph Hospital and the foundation issues. I met with some folks last week with respect to Mount St. Joseph. As I understand it, the Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation, particularly, was founded in 1921 by a group of nuns to treat Chinese labourers who were not allowed in what were then called "white" hospitals. Mount St. Joseph Hospital came to be and continues to be an incredibly important institution not just in the Chinese community but in the multicultural community. It has, I believe, over 88 acute care beds, 122 residential care beds and 23 day care beds. Many people, particularly the elderly, depend on Mount St. Joseph. There are pieces of the hospital that are now closed and services within it. I'll turn to that in a moment.

I want to focus on this issue first. The Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation, which is an independent foundation, was created to support the hospital. It has been fundraising for some time now to support the hospital. I believe that over the course of the years they've raised some $13 million to support the hospital. Currently, they have about $1.3 million in their account. Recently the foundation has been taken over by the health authority. The foundation directors have been locked out of their offices.

I wonder if the minister can explain to this House why the foundation members, whose entire mandate is to raise funds to support Mount St. Joseph Hospital, were deliberately disbanded by the government and effectively locked out of their offices. Why did that happen?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not correct when she says that government did this or that the Vancouver coastal health authority did this. The Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation, as she correctly indicated, is a totally independent, not-for-profit society. There is no connection between government and the foundation. They operate totally independently of government, under the Society Act.

The other organization that is supposedly involved in this particular issue is Providence Health Care, which is also an independent, not-for-profit society in the province that has its own separate board of directors. Yes, we do have a contract from the Vancouver coastal health authority to Providence Health Care with regard to the provision of services at St. Paul's Hospital, Mount St. Joseph and several others.

I was certainly approached by one of the parties and asked if I could intervene. I felt that I could not intervene, because it was basically an issue between two independent, not-for-profit organizations. They did ask if I could somehow find a way to help mediate this. While I was looking at what the implications of that would be, I heard that the parties involved had actually resolved some of their differences and are going to find a way to work together moving forward.

That's where it stood. My involvement has been very peripheral. It is an issue that does not involve the

Vancouver coastal health authority, nor does it involve the provincial government.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister is right insofar as to say they are two independent organizations. The minister is also right, though, in that where the link does tie into government is that Providence is funded by the government, and that funding flows through from Providence to Mount St. Joseph. There is an intrinsic link in terms of government involvement, in my view, related to that.

Along those lines then, Mr. Chair, the minister advises that he had engaged in some discussions with folks. I'm not quite sure who he spoke with. Anyway, he spoke with some folks about this, and it's his understanding that the matter has been resolved. Could the minister advise when this discussion took place and with whom he engaged in these discussions? It is my understanding that as of last week, unless that discussion took place this week, the matters were not resolved. In fact, I think the matter is going to court any day now.

Hon. C. Hansen: The member may have more current information than I do on this, because as I say, it is something that is very much arm's length from our operations. I did meet with Dr. Francis Ho, who was the chair of the Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation. I'm trying to think of the dates. I think the first time I met with Dr. Ho may have been in December. The second meeting was probably about a month ago. If she wanted more precise dates, I could certainly get those for her.

J. Kwan: No, those ballpark dates or time lines will suffice. I was just trying to determine whether or not the information that I have is now old information, and therefore the matter has been resolved. Well, if the minister actually met with Dr. Francis Ho in January or December, then I know that the information I have is more current, because I met with some people around this issue either last week or the week before. Was it last weekend? No, I think it was the weekend before. Anyway, I have to check my calendar on exactly when I met with them as well, but it was more recent than that.

At that meeting it was my understanding that the matter has not yet been resolved and that the matter may appear in the court, actually. Does the minister have no understanding whatsoever why the foundation board was fired? Does the minister have no information on that?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned, I did have the two meetings with Dr. Ho, and he certainly presented me with some of the background. At the time, I indicated to him that I didn't feel I could get directly involved, and certainly I did not in any way try to offer him any opinion or guidance with regard to those issues. Given that it is before the courts, it would be inappropriate for me to do so in any case.

J. Kwan: When the minister advises that he attempted to facilitate some sort of mediation between the two parties, who's on the other side? We know that from the foundation side he met with Dr. Francis Ho. Who from the Providence side did the minister meet with? How did that facilitation of mediation take place?

Hon. C. Hansen: What I said was that there was a request from Dr. Ho to see if I could…. Since I didn't feel that I could intervene and try to facilitate discussion between these parties, I would see if it was appropriate for me to try to find somebody who might. Before I got to that stage of trying to see whether it was even appropriate for me to do that much, I had heard that these issues had been resolved.

The member may have more current information that in fact they're not resolved, but the parties as I understand them are those who were on the board previously and those who were on the board of Mount St. Joseph Hospital subsequently. Those would be the two parties to it. There were individuals who served on the board before who, as a result of a meeting, were no longer serving on that board. Now there are questions around that particular meeting. I gather that's the subject of the court case. I have to be careful not to comment in a way that could in any way be interpreted to prejudice those court proceedings.

J. Kwan: I'm not clear in terms of what role the minister played. It sounds to me as though the minister is now saying he played no role, because he was going to facilitate some sort of mediation, and then he heard from somewhere that the matter had been resolved. Is that right? At that point the minister didn't follow up or felt there was no need for any follow-up because he had heard that the matter had been resolved. If that's the case, who did the minister hear the information from that the matter was resolved?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think I want to be really clear that what I offered to do was see if it was appropriate for me to try to find someone who might help facilitate those discussions. I didn't offer to intervene. I didn't offer to have anyone intervene. I simply offered to see if it was appropriate for me as a minister.

I do not recall where I heard the information that it had been resolved. If the member's information is accurate, then I may have received inappropriate or inaccurate information. But once I did have that impression, I didn't pursue the file because I thought it had been dealt with.

J. Kwan: Did the minister at any point talk to folks from the Providence side on the issue or have his staff speak with anyone on the Providence side of the issue?

There is a letter that I signed. I guess it was on February 25. It was a letter that had come in from another

member of the House regarding this issue. I replied back to him stating that…. Well, I'll just read you part of the letter. "I appreciate these concerns. While legal proceedings are underway between the two parties, I must decline to comment on the specifics that have precipitated this situation." It goes on to state the fact that there is no relationship with hospital foundations generally. That would be the sum total of it. I did receive some correspondence and answered in that vein.

J. Kwan: Here's what I know about the situation. As I mentioned, the Mount St. Joseph Hospital is the only hospital in Vancouver east of Cambie. It is the hospital that was opened in 1921 to serve the Chinese community, because at the time those of Chinese descent were not allowed to go to what were then termed white hospitals. The Mount St. Joseph Hospital then came into existence.

I know that in 2001 Providence Health Care Society owned and managed four Vancouver hospitals: Mount St. Joseph, St. Paul's, St. Vincent's and Holy Family. Providence does not own the foundation. The foundation is completely independent. It was established with a full mandate to fundraise solely for Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

It is my understanding that Dr. Francis Ho was explicitly asked by various people to be the chair of the foundation of which he did become the chair. He's also been a senior doctor, I should add, at Mount St. Joseph Hospital for at least 30 years if not longer.

On December 4, 2003, people associated with Providence purported to hold a meeting and assert controlling membership of the foundation. As a consequence of that meeting, most of the longstanding and committed directors of the foundation were purportedly terminated and a replacement board was then installed. I've been advised that the directors, all of whom are volunteers on the foundation, were terminated on December 4.

Since that time, as I mentioned, the matter has been brought to the courts. Today is March 4, and I believe that today the matter is being heard. I know that the two sides were trying to come to some sort of resolution prior to the court date, and as far as I know, no resolution was found.

When the foundation board was fired, there were 11 independent directors on that board. Associated with it, the directors were locked out of their offices in terms of trying to access any of the documentation or information regarding that. No resolution. No explanation, it seems to me, was provided to Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation board members about why they were fired. One could only speculate as to why they were fired, but no information was offered.

Now, I'm not asking, necessarily, for the minister to intervene. I don't know what happened in the court today with respect to this matter. But given that the minister funds Mount St. Joseph, funds Providence, funds all four of those hospitals — so there is a direct link in terms of accountability there with respect to that — and given that the foundation's whole mandate is to raise funds for Mount St. Joseph Hospital, which is a hospital funded by the government, I would think the minister would have some interest and some level of responsibility in ensuring that Mount St. Joseph Hospital remains unaffected with this dispute. The government would have an interest in ensuring that the foundation, albeit an independent foundation whose purpose is to raise funds to support a public institution — the Mount St. Joseph Hospital — hopefully continues on with the good work that it does and is not hampered in any way, shape or form as a result of this dispute.

So, in the minimum, one would imagine that it would be appropriate or viable for this minister to find out why the board members were fired in the first place and what caused the dispute — to just get some factual information for the public's consumption.

Hon. C. Hansen: I would certainly like to acknowledge the tremendous work that Dr. Francis Ho has done in the community, raising money for the Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation. I think he has certainly made a generous contribution of his time, money and resources, and he deserves a lot of tribute for that effort.

What I do know is that there are court proceedings, the essence of which are to determine whether or not meetings to change directors were appropriate. Beyond that, I don't feel it's appropriate for me to comment on it. The member says: do I take an interest in it because it's a hospital foundation? Yes, I do. But because it is an independent society that is governed under the Society Act — which has members and bylaws that are totally independent of me and that determine how they select their board members — it is my job, I believe, to respect the independence of that organization, given that it has no direct connections to government. So beyond that, I do not believe it's appropriate for me to comment on what is, in fact, the subject of court proceedings.

J. Kwan: On the basis of that answer, as far as I understand and if my memory serves me correctly, the matter is before the courts today. So presumably, by the end of today some sort of findings would be public and the matter would be out of the court system. It would no longer be caught up in court proceedings. In that case, if the matter is not yet resolved, would the minister be prepared to look into that situation and actually play a role and facilitate the resolution of this dispute?

Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, I've told the member everything I know about this particular file today. The reason I have not delved deeper into this particular issue is because it doesn't directly affect my ministry, because it is an independent operation. Generally speaking, if there are issues that I as a minister can be helpful in trying to resolve, the first obligation I have is

to consult staff in my ministry in terms of what my limitations are. I would certainly look at that when the time comes.

J. Kwan: As I stated, I believe the minister does have a role to play, because it is public funds that are being impacted through Mount St. Joseph Hospital, which is under the umbrella of Providence Health Care. It's true that the foundation does not fall under the minister's responsibility, because that's completely separate. Yet it is true that the hospitals — one can, I suppose, make some sort of argument — are separate as well, except that there is a direct line of accountability. That is, with the hospitals we're now talking about — whether it be Providence that has responsibility for the four hospitals or Mount St. Joseph — the government funds those hospitals directly. Public funds and the public's interests are at play here, so I would make the argument that the government does have a role to play.

I understand the notion that the matter is in the courts right now, so the minister does not want to get into the situation because of court proceedings. But as I understand it, the court proceedings would have ended today, so there would be an opportunity for the minister to get involved in this. When we come back to estimates next week, Monday and thereafter, the matter will be out of the courts — presumably by the end of today — and there will be an opportunity for the government to intervene.

What I'm seeking now is a commitment from the government. If the matter is out of the court proceedings and if it's still not yet resolved, would the minister commit to playing a role in resolving this matter, particularly in the interests of the public — because Mount St. Joseph Hospital is a publicly funded hospital, a hospital that has served the multicultural community since 1921?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm not sure what more I can add on top of what I said earlier. I certainly respect the great history of Mount St. Joseph Hospital and the tremendous contribution it's made to the community. The foundation is an arm's-length organization, and it's an independent society. I don't have anything to do with the appointment of their board. I don't even have anything to do with the bylaws they have. It operates under the Society Act.

As the member indicated, yes, they do contribute money to the hospital, which is huge and obviously very beneficial. But there are lots of organizations, both private sector and not-for-profit sector organizations, that provide services and are part of contributing to the delivery of health care services. I still have to respect the fact that those are independent organizations that do not have direct relationships with the Ministry of Health Services.

J. Kwan: Yes, Mount St. Joseph Foundation doesn't have a direct relationship with the Ministry of Health Services. But Providence does, and so does Mount St. Joseph Hospital. Providence fired the Mount St. Joseph Hospital Foundation on December 4 without any information to the board members or any reasons offered to them as to why that has happened.

When that has happened, it impacts directly on the operations of Mount St. Joseph Hospital. Why? Because the foundation raises funds directly for the hospital. That, in turn, directly impacts patient care and directly impacts our community at large in terms of the delivery of health services.

While the minister says that he can't deal with the foundation's issues — albeit in spite of the fact that the foundation and the fired chair of the foundation, Dr. Francis Ho, actually asked for the minister to intervene — I would think there's a role here for the minister to play, and that is to ask Providence some questions with respect to this dispute. Providence is funded by this government directly, and so is Mount St. Joseph Hospital. So if we don't want to go about it from the side of the foundation, we can certainly, I would assume, go at it from the side of Providence and Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

All that I'm asking is for the minister to at least look into this matter. Then when we come back for estimates debate next week, he might be able to advise this House, "Yes, I spoke with the folks at Providence, and here's the lay of the land," and maybe the matter is all resolved. Maybe by the end of today's court situation it's all resolved, and the minister can update me with that information. Alternatively, if it is not all resolved, maybe the minister can say to both sides: "Hey, you know, maybe I can play a mediator role here to resolve this matter in the best public interests in terms of health care services delivery."

Hon. C. Hansen: I can only underscore that all of the hospital foundations in the province are independent of government — independent societies. Quite frankly, they don't want government to be interfering in their internal affairs. When there are any kind of disputes that come to my desk, where somebody asks if I can intervene and assist in mediation, certainly I will see what I can do.

In this case, when I was asked if I could intervene or if I could find somebody to help intervene, it was already at a stage where it was before the courts, which actually produces other challenges for me as a minister. I have to be careful not to be interfering in a way that would compromise those proceedings. As the member says, it's before the courts. Certainly, I think she may be optimistic if she thinks there's going to be some kind of a decision coming out of this in the very near future, because often it takes some time for courts to write up their conclusions. Certainly, in whatever context we're in, I will do what I can to help, but I have to do that in the context of my obligations as a minister.

J. Kwan: Well, okay, a couple of things that the minister has acknowledged which are different from other foundation situations. I'm not asking the minister

to intervene in disputes with independent boards and foundations out there willy-nilly. I'm not doing that at all. The difference here is that the Mount St. Joseph Foundation board — at least the fired board members, including the chair — had actually asked the minister for intervention. They welcomed the intervention. They, too, would like to find out what's happened here and why they were fired.

I'm not suggesting that the minister should just sort of go and decide to look into disputes out there somewhere and decide he'll get involved somehow, so there's one difference with respect to this situation.

Second, where there is a direct link to health services and the delivery of health services to British Columbians is that Providence, which has responsibilities for these four hospitals…. These hospitals and Providence are funded by the government, directly by this minister, so there is a direct link in terms of accountability with respect to that.

Providence took action to fire a foundation which raises funds for one of the hospitals that's publicly funded by this government, which serves the public. Therefore, I think that logically there is an argument to be made there.

Maybe I'm optimistic, and maybe the matter will be tied up in courts forever and a day, but maybe not. As I understand it, the court date is today. Presumably, after the hearings today a decision will be forthcoming, but in the meantime — however that plays out — if the matter is not resolved, I don't know where things will go.

Maybe there's an opportunity, then, for the government to intervene, for the minister to intervene. Not necessarily to pick sides — that's not what I'm suggesting — but to help resolve the matter in a way that is in the best interests of the public, keeping in mind that Mount St. Joseph is a public and publicly funded hospital that serves a very unique population, and that is the multicultural community. It would be, I would think, in the best interests of the government to ensure that the hospital has its maximum funding opportunities — whether it be from government sources or from foundation sources — and to not lose those opportunities. I would think there's a role here for the government to play. That's all that I'm asking — for the minister to make some sort of commitment that he will look into this matter and play what role he can to help facilitate the resolution of this dispute.

Hon. C. Hansen: Once this is no longer before the courts, I'd be pleased to do that.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much. That is much appreciated. I'm sure that would be good news for members of the public and particularly those of the Chinese community who have been very, very concerned about this matter. They're very worried about the outcome of this situation. They're worried that the members who served on the foundation will perhaps simply walk or that maybe the foundation would not be able to raise the kinds of funds that they have historically to support the hospital. Of course, on the other side — the hospital side — people are very worried that if those sources of funding — aside from government funding — are not available, that might impact the services of Mount St. Joseph Hospital. Nobody wants to see their services decline, so I appreciate the minister's commitment on that.

Okay, that deals with the foundation issue. Let me now turn to services within Mount St. Joseph Hospital, because the other piece that greatly concerns me and many community members is that there's been downsizing activity in Mount St. Joseph Hospital. First of all, let me begin with the gynecology services, which have been downsized at Mount St. Joseph Hospital. I have received a petition — sort of like a petition. It's kind of like a letter/petition thing, with….

J. Kwan: I'm not quite sure what to call it. Anyway, let's just call it a petition. That's the intent behind this document. I'm going to call it a petition, and 117 people signed it when they heard the news very quickly that the gynecology — the women's — services for Mount St. Joseph were shutting down and were being moved to St. Paul's Hospital in March of this year. That situation has happened. The closure of the women's services for Mount St. Joseph has happened.

First of all, could the minister advise: why did that happen? Why did the government allow for the closure of this service, which is a very unique service? As I mentioned, Mount St. Joseph was established in 1921 with its original goal to serve the Chinese community, because the Chinese community had no other access to any other hospital because of discrimination issues. Since that time, Mount St. Joseph has really built its reputation and services, based on providing excellent care and service and solving language and cultural barriers for the multicultural community. It is, I would say, a unique hospital in all of British Columbia that has this kind of expertise.

Yet the government allowed for the women's services — at least this one component…. There are other components which I'll turn to in terms of the downsizing of that hospital, but they allowed for this to take place. What kind of evaluation took place with respect to the downsizing of the women's centre services at Mount St. Joseph, and how did the government let this happen?

Hon. C. Hansen: There were actually several reviews done — including the gynecological services planning report to what was then the Vancouver-Richmond health board, which was done in May of 2001, and the surgical services planning project report to Vancouver coastal health in December of 2002 — which recommended that the gynecological services at Mount St. Joseph be transferred to St. Paul's Hospital.

Hon. C. Hansen: What was driving the change was what was seen as a duplication and inefficiency in the way the services had been structured, which led to the consolidation. I'll read these two paragraphs here: "Part of the implementation plan for this consolidation will ensure that Mount St. Joseph continues to provide basic gynecological support at Mount St. Joseph. Planning has been underway since October 2000 to address issues regarding hospital-based gynecological services in Vancouver. The primary challenge is that critical services are spread across numerous organizations, resulting in a lack of critical mass at any one site."

J. Kwan: Well, I understand in part what the minister is saying. It's for cost-efficiencies that this situation was allowed to take place. Therefore, what the minister said was that duplication in efficiencies had led to the consolidation. Effectively, that nice language means the closure of the Mount St. Joseph gynecology department and the services associated with it.

The issue, of course, is that Mount St. Joseph is very different from other hospitals in that it provides for multicultural, multilingual services. Other hospitals, in my view, do not have the extensive level of personnel, perhaps, in dealing with that multicultural community. The hospital was set up explicitly to deal with the multicultural community, and that is now lost.

I know, Mr. Chair. I speak Cantonese myself, and I can tell you, when it comes to…. I know I don't speak the language that well, but I can tell you that when it comes to technical terms, especially around medical terms, it is very difficult to learn that language and be able to explain to people what you really mean. That skill set is particularly valuable, and I don't mean just for the Chinese community. I just happen to mention the Chinese community because that is my own natural heritage, and I know that's part of the service that Mount St. Joseph had provided. I know that in other communities as well, they have that expertise and those kinds and levels of skills there. Now that's all lost.

Even when we talk about duplication of services and about efficiencies, the information I've received with respect to the Mount St. Joseph gynecological department is that the population base in terms of the people which they serve in their local population had actually increased by nearly 40 percent. Is the minister saying that in the name of efficiency…? Is he also saying that Mount St. Joseph didn't have the demand in the hospital in terms of the demand for their services to keep it open and that therefore it should be shut down?

Hon. C. Hansen: A couple of things in response to the member's point. First of all, one of the things that has changed fundamentally in how we structure specialist services in the province is the requirement that we pay for on-call coverage. We have to be very careful in where we establish those call groups, because basically for every call group, it's $220,000 a year, I think.

For a level 1 call it's…. We have to fund the on-call payments depending on the particular level of call that has been determined for that particular group. Level 1 is $223,000. Level 2 is about $125,000. Regardless as to what particular classification they're put into, we do have to fund that.

One of the things that has necessitated is some consolidation of where specialists work out of, because now that call money gets divided up among the specialists working in that particular call group. There's good reason for it. It's to make sure they don't go through burnout, so that they're not on call for too much time and actually get some time to relax and some time with their families. That has been a fundamental change in basically how call groupings have been structured around the province.

The other thing that this shift does is allow us to bring together gynecology and obstetrics at St. Paul's. There are some real synergies there that allow those specialists to work together and to have more of a team approach to providing care.

I guess the final point I'd like to make is that I recognize the importance of us delivering culturally sensitive health care in the province. It is an issue, I think, that is growing in importance in the province, and we have to be able to respond to it. My goal is to make sure that every one of our health facilities in the province is culturally sensitive and can recognize the importance of those differences people have that we need to respond to.

The practitioners who could speak Mandarin or Chinese or other languages, potentially, at Mount St. Joseph won't disappear. They will still be able to provide service to their patients at a new location. My hope and expectation is that we will continue to be able to provide culturally sensitive services and still be able to provide those services in the venue that allows for that kind of efficiency and cost savings overall.

J. Kwan: I would like to ask the minister a number of questions around this situation. First of all, let me just break it down with this. The minister advises that there is synergy at St. Paul's Hospital. I don't want to dispute that. St. Paul's Hospital, in my own personal view and experience, is a great hospital. I delivered my baby girl there, and they were exceptional. The folks who assisted me every step of the way were just fantastic in their service provision — whether it be the nurses, the doctors, the people who deliver the food or who kept the place clean. I did make a mess; there's no doubt about it. They were just absolutely exceptional. They are experts, certainly, in their own right.

At the same time, because of the increase in demand at Mount St. Joseph Hospital for a unique set of services, according to the physicians that worked there…. They advised that in fact they need more people in the hospital providing those services rather than

Second, I've been advised by physicians at St. Paul's that they actually cannot accommodate all of the obstetric requirements of the gynecological surgeons of Mount St. Joseph Hospital, because the demand there is also huge. Given that, it would seem to me that at both hospitals the demands are high. They have their unique sets of skills.

Why would we choose an option that is what the minister calls consolidation and what I call downsizing and shutting down one set of expert services? Why would we do that? Why would we not build on both of them and let their own expertise flourish in their own areas? When you consolidate, you actually run a great risk of losing that expertise and losing the capacity to service the community, especially when the demands are enormous on both sides.

I'm not suggesting for a moment that the physicians will disappear, although some of the doctors at Mount St. Joseph have told me they would not go to another hospital. In fact, they would not do that because they don't feel the environment would be the same, and the level of service they would like to see provided would not be met. Therefore, they would not go.

Hon. C. Hansen: It's an advantage to have a deputy minister who is also the former CEO of Women's Hospital to help me with some of the background on this issue. She has pointed out to me in our discussions here that when we go through this kind of a consolidation, we can in fact expand capacity. As you bring groupings of specialists together, you actually get the ability to care for more patients at the end of the day, and that is certainly what is expected out of this particular consolidation.

The other things she has pointed out to me are that the gynecological operating room surgical interventions are decreasing, and more of the procedures are being done in clinical settings. There are certainly new advancements in terms of procedures in how to treat issues that do not necessarily require the acute care hospital environment. When you start bringing all of these together, the net effect of this consolidation is that we will be able to meet additional capacity, but it's also in a changing environment in terms of how gynecological services are provided.

J. Kwan: What happens, then, when emergency gynecological services are required at Mount St. Joseph? Given that the gynecological department is now no longer there, what happens in that situation?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I think I indicated earlier, there will continue to be basic gynecological support at Mount St. Joseph Hospital. If there was an emergency, then the patient would be transported to St. Paul's Hospital. I think you've got to look at that in the context of if there is an emergency at Mount St. Joseph, you want to make sure there is 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week coverage, and that comes back to the whole issue of the on-call coverage. You need to make sure patients can have access to the care they need in an emergency situation. By consolidating the care at St. Paul's, we can be certain that there will be 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week coverage. Given the new fee structures for on-call payments, that's where it makes sense.

I was in error when I listed out the level 1, level 2 call rates earlier. The level 1 rate is $225,000 per call group per year, or $616 per day, for being on call. The level 2 is $165,000 per call group, or $452 per day, to cover physicians being on call.

J. Kwan: Based on the minister's logic then, in terms of efficiencies and so on, given that the gynecological department has closed because it does not provide for seven-days-a-week, 24-hour-a-day service…. Because Mount St. Joseph does not provide for emergency services in the evenings — that is for all services, not just gynecological services — is it logical to assume, then, that the plan is to shut down Mount St. Joseph altogether and to consolidate them with other services because they're not serving seven days a week, 24 hours a day?

J. Kwan: Then why was gynecology picked as a service that should shut down in terms of a specialty service? What numbers does the minister have in terms of the demand both for Mount St. Joseph Hospital in this area and for St. Paul's — in gynecology as well as obstetrics?

Hon. C. Hansen: As I mentioned earlier, there were two reviews. One was the gynecological services planning report that was done in May 2001. The other is the surgical services planning project report that was done in December 2002, which recommended the transfer of these services. If the member would be interested, I'd be pleased to provide her with copies of those reports.

J. Kwan: Yes, I'll be very interested in both of those reports. For the purposes of the discussion here, what the minister advised from those reports was that there was a need to deal with duplication and a need to deal with efficiencies, which then led to the consolidation.

I would like to know, in more than just these broad terms, how that came about in terms of this evaluation, because the information that the minister just gave in this House, according to his deputy, is that the gynecology services at hospitals have actually declined. However, I have received information that actually contradicts that from physicians, who advise me that there is an increase, particularly for the ethnic community, because people are looking for those kinds of skill sets and that kind of expertise to provide those kinds of services. Anyway, I would like to actually get the fac-

tual data around that so it is not just hearsay — what I heard, what you heard. Not that I don't trust the information of your very able deputy, but I would just like to get that factual information as well.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the best way I can respond is to provide the reports, because I think that is where that kind of detail is provided. We will endeavour to get that to the member as soon as we're able to.

J. Kwan: Yes, I appreciate that, and when I get the reports I'll read them in full. But for the purposes of the estimates today, does the minister know, or does he not have the information before him? Maybe that's the problem, so therefore we can't really engage in a discussion in trying to get the facts. Or maybe he does have the information?

Hon. C. Hansen: No, I do not have that level of detail with me in the chamber.

J. Kwan: Then perhaps I'd like to come back to this after I get the reports and when the minister has the reports before him, and then we can engage in that discussion at a later time. So then aside from the data itself, which I think is actually vital for information, is the decision to shut down Mount St. Joe and move those services to St. Paul's…? Who made that decision? Why not, as an example, the other way around?

Hon. C. Hansen: This is a process that was actually initiated originally by what was then the Vancouver-Richmond health board and continued under the auspices of the Vancouver coastal health authority. It involved representatives from all of the facilities in the health authority, and it was basically as a result of their review and a review of the reports that the recommendations and the decisions were made.

J. Kwan: That doesn't answer the question. Presumably, the minister is ultimately responsible for the decisions of the health authorities, and the health authority's decision is to shut down Mount St. Joseph Hospital's gynecological department and to expand, I guess, or consolidate those services to St. Paul's. Presumably, the minister who is responsible for the health authorities signed off on that — or at least he doesn't seem to have disputed that — and allowed for this to happen. So there must be valid reasons, outside of: "Well, somebody did some report, and so therefore it was done." There must be some sort of valid reason why that option was chosen and not, as I mentioned, the other way around.

Did anybody look into the possibility, in terms of switching that decision the other way around?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member, prior to that break, was asking about who in fact makes the decision around this kind of relocation, and the short answer is the health authority. We have given them the responsibility to organize the health care delivery system in a way that meets patient needs in the most cost-effective way possible and that delivers the maximum amount of patient care with available resources. That means that sometimes consolidations are necessary in order to get the best-quality patient care for the amount of financial resources that are available.

This is one of the initiatives that they have taken. They don't come and ask me for permission on every single one of their decisions. I just rely on them to make sure that they do it based on good evidence and good research. I do hold them accountable for their outcomes, as set out in the performance agreements.

The other thing I'd like to point out is that while there have been some services that are being moved from Mount St. Joseph, there are other services that are being moved to Mount St. Joseph as a result of the reorganization.

I think this kind of initiative by the health authorities is totally within their mandate, and it is within their purview to make these decisions. Unless somebody can show me that it is not based on good methodology or good evidence, I certainly give them the latitude to make these judgments.

J. Kwan: The health authorities are accountable to the minister, and so the decisions of the health authorities ultimately are the responsibility of the minister. So the closure of the gynecological department of Mount St. Joseph decision ultimately is a responsibility of the minister as well.

The minister says that he accepts the information from the health authorities on their evaluation for that action to be taken. For the minister to accept not just the end result of what they're doing…. But has the minister accepted their rationale for this? And what is that rationale? That's what I'm trying to get at, because I'm not clear on how they arrived at that decision, other than they think that it's the best thing they could do for health care service delivery. I mean, those are very vague and noncommittal terms. Anyone can say that. But what are they using to back up their decision?

Hon. C. Hansen: I did set that out for the member earlier in this discussion as to what that rationale was. I also am aware of the process that they went through, in terms of the reviews that were done and in terms of the expertise that came to the table to consider those particular reviews and to assist in making this decision. I know that some of the best experts and officials have put their minds to this, and this is the recommendation that has come forward.

I accept the fact that I am ultimately accountable for these decisions. But based on the process that they

have gone through at arriving at this decision, I am certainly prepared to support them.

J. Kwan: The only rationale that the minister has offered to date is what he called…. There were evaluations done, and in fact they found duplications and efficiencies that were required, and therefore it led to the consolidation. One could make the argument that if duplication and efficiencies were issues, you could easily have reverted the decision of consolidating the services. Instead of from Mount St. Joseph to St. Paul's, it could have gone the other way around. What evidence did the minister receive that supported this decision for it to go the way it did — that is, to shut down Mount St. Joseph and to consolidate its services in St. Paul's Hospital?

Hon. C. Hansen: The review was done by expert clinicians. What I want to make sure is that we base our decisions in terms of health care delivery around that kind of clinical expertise. I am not going to base decisions around purely political motives. I'm not going to inject a political lens on how we best meet the needs of patients in the province.

When I have a group of expert clinicians that come together to review two substantive reports that were put together, and they put that against the lens of delivery of quality service to patients — the need for a 24-hour-a-day coverage, including the on-call coverage we talked about earlier; the need to get best value for every single health care dollar we spend in the system; and optimizing the use of our resources, not only our human resources but our capital resources as well — that is the lens with which we have to evaluate these decisions.

When I look at a decision like this, I am anxious to make sure that they have done their due diligence. I am comfortable that they have done so in this case.

J. Kwan: I'm not suggesting that there should be political interference necessarily, nor am I suggesting that the government should just make decisions without factual information. But it appears to me that the minister does not necessarily know what that factual information is. That's what I'm trying to canvass with the minister.

What is that factual information? He says there were studies done. He doesn't have the studies before him. He didn't have the facts and figures in this House when I asked for them so as to determine, in fact, if the gynecological services at Mount St. Joseph, as an example, had actually gone down in demand and therefore required the consolidation. He doesn't have that information before him.

Yet he can sit here and attempt to berate me about political decisions versus clinicians' information and decisions. Given that the minister is responsible for these decisions, one would have assumed that the minister would have some background information around them other than to say: "Some reports were done by some people that I'm sure have expertise, and therefore I just accept those decisions." If that's how the minister operates, then there's cause to be concerned.

Let me try again here. Maybe if the minister advises that he doesn't have the information before him and therefore these kinds of questions relating to these decisions should be deferred for another day, I'd be happy to do so. But it's not good enough. It's not good enough during the estimates debate, when community members have written — certainly to me as the MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, as the opposition member, and to my colleague the member for Vancouver-Hastings — about their concerns around these decisions. They want to know explicitly how that happened, what the data behind it was, especially when physicians who are involved are saying: "I have contrary information and data that say otherwise."

Mr. Chair, you'll pardon me if I don't just accept what the minister is basically saying: "Trust me. Studies were done. Experts did them, and therefore it's the right decision." It's not good enough for me, that kind of explanation.

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I apologize to the member if she felt that I was berating her. I certainly did not intend to have that come across that way.

I have offered to provide those reports to her. I did not know she was going to specifically be raising Mount St. Joseph Hospital this afternoon. If we had brought in all of the reports and all of the statistics and all of the background documents with regard to all of the issues in health care, quite frankly, it would fill this chamber, and we wouldn't have any room to sit in this room. We do bring along a significant amount of information to try to help us with this estimates process. I do apologize that I don't have that level of detail at my fingertips in this chamber as it pertains to one particular program at one particular hospital, but as I mentioned to the member, we will endeavour to get that to her.

J. Kwan: Then it would seem to me that it would be wise to defer questions around Mount St. Joseph, at least pertaining to this aspect here, so that we could have a legitimate debate about these issues. I accept that the minister doesn't have all of his information before him. I accept that. But I was under the impression that while the minister may not have all the details in terms of the data and numbers and so on, he does have the general parameters of why these decisions were made — more than generalities that say efficiencies and duplication. I was expecting that, but I'm wrong. I will defer these questions with respect to the gynecology department closure.

Now, am I right to assume…? There are other departments that have closed at Mount St. Joseph. The most recent one that I learned of is the diabetes centre at Mount St. Joseph. That has now closed, which was unfortunate news, I must say. It is much like the gynecological services that Mount St. Joseph provided. The

diabetes centre provided excellent informational sessions to people with diabetes and language-appropriate advice with respect to the kinds of foods people should take. Dietitians provided advice to individuals with diabetes and so on.

That service is now also gone, as I understand it. It has closed. If it hasn't closed, it's in the process of closing, but I believe it has closed. Again, the decisions that led to that — are they also in this other report, or is there some other report? Maybe the minister has the information as to why the diabetic services at Mount St. Joseph Hospital were terminated.

Hon. C. Hansen: Again, I want to come back to the role of the health authorities. It is their job to make these decisions as to where services can most appropriately be provided. I don't have any specific detail around any changes to the diabetic service that may have been provided at Mount St. Joseph Hospital, but it may well be that the health authority is making decisions as to where those can be most appropriately provided. That is their mandate. They're empowered to do that.

If you go to the performance agreements we have with the health authorities…. We hold them accountable, but I don't micromanage them. I don't tell them how to do their job. I just hold them accountable at the end of the day that we get better quality health care for the available dollars that we have for health care delivery in that particular health authority.

I would like to just expand on the comment I made earlier about services moving to Mount St. Joseph Hospital. I don't hear the member complaining about that. There are, for example, expanded elder care ambulatory services, including 15 geriatric medicine beds, an additional 20 geriatric psychiatry beds, geriatric psychiatry and medicine out-patient programs, six additional surgery beds, consolidated ophthalmology programs — all initiatives where this change has moved programs to Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

The bottom line is: is there change happening in terms of health care delivery in Vancouver coastal health authority? Yes, because we're trying to redesign a health care system so that in fact we can get better-quality care and more capacity for the available financial and human resources that we have.

J. Kwan: The minister says he doesn't micromanage health board decisions, health authority decisions. I'm not necessarily asking the minister to micromanage their decisions. The minister admits that he's accountable for health board decisions. Therefore, he must answer, in my view, questions around their decisions. The public has the right to ask these questions. The opposition members, on behalf of the public, have the right to ask these questions. The minister has the responsibility to provide these answers. It is for the public to decide, through that debate, whether or not the government, the minister and the health authorities made the right decisions. It's for them to make that judgment.

I know the minister may like the opposition or the public to accept out of hand what the minister or the health authority says are the right decisions. But for the opposition to do their job prudently in terms of holding the government accountable, I have to go a little bit deeper than that, rather than just saying: "Okay, if you say so. If that report you have says so, so be it, and then we'll move on." No, that's not how it's going to work. It is going to need more than that, at least for my own satisfaction and for the constituents I represent — for their satisfaction — in terms of these decisions.

Whether or not these decisions are made in the best public health services delivery interest remains to be seen. It remains to be seen. The background, documentation and knowledge base of this minister in supporting the health authority's decisions will have to be canvassed in this House, and judgments will then follow from it. That's why I'm asking these questions.

I do want to turn to the enhanced services that exist with Mount St. Joe. I will turn to that, but right now my focus is on the service cuts. That's the line of questioning I'm going on.

Am I right, then, with respect to the diabetic services at Mount St. Joseph Hospital? Am I right to assume that was also part of the study undertaken by the health authorities to make the decision to shut down the diabetic centre services? If the minister tells me, "Come back to me next week around that, and I'll have more information for you," I will accept that, and I will come back. I'm not trying to be difficult. There are a number of services that have been cut. People are very concerned about it. People have phoned my offices, and I have committed to them that I will ask these questions in the estimates process of the minister. That's what I'm trying to do here.

Hon. C. Hansen: I appreciate the fact that the member is seeking a level of detail, and I have to apologize that I don't have that level of detail at my fingertips here in the chamber. I do accept my responsibility to be accountable for even the details, but I just can't do it instantly. I certainly would endeavour to try to get back to her with regard to diabetic services.

To answer her one question — was it covered in the two reports I mentioned earlier?— the answer is no. One of those reports was specifically around gynecological services, and the other report was around surgical services planning. In neither case would that reflect directly on diabetes care. I will endeavour to find out more information about diabetes services at Mount St. Joseph.

If she is seeking this level of detail with regard to other files, if she would like to provide us with a bit of a heads-up in advance, we'll certainly try to have that information in the chamber so that we can avoid having to take questions on notice, and I can perhaps give her more timely answers.

J. Kwan: Fair enough, fair enough. I will ask these questions around the diabetic centre along with the

gynecological questions next week some time, when the minister has that information and I've received the reports.

If there are reports associated with work undertaken to determine the closure of the diabetic centre for Mount St. Joseph Hospital, I would appreciate that as well. If I can get that background information, then we can obviously have a much more fluid debate in this House.

Now, the other area which Mount St. Joseph Hospital had to shut down was their children's ward. It was called the…. What's that famous actor's name?

J. Kwan: The Jackie Chan Centre, I think. The Jackie Chan children's ward, I think it was called. That, too, had shut down. It was substantively funded by that famous actor, Jackie Chan, and then it had shut down. Again, I'm not quite sure why, how that came to be, what led to that decision, etc.

The minister, if he doesn't have that information…. That's okay. We can have that discussion next week as well, along with those other services that have shut down. All I need to know then, if that's the case, is: should we defer questions around the Jackie Chan children's ward — I think it's called — for Mount St. Joseph Hospital, which was closed?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm advised that that particular program at Mount St. Joseph was underutilized. I think we also have to recognize that at Children's Hospital we have a tremendous facility that is really a centre of excellence around children's care. Because the one at Mount St. Joseph was underutilized and it was seen to be desirable to consolidate those services under the Children's Hospital, where there are very extensive programs, that consolidation was undertaken.

J. Kwan: Underutilization. What was the utilization rate at Mount St. Joseph Hospital?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that data with me, but we'll endeavour to get it.

J. Kwan: The evaluation to close the children's ward at Mount St. Joseph because of underutilization, as the minister says…. Who undertook that work to make that determination? Was it the health authority themselves or…? I don't know; maybe they contracted it to somebody else to look into that situation. Does the minister know what process took place around that?

Hon. C. Hansen: The children's health services at Mount St. Joseph were funded from the provincial health services authority, which also has responsibility for Children's Hospital. The review was undertaken by PHSA.

What they were looking at was how best to provide those services going forward. I understand that that particular evaluation is something that went back certainly more than three years and resulted in this consolidation. The programs didn't go away; the programs were shifted from Mount St. Joseph and consolidated at Children's Hospital.

J. Kwan: The closure of the children's ward at Mount St. Joseph Hospital was a fairly recent event, actually. The minister advises that the information, the data, collected to make that determination was at least three years old. Maybe I didn't hear the minister correctly, so maybe the minister can advise when that data was collected.

Hon. C. Hansen: What I was saying is that the review actually goes back more than three years, but it was an ongoing process, so they would be using the most current data that would be available at any point in time. When they started looking at how to best provide child health services and the potential need for consolidations, it was over a fairly long period of time, but they were using the most current data that would be available at any point during the years that the review was ongoing.

J. Kwan: Is it possible for the minister to provide the opposition with a copy of this review that determined the need to close Mount St. Joseph Hospital's children's ward because of underutilization?

Hon. C. Hansen: It's not a document per se. The review is something that would have involved clinical experts looking at how best to provide those child health services. If the member is interested, I could certainly get a briefing note from the provincial health services authority to explain the rationale behind this particular move.

J. Kwan: Yes, that would be helpful. Again, it's not just for my own information but, I think, for the public's information as to how that decision was arrived at. Then, for the community to decide whether or not that was the right decision, that would be important.

Given that a number of services have closed at Mount St. Joseph Hospital, may I ask the minister what is happening with this new wing of the hospital that used to be the children's ward? I believe it was called the Jackie Chan children's ward. Is it just sitting empty? What are the plans for this space that is now no longer being utilized?

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have that detail in terms of how that particular space is being utilized. I do know there are additional services that have been moved into Mount St. Joseph Hospital. Whether or not they've gone into that particular part of the building, I don't have that information.

J. Kwan: Maybe when we deal with the other closure elements of Mount St. Joseph Hospital, the minister could find out for me what the intention is here

with respect to these empty spaces that donors through the foundation…. The hard work of volunteers of the foundation raised these moneys, and donors earnestly believed that their donations would go towards this cause. Therefore, this structure was built, and then — lo and behold — not long after, they find that the service they thought they had donated towards is no longer there and the structure is just…. Well, I don't know what it is being used for.

That's troubling, I think, for a lot of people — not only for the community which accesses that service, but it's also troubling for the foundation that worked hard to raise these moneys, as you can appreciate, and then for the donors themselves. They sit there and think: "Okay. I donated a bunch of money to provide for the hospital here only to find out that the service has been closed down." The foundation that is trying to raise the money loses a lot of credibility, the community loses the service, and the donors are sitting there wondering: "Why am I donating these moneys to these things that end up not being used?" That's not a fortunate scenario for anyone, I think. It would be useful if the minister can advise what's happened to these spaces and supports that have been put in place for Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

Let's turn to the additional services that the minister put on record a little while ago. I missed some of them. If the minister can advise what additional services now exist at Mount St. Joseph, and if he could run through the list for me and the extent to which the additions had been put in place….

Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have a comprehensive list of all the things that may have been moved to Mount St. Joseph, but these are actually services I read out earlier — services transferred from St. Vincent's Hospital to Mount St. Joseph Hospital and St. Paul's Hospital. The ones that were transferred to Mount St. Joseph specifically are elder care ambulatory services, including 15 geriatric medicine beds, 20 geriatric psychiatry beds, geriatric psychiatry and medicine out-patient programs, six additional surgery beds and consolidated ophthalmology program.

J. Kwan: There has been discussion about expanding Mount St. Joseph, and there has also been discussion about closure of Mount St. Joseph. The minister had just advised in this House a little earlier that there are no plans to close down Mount St. Joseph Hospital, so I don't have to canvass any more about that. There are no plans to close Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

With that knowledge, then let me explore the concept of expanding Mount St. Joseph, because people were under the impression that the government had wanted to expand Mount St. Joseph. They naturally got very worried about it because services within Mount St. Joseph — such as the gynecological department, the children's ward, the diabetic centre, etc., — ended up shutting down. And people were thinking that was kind of a strange way of expanding things. The things that have been expanded, in terms of the beds and so on, hadn't given people a level of comfort that in fact the plans were not to shut down Mount St. Joseph.

Can the minister enlighten me through this House of the plans for expansion of Mount St. Joseph beyond what the minister had advised in terms of those beds?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think what is key for me to point out is that the provincial government does not own this facility. It's owned by Providence Health Care, which is in turn owned by the Sisters of Providence. Providence Health Care owns and administers a network of Catholic facilities in the Vancouver coastal health authority, of which Mount St. Joseph Hospital is one.

I am aware that within Providence Health Care they are trying to look forward in terms of what the future vision would be for Providence Health Care well down the road. We have certainly been supporting them in a feasibility study that they're doing to look at what some of that future vision might look like.

Beyond that, from the ministry's perspective, it is not our role to plan for expansion or change with regard to any of those Providence sites. It is really incumbent upon their own board to do that future visioning and then for us to work with them in terms of how the services they deliver are integrated into the rest of health care delivery not just in Vancouver coastal but indeed provincewide. In the case of St. Paul's, for example, that is a facility that provides some very important provincewide programs.

The short answer to the member's question is that we don't have any specific plans within the ministry for expansion, but Providence Health Care, which is the owner of the facility, is embarking on a future visioning project.

J. Kwan: Did the minister say the government participated in a feasibility study in terms of the future vision of what Mount St. Joe would look like? Did I hear him correctly on that?

Hon. C. Hansen: Providence Health Care, which owns Mount St. Joseph Hospital and several other facilities in Vancouver, is embarking on a future visioning process to look at what role Providence Health Care should play in the future. We have provided them with some specific financial assistance to fund a feasibility study to look at what that future vision might look like. Our participation in it is to provide some funding to enable that feasibility study to be done.

J. Kwan: No, it hasn't. When will it be completed, and will the minister get a copy of that completed study?

Hon. C. Hansen: I understand that the completion of the feasibility study is still months off. It is, as I understand it, a very complex process, because it's not just looking at the internal challenges within Providence, but it's also looking at how that integrates with the rest of health care delivery. On top of that, it has to anticipate years forward, decades forward, in terms of what those health care needs would be. It is a fairly complex and involved process. When it is completed, I am sure I will see a copy of it, but I don't expect to see it for several months yet.

J. Kwan: Will the minister commit to providing the opposition a copy of this feasibility study when he receives a copy so that, again, that information is shared for the purposes of accountability?

Hon. C. Hansen: At the end of the day, the feasibility study is Providence Health Care's feasibility study. While we're providing some funding to it, it would ultimately be up to Providence to determine what would happen to it. My personal bias on all of these kinds of things is that I think the more information we can put out to the public, the better. But at this point I can't anticipate when or who would be releasing that particular information at the time. As I say, I'm not even sure when we're going to be able to see it, because it's still quite a way off.

J. Kwan: Well, that's not very good accountability then, I must say. Because the government used public funds towards that feasibility study, the government has the right to know the end result of that feasibility. The public therefore has the right to know what's in that feasibility study, because in part it was funded by public moneys for that study to be completed. It's not very accountable and acceptable, quite frankly, for the minister to say that he doesn't know when he will get the report and whether or not or who will actually get access to this report. If it wasn't funded publicly, that's another matter, but it is funded publicly in part. Then the public has the right to access that information, and the minister has the responsibility to make sure that information is available for the public's consumption.

Hon. C. Hansen: I guess the response to the member is that is not a decision that I unilaterally can make around the disclosure of a particular document, because it is a document that is being prepared by and for Providence Health Care. Yes, there are some public funds assisting them with the feasibility, but that in itself does not lead to a requirement that they release it at the end of the day. I think what is important is that there be accountability around how the money was spent and that there was, in fact, value for that at the end of the day.

We don't know what this particular visioning process is going to lead to, but certainly if it leads to projects that are funded by government, then obviously there are disclosure requirements around that, and we'd make sure those are followed.

J. Kwan: Well, no. That logic is faulty insofar as this. It's true that the study was commissioned by Providence. I take it that's the case — that the feasibility was commissioned by Providence. Looking at it another way, where the government funds Providence in this feasibility study in terms of the visioning of publicly funded hospitals, there are two links where the government has some role to play here in terms of understanding what that visioning looks like. It is not just up to Providence to say, "Here's my vision of what our four hospitals should look like," because those hospitals are dependant on government funding — publicly funded hospitals. It is a partnership, the way I see it, and the feasibility is a partnership.

Yes, Providence may have commissioned the study, but that partnership therefore brings forward the responsibility of Providence to make this information available to the public, because ultimately the minister and this government are responsible to the public. They should have the right to access this information.

I would hope that the minister, when he put forward dollars towards this feasibility study, understood that he has the right to access that information — the feasibility study — and to share that information. I would think at the minimum that would be the case. Otherwise, it is a strange partnership, really, to say, "Okay, we will fund something, but we will have no access to the end product," given particularly that it is a study. That makes no sense, to say: "Well, I will be satisfied if the end product was there."

That's not, in my view, good accountability, and I would be very surprised that this minister would accept that. I would be very surprised. Maybe the minister would like to think on this a little bit and might offer, I hope, a different response.

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member indicated, it is a partnership, and that's why I can't make those kinds of unilateral decisions in terms of what gets released and when. As I mentioned earlier, I think the more public disclosure on these kinds of things, the better. That's certainly the approach I will take when we get to that stage.

J. Kwan: The minister agrees that the more information released to the public, the better. Will he commit, then, that he will ask Providence as a partner to agree to release this information? Will the minister, at least on his part, commit today that he has agreed to release the information — that is, subject to Providence's agreement as well — so that everybody knows on the record, if the report is not released, who's actually responsible? Will the minister commit to saying he is prepared to release the report if Providence is agreeable to it? Will he commit to asking Providence for that to be done?

Hon. C. Hansen: I cannot give the member that commitment now without knowing the nature of the information that is going to be contained in it. There may well be information that could be prejudicial to any particular business arrangements that might flow from it, for example. I think a lot of it is still quite hypothetical because, as I say, this particular report is still months off. I guess my only response is that we will cross those bridges when we get to them.

J. Kwan: Let me then remind the minister of a recent court decision regarding the PHSA — in fact, a court decision that said the functions of the PHSA are administrative and advisory. The minister remains legally and politically responsible. The minister sets out the applicable provincial guidelines, not the PHSA. The PHSA was required to develop its redesigned plan in accordance with guidelines provided by the minister.

Essentially, this decision would counter any of the Health minister's claims that they can avoid a question and dodge answers by placing responsibility on health authorities. In this instance, to extend that rationale, instead of placing the responsibility on health authorities, the government is placing responsibility — at least this minister is placing the responsibility — on Providence and therefore saying they may not be able to release the information. The court made a decision to say that particularly in-camera meetings of health authorities, and so on, should be made public because the minister is ultimately responsible politically as well as legally. That information should be made public.

In this partnership the minister should be able to commit that he will make public that feasibility study and the information contained in it when it is completed. The public has the right to know. It is in part funded publicly. The minister is responsible for these endeavours, and these hospital expansions or otherwise would be funded by the government. They are funded right now by the government, and if there are expansions or future plans, they are to be funded by the government. The public has the right to know what that vision is, what it looks like and how public funds would be spent — or planned to be spent.

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, if projects flow from this, they obviously become public. The member says that in that particular court ruling…. I think she's comparing apples and oranges here in terms of issues, because that was a very different circumstance. I have never, as a minister, refused to accept my responsibilities for accountability with regard to the activities of the health authorities. You know, that was in a court judgment, but it was an unnecessary clause, because I have never shirked those responsibilities in the first place in the more than two and a half years I have had this responsibility.

The member is correct. I may have the power to decide that a particular document is going to be made public, if it is a document generated within the health care system. In this case, I am not prepared to stand here today and say that that document will be made public on the day I receive it. That's the end of it. We will certainly look at it. I have no doubt that it will be made public in due course, as most government documents are. If there are projects that flow from that…. There are obviously requirements, and we will make sure we live up to those requirements.

J. Kwan: Well, I have to say it is not satisfactory — the minister's answer. On one hand, he says that he is open and accountable to the public and that he has never shirked his responsibility in that regard, but on the other hand he stood in this House and told the public that a feasibility study that is in part funded by the government…. He does not know what will happen with that feasibility study. He does not know who will get access to it, if anybody will get access to it.

And he won't commit to his part. He says that the reason why is because the province is only, in part, a partner of this feasibility study and that therefore Providence, who really commissioned this study, have to agree to release this information. Okay. I accept that — that Providence would have to be asked to see whether or not they would release the information. But at the minimum, I was seeking the minister's agreement that he would release this information. He won't; he won't do that.

You can't have it both ways, Mr. Chair. You can't say that, yes, I'm open and accountable and then in the same breath turn around and say: "No, I won't release information that's publicly funded." It doesn't wash. The excuse he wants to use — to say that it may be that Providence doesn't want the information released — is not there. The foundation of that excuse is not there, especially when I accept the notion that, okay, we'll seek Providence's agreement on this.

Setting that aside, will the minister commit, at least on his part, to release the information? He says he won't, so that's not open or accountable. That, I would say, is a direct contradiction of this minister's and this government's commitment during the 2001 election campaign to being open and accountable. It is a direct contradiction of that.

While the minister wants to give comfort about Mount St. Joseph Hospital, he said in this House that it was not going to close, that there are no plans to close Mount St. Joseph Hospital. Then when I asked about plans for expansion, he says he doesn't know about plans for expansion except that he has contributed dollars towards a feasibility study for the visioning process of the four hospitals involved under the umbrella of Providence, which includes Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

It could well be that the feasibility study could come back and say: "Hey, you know what? Mount St. Joseph Hospital should shut down — in its entirety." So how then can the minister give the assurance that Mount St. Joseph…? On what basis does he give the assurance that Mount St. Joseph Hospital would not shut down? Actually, I would like to know precisely

where that is from so that I can go and tell my constituents that the minister made the commitment that Mount St. Joseph would not shut down.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think I want to go back to the original question the member asked me, and that was whether I would release the feasibility study on the day I receive it. The answer is no. Certainly, I have every expectation that documents will get released when it is appropriate for them to be released. What I said to the member earlier was that there are no plans within the ministry to close Mount St. Joseph Hospital.

I also indicated to the member that we don't own Mount St. Joseph Hospital. It is owned by the Catholic sisters, the Sisters of Providence. It is administered by Providence Health Care, which is a not-for-profit organization that we contract for the delivery of services. The future of those facilities is not in my hands. The future of that facility is in the hands of those who own it, which is Providence Health Care and, in turn, the Catholic order of the Sisters of Providence.

J. Kwan: Well, no. Mount St. Joseph Hospital and the hospitals that Providence has control of and owns are publicly funded by this government. Their existence is dependent on that — save and except, I suppose, if Mount St. Joseph Hospital or Providence decides to say: "I'm going to return all of the moneys that the government has given for the provision of health services in this hospital." Save and except that scenario, these hospitals will remain open for as long as the government funds them. That's logical to arrive at, save and except with the feasibility study, which is why it's so important for the information to be shared with the public in a timely manner.

The minister says that okay, on the day on which he receives it, he may not be able to release it. Can he release it a week after, within a reasonable time frame, so that the public can get access to this information? I don't mean, for example, to release the information on the eve of when the community finds out through this feasibility study that somehow, let's say, Mount St. Joseph Hospital is going to close down.

I will tell you, the foundation was asked to participate in this feasibility study. They wanted to participate in this study by contributing towards it. In fact, they were all ready to go and do that when they were advised that the feasibility study was to look for expansion opportunities for Mount St. Joseph Hospital. Later they were advised that the possibility of closure was also included in it, at which point the foundation withdrew its participation, because the foundation's whole mandate was to fund Mount St. Joseph Hospital and to see that the services needed in the community continue — not disappear. It was contrary, in their view, to the best interests of Mount St. Joseph Hospital, so they withdrew their participation.

There is a possibility that Mount St. Joseph Hospital could close. In order to get their assurance and understand the process that's in place, it would be wise, I think, for everyone to get access to information so that people know what the lay of the land is, so that people also know if there is any threat in terms of the closure of the hospital and so that people also know if there is the vision to enhance and expand the hospital. Then they can find ways to decide how they might participate in that process.

In my view, it is critical that this minister commits to releasing this information, maybe not on the day he has received it — I can accept that — but within a week or two weeks — a reasonable time frame so that the public can have information about it. The minister says that if there are projects that flow from the feasibility study, then there might be an opportunity for the feasibility study to be released. Well, I suppose if the feasibility study is all about projects that do not involve any of the public hospitals that involve public dollars, so they're all private endeavours, I can understand the minister saying: "Well, the feasibility study is really not for public consumption, because it is all private operations or developments or enhancements or whatever the case may be." But I suspect that won't be the case. It might have some elements of it.

Even if the minister says that they might have to sever that information — the elements that might be sensitive because they are about business plans that involve the private sector or whatever the case might be — so as to not jeopardize Providence's future in that development, I understand that too. But I suspect that the information relating to the public hospitals would be released publicly and when the minister gets it, in a reasonable time frame — not on the day but maybe a week or two or something like that. I was looking for that sort of commitment from the minister.

In any event, Mr. Chair, I know there are other members in the House who wish to ask the minister some questions. I have more questions to ask of the minister around Mount St. Joseph Hospital, which need to be deferred to another day, and so I will continue this discussion with the minister next week.

I will now defer the floor to other members who may wish to ask the minister questions about the Health estimates debate.

E. Brenzinger: To the Minister of Health: I was wondering, for my constituents, if you could make it clear to us who made the decision to close St. Mary's and how was it made.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think, given the discussion we've just had earlier, it's probably important that I put into context St. Mary's. It is a facility that is also owned by a Catholic order of sisters. It's actually a different Catholic order of sisters than the Providence Health group, but I gather there are some linkages there.

St. Mary's Hospital is a facility that was first established about 118 years ago, or in that neighbourhood, and has provided tremendous care over its very proud history.

What we undertook…. Well, I guess, first of all, just to back up a bit…. What we looked at across the whole

province was going from a system where really each and every hospital was an island unto itself to a network of care, looking at what procedures should be best offered in what facilities, where the gaps were, where we may need an expansion of facilities to meet growing populations, where we were underutilizing some hospitals and where we had hospitals basically in the wrong location, given where the population lived. Clearly, over the last hundred years, that's something that has changed very, very significantly.

In doing that evaluation as to where care could be provided, what we recognized in New Westminster is that we had two acute care hospitals within a very short distance from each other — about five minutes apart. We had Royal Columbian Hospital, which is one of our province's tertiary care facilities that really has the full, comprehensive array of services that our acute care system provides and is certainly a hospital that I think is first class in the care it delivers.

St. Mary's Hospital had gone through some changes over a number of years. For example, St. Mary's Hospital no longer had an emergency room. They were providing non-emergency care. They were providing some diagnostic procedures. They were providing some stepped-down care from Royal Columbian Hospital. But if you started looking at who the patients were at St. Mary's Hospital, only 17 percent were actually from New Westminster. The other 83 percent of patients were in fact from other communities both around the Fraser Valley and in some cases outside the Fraser health authority. The great majority of those patients were coming from neighbouring communities where we had other facilities that were in fact underutilized.

What we looked at from this evaluation in terms of what care was needed and where it would best be located…. We realized that St. Mary's needed to go through some changes. When the Fraser health authority first indicated that they felt the services they had contracted to St. Mary's might best be provided elsewhere, St. Mary's came back with a proposal that would really allow them to provide some services going forward.

The health authority tried to structure that in a way that made sense and still got us the best value for the dollar in terms of the services being delivered. It was an arrangement that would result in the contract with St. Mary's going from roughly $27 million to about $13 million for the services that would be provided. Instead of a global budget that would go into St. Mary's, it was going to be for specific services that were going to be purchased by the Fraser health authority.

The St. Mary's board indicated that they could work with that. They were going to go out to find other users that could contract for services being provided from that facility. We got indication from them that they were having some difficulty with that. In fact, the chair of the board indicated to me in a letter that they did not feel they would continue to be financially viable.

At that point we had to look at how we provide continuity of service to the patients who would be depending on St. Mary's come January, February, March of this year that we're in now. I called in George Morfitt to do a review of the financial circumstances as to whether St. Mary's continued to be viable in that new arrangement. His report came back, and he said that in the short and medium term he certainly didn't feel it would be viable, and he questioned whether it would be viable even in the long term if this arrangement could come together.

In other words, it's a fairly complex history that led up to these decisions. There was certainly some evaluation done in terms of where services could best be provided. That was sort of the first stage of it. The next stage of it, where they thought there was an arrangement that would allow for the continuity of care at that facility, did not turn out to be financially viable judging by Morfitt's report. We had to make sure the patients continued to get the services they wanted, so a decision was made that those services would be relocated to other hospitals in neighbouring communities.

E. Brenzinger: Thank you, minister. From what you've said, then, I understand that government just didn't come in and close down the hospital. There was an analysis done, and it was clear that the board was supporting the decision the government made.

The question I have to clarify around all of this is the role of the government and the Fraser health authority. With government streamlining from 52 to five health authorities, can the minister clarify once again for my constituents the role of the health authority and the role of the government and how these two roles have contributed to a better system since the previous administration?

Hon. C. Hansen: There was one reference the member made that I should correct — when she said that the board supported the government's decision. In fact, the board there was appointed by the sisters who own the facility. The board in place at the time the decision was made was not supportive, but the sisters were. In order to ensure that this transition went smoothly, the sisters chose to replace the board. The new board that was put in place was in fact supportive and is helping to facilitate this transitioning of care to other facilities so the needs of patients get met.

The member's question around the role of the health authorities. We rely on the health authorities to determine how best to deliver patient services in that region. It's not a question of saying: "Let's take all of our existing facilities and make sure that we keep them full." It's a case of saying: "How do we meet the needs of individual patients and do it in a way that recognizes what should be based in the communities where they live?" What are the demographic pressures in terms of what communities are growing fastest and may need an expansion of services in the future so that, in some cases, services should be shifted to those rapidly growing communities?

We rely on the health authorities to do that kind of an evaluation, to look at where the specialist call

groups should be located, which services should be located out of which facilities to get the maximum value for the tax dollars and the maximum benefit from the human resources — whether it be the nurses, the doctors or other health professionals that have to work in that system. We do rely on the health authority to make that kind of evaluation.

In the case of St. Mary's, I certainly accepted the work they had done and only got directly involved when there appeared to be some difficulties between the health authority and what was then the St. Mary's board in sorting out where this particular contractual arrangement should go. It was only then that I stepped in and personally appointed George Morfitt to do the financial review that he did at that time.

R. Hawes: Actually, I'll continue with this probably next week, but for today I did want to be able to ask a question. Today the HEU put out another paper decrying the P3 effort at the Abbotsford hospital. That new hospital is so desperately needed in Abbotsford, as the minister knows, and the people I represent are so pleased that the hospital is now moving ahead. Today I want the minister to comment on some of the fearmongering that's out there, to ensure that my constituents understand on the ground who's going to own this hospital, who's going to run this hospital and where the risk of cost overruns is going to lie. Will it be with us, or will it be with the P3 partner?

Hon. C. Hansen: I would like to start by recognizing the very good work that's been done by the member from Mission with regard to this new and exciting project. The need was first identified in the late 1980s. I think we had the NDP administration during the 1990s that kept promising it, kept saying it was coming, and nothing happened. I think there were several sod-turning ceremonies. I think they actually put some signs up at one point, but there was no progress to making this particular new hospital a reality. When we formed government, we delivered on that commitment, and that new 300-plus-bed hospital is now in the works.

To address the member's specific question, there is a lot of fearmongering around this, but I think what I hear from the public — and I'm sure the member hears from his constituents and other residents of the Fraser Valley — is that this partnership we have with the private sector to build this new hospital is really an exciting way to get this project underway so it can become a reality. What I hear from a lot of people is that they say: "We don't care how it's built. We just want it built because we need it." What this particular public-private partnership arrangement allows us to do is transfer some of the risk of the cost overruns to the private sector partner. While the province will still own the hospital, we will be relying on the private sector partner to design it, to build it and to operate all of the support services in that hospital. We will still, as government and as the health authority, be providing for the clinical services that are there.

As I've said on many occasions, I don't need to be in the real estate business, I don't need to be in the janitorial business, and I don't need to be in the food preparation business. I need to make sure that we provide health care. We have to provide the clinical services. When it comes to all of the other support that is necessary to make sure that a hospital works, we can contract for that from private sector partners.

This is a great model because it actually ensures that the risk for any potential cost overruns in that construction phase is in fact not borne by us but borne by the private sector partner. They have the incentive, as they are designing and building this facility, to make sure that those cost overruns are avoided, because it's their dollars that are on the line at the end of the day.

With that, Mr. Chair, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

D. MacKay: I'd just like to carry on with what I started just before we broke for lunch. That had to do with the B.C. Transmission Corporation and the independent power producers. The question I want to pursue is the extent of B.C. Hydro grid in the northern part of our province. As I understand it, the apex for the B.C. Hydro grid at the present time is at Meziadin Junction. That's probably as far north as it goes in the northwest portion of the province. Would that be a correct statement?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, that would be correct, other than there are a few spot places further up in Dease Lake and those kinds of places, but they're integral to diesel generation right there — that area.

D. MacKay: Those other lines that are north of Meziadin Junction are not owned by B.C. Hydro. Are they not private?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's B.C. Hydro — for instance, Dease Lake. B.C. Hydro runs the operation and actually distributes it, and whatever transmission there is right within that community would be B.C. Hydro.

D. MacKay: I'm sorry. I may have missed something. I'm referring to the hydro generation line that is in the Dease Lake area. Is that owned by B.C. Hydro, or is that owned by the Tahltan Development Corporation? Is there a relationship between B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transmission Corporation and the Tahltan Development Corporation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I understand from the staff, the Tahltan do own some distribution there, but the distribution in Dease Lake is owned and operated by B.C. Hydro. Now, which poles are actually B.C. Hydro's and which are the Tahltan's, I'm not exactly sure.

D. MacKay: The hydroelectric generation in the Dease Lake area — does B.C. Hydro own that, or does the Tahltan Development Corporation own it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: What B.C. Hydro tells me is that the generation is an IPP, so it's probably owned by the Tahltan. I guess the member should know; I think that's his constituency. They buy it from that IPP and distribute it through the small distribution system that's in Dease Lake.

D. MacKay: Okay, I understand that. Now, could the rather complicated formula that determines how much B.C. Hydro was willing to pay an independent power producer for the power…? I understand there was a penalty associated with building a power generation facility away from where the power demand presently is. There's a penalty associated with that. Generally, B.C. Hydro pays less for the power the further away the demand for the power is.

I want to know if, in fact, the Tahltan IPP is being penalized for that transmission distance because the power is being used in the community of Dease Lake. Are they paying the same rate they're going to pay other IPPs throughout the province?

D. MacKay: Could the minister advise me as to the rate being paid to the IPP at Dease Lake for the power?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We'll get that number for you. We don't have that right here.

D. MacKay: Thank you. I'll look forward to getting that. Again, the reason I'm asking these questions, minister, is the Coast Mountain Hydro project that is presently an IPP — one that has gone into a contract with B.C. Hydro for generation…. It is north of the Meziadin Junction and requires an extension of the B.C. Hydro grid on behalf of Coast Mountain Hydro. It's about 150 kilometres, I believe, of power line that will have to be built to tie into the Meziadin Junction at the cost of the developer.

I want to pursue some questions along the lines of the cost of the transmission line from the Iskut River Coast Mountain Hydro project down to Meziadin Junction. As I understand it, is the Coast Mountain proponent totally responsible for the development and building of that transmission line from the project to Meziadin Junction?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, they are responsible for those costs from where they generate to the first connection point of the transmission system on the integrated system for B.C. Hydro.

D. MacKay: Again, dealing with that transmission line, are they required only to build to the capacity that is being generated? Or are they going to have to look at a larger capacity on the transmission line than is actually being generated because of the fact that there is no hydroelectric power in the northern part of the province? Are they just being restricted to the actual capacity, or do they have to build it to be able to expand the capacity of the transmission lines?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That would be a decision of their own. If they wanted to overbuild for more than they're going to generate…. As I understand, it's 100 megawatts. They'd want to build a line that would carry that much electricity. If they want to build it larger, that's their call. But I would think that if they're going to generate 100 megs, they'd want to make sure they can move 100 megs to the integrated system.

D. MacKay: Looking to the future and the northern part of the province, I wonder if during these negotiations Hydro has considered going into some sort of an

agreement with the developer to actually build the line larger than the 100 megawatts that is presently being built, for future generation. If they're going to build a line for 150 kilometres, it makes sense to me that in the future there's going to be further development in the northern part of the province that will require the transmission of energy south and north. I just wondered if B.C. Hydro has, in fact, gone into that stage or considered it.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's an excellent question coming from the north. There are lots of areas in northeastern and northwestern B.C. that aren't serviced with electricity. I know I've asked a number of people in Hydro to look at how we can actually look to the future on those kinds of extensions. Hydro would be quite willing to work with the proponent on that particular one. If there are other uses along the line that would use some more electricity to actually pay the difference to upgrade it to a larger transmission capacity, that again has to be something they would have to pass through the BCUC and have good reasons for, for the BCUC to understand what they're trying to do for the future.

I don't know how that would affect the contract that is presently in place with B.C. Hydro and the existing proponent. If that contract is…. Are we able to reopen that contract to look at making some changes if, in fact, B.C. Hydro could make a strong case to the BCUC that there should be some money spent on increasing the line capacity from Bob Quinn, which is approximately where that transmission line would come out, down to Meziadin Junction? Is there a chance that contract could be reopened?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, Hydro would look at that seriously. I don't know whether it requires reopening the contract or anything like that, but they would look at that seriously and whatever it would require to facilitate that. If at the end of the day you come to that decision, they would be quite willing to look at that.

D. MacKay: I just want to go back again to the rather complicated formula that determines how much B.C. Hydro is willing to pay a proponent to build an IPP. It's my understanding that when an IPP puts his package in, Hydro looks at it and determines where the call for the demand is. If it's in the lower mainland, they will pay him less than they would if somebody was to build a facility on the lower mainland to produce power — because of the low cost of transmission, I suppose. I don't know if that's factored into it, but it seems to me that northern IPPs are being paid less for hydro because they're so far from where the demand is. Is that a fair read on it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It is a complicated process that they go through in determining the rates, and there are cost adjustments. In fact, the member's correct. There could be a penalty the further you are away because the cost of getting the electricity to wherever it would be consumed is greater than if you built it close to the load centre.

If you had an IPP built close to the lower mainland, around Whistler or someplace, it's close to a load centre, and there's not very much line loss. If you were building further away, for instance in the Peace River, and you're going to move it all the way south, there's obviously up to 8 percent line loss to move it down. The member's correct in that fashion. A penalty that they pay for being further away or in a remote area where there's not a large consumption…. There are also allocation allowances for where they are building, remembering that they would review where the project is with site costing.

The Coast Mountain one is a bit remote; there's no doubt about it. Probably at the end of the day, without knowing the contract…. I don't know whether the contract is public, to be perfectly honest, so I'm going to be very careful here and not talk about their contract in terms of what it is or what it isn't. They have negotiated that with Hydro. I'm not aware, from Coast Hydro, that they're upset or have some problem with the contract they've negotiated with B.C. Hydro, but there are those things that are factored in when you go to build new generation and transmission.

D. MacKay: I'm not suggesting for a moment…. Coast Mountain are extremely happy with the contract they've got at the present time. From my position as the MLA, I'm just pursuing it and any future developments that want to take place in the northern part of the province, particularly in the northwest, because I look after that region. Don't get me wrong. Coast Mountain are quite happy with the project. I'm just, for my own information….

You touched on an issue about the loss of energy further away from the demand. If the current is being shipped by direct current as opposed to AC current, is there…? Obviously, I think the loss is less by way of direct current. Is that right?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The line loss — you're right — is less in the DC system as to the AC system, but the capital costs for the DC system are also more expensive than the AC system. What the people have to do is figure out what they think is best. I believe it is a DC system that they're proposing to bring down.

D. MacKay: That brings me to the issue of the direct current. I understand that is what has made this project a doable thing for them — the fact that it is being transmitted by way of direct current. I wonder if, in fact, with this rather complicated formula that we just discussed…. Did B.C. Hydro look at the energy loss down 150 kilometres using the old system of alternating current as opposed to the DC current? It would make a difference in the actual amount of energy being

delivered to the Meziadin substation. It's going to be less if it's by way of direct current and more if it's by way of alternating current. I'd like to know: did they use a different formula in this particular case because of the transmission differences?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Where Hydro takes the electricity is at Meziadin. Whether you use AC or DC is actually a decision made by the proponent. They want to use DC because they lose less electricity. That's a decision they made. Hydro or B.C. Transmission Corporation isn't involved in the decision as to whether they should use DC or AC. That was part of the proposal they made.

As I said, then there are the capital costs, which I'm told are a bit larger for DC than they are for AC. But where Hydro measures it is where they take it into the integrated system at Meziadin.

D. MacKay: Again, I don't like to keep belabouring this, but the issue around the penalty associated with producing power in the northern part of the province…. It's so far from the load, and I suspect that most of the load is down here in the lower mainland, because there's not much happening up in the northern part of the province. However, we do have these mines that are getting close to coming on stream — one is Red Chris, and the other one is Galore Creek — that will probably use the entire load that is coming from Coast Mountain.

The question is the formula that was used to determine how much Coast Mountain is going to get paid for hydro. Did they use the formula suggesting that the load is down in the lower mainland as opposed to the load being maybe 75 kilometres from where the project is being developed and where these mines are? There are a couple of things that don't seem quite fair, if they're using the same formula — where the load is and where the generation is. The generation is actually closer to the IPP. I just wonder what formula B.C. Hydro used in determining whether they're going to pay a penalty up there because the load is actually north of the project, not down south where it generally is.

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said, where Hydro takes delivery is at Meziadin. Hydro doesn't get involved in figuring out what the cost is to deliver or what the line loss is from the IPP to Meziadin. That's their transmission line. That's the independent power producer's transmission line. They make the decision whether they build on an AC or a DC line. Where Hydro takes it is at Meziadin. There is a fair…. I don't know where they would load electricity from Meziadin. It would be farther south. I don't know what process they use from that point south to where they think the electricity is going to be consumed.

The member should know that when Coast Mountain came to see me quite a while ago about this project, I encouraged them to use an AC system so that they could actually tie into the other mines that would be in that area, and they could probably provide the mines that are up there with electricity rather than doing it some other way. I did encourage them to think seriously about going to AC if it's going to be consumed in mines that will, at some point in time, be built up there. I guess, in their own determination, they looked at those options — I'm sure they did, as business people — and looked at the options of AC-DC and decided, as I understand from you, to go with DC line.

Yes, there is a penalty when you're a long way from the load centre. Exactly what the penalty is, member… I'm not exactly sure how it applies to Coast Mountain. I'm sure if Coast Mountain wants to come in, along with you, and have an explanation of how all that process works, we'd be quite willing to do that with the B.C. Hydro officials so that you understand and so that if there is something they don't understand — they haven't come to me and said anything; I think you said that they don't have any problem — everybody understands why it was done, how it was done and how those contracts were negotiated.

D. MacKay: I'm not arguing the point, minister. I'm just trying to get it straight in my own mind that if there's a formula being used and it's dependent on where the load is, the load is not at Meziadin Junction.

D. MacKay: Right. The load is north of where the project is being developed.

My question is: did they use a different formula? It's not Coast Mountain arguing; it's me. I just want to know, for my own curiosity. Did B.C. Hydro use the same formula as if the load was down in the lower mainland, or did they use a load distance from Meziadin Junction back up the DC line to where the mines are going to be — consumed?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not trying to belabour this or get around the question. Maybe you could tell me who is going to consume the 100 megawatts of electricity so it doesn't even have to hit the Hydro system. Maybe you can help me with that a little bit.

D. MacKay: Obviously, the two mines — Galore Creek and Red Chris mines — would probably use 100 megawatts of power. That's why I'm trying to find out about the formula. If they can use the power north of the project, why would we penalize them because the load is in the lower mainland? There's obviously a formula somewhere, and I don't understand the formula. I don't want to belabour it. I just want to know if, in fact, they got a fair shake on the formula that is presently in place that determines how much Hydro was willing to pay an independent power producer. That's the question.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I hope they got a fair shake from B.C. Hydro and BCTC. I would assume they did, or I would have certainly heard from the company.

The two mines you speak about aren't consuming electricity — right? It's sometime in the future. I don't know when they plan on being tied into the system. If it's prior to the mines being developed, obviously they want to sell their electricity as soon as they can into the system. That means it goes in at Meziadin. Sometime in the future — and I'm with you — I hope both those mines…. I'd like to see them go tomorrow, but to my knowledge I don't think they're going to happen tomorrow. Maybe what that IPP could do is cut a deal with those mines — if, as the members says, they would consume 100 megawatts. That's the beauty of IPPs. They can go to those two mines and say: "Here, we can sell you the electricity you're going to need to run your mines."

When I say that, I would assume what's going to happen is that the IPP isn't going to be able to sell it to the mine as cheaply as B.C. Hydro can. They'll want to have the 1821 rate, which is very low. That's actually what is a benefit to our mining industry in the province. I would assume what they're going to want to do is buy it from B.C. Hydro, because Coast Mountain Hydro today couldn't sell it for the same price B.C. Hydro does to large industrial consumers.

There are a whole bunch of things that work in there. I would say that if they went to them now and said, "Do you want to buy the hydro?" if Red Chris and Galore Creek want to say, "Yeah, we'll buy the hydro, and we're ready to take it now," they can make that deal.

I'm hoping they didn't get penalized on anything, but we're talking about something that hasn't happened in either case. We don't know when each one will actually be something on the ground.

D. MacKay: The minister is absolutely right. I apologize for having pursued that as I did, but I'm looking into the future. I guess I probably should have been looking at the present tense as opposed to the future.

It does bring up another interesting point. If in fact Red Chris decides they want to build a transmission line from Bob Quinn on Highway 37, where that transmission line is going to come out, up to Red Chris mines, who is going to build that transmission line? Will Hydro build it, or will the proponent of the project? I don't understand who would build that line.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I assume that if that's the only power that would be used at that location, it would be the mining company that would pay for the transmission line to go there. Let's say there are a whole bunch of users there. I don't know whether there will be or not. Then it may be something that BCTC should look at. But it's also something that BCTC — now that we have it separated from B.C. Hydro — can look at so that we can actually do that kind of development in the northern part of the province and some of these more remote areas.

Do I have an answer to who's going to build it? No I don't, because no one has even said they want to build it yet. Those things should be negotiated out in a process that best meets the needs of the mining company, the IPP, B.C. Transmission, B.C. Hydro and, ultimately, the ratepayers.

D. MacKay: Obviously, the old adage that you shouldn't ask the question unless you know the answer…. Obviously, I don't know the answer, so I'm going to ask a couple more questions.

The power that is going to be sold by Coast Mountain is going to be transmitted down to Meziadin Junction and put into the grid. It's going to have to be booted back up to AC current at a pretty hefty cost to Coast Mountain. The power is now being sold to B.C. Hydro. Who owns the power? B.C. Hydro? You're purchasing it from Coast Mountain, are you not?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, they have a long-term contract with Coast Mountain — B.C. Hydro does — and they purchase it at Meziadin.

D. MacKay: Again, I don't know the answer. If Red Chris decides they want hydroelectric power at the mine because it's cheaper than diesel power, we're now looking at a gap. There's no hydro line running from Bob Quinn up to Red Chris. The power belongs to B.C. Hydro. If they're going to push the current back up the DC line, back up to Bob Quinn, and then somehow get it up to the Red Chris mine, this is where I was asking about who's going to build that hydro line. The power doesn't belong to the IPP anymore; it belongs to B.C. Hydro. So who builds the transmission line up there? Does the IPP get a wheeling charge from Meziadin Junction back up to Bob Quinn? They own the line — B.C. Hydro — at the present time.

I'm looking into the future. This project is coming on stream, probably within a couple of years. I'm just trying to look ahead, to foresee some of the problems we're going to have about building transmission lines. Who owns the power? I wonder if the minister could just explain that for me, if I asked the question properly.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Those are good questions. Who's going to build it? I'm told every mine in B.C. that has…. Kemess, for instance, paid for a hydro line out to Mackenzie. If Red Chris wants to build or get their mine going, they need electricity, and they don't want to do it with diesel. They want to use hydroelectricity. They would likely pay for the transmission line from where their mine is to a point where it would come into the system that's there now — okay? Does that make sense to you?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No? Well, I'm sorry. I mean, Hydro is not going to build the line. You want a straight answer? Hydro or BCTC won't build the line to a minesite.

What I'm saying is if there's a road and there's a whole community there, that might be a different story, but the mine is situated there. They have to get to point B to get electricity. Build your line to point B, pay a connection cost to bring it from DC down to AC, and then they will actually be buying their electricity from B.C. Hydro. They would probably want to do that, as I said earlier, because they'd be getting the 1821 rate, which is very cheap.

If they were to buy it directly from the IPP…. Let's say the IPP didn't sell it to B.C. Hydro and they wanted to make a direct deal between Red Chris and Coast Mountain. They could do that, but I would think what Coast Mountain is going to have to do is charge them five and a half or six cents, whatever it costs them to generate it. There's quite a difference between that and the 1821 rate, the industrial rate for B.C. Hydro.

I don't know, but I would think they'd want to get the cheaper price and buy it from B.C. Hydro, but they may want to buy it directly from the IPP. They have that availability, and BCTC would be quite willing to open those contracts to make sure those kinds of things happen. Nobody is going to stand in the way of the mine getting electricity to open up and produce jobs.

D. MacKay: A final question just on that issue. If in fact the mines decide they want the power from the Coast Mountain project that is presently being transmitted to Meziadin Junction that is now owned by B.C. Hydro, are you saying the developer would be able to stop selling the 100 megawatts and ship it north? That's the part I'm lost on, because the power is being shipped down south.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't want to confuse you. Yes, they could. Red Chris could actually go to Coast Mountain and say: "I want to buy hydro directly from you." Coast Mountain Hydro could say to B.C. Hydro: "We want to re-open our deal and stop it because we want to sell to Red Chris." That's there. There would obviously be some costs associated with that as it relates to B.C. Hydro in the transmission system. I'm sure there would be some penalty costs just as there are in any commercial arrangement for any deal. If you want to cancel a contract you've signed, there's probably a penalty. I'm not sure what the penalty would be, but it would surprise me if there were no penalty for doing that. If they want to do that at the mine — buy directly from the IPP — there's nothing stopping them from doing that.

D. MacKay: Okay, I'm sorry. I thought I was finished, but I'm still confused. If they want the power and they build the power line down to connect, who is going to pay the wheeling charge to get the power back up there? If Red Chris decides they want to buy power from B.C. Hydro as opposed to the power producer, who is going to pay? Is Hydro going to pay a wheeling charge on that line, which is owned by the power producer that brought the power from Bob Quinn down to Meziadin Junction?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I understand, that's Coast Mountain's line. It's not Hydro's. Hydro doesn't charge anyone for wheeling on Coast Mountain's line — right? Coast Mountain is building their line from their project to Meziadin. That's where it hits the integrated system for B.C. Hydro. That's where the hydro is measured, and that's where they start mining it from. So it's a line that's owned by Coast Mountain Hydro. B.C. Hydro does not charge a wheeling charge on Coast Mountain's line and wouldn't on Red Chris's line if they built their own. That's their own transmission line.

D. MacKay: Rather than belabour it, I will take the opportunity and discuss this further with the minister at our convenience so I can stop looking into that crystal ball into the future and perhaps make myself a little clearer on the questions I'm asking. I'd like to thank the minister and his staff for responding to my questions and looking into the future.

D. Jarvis: If we can be indulged, I have two quick, brief questions to ask on Hydro, but the member for Surrey-Tynehead wants to ask a general question about energy and mines — just the one question. Then I'll finish with my two questions, which actually can be done in written form back to me. I'm doing it for another member. Then that's the end of Hydro, and we can get them on a ferry or a plane or something like that.

D. Hayer: First of all, I want to thank you for all the help you have given us in the past. Every time my constituents bring some concerns over, your staff and yourself have really helped us out and understood their concerns.

Some of my constituents tell me the Ministry of Energy and Mines is responsible for bringing many jobs back to British Columbia, and there is great potential for many more jobs. What is your ministry doing to promote the mining and energy sector in B.C.? Is there a specific budget for it? Is that special budget for doing that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, in both mining…. I'll deal with them separately. Mining actually pays the highest-average-paid jobs in the province. We do everything we can and have done everything we can to encourage the mining industry back to the province. We've reduced their taxes; we've reduced regulation. We're still cognizant that we have to watch the environment very carefully. The Minister of State for Mining is putting together a mining plan to take us out into the future, from the task force report that was presented to us. There will be some things in there that will actually facilitate mining. We're doing everything we can to encourage the mining industry back.

As I said in my opening remarks, the price of copper is, I think, about $1.30 today, which is the highest it's been for an awful long time, although the exchange rate is pretty high too. We will see, probably, some mines that are in care and maintenance open up again.

Our ministry works with those mines to facilitate everything we have to, to make that happen in the most seamless fashion possible.

In oil and gas we have some programs to encourage year-round drilling in the province. We've always experienced that most of the work in the oil and gas industry happens in the wintertime, when the northern part of the province, which is covered with a lot of muskeg, is frozen and heavy traffic can actually get out on the land base. What we've tried to do is encourage summer drilling through royalty credits and also credits towards year-round roads to be built in the northeast and other parts of the province, wherever oil and gas would happen to take place. We want to do those kinds of things. That actually encourages more employment in British Columbia.

Because the industry has been heavily…. A lot of the labour has come from Alberta over the years, because it's only a three-month window. You can understand someone in Fort St. John or Dawson Creek or Fort Nelson. It's pretty tough to put millions of dollars into capital equipment to only work it for three or four months out of the year. That's one of the reasons why we're trying to do it year-round, so that those people can actually buy the right capital equipment to go out there and do the work and make those communities grow. As those communities grow, your communities will grow. Simply because most of it is consumed in the south, the population is growing; I mean the products that are made out of natural gas and oil. Also, the technology we work with — hydrogen and those kinds of things — as it complements gas and oil, is done mostly in the lower mainland.

We have programs in place to facilitate training — half a million dollars this year out of the ministry that will go to Northern Lights College to be matched by industry, dollar for dollar. That's a million dollars put into the Northern Lights College system to help do some training for people so that we do have the people we need when we need them. This program has just started, so it's in its infancy, but over time it will grow.

I think that's kind of in a nutshell a lot of the things we have done to try and foster and encourage both the mining industry and the oil and gas industry in the province.

D. Jarvis: A question from another member that I said I'd ask is: what percentage of electricity for domestic consumption has been imported over the past five years? I assume you don't have the answer here right now, but they would like that percentage broken down by year for the last five years. The second question was on the status of the 35 IPPs — 35-plus IPPs, I guess — signed since 2001. Where are they at now?

D. Jarvis: Yes. If you could give a brief rundown of them. There are no more questions on B.C. Hydro at this point.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I don't have that information right at hand, but as I understand, you want to have the last five years of the imports of electricity. Do you want the exports also or just the imports?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The imports and also the status of all — I'm going to ask this question — the ones that are already producing and in the system? Or does the member want a status report on those that have just bid into the system and may be under construction or still in the feasibility stages?

D. Jarvis: I would guess just…. He's asked for the status of the 35-plus IPPs, so I guess whatever stage they're at. I guess you will have a record for them for the percentage for the last five years, progressively getting smaller as we get up to the ones that are just coming on line. I guess all of them if that's the case.

J. MacPhail: I want to talk about coalbed methane. Last year, legislation was passed to facilitate the development of coalbed methane. It included the development of a new royalty regime. That royalty regime includes a royalty credit of 50,000 bucks for each well drilled before February 29, 2004. How many coalbed methane wells have been drilled, and what is the value of the credit so far?

Hon. R. Neufeld: To date, the OGC has approved 32 CBM wells that have been drilled. None of them are producing commercial gas, so there is no royalty credit that's gone to those companies.

D. Jarvis: Yes, with respect to the oil and gas proposals off the west coast of British Columbia. The member for North Coast was inquiring as to, first of all, what is proposed with respect to the aboriginal bands that are on the north coast. How are they going to be involved? Is the ministry going to assist them in any way to get involved — i.e., for jobs, etc. I wonder if you could maybe clarify a little bit on that aspect.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, good question. We have an offshore oil and gas team within the ministry that has a number of things they have to do. First of all, they have

to eat, breathe and sleep offshore oil and gas. That means that they're working on a regulatory system. They're going around the world to get regulations as they are in place in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.K., Norway and a whole bunch of places. What they're doing is getting that information, rather than recreate the wheel, so that they can get some regulations in place.

Another thing that they have to do is to consult with first nations along the coast to get them involved in the process as best we can. That process is ongoing. In fact, they've had lots of consultation with first nations along the coast. To that end, we've also taken some first nations leaders from the coast to Cook Inlet in Alaska, along with the member for North Coast, to view some of the operations that are happening and have been happening for some 50 years in the Cook Inlet in Alaska, so that we get people more familiar with offshore oil and gas. That's a big thing that they have to do.

We also have another huge challenge in front of us. I'm sure the member's aware of that, and that's dealing with the federal government on a whole host of issues as it relates to ownership: who is going to actually manage the regulations, where the royalties go, where protected areas are going to be and all those kinds of things. There is a lot of that kind of work going on.

There's no way you can, I think, put up a sheet and say we've measured and we've reached this point. It's a lot of negotiation and discussion with first nations and with the federal government on how we move forward.

The member, I'm sure, is also aware that the federal government just completed their scientific panel. They just had their report from the scientific panel, which stated that with the correct regulatory program in place there are no science gaps in moving forward with offshore oil and gas — much the same as our scientific panel and Dr. Strong came forward with when we put that together and much the same as the Jacques Whitford report came forward with. All those things continue to be worked on, and of course a big portion of it is first nations involvement — how we get them involved economically in the process.

D. Jarvis: With that federal scientific panel that has theoretically lifted the moratorium, does that mean we are now allowed to…? I saw an article in the paper. Are we allowed now, since the moratorium is being lifted, to develop out there? Or is it just saying we're allowed to look at more science — more science as to the problem?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No. Neither moratorium is lifted, federally or provincially. It was a scientific panel that the federal government struck to review offshore oil and gas and its impacts along the coast.

There are other federal processes that are ongoing as we speak. One is called the Priddle panel, and I believe they have a schedule of communities that they're visiting up and down the coast, I believe starting now or fairly soon, to get input from first nations and communities along the coast. That panel will have to report out to the federal government, I would assume. After that happens, the federal government will have to make their decision, hopefully along with British Columbia, on lifting the moratorium.

Even if you lifted the moratorium, there wouldn't be drilling happening. There are a whole bunch of other things that have to happen. Some are science — no doubt about it. We still have to get some more information. We don't have the regulations ready to be able to move out there — those kinds of things.

There would have to be some seismic done along the coast to actually identify better for the industry where the gas and oil pools may be. We have old seismic data from the federal government, but I'm sure that any companies that would want to go out there would first want to actually do some more seismic activity to find out where they should be going.

J. MacPhail: I'll continue on offshore oil and gas and on oil and gas. Mr. Jack Ebbels is heading up what secretariat, and what is its budget?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Jack Ebbels is the deputy minister in charge, and the budget is $5.8 million.

J. MacPhail: I'm curious as to what this budget is for. I remember when this government eliminated the green economy secretariat — which was a part of the previous government to promote the green economy, to promote industry. The government cancelled that, saying it was a subsidy to business. This is an offshore oil and gas secretariat with a budget…. That green economy secretariat had a budget of less than, I think, $2 million. If that's a business subsidy, what makes this secretariat not a business subsidy of almost triple the amount that the green economy secretariat had?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, it's not a subsidy. It's the same as the oil and gas division or the mining division within the ministry.

There is certain work that has to be done before you could actually, in this case, go out there and do some work off the coast. It would be the same onshore. I mean, obviously, I'm sure the member would like us to have regulations in place so that we do it respecting the environment and all those kinds of things onshore. That's what happens within the ministry. The offshore is exactly the same kind of process. No, it's not a subsidy.

J. MacPhail: Well, the onshore oil and gas industry is run by the Oil and Gas Commission, which is self-

financing. This isn't. This is direct tax money going to the offshore oil and gas. What makes it different there?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Well, I know that the member knows that the Oil and Gas Commission is funded by industry. She is correct. But there is still a ministry that develops the policy and the rationale for moving forward. That's the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the people that work within that.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. I'm going to need some more help here. How much of the ministry budget goes toward oil and gas onshore?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's about $21 million minus the $5.3 million that would be for offshore, so about $15 million is expended through the ministry on onshore oil and gas.

J. MacPhail: I thought the minister's total budget was…. What is it? Less than $30 million, is it?

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, perhaps the minister could then explain to me how the divisions in his budget that deal with oil and gas and with mining and energy — their expenditures — are similar to what this $5.8 million will be for offshore oil and gas that doesn't exist yet.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Electricity and alternative energy is $1.1 million. Executive support services is $5.258 million. Contracts for funding arrangements is $28.56 million.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. I had already given the first two numbers. Oil and gas is $20.97 million. That's inclusive of the $5.8 million for offshore. Mining and minerals is $7.868 million. Electricity and alternative energy is $1.134 million. Executive and support services is $5.258 million. Contracts and funding arrangements, which are mostly to do with VI Gas, is $28.56 million.

J. MacPhail: VI Gas is Vancouver Island Gas, which was required under the Socreds to subsidize, basically…. Not subsidize, but there was a payment required in order to keep gas prices at a certain level on Vancouver Island. VI Gas is a payment to make up the difference between natural gas prices and the capped price. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, it's a complicated process that changes yearly, depending on the price. What the member has said basically encapsulates it.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so the real budget, the working budget of the ministry, is about $34 million. Of that, how much of the $20.9 million that goes to oil and gas is dedicated to offshore oil and gas? The minister has said that Mr. Ebbels's secretariat budget is about $5.8 million. What else is dedicated to offshore oil and gas?

J. MacPhail: So about 15 percent of the almost 20 percent — 15 percent of the operational budget — is dedicated to offshore oil and gas. What's it doing to distinguish itself from a subsidy for an industry that is not yet up and running? What does the ministry do for offshore oil and gas with the $5.8 million that it also does to make up the rest of the oil and gas budget? Where's the overlap?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The offshore oil and gas team — I just went through the process with the member from North Vancouver — has a number of challenges in front of it, three things that have to be done before we could actually go out and do anything off the west coast. That is to get a regulation program in place. Although it's not up and running, I'm sure the member wouldn't want it up and running without a regulation process. In fact, it wouldn't happen without a regulation process in place. That would be administered probably by the Oil and Gas Commission, at the end of the day. Those costs will actually be retrieved from the industry.

It has negotiations with first nations along the coast of British Columbia on a constant basis. It has negotiations with communities along the coast of British Columbia. The gathering of information from around the world where offshore oil and gas takes place…. They're gathering information from the U.K., from Norway, from the Gulf of Mexico. I'm not sure of any other places, but I know those three places for sure.

They also have a huge negotiation process with the federal government. The member is aware that the province has been in court with the federal government on ownership of the seabed over the years. Some is owned by the federal government; some is owned by the provincial government. There are issues around protected areas along the coast of British Columbia. We want to make sure we protect the areas that should be protected and are able to develop the areas that could be developed.

There's an awful lot of work in just trying to get all of that information put together. The member, I'm sure, is aware that to get anything new off the ground takes quite a bit. There is science we have to get. We commissioned a scientific panel, not this year but the years before, and the Jacques Whitford report on the environment. We'll work with the federal government on the Priddle panel and the costs that are associated

there. There is legal advice they have to get, of course, on all those kinds of things. That's what they're challenged with — to try to see if we can't make sure it's done, that it happens and that it's done in an environmentally and scientifically sound way.

J. MacPhail: The Royal Society released a report just last week that said that they expect the industry will be viable no sooner than 2017. That means that if the government continues to expend about $5.8 million on offshore oil and gas, there will be a viable industry after this government has spent, in current dollars — not even net-present-value dollars — $84 million. Does the minister think this is the best investment for an industry that is going to be on line by 2017? Does he have any more important or equally important investments that could be used for this money?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sure there are all kinds of projects competing for money. The member knows full well that in government there is a multitude of them on a daily basis. We have committed to the people of British Columbia that we would move forward to have an industry and start offshore British Columbia drilling for oil and gas, something we all need well into the future. Whether it happens in 2017 or not, I'm not sure. To assume we would spend $5.8 million for every year until then, I'm not sure.

At the present time, to get the information we need, to be able to garner the information, to talk to people and to get all that information put together, that's what presently needed. Five years from now we may not need all that. We may actually be doing it by then. I don't know. That's all up to a whole bunch of things that are being negotiated and discussed.

If I look in my crystal ball, I don't know whether 2017 is the correct date or 2010 or whatever, but what we have to do is, obviously, start some place. That's what we're doing. We're starting some place to get the right information so we can do it as our Premier promised — environmentally sound and scientifically safe.

J. MacPhail: The Royal Society did do a scientific study and said that they expect the industry to be on line no sooner than 2017. Does the minister have something to contradict that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's the Royal Society. I accept that. That's their report. There could be other reports out there. It may happen sooner, or it may happen later. I don't know. Until we get the information, I'm not sure.

J. MacPhail: I'm a little bit taken aback. Of course, I guess after question period, I shouldn't be taken aback by anything. I'm taken aback that the minister says he doesn't know whether there are other studies out there. That's his job to know. The Royal Society are people who are closely associated with his goals. I was asking whether he's got any alternate studies to show that it's going to be before 2017. Of course, the industry itself, at every conference it has, predicts at least ten years before it's coming on line.

Let me ask this, then: will the environmental assessment costs be taken out of the $5.8 million budget of the government?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I want to correct her in case I left her with the impression that I didn't know. What I'm saying is that there may be some folks out there in industry, or some others, who think it could happen sooner. I don't know.

There are other studies out there — the province's own studies. Scientific panellist Dr. Strong said much the same as the Royal Society study: that with a proper regulatory system in place, you could actually move forward with lifting the moratorium. That's part of what the offshore oil and gas group does — try to put together a proper regulatory system so that we could move ahead.

There is the Jacques Whitford report. There is actually a fair amount of study on the coast. There is $2 million that this government, the people of British Columbia, gave to the University of Northern British Columbia to gather more information on science and as it applies to the coast. In fact, we're funding some at the University of Victoria. As I understand, the University of British Columbia is doing some of their own work as it relates to the environment offshore.

All those things are working forward. There is the year 2017 that the Royal Society said: "Do it." That's great. Is that a target date for me? What I'm saying is that until we get the proper regulations in place, until we move forward to where we can lift the moratorium, until we actually move forward where we have communities and first nations involved in a proper way…. That's when it will start happening. As I said earlier, it doesn't happen just when you lift the moratorium. You still need to get seismic. Seismic takes quite a while. To go out there and do the seismic, as I understand, to get the proper seismic boats to do the work takes a year in advance before you can even get them, or even longer. If you did lift the moratorium tomorrow, that means they would be a year or further out before they even were able to contract boats to come in and do that kind of work.

All those time frames are pretty flexible. Shell Oil has a different time frame. All those things work in the system. What we're trying to do is make sure that we have the right regulations in place, if and when that moratorium is lifted off the west coast of British Columbia, so that we can actually take advantage of something that will provide good jobs in the province.

We already have, interestingly enough, a pretty large contingent of people that work offshore who live in Vancouver and in Victoria and provide offshore services around the world. In fact, there are quite a few of them. I don't know how many, but we could probably get you a list of all those people who work offshore in some other country. It would be great to actually

have them here, to have them, because they live in British Columbia, able to do some of that work right on the west coast of British Columbia. It would be great to be able to do that.

J. MacPhail: I'll repeat my question: who pays for the environmental costs? If it's government, does it come out of the $5.8 million secretariat?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The environmental assessment, both federally and provincially, I'm told, is paid for by the proponent.

J. MacPhail: Who are the proponents? Who do we have on the list as being proponents?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The ones that have the rights now…. There are a number of them. The main ones are Shell, Chevron and PetroCan that actually have had rights to drill offshore for many years in the province. There could be others. You could have other land sales or lease sales. That could go out there. There is interest out there from people wanting to come to British Columbia once we complete those studies. They're not going to come before you get the stuff in place; they will come once you have it in place.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, that's why I think it's a subsidy. I think that's exactly why it's a subsidy. I don't disagree with subsidies. It's this government that campaigned on no subsidies to business. The minister likes to stand up and say: "Oh, we're going to do all this groundwork for them and lay out the red carpet for them." Good. But it's a subsidy.

I want to read this quote from David Anderson. He's the Minister of Environment for the federal government. It's from the National Post last year. It says — from Mr. Anderson: "When the oil industry is enthusiastic and you know it, they sort of ooze under doors. They come in windows. Hermetically sealed houses can't keep them out. They're there beside you when you're sitting in the bath. 'Oh, hi. I'm from the oil industry. I'd like to tell you about this or that.'"

Has the minister had any discussions with Mr. Anderson, who is in not only the previously led Liberal government but the new Liberal government? Has this minister had any discussions about this kind of attitude that Mr. Anderson has and how that may affect his government's pursuit of offshore oil and gas?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, the ministry staff have had discussions with Minister Anderson's staff, with other ministries in the federal government — DFO, EnerCan — all of those people.

Mr. Anderson comes with a certain flair. Everybody understands that. He's one of those individuals that don't seem to want to allow anyone to have a good-paying job or allow the province to prosper. At the same time, that minister has allowed billions of dollars of federal money to be spent on the east coast of Canada drilling for offshore oil and gas. He's been party to it.

He's also allowed an awful lot of drilling and seismic to take place in the Beaufort Sea, just as sensitive as the west coast of British Columbia. He has a certain viewpoint about the west coast of British Columbia. I have a certain viewpoint about the west coast of British Columbia, and I'm always interested to read in the newspapers the things Mr. Anderson says about offshore oil and gas.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure I'll be happy to share that with Mr. Anderson. No, he's probably already heard that.

I have the Ministry of Energy and Mines Offshore Oil and Gas Team. It's called the Offshore Petroleum Tenure Legend. There's a substantial tenure covering a huge amount of the Hecate Strait that's called Offshore Oil and Gas Corp. Ltd. Who is that? It's not Shell, PetroCan or Chevron.

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's a smaller tenure that was issued to a company by the federal government in the 1960s. I don't know. We can find out for the member. We haven't gone to the federal government to ask them who it is. We know the larger ones. As I said earlier, there are a number of smaller ones that are also a bit onshore and offshore. There are numerous ones along the coast that have been there for a long time.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's goal to gather up the tenure holders and then…? When does the minister gather up the tenure holders to pursue his agenda, or has he done that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, we haven't gathered up the tenure holders. We have had discussions with a few of them. That's something, because the federal government has let out some of those tenures, and I believe the provincial government has let out some. Once we get to a point where we have more discussions — and that's ongoing with the federal government — on how we deal with some of those tenures from a long time ago…. Do we honour them? Do we take them back and resell them?

I would think the companies that own those tenures have kept them on their company books for many years. It must be for a reason, because they thought maybe at some point in time they would be able to exercise their rights. Again, those are discussions that are ongoing and will be ongoing with those tenure holders as we move forward.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell me where the Haida Resources Ltd. tenure is? I just can't figure it out from their map.

J. MacPhail: There was a bit of controversy last month about this government, the Liberal government,

awarding two grants — one to Nanaimo-based Pacific Offshore Energy Association for $133,000, and $129,000 to the Pacific Coast Offshore Oil and Gas Association of Prince Rupert. Out of what budget did those grants come?

J. MacPhail: Could the minister list all of the grants that have been awarded in '03-04 and those that will be awarded for '04-05 and who the organizations are and what their background is?

Hon. R. Neufeld: These are '03-04. We haven't made any commitments for '04-05 yet. You'll pardon me if I don't pronounce some of the first nations names right.

Huu-ay-aht first nations have had two agreements: January 31, 2003, and October 3, 2003. It's to conduct a cultural and heritage study of the marine resources and activities in the Barkley Sound area of Vancouver Island. The two agreements total $640,000.

Turning Point Initiative Society: develop and deliver offshore oil and gas information materials to Turning Point Society members — $100,000.

B.C. Aboriginal Fisheries Commission: hold an offshore oil and gas workshop in conjunction with the Tsimshian tribal council — $92,000.

British Columbia Seafood Alliance: familiarize key players in the B.C. seafood industry with issues relating to the potential impact of offshore oil and gas exploration so that they can make an informed decision about both risks and benefits and communicate information to others — $45,000.

The one the member mentioned, Pacific Offshore Energy Association: design information and education sessions in cooperation with coastal communities suitable to the general public, covering offshore oil and gas; conduct sessions in the communities; and provide a feedback mechanism — $133,000.

Pacific Coast Offshore Oil and Gas Association: design information and education sessions in cooperation with coastal communities suitable to the general public, covering offshore oil and gas; conduct sessions in the communities; and provide a feedback mechanism — $129,000.

The Canadian Centre for Energy Information: produce an offshore oil and gas brochure and migrate the content to the B.C. Offshore Oil and Gas team website — $18,000.

The University of Northern British Columbia: follow up on the B.C. science panel report and the northern caucus task force report on offshore oil and gas — $2 million. That was in fiscal '01-02.

Michael Whittaker, University of Victoria, in March: basin modelling in the Queen Charlotte basin — $85,000.

The University of Victoria, Ministry of Energy and Mines–UVic partnership agreement, including co-op student programs — $43,000. Another one to the University of Victoria, Ministry of Energy and Mines–UVic partnership agreement, again including co-op student programs — $90,000.

Those are the ones that have been issued. As I said, they haven't committed to any this fiscal.

Hon. R. Neufeld: To be honest — I will say it again — this is all on the website, available for anyone to have a view of the contracts in their totality, each and every one of them. It's basically the purpose, as I read it out, and the criteria, in a shorter fashion than reading each and every one of them out. They're all on the website for the member to view.

J. MacPhail: Well, perhaps I could ask, then, which of the grants gives the opposite point of view, even through just straight information-sharing, of the Pacific Offshore Energy Association and the other one, the Pacific Coast Offshore Oil and Gas Association? The minister acknowledged that those are pro–offshore drilling. Fair enough. I don't have any problem with that. I'm just asking which one of the grants gives the balance to that, even in information sharing.

Hon. R. Neufeld: What we're trying to do is get the information out there, whether it's to aboriginal, first nation or fishing communities — people that live along the coast. What it is, is information. We're not in a "this and that; I'm for, and I'm against." All we're trying to do is get the information out there so people can make an informed decision about whether they think offshore oil and gas is good or not.

We've done the science with the Jacques Whitford report; we've done the science with the David Strong report. There's been more science done with the Royal Society report. All those reports are out there for people to also view the science part of it and what should be done, including the MLA task force of things that should be done before actual drilling or seismic would take place.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, let me try a different approach here, then. Does the minister have the information package produced by the two contractors I mentioned, and could I have that information package?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Pacific Offshore Energy Association has theirs. The Pacific Offshore Oil and Gas Association is still developing theirs. I'll send over some brochures to the member that have been produced and are being circulated in the communities.

I'm going to move back to my coalbed methane questions. The minister said there had been no royalties produced for any wells drilled before February 29,

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's correct. They're not commercial. That means they're not tied in to a system. They're still exploratory wells.

J. MacPhail: And where were they? Where are they, I should say, and who's drilling?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Southeast B.C. — one project, they call it — 17 wells; northeast B.C., two CBM wells in 2003, with several others in previous years; southern interior, the right acquired near Princeton in 2003; Vancouver Island, there have been several test holes drilled since 2001. That's it. Nothing in northwest B.C.

J. MacPhail: Why did the government set the time line of February 29, 2004, for the credit? Clearly, there's been no pickup on that. Is the government planning on extending that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The date chosen was an arbitrary one. It has been extended to July 1, 2008.

There were 17 exploratory wells drilled — test-drilled, I guess — in southeast B.C. This leads me to my question that I received from a resident of Fernie in February of this year. He asked me to raise this. He is a small business person in Fernie.

Hon. R. Neufeld: They get the information through the mineral titles branch. When industry wants to have land put up for auction, that's who they would go to, to have the land put up for auction. The mineral titles branch would actually inform Fernie and, I would assume, the regional district around Fernie, that that interest was put forward and that it may be put up for sale for drilling for coalbed methane.

We can actually follow that up for the person a little bit more and get back to them if the member wishes or provide the member with some more information with regard to that specific question.

J. MacPhail: Yes. May I just pass this over to the minister then, please? I was just starting to write down notes. Thank you.

Last year we heard about complaints from people in the Peace about the damage that coalbed methane exploration can cause. They had been studying some of the impacts — many of which were disastrous — in the U.S. when coalbed methane exploration took place. Recently, my office has been contacted again by people not only in the East Kootenay but also in the West Kootenay who fear that the coalbed methane tenures are going to consistently abut municipal boundaries. This Mr. Clark is one example of that, but we have others.

I'm wondering what assurances and safeguards are in place to ensure that local residents are fully aware of the impact of coalbed methane extraction and tenure process. Given the minister's previous answer, must they now rely on their own city government to do that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's a good question. We have a community strategy in place where we're going around the province to areas which, because you know there's coal there, may have coalbed methane extraction, and to deal with drilling for natural gas and oil. We've had, I think, 20 or better community consultations this last year around the province to make people aware of what it is and what it isn't, so they can either become comfortable with it or raise other concerns with us.

J. MacPhail: My staff was listening with interest about the extension of the royalty credit so they went to the website and printed it. This is fresh off the website ten minutes ago. It says the new regime provides a $50,000 royalty credit for CBG wells drilled before February 29, 2004. When was it extended to 2008, and when will people know about that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: She's right. It hasn't been updated on the website yet, and it should've been. That was done in November sometime by OIC, and a press release went out, but they haven't updated it on the website. We'll get that done fairly quickly.

J. MacPhail: Does the website also keep track of the number of exploratory wells that have been drilled?

J. MacPhail: So people could go to the website — I gather that's the Oil and Gas Commission — to find out when exploration is coming to their towns or has already been?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's part of what I spoke about earlier — the community consultation that we've done around the province. We've gone to, I think, 20 communities now around the province, talking to them about the possibility of it happening in their area. Maybe I misunderstood the member's question, but I thought it was: where can we find out what has already been drilled? That's on the Oil and Gas Commission website.

When someone applies for land to be put up for sale, as I said earlier, that goes to the mineral titles branch within the ministry. If there is a large purchase

of land around a community that has not experienced drilling of any kind, we would certainly, as a ministry, be going in and talking to the people to give them some information and let them have an opportunity to bring forward their concerns.

J. MacPhail: I have questions on the Mineral Tenure Act, but I'm going to ask those under mining. They are about expropriation, but I think I'll ask them under the mining section as opposed to this. My questions around the Mineral Tenure Act…. I want to know how it relates also to coalbed methane exploration sites, but I'll do that in a minute.

I want to talk about South Chilcotin Park. One of the first actions the government took when they arrived in office was to reopen the Lillooet land use plan and particularly the boundaries of the South Chilcotin Park. The rationale they put forward — as recently as yesterday in question period by the member for Yale-Lillooet — was that the mining industry had not been involved in that decision and so they were feeling pressure from the mining industry about that.

I might just note, though, that the mining industry opted out of the process under the previous government. I guess they, too, knew that there were big changes coming in the election, and they thought they'd take their chances with the new government rather than participating in a community process We still await the results of those negotiations between…. I guess the tourism sector's taking a very strong role in that. I know COTA — the Council of Tourism Associations — has strongly held views. There are mining interests, and then there are those representing environmental concerns.

Despite what the member for Yale-Lillooet said the other day, the original land use plan was based on consensus — the consensus of those that cared to show up. The consensus was that the group presented the former government with a choice of two plans. That was the local agreement. It was like final-offer arbitration: "Here are two plans." The government was to decide, and the group at the table that presented the two plans said both sides were prepared to live with the decision of the government.

This government — after they won the election, big majority — decided to go back and said they would go back into the agreement and find some way of meeting the mining industry's concerns, appeasing the mining industry, by reducing the size of the park. That's all public knowledge. South Chilcotin Park has been reduced. Discussions at the table are about a reduced South Chilcotin Park. There's no option that shows the original South Chilcotin Park. Can the minister tell us the value of the mining interests in South Chilcotin Park?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First, that is a decision that's made by the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Obviously, they would get information from Energy and Mines, but most of the people that worked in Energy and Mines before on land use decisions were moved to Sustainable Resource Management.

I know that CODA, the Council of Tourism Associations, and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines and the Mining Association of British Columbia have come together and worked out an agreement, which they released publicly, about how they could move forward on using the same land base regardless of where it's at in the province of British Columbia, which I think is very positive. The Mining Association and the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines are back at those tables to be able to put in their concerns and their viewpoints.

I assume that at the end of the day, the member's talking about the plan that was approved in just the last few weeks that the last government was in office. Obviously, there have been lots of discussions, but I would suggest that those discussions centre around the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management.

J. MacPhail: No, I had a very specific question. Can the minister tell us the value of mining interests in the South Chilcotin Park? I assume that information comes from no one else but the Ministry of Energy and Mines.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are parts of it that have very high mineralization. Until you develop it, you don't know. There is a map that I will get and provide to the member that shows the Lillooet area and the areas of high mineral value in that area. I don't have that, but we can get that map and send it to the member.

J. MacPhail: It's not the land use plan, because there were lots of areas in the former land use plan that allowed for mineral extraction — lots. I'm talking about inside the South Chilcotin Park. There's never been any mining done in there. It only became a park…. Well, it's not even a park yet. It's a park that has been subject to substantial review. There's been no mineral exploration. Does the minister have mineral values for the park? I'm not interested in anywhere else, just the park. Does he have that?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, we can provide the member with maps that show the mineral potential in the whole area.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Then I assume the park will be outlined on the map. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member knows that the park…. The decision hasn't been made. What we will provide is a map of the region that shows you the mineral value in that region of the province.

J. MacPhail: Is this new information, or is it information that the committee that worked on this for five years had available?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's basic information that the ministry has had for a long time. Some of it may have been updated, but I don't know how recently. We can provide that information.

J. MacPhail: When the minister says it's up to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, how does that work with his advocacy for the mining industry? Is he separate and apart from this decision at all? How does the advocacy the mining association is demanding here get represented by the Sustainable Resource Management ministry?

Hon. R. Neufeld: It would be fair to say that everyone who's interested in the South Chilcotin, regardless of whether it's mining interests or other interests that surround that area, have all been — how shall I put it? — at the tables talking about what they'd like and what they'd not like to see. They have, obviously, talked to our ministry. They'll have talked to Sustainable Resource Management. There's a process…. I maybe erred in saying it was totally up to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. What I am saying is that Sustainable Resource Management has the responsibility for land use planning. Those land use plans will go through a fairly rigorous process within caucus and within cabinet before they are finalized.

J. MacPhail: That brings me to a government caucus committee. The government caucus committee, I think, is chaired by the member for North Coast. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The Natural Resources committee no longer functions, but there is a cabinet committee on the environment and resource development chaired by the Minister of Labour.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Did you say the government caucus committee no longer functions? My apologies; I just didn't hear.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The cabinet committee on natural resources is no longer there.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The GCC, I should say; I'm sorry. Thank you for correcting me.

The GCC is not there. It is now done through the cabinet committee on the environment and resource development, chaired by the Minister of Labour.

J. MacPhail: I thought there was a committee chaired by the member for North Coast that's touring the province reviewing the ten land use plans. I may have the wrong…. Does that committee exist?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, the member for North Coast is chairing an MLA task force that is going around the province talking to people about land use.

J. MacPhail: What's the relationship between that committee and the work in the ministry about fostering more mineral exploration?

Hon. R. Neufeld: That's an MLA task force that's been sent out to do a specific job. Our job within the ministry is to actually advocate for the mining industry and for the oil and gas industry, to make sure we have those kinds of industries flourishing in the province.

J. MacPhail: I thought the minister was waiting to give me more information about how those two….

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. No, I was done. I was just giving you some time.

I just went to the website…. Actually, that's not true. I didn't just go; I went earlier today. No, it was last month, February 5. The Task Force on Mining was still listed there in the government caucus of British Columbia website. Of course, the B.C. Task Force on Mining from the government caucus toured last summer. It received submissions, held meetings, consulted, talked to a bunch of experts, wrote a report, submitted it to the minister. That has become an infamous report, because one of the press gallery here, Vaughn Palmer, has a copy of the report. He has reported generally on its contents.

Hon. R. Neufeld: If the member remembers the Cordilleran roundup at the end of January, where I spoke to the mining folks…. It's the second-largest mining convention in North America — or at least Canada, for sure. I spoke about the task force report I had received and how we were going to ask the task force to come forward with the recommendations in their report of the things we could move forward with now, within the policy we have in place and the fiscal constraints we have, to work on a mining plan with the balance of the recommendations that would come forward in the fall. That was to the satisfaction of the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, the mining association and most people — the hundreds of people that were there.

Vaughn Palmer has a different viewpoint on the mining task force, and that's great. I appreciate that he does.

J. MacPhail: My only source of information about the task force report is Vaughn Palmer. I'm not in any way commenting on what his view is. I'm not sure he expressed a view other than that the report is being kept secret.

Hon. P. Bell: The report was done at the expense of caucus members under their travel budgets, including several business trips, and were expensed accordingly. That was the cost to the caucus of that particular report.

Hon. P. Bell: Those are individual expenses that were funded through the caucus budget according to the normal business practices of the Legislative Assembly. It will be available at the end of the year when it reports out.

J. MacPhail: For a government that's so open and accountable, I can't get a number. I can't get another number out of how much things are costing. I'm not sure why. This was an exercise that was championed by the minister during the last set of estimates. It was going to be the great revelation — and wasn't it good constituency work? — good work that the government was doing on behalf of the mining industry. In these estimates we can't get the cost of what that was. It's tax dollars. We can't get the cost of it. We can't get the report.

The minister said they're working on moving forward on moving forward. That's what he said. Of course, actually, I've heard that from the Premier too — that they're moving forward on moving forward. That's great.

What is wrong with releasing the report? I assume the members of the task force knew about the fiscal constraints of government, which according to the Minister of Finance are disappearing daily. It's a shiny, new, bright light we have. The economy's moving. It's on the rebound. It's not getting worse, according to the Minister of Finance. I assume that when the task force travelled, they were aware of the fiscal constraints.

What's the problem with releasing the report? Does it mean that the government will be embarrassed because they don't want to accept all of the recommendations? Why? I thought this government was going to allow members the freedom to do what they want. They were going to give real power to these committees. They weren't going to be governed by the executive council. This government was going to allow independent work to be done by the MLAs. Now it is: "Oh, they didn't get it right, because they didn't understand the fiscal constraint, and they've got to make recommendations to cabinet to see whether cabinet likes their second try at it." What part of that story have I got wrong?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The revelation here is that it's the first time you've ever been interested in mining, so it's an interesting revelation to me.

J. MacPhail: I was the Minister of Finance that put in the royalty changes…

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, I won't take it back. It's the first time that you've ever really raised it, and that's because Vaughn Palmer raised it — I assume.

J. MacPhail: I asked you about it in estimates last year, and you wouldn't reveal it then either.

The Chair: Order. Will the member please sit down. I asked for order. I expect you to respond to what I'm saying. If you have something to say….

Point of order. Withdraw the comments. They're untrue, and he knows they're untrue. We had a vigorous debate on this in estimates last year.

The Chair: Member, I'll not ask him to withdraw, because I do not believe he said anything unparliamentary to withdraw at this time.

The Chair: I would suggest to all the members here that we work together to get through this.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, we had a vigorous debate but not about the task force. We're talking about the task force.

Yes, the members have the latitude to go out and put together a report. They have the latitude to bring that report, every one of them. They come to my office, and they come to the office of the Minister of State for Mining quite often about issues in regard to mining.

What we have asked that task force to do is move forward with what they have in place, with the policies we have in place, with the fiscal constraints we have in place so that we can move forward with those — in fact, we're already moving forward on some of those — and actually build a mining plan to move us into the future.

That may seem strange to the member. I can understand why it would be strange to the member, because there was no energy plan in this province, either, when we came to office. When I looked on the shelf when I went into the Ministry of Energy and Mines office, I couldn't find a plan anywhere about moving energy forward in this province — such a valuable resource, which provides huge jobs and huge revenue in British Columbia. As the previous Finance minister, that member should know that.

What I'm saying is that we will move forward with the task force report in the way that we want to move forward with it. I think we're doing it in the right way. I think we're doing it in the way the Minister of State for Mining and the members who were on the task force would like to do. That's how we'll move it ahead.

That may not fit with the member opposite's agenda. That's fine with me. I'm not here to fit her agenda. What I am here to do, and what the Minister of State for Mining is here to do, is to promote that industry in the province, and that's what we will collectively do in this ministry.

J. MacPhail: Methinks thou is very defensive — absolutely defensive. In fact, the bluster by the Minister of Energy isn't held up by any of the statistics on any of this stuff in terms of the tenure of his own government. None of it holds up in terms of comparison to previous governments.

What aspect of what the minister just said precludes the release of the task force report?

By the way, Mr. Chair, I just want to say that during the last set of estimates, he said he would make all task force reports public. That's what he said.

J. MacPhail: What precludes what the minister just said is what he needs to work on to move forward to move forward from releasing the task force report. What's in the task force report that doesn't meet the criteria he just set?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think I've already explained more than once how we're moving forward with the task force report. I know that may not fit with the member's agenda. That's fine with me. I can't help that, but that's how we're moving forward with this task force in this ministry.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I'm curious as to why it's up to this minister to release a government task force report. Why is it up to the executive council? Did the chair come to you and say: "Here's the report; do with it what you will"? Is the executive council sitting on these various MLAs? It makes the MLAs look terrible, I think. In fact, some of them have said they feel terrible about it.

Was it in the original terms of reference that the Premier would sit on the task force report until he felt compelled to release it?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This has got nothing to do with the Premier. That task force reported to my ministry. I struck the task force to go out and gather the information.

I want to go back to an earlier comment from the minister about taxpayers' dollars and the minister of state's response about the costs of putting the….

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, he's not. He's the Minister of State for Mining. You may think the Minister of State for Mining is a lowly backbencher. You may think that, but we don't.

J. MacPhail: Oh, I thought you were referring to me. I'm sorry. I thought you were….

Anyhow, because there was some help from the ministry, obviously, with the task force to put together the report and those kinds of things, those costs are all within the budget of the ministry. Do we have each thing broken out that we do within the ministry? No, we don't. We could probably break out for the member the total cost of putting together the task force. That would mean going to each member and finding out how many business trips they used to be able to complete this. I thanked the members on the task force. Some of them took some of their summer holidays to go around the province and put together this information.

All that's within budgets. All that is financed through budgets that are here, that are open, that are transparent. There were no overruns. There was nothing. It was within what we could do in the ministry.

We will do our best to try and break out that little part for the member, so she can see what those costs may have been.

J. MacPhail: Great. It's only the embarrassment of the members on the task force — that they put all this effort into it — and it meant nothing to the government — absolutely nothing. We can only conclude that it was busywork that took up their summer vacation. That's even more insulting.

The costs I assume the minister can get for me. He should get them for me. They're tax dollars.

I asked what part of the report is written in such a fashion that it doesn't permit the government to consider fiscal constraint and the other criteria he listed. Are there recommendations in there that blow the lid off the budget, for instance? What is the deal with the land use planning? Let me put it this way: do we assume all of those criteria that the minister just listed can't be met by the task force report?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll try again. I've said a number of times that I won't say how we're going to move forward with the task force report, but we are moving forward with the task force report. The Minister of State for Mining is heading that process, along with the members that put it together, as I said. It may not fit with her agenda; it fits with our agenda and how we want to move this important industry forward in British Columbia.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I won't give a date as to when it will be released. As we move forward in dealing with the report, there will be parts of it — or a report, I guess — released. A final mining plan should be ready, we're hopeful, sometime in the fall.

J. MacPhail: Sorry — a report. Is the minister refusing to commit to release the task force report as it was submitted, or did I misunderstand him?

Hon. R. Neufeld: What I said was that we will take the task force report and put together a mining plan from the task force report to move us forward. That will be delivered sometime in this coming fall, 2004.

J. MacPhail: Okay, let me box the question very carefully. Will the government release the Liberal backbencher task report in its entirety, unedited?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Let me put this in a real tight box for the member. As I said, we will put together a mining plan from what was derived out of the task force plan, and we will actually bring that forward this fall, later in 2004. That will be a mining plan for the province to move us into the future, in the box. That's what is going to happen; nothing different.

J. MacPhail: So the answer is no. They're burying the report. This government will not release the report. They're burying the report. The minister had two chances to say he would release the report, and he refused to say. In fact, he basically said no. He's not going to release the task force report.

Isn't that openness and accountability? Isn't that great? I wonder how many Liberal MLAs feel good about that. The chair is now part of cabinet. What a symbol that sends to the government caucus backbench, eh? Do all this work, allow your work to be buried, and you'll get into cabinet. Isn't that great? Sitting on….

The Chair was the member for West Vancouver–Capilano. So, you're right. He didn't get into cabinet. The member who did get into cabinet was on the task force. I wonder how the chair feels about all of that hard work he did being buried and never seeing the light of day. My gosh.

Has the government had any input anywhere…. Let's not go to the task force, because we know that's a sensitive topic — all that work the government caucus did. Has the government had any feedback on its recent amendments to the Mineral Tenure Act?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Could she please explain which amendment she wants a response to?

J. MacPhail: A section of the Mineral Tenure Act was repealed by this government, I think in the last session. No, I'm sorry — in 2002, Bill 54. It actually, I would say, eroded private property owner interests. There was a section of the Mineral Tenure Act this government repealed that prevented mining companies from obstructing or interfering with activities on private lands, including existing buildings. That was repealed.

Hon. R. Neufeld: The staff is looking to see if there have been any complaints. I'm not aware of any.

J. MacPhail: There was an article in the newspaper recently about a couple living in Kamloops, about their land. That was in the paper. They're in a legal battle with a company that proposes digging up all 16 hectares of their land in order to make kitty litter. Because of the changes to the Mineral Tenure Act, they have no recourse.

At the same time, they repealed the private property owner rights that would prevent mining companies from obstructing or interfering with activities on private lands. The Mediation and Arbitration Board, which rules on compensation for landowners affected by mining and oil and gas activities, was prohibited from denying miners access to private lands, even when that access interfered with the landowners' building or operations — which could be, like, grazing cattle.

I was just curious. When I was preparing for this, I saw this case and wondered whether the minister has had any complaint around those amendments made in '02.

Hon. R. Neufeld: No, we haven't had any specific complaints about the amendments that were made in '02, because we actually strengthened landowners' rights. You can't enter cultivated land; you can't enter the curtilage of dwellings on farm property. There's a setback you can't go to.

I know the member is referring to one specific case that I understand is in a court right now, so I won't comment on that case at all. This is a case that maybe the member should be aware of, because it's been ongoing for quite a number of years — in fact, years before we even came into office.

J. MacPhail: How is it that the minister strengthened the rights of private property owners when they

repealed the section? The section I read out was repealed was replaced with what?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The amendment that went through in 2002 actually, as I read it, further clarified and strengthened. I'll just read a bit of it. Section 52: "Without limiting the factors that the board may consider in making a decision under this section, in making a determination under subsections (7) and (8) the board must take into account the extent of the obstruction or interference with respect to the following: (a) land occupied by a building; (b) the curtilage of a dwelling house; (c) orchard land; and (d) land under cultivation." That was not there before. What we did was put it in there so that it was a bit more clear.

Also, we have strengthened the Mediation and Arbitration Board to deal with more of those issues. As I understand, there have been only two in the last two years, and this is one of the two that had disputes that went to the Mediation and Arbitration Board.

I don't for a minute discount that there are some issues that are happening in Kamloops. I know the member is well aware of it, and we can go back, like I said, quite a number of years and see that this has been ongoing for a while. Like I say, it's in front of the courts. Hopefully, it gets settled sooner than later.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister read out the section under the Mediation and Arbitration Board that was changed — and replaced with what?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I'm told, section 19, because it was added to the act — it was an addition — actually lays out a little clearer the Mediation and Arbitration Board — to get involved in disputes such as this when it comes to the mineral owner and the surface owner of the land.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I've read quite a bit of it. I'll read the first part of it.

J. MacPhail: One of the recommendations the government caucus task force on mining made was the need for certainty in land use. The report challenges, as reported — and it seemed pretty accurate; it was leaked from one of the members — the accepting of LRMPs that were finalized in the 1990s. They said, basically, that all the work that was done by all the communities in the 1990s wasn't acceptable and that the government needed to bring in certainty in land use.

Let me ask the minister, then, how much of the B.C. land base the minister wants set aside for mining.

Hon. R. Neufeld: We have passed an act in British Columbia that sets out the two-zone system for mining in the province. There are certain parts of the province that are not accessible for mines. That's listed in the act. The rest of the province, remembering that there may be zoning or other things that take place, is open for mining.

J. MacPhail: Does that mean the government is not going to go in and change the established LRMPs?

Hon. R. Neufeld: What we're trying to deal with are special management zones as they are created around the province, outside of LRMPs — land use management plans — that have different designations that may prohibit or make it very difficult to access an area. What we want to do, actually, is look at those areas of the province to see if there is a way we can still respect the values that were put in those special management zones which are outside of the LRMPs, to facilitate industrial development.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying he's not going to change protected areas?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This minister does not have the authority to change any protected area. That's an authority that would have to come through the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management if they wanted to do that. I don't know that they do. They'd have to bring it to WLAP — I'm sorry; I said Sustainable Resource Management; it's Water, Land and Air Protection — and bring that forward. To my knowledge, none of that has taken place.

J. MacPhail: The new government caucus, or the group of government MLAs that's going around to look at the ten land use plans: will they be able to see the task force report on mining that deals with this same issue?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Sorry, I wasn't listening. Could she ask the question again?

J. MacPhail: The new government caucus committee chaired by the member for North Coast or the government committee chaired by the member for North Coast that's going around the province reviewing the

ten land use plans: will they have access to the task force report on mining that deals with land use planning? Will they at least be able to be informed by the report, see the report?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm not exactly sure of the makeup of the Belsey task force. Some of those may have been on the mining task force. I'm not sure whether that crosses over or not. The Belsey task force is out there around the province talking to people about the special management zone issues and land use issues, as they are all across the province, to bring back some kind of idea of what we're faced with in different parts of the province.

Hon. M. Coell: I would like to first introduce my staff who are here, or will be shortly: Bob de Faye, the deputy minister, and Lori Wanamaker, the assistant deputy minister. I will have other staff as needed by members for questioning at a little later time.

I'm pleased to present the estimates for 2004-05. I am proud to be the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We are a ministry that has a broad spectrum of areas, to offer the broadest range of programs and services of any provincial ministry. With the core review we found ways to be more efficient and more effective in delivering programs, to be accountable to the taxpayers of British Columbia. We are able to draw on the power of different programs and of staff and expertise coming together.

From the beginning the importance of partnerships and relation-building was recognized by my ministry. We met our fiscal challenges and continue to follow the ministry's vision of a safe and healthy British Columbia: communities where individuals can take responsibilities for their future; where people are self-reliant; where women, seniors, aboriginal people, new British Columbians and new Canadians can realize their fullest potential; where we celebrate cultural diversity; where public safety systems and physical infrastructure ensure a high quality of life for all citizens. Our work and our successes in this ministry are based on our relationships. We work with many partners, stakeholders, communities and other levels of government from across our diverse program areas.

Accomplishments over the last year included the Canada–British Columbia Infrastructure Works program. Nearly $416 million to date have led to 200 projects in communities throughout British Columbia. The majority of these projects, most outside the major metropolitan areas, will ensure safe drinking water and wastewater management.

The Vancouver agreement: $10 million to revitalize the economy of the downtown east side, matched by funding from the federal government and in cooperation with the city of Vancouver.

Improving the quality of life for aboriginal people in British Columbia. Just this week we signed an agreement under the aboriginal employment partnership initiative with the Vancouver police department. It follows agreements with employers in the private and public sectors. The AEPI helps develop employment opportunities for aboriginal people. Our partners share information with the aboriginal organizations to help identify and prepare for future career potentials and opportunities.

British Columbia's history is one of a pioneer spirit and settlement. Immigrants in the past and today contribute to the social and economic fabric of our country with new and demanding skill sets, entrepreneurial activities and increased cultural diversity. Just as sound fiscal management is the key to a healthy economy, multiculturalism and immigration are integral to shaping our present and our future.

B.C. negotiated a one-year extension to the agreement with Canada on cooperation on immigration. I'm very hopeful that our negotiations will result in a new five-year agreement with Canada.

The provincial nominee program was expanded to include regional business categories to support the heartlands development. As well, the foreign students component was expanded to include business-related studies.

One of the key relationships we have in the ministry is with local governments throughout British Columbia. As a former municipal councillor, a mayor and chairman of the capital regional district, I see similar characteristics between local government and the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I understand the importance of working relationships between levels of government. This year we will continue to protect government unconditional grants, a commitment made by the Premier at the annual UBCM conference in 2001.

As mentioned, the Canada–B.C. Infrastructure Works program has meant that 204 wastewater management and community projects are underway or will start shortly. We worked with local governments around B.C., providing advice and support for the Community Charter, which took place on January 1.

This is a new era of mutual respect and recognition for the respective interests of an intergovernmental dialogue.

There are also changes in the area of heritage, with local communities and groups stepping up to the plate committed to providing direct, essential services to women and children escaping violence and abuse. We are maintaining the $33 million budget for transition houses, second-stage housing and safe homes, and the individual and group counselling for women and children for the stopping of violence, and children-who-witness-abuse programs.

More than 17,000 women and children used these services last year. The funding goes toward direct service delivery to women and children most in need. We are building sustainable and equitable child care programs to help parents participate in the workforce or receive training. We've extended operating funds to 25,000 more child care spaces — making 70,000 spaces eligible for funding.

The child care operating funding program increases child care options for families, because more spaces will be eligible for government funding — 1,400 providers are eligible for funding for the first time, including 800 family providers. A total of 3,000 family and group providers will see funding increase. The program also replaces inconsistent piecemeal programs with a fair and equitable system of funding, something child care providers and families have been requesting.

We are making practical and positive differences in the day-to-day lives within the framework of sound fiscal management. B.C. taxpayers deserve no less than a strong vibrant economy, a supportive social fabric, healthy and sustainable communities.

I'd also like to introduce the deputy minister, Bob de Faye, who has joined me, and the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services. We'd be prepared to answer any questions that members have.

B. Locke: As you know, Surrey is a rapidly growing community of almost 400,000 people now. With that growth comes big-city problems. Homelessness in Surrey is certainly something that we face and are challenged with. Unfortunately, there has been little attention paid to that over the past number of years. I'm wondering if the minister can tell me what has been done for Surrey and what the plans are to help Surrey deal with the problem of homelessness and, generally, with housing needs in our community.

Hon. M. Coell: Since 2001 we have committed funding for 569 units in Surrey. One that you may be aware of is the Phoenix project, which is a 50-unit facility that will deal with alcohol and drug treatment as well.

V. Anderson: I was wondering if the minister might help us to understand — and I'm thinking of people out there as well — the shifts that have taken place in the plan for this year. There were certain shifts that made it distinctive for this year as against last year.

The shift, for instance, from regulation to objective standards — if you might just clarify that for us — I think is an important shift and needs to be brought up.

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of issues that we could deal with and probably will later in estimates. In 2005 we're introducing an objective-based building code and working with the Canadian association to develop an objective-based industrial electric code as well, completely modernizing the regulatory systems under the safety act. I would like to spend some time later dealing with the safety act and the changes that will bring when the act and the new board are in place on April 1 as well.

V. Anderson: Another shift was the shift from the delivery of programs and services by employees of the ministry to community-based programs. That's a shift providing communities with more autonomy and involvement. That's a major shift as well which I think is important.

Hon. M. Coell: I think probably a couple of areas are noticeable. One would be the heritage area, where many of the programs that were delivered by government are now being delivered by outside agencies and individuals, mostly non-profits. The other one of course is the safety act, where that is moving away from government to an independent body. Those have taken quite a few shifts.

When you look at the ministry staff, we've gone from 1,216 FTEs in 2001 to 491 in '04-05. Many of those people have moved outside of government, delivering the same service or, I would say, in many instances improved service to the people of British Columbia.

The Chair: I just want to remind the members, noting the hour, that the big House will be shutting down shortly, so I'll allow one more question.

D. Hayer: Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister and staff, for taking this question.

Last week Fleetwood Villa was opened in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. It's a wonderful facility that will provide seniors increased access to housing and care services.

Can the minister tell me what other programs or facilities my constituents can expect in the near future from your ministry? We do have quite a few seniors in my constituency.

Hon. M. Coell: B.C. Housing has announced a number of projects in Surrey. As I mentioned earlier, there were about 569 units since 2001. As the member knows, we announced the Gateway project at 60 rent supps, and we'll be announcing some more in Surrey in

the coming months. They're not quite ready for announcement at this point. In recognition — and I think there are a number of members from Surrey who will be participating in the debates — that Surrey has such a growing population and growing needs, it's something that government is very well aware of and wants to work to make sure we meet the needs of the people in the Surrey area.

Mr. Chair, I'll move that the committee rise, report resolution of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and progress on the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.