2004 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 37th Parliament
HANSARD


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


Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)


TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 21, Number 11


CONTENTS


Routine Proceedings

Page
Introductions by Members 9277
Introduction and First Reading of Bills 9277
Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)
     Hon. G. Abbott
Statements (Standing Order 25B) 9278
Sexual exploitation of children and youth
     S. Orr
Interprovincial migration
     R. Nijjar
Mental illness awareness
     D. Hayer
Oral Questions 9279
Suspension of Liberal MLAs and caucus stipends
     J. MacPhail
     Hon. G. Collins
Construction of new bridge in Kelowna
     J. Kwan
     Hon. K. Falcon
Government aid for B.C. cattle industry
     P. Nettleton
     Hon. J. van Dongen
Community living authority for developmentally disabled
     R. Hawes
     Hon. C. Clark
SFU campus in Surrey
     B. Locke
     Hon. S. Bond
Alternative budget
     R. Sultan
     Hon. G. Collins
Point of Privilege 9282
Hon. R. Coleman
Second Reading of Bills 9282
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)
     Hon. R. Coleman
     J. MacPhail
Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Bill 2)
     Hon. R. Coleman
     J. MacPhail
Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act (Bill 3)
     Hon. R. Coleman
     J. MacPhail
Committee of Supply 9287
Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)
     R. Sultan
     Hon. C. Hansen
     J. MacPhail
     D. Hayer
     R. Hawes

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply 9308
Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)
     J. Kwan
     Hon. I. Chong
     Hon. M. Coell
     L. Mayencourt
     B. Bennett
     M. Hunter

[ Page 9277 ]

TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

           The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Introductions by Members

           Hon. G. Campbell: I am pleased to introduce 34 guests of the Leaders of Tomorrow program in the House today. The Leaders of Tomorrow is a pioneering student-mentor program providing 150 post-secondary students with mentoring. Students from all disciplines across a whole variety of activities are brought together with community leaders and business leaders to help them with interpersonal skills, preparing for the challenges of the workplace. I hope the House will make all of the Leaders of Tomorrow welcome.

           B. Kerr: This afternoon I had the great privilege of having lunch with four members of the Frances Kelsey debating team, along with a coach and teacher. They asked me several probing and intelligent questions, which I tried to answer without getting into a debate. I would like to introduce Sara Cubica, Jennifer Cain, Kelly McLeod and Tannis McDonnell along with the coach and teacher, Phil Archer, and wish them all the success in their debating through school district 79. I hope the House will give them a very good welcome here.

[1405]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. S. Santori: This afternoon it is indeed an honour and a pleasure to welcome two very special friends of my family in the House today. Visiting us are Dan and Helen Gibson from Toronto. Dan and Helen also happen to be my much older brother's father- and mother-in-law.

           Many of you as well as many British Columbians, I'm sure, are familiar with Dan Gibson's work. His work can be found in almost any store in Victoria as well as around the world. Dan Gibson is the founder of the Solitudes line, which is a collection of recordings of nature's voices from moonlit northern forests to sun-baked deserts in the southwest, from the crashing Pacific coast to snake-infested swamps in Florida.

           Dan Gibson has won two Genie awards for best movie soundtracks. In April of 1994, at the age of 72, Dan Gibson was presented the Order of Canada. Canada's highest civilian honour was presented to Dan for his work in filming and recording nature and for his role in creating public awareness of conservation, wildlife and our natural heritage. In 1997 Dan Gibson was also presented the Walt Grealis Special Achievement Award. This honour celebrated Dan's lifetime of work in music and the recording industry.

           I ask the House to join me in welcoming Dan and Helen Gibson to Victoria and to the Legislature today.

           Hon. S. Hagen: Joining us in the gallery today are three representatives of school district 71, Courtenay: the chair, Rick Grinham; trustee Karen Charlesworth; and trustee Janice Proudfoot. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

           V. Roddick: In the gallery today is a group of 34 grade 5 students from a new — and growing by leaps and bounds, I might add — school in Tsawwassen: Southpointe Academy. The students are joined by headmaster Andrew Wallace; two teachers, Mrs. Alison Boomer and Mr. Steve Hilton; and two parents, Nancy Friesen and Julie Wizinsky. Will the House please give Southpointe an enthusiastic welcome.

Introduction and
First Reading of Bills

SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 2004

           Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

           Motion approved.

           Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to introduce this bill today. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to the Assessment Act; Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; Land Act; Land Title Act; Local Government Act; Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act; Property Transfer Tax Act; and University Endowment Land Act. The ministry also proposes to repeal both the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act and the Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act.

           The bill is consistent with the government's new-era commitments and deregulation initiative. The bill also underscores government's goal of improving the efficiency of administrative procedures and decision-making in its operation.

           To briefly summarize, the amendments to the Assessment Act eliminate provisions that are redundant in the act and remove time-consuming requirements for assessors to complete various forms and declarations.

           The repeal of the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act eliminates an outdated act. The Commission on Resources and Environment was responsible for developing provincewide land and resource use recommendations by a cabinet-appointed commissioner. This work was completed a number of years ago. Therefore, this act is being repealed. As a consequence, schedule 2 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is amended. This amendment repeals reference to "CORE" and replaces it with "Minister of Sustainable Resource Management."

           The repeal of the Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act eliminates another outdated act. This act was de-

[ Page 9278 ]

veloped for the Kootenay Canal hydroelectric project, authorizing government to acquire specific lands, which it did. Therefore, the act is no longer required.

[1410]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The amendments to the Land Act allow the ministry to take advantage of current practices in the real estate industry, such as using the Multiple Listing Service and requests for proposals. Amendments to the Land Title Act are being made to support the government's new-era commitment to create a B.C. trust for public lands to encourage private land donations for public purposes. Other amendments to the Land Title Act and the Property Transfer Tax Act add definitions and procedures to support the electronic filing system project for land titles. This will allow the land title office clients to submit applications and other documents electronically.

           Finally, the amendments to the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act and the University Endowment Land Act allow the minister to delegate certain functions related to the administration of land to appropriate officials. This will assist Land and Water B.C. to more efficiently administer the land for which it is responsible. This bill is part of the government's continuing efforts to reduce regulatory requirements and increase the efficiency of administrative procedures. I am pleased to present this bill in the House today.

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

           Bill 15 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Statements
(Standing Order 25b)

SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF
CHILDREN AND YOUTH

           S. Orr: The city of Victoria and the Capital Region Action Team against sexual exploitation of youth proclaimed this week the Capital Region Stop the Sexual Exploitation of Youth Awareness Week.

           It is a terrible fact that our children and youth are being recruited into the sex trade by pimps, the scourge of our society. These people do not care who they seduce into the trade. They just go out and look for the most vulnerable child they can find. The notion that the children only come from poorer homes is untrue. Every child is a prime target. Pimps — I prefer to call them vermin — roam school grounds, playgrounds and kids' hangouts. They will work on a child for a long period of time, befriending them and then snaring them into a life of abuse and horror.

           They are very nasty people, and they live amongst us. We all need to speak out very loudly and make sure they hear that we are watching out for our children. Our children are not for sale, and anyone living in British Columbia or coming to British Columbia looking for sex with our children should understand very clearly that it is illegal to have sex with our children, and if anyone tries, they will feel the full arm of the law.

           These may seem like tough words, but you cannot be tough or blunt enough on this subject. I have worked with adults that were lured into the sex trade as children, some as young as 11, and I have seen many ruined and devastated lives. Let's all become very aware of this problem, and let's speak out openly to all our communities. Consider doing what the city of Victoria has done and put this issue on the front burner.

           Believe me, no community, large or small, is protected from these disgusting people who will keep trying to steal our children into the sex trade. I commend my community leaders for proclaiming this week as an awareness week and for always keeping the safety and security of our children at the top of the agenda.

INTERPROVINCIAL MIGRATION

           R. Nijjar: I stand before this House to state that this government is directly responsible for the demise of an export industry. Yes, government is directly responsible through changes in policy, regulations and legislation that have essentially killed an export industry that the former government took years to build. The former government spent years creating regulations that their own ministers acknowledged were several metres high, creating legislation never before seen in Canada, signing contracts and creating a tax regime that gave life to this industry.

           In three short years, this current government destroyed this export industry. What is this industry, you may ask? It's the exporting of B.C.'s youth and workers to other provinces to find jobs. The industry peaked in 1998 with a loss of interprovincial migration of over 17,500. In the second quarter of 1998, some 6,200 British Columbians left the province to find opportunities and a future away from home. In three short years the current government dismantled this export industry, and in the third quarter of 2003 there were over 2,600 more Canadians coming to British Columbia than leaving it to fulfil their dreams and find jobs.

[1415]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Why did this government end this export? It's because we want families to be united. We want husbands and wives to live together and work in the same community. We want children to be able to grow up and be close to their families and their support networks instead of leaving the province because they couldn't find work here.

           This is about strengthening communities, giving hope and having British Columbians believe in themselves, knowing they can fulfil their dreams and their potential right here in community after community throughout British Columbia. We will not return to a government direction that ripped families apart, wives essentially becoming single parents as their husbands work in mines and oilfields in Alberta.

[ Page 9279 ]

           Yesterday was International Women's Day, and some members asked what we're doing for women. This is what we're doing for women: giving them opportunities for jobs where they live, keeping their families united and giving their children the ability to fulfil their dreams at home.

MENTAL ILLNESS AWARENESS

           D. Hayer: Mental illness knows no boundaries. It strikes every colour, race and creed. It can appear in early youth, or it can surface in later years. Each of us has been or will be touched by mental illness, whether it be a family member, an acquaintance or a colleague. The unfortunate aspect of mental illness is that it is often left undiagnosed and untreated.

           We can do something to help. We can intervene on behalf of the person and offer a helping hand. We can learn to recognize the onset of symptoms and try to begin treatment as soon as possible. We need to understand mental illness. That is just what happened in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead recently at the fourth annual Early Psychosis Conference held at the Sheraton Guildford Hotel. This conference was designed to alert health care workers to the signs of early psychosis, a disease that can strike children as early as ten years of age but can attack someone as late as in their early thirties.

           This conference was an eye-opener for me. It also contained some very good news for our young people, in that I was proud to announce an annual contribution of more than $120,000 from the Ministry of Children and Family Development plus a further $30,000 to be put toward a public education campaign about early psychosis.

           Since mental illness is so pervasive and affects people in every community and every corner of this province, I am proud that this government appointed the first minister responsible for mental health and addictions in the Commonwealth. Although we still have a long way to go in educating the public about mental illness, I applaud the strides the ministry has already made.

           Mr. Speaker: That concludes member statements.

Oral Questions

SUSPENSION OF LIBERAL MLAS
AND CAUCUS STIPENDS

           J. MacPhail: Yesterday, when it was politically expedient, the government released information about an alleged assault and a suspended caucus member — information that it had kept secret for months because it was damaging to her. To the Premier: how many other Liberal MLAs have been secretly suspended by his caucus?

           I see the guidance from the House Leader is for…. The House Leader says the Premier should remain silent. Isn't that interesting.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the question.

           J. MacPhail: Just an hour ago the government Whip told the media, in fact, that other government members had been secretly suspended from caucus. But there's another question. The government caucus is funded by taxpayers on the basis of how many MLAs are in the caucus. Can the Premier advise the House whether the government caucus advised the legislative comptroller general that the funding for the MLA for Surrey-Whalley should be diverted for two weeks — taxpayers' money — and can he assure the House that the government caucus has not received a penny of taxpayer funds to support other Liberal MLAs who have been secretly suspended? Taxpayer dollars.

           Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a further question.

[1420]Jump to this time in the webcast

           J. MacPhail: Well, I certainly hope there are not going to be any soft questions that the Premier feels comfortable answering later on in question period. Had it not been for the fact that the member for Surrey-Whalley quit the Liberal caucus yesterday, the public would never have been told that this incident occurred, and the people of Surrey would never have known that for two weeks they lost a member of the government caucus. So much for openness. So much for accountability. The government Whip said that there were very few others from the Liberal caucus who had been suspended secretly.

           Why doesn't the Premier get up and now inform the constituents of those government caucus members who had been suspended secretly and explain to them what they were suspended for, when and what procedure went over to suspend them?

           Hon. G. Collins: Questions about caucus are not in order in this House. That member knows that. I assume the Chair knows that as well.

           Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, the question of caucus stipend is in order. The remainder of the question is out of order.

CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BRIDGE
IN KELOWNA

           J. Kwan: The Kelowna city council is writing to the Minister of Transportation asking him to ensure that the new bridge is built by the public sector — a move that they say would save taxpayers money during construction and operation. Can the minister tell this House how much money would be saved by not privatizing the new bridge in Kelowna?

           Hon. K. Falcon: I'm very happy to educate the member on this particular subject. One of the things I will do is tell the member opposite that financing costs are only one component of a deal. One of the components that those members — the NDP members —

[ Page 9280 ]

might be a little more aware of is cost overruns. The reason we engage with the private sector in partnerships is so that the risk gets transferred to the private sector so we don't engage in a situation like the fast ferries, where hundreds of millions of tax dollars get flushed down the toilet because they took all the risks on behalf of the public.

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

           J. Kwan: Well, the Kelowna city council has written to this minister advising him that the government will save $16 million by constructing and operating the bridge itself. Kelowna city council is not bent on the notion of privatizing the bridge for the sake of privatization. They say that the government can save $16 million by not privatizing the bridge. Can the minister assure the House and the taxpayers that he won't blow $16 million and use the draconian powers in Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, to override the legitimate concerns of the Kelowna city council?

           Hon. K. Falcon: You know….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

           Hon. K. Falcon: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell you that it is almost difficult not to answer this question without breaking out into laughter when it's asked by that member.

           Interjection.

           Hon. K. Falcon: If the member opposite would stop yelling, one of the things I can do is suggest that I'm not sure how much experience the city of Kelowna has with building bridges. I will say this: that member and that government actually have some experience. I'd like to remind them of a bridge called the Lions Gate Bridge. Remember that bridge? Well, that was a bridge they built with public money with zero contingency. That's why it was over budget, and that's why the taxpayers had to pick up that cost — another example of their waste of taxpayer dollars.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

GOVERNMENT AID FOR
B.C. CATTLE INDUSTRY

           P. Nettleton: The mad cow crisis continues to hurt cattle producers, and the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture is refusing to sign on to very necessary adjustments in increases in assistance to the CAIS program recommended at the federal level and contained in three amendments — that negative margins be covered, that a loan guarantee be offered through CAIS and that the maximum payout to the producers be increased. The minister cited budgetary concerns in B.C. as the reason for not accepting these. As early as last August the B.C. Cattlemen's Association in fact was urging the B.C. Ministry of Agriculture to accept these amendments for the sake of the producers.

[1425]Jump to this time in the webcast

           My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. When will the minister follow the examples of Ontario, Alberta and Prince Edward Island and sign on for the sake of the long-suffering cattle producers in our province? I say budget be darned, and let's help our producers out.

           Hon. J. van Dongen: The member is correct. There are seven provinces who have not signed the amending agreement No. 3. We have been very clear in our position on negative margins. We support the policy of a negative margin amendment to the CAIS program, but we have offered two sources of funding. One is to adjust the funding envelope so those costs can be covered by deleting an item in the existing package.

           I, along with three other western ministers, have also written to the federal minister supporting the loan guarantee proposal of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. We have also made a proposal that the federal government, given that it is a federally reportable disease, should be paying their share and should cover the negative margin cost for the first two years of the program.

COMMUNITY LIVING AUTHORITY
FOR DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

           R. Hawes: Last Thursday the Leader of the Opposition shamelessly sought the media spotlight by playing politics with the developmentally disabled in this province. She completely ignored facts and stated that the transference of governance to the communities in this sector was moving back to square zero. She claimed all of the hard work done by self-advocates and families across the province was all for nothing. Included in those she frightened were Bryce Schaufelberger, a self-advocate member of the interim board who lives in my constituency, who was left very angry and confused.

           Can the Minister of Children and Family Development now straighten out the record by explaining to Bryce Schaufelberger and my constituents and families all over the province exactly what's happening and correct the misstatements made by the Leader of the Opposition?

           Hon. C. Clark: The previous board's term was up, and the government has moved to put in a new board. The new board will continue the appointments of two of the people that were on the previous board, Rod

[ Page 9281 ]

Gunn and Lynn Rolko, both of whom are family members of people who are facing developmental disabilities — people who have dealt with the system and who have had very good experiences and sometimes very challenging experiences and will bring that to the table.

           The new chair will be a woman named Lois Hollstedt. Lois brings with her a background in Kamloops, where she was very involved with people with developmental disabilities. She's the former chair of B.C. Women's Hospital. She's the former CEO of the YWCA based in Vancouver. She is a fantastic candidate for this job, and we want someone of that quality in this particular role.

           I know the opposition doesn't think it is particularly important for the community to be controlling community services for people with developmental disabilities, but our government thinks that is very important. We think community control over community services will empower people and mean that better services are delivered for people on the front lines.

SFU CAMPUS IN SURREY

           B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Surrey is thrilled with the announcement of Simon Fraser University establishing a permanent home in Surrey. Not only is this project good for post-secondary education in the South Fraser, it will be a catalyst for the rebirth of Surrey city centre.

           There has been some criticism, however, surrounding the recently announced plans of SFU campus in Surrey at the ICBC building. Some think that the old government's decision to close the old Tech B.C. and then reopen it has cost the government more than if the original institution had been left open.

           Was the decision to close and reopen the campus at Surrey's ICBC building in the best interest of British Columbians?

           Interjections.

[1430]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. S. Bond: I find it interesting that the members opposite are laughing. You know, on Friday….

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

           Hon. S. Bond: It's unfortunate that the members opposite are laughing at the people of Surrey today and those who live south of the Fraser who are celebrating a permanent, sustainable campus.

           Let's talk about the costs…

           Interjections.

           Hon. S. Bond: …related to the previous Tech B.C. process. Not once did it deliver on the number of students it had planned. The cost of the building was twice as much as we saw, and the cost per FTE in the campuses that we're going to bring…

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order.

           Hon. S. Bond: …in fact, will be less than half of what the cost would have been under the former Tech B.C. We want to celebrate with the residents south of the Fraser and with the people of Surrey that this is a cost-effective and excellent announcement for their area of the province.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

ALTERNATIVE BUDGET

           R. Sultan: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Carole James NDP budget calls for massive increases in corporate income tax, massive increases in personal income tax, massive increases in sales tax and a reimposition of the corporate capital tax. I think we all appreciate what happens in this sort of tax environment to the ability of British Columbia to retain its skilled workforce and to attract investment. Could the Minister of Finance give his own assessment of what happens under the impact of a Carole James budget to capital spending in this province?

           Hon. G. Collins: All one needs to do is look at the history of this province under the NDP to get a sense of what it would be like if we went back to the NDP. The fact of the matter is that over the last couple of years, there's been a major turnaround in private sector capital investment in British Columbia. In 2003 it looks like we've moved to second in Canada for new investment. That was done, I think, in part because of a change in attitude here in British Columbia, certainly a change in the corporate capital tax — which was a punitive tax; it drove investment out of British Columbia — not to mention the elimination of the PST, which also helps to contribute to reinvestment in plant and equipment and productivity gains in British Columbia.

           We've made huge gains in the last couple of years. There is lots more to be done. We're number two in 2003. We're going to continue to try and get further.

              [End of question period.]

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please.

           Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

           Interjections.

           Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Solicitor General has the floor.

[ Page 9282 ]

Point of Privilege

           Hon. R. Coleman: The member for Vancouver-Hastings alleged on February 18, 2004, that I had previously told this House that our government has taken the provincial politicians out of the decision-making process when it comes to operational decisions in gaming. In this regard, she is correct.

           As minister, I am responsible for setting broad policies for gaming in British Columbia. However, operational decisions — such as which facilities will have slot machines allocated to them and how many — are the responsibility of the B.C. Lottery Corporation. This division of responsibility is outlined in the Gaming Control Act passed by this House in 2002. The rationale behind the assignment of responsibility is simple. The mistakes of previous governments' inappropriate involvement in gaming must not be permitted to occur again. Thus, gaming policy is the role of government while the operational decisions rest with the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

[1435]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Last fall the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast approached me and asked for information regarding the process communities must follow to apply for slot machines. I informed the member that the government policy direction to the B.C. Lottery Corporation is to place slot machines in full-service casinos or, in areas that do not have sufficient populations to support such full-service casinos, in community gaming facilities.

           In addition, I informed the member that another government policy is that slot machines will not be placed in communities where local government supports…

           Interjection.

           Hon. R. Coleman: …their introduction. As such, I suggested that the member determine if his local government was interested in hosting slot machines in their community.

           In fact, the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast is reported to have told the Peak newspaper in an article dated December 23, 2003 — which article was tendered by the member for Vancouver-Hastings in support of her motion — that the decision would be up to the municipality and the people of Powell River.

           Contrary to the suggestions of the member for Vancouver-Hastings, I was not seeking a specific venue or venues for slot machines. Rather, I responded to an inquiry from a member of this Legislative Assembly as to the government policy and the role of the B.C. Lottery Corporation in assessing requests for slot machines. At no time did I offer to place slot machines in the member's community, and there is no suggestion that I did so in the newspaper article tendered by the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

           Thus, the privilege motion amounts to no more than an accusation that I spoke to a member of this assembly and outlined government's policies around the placement of slot machines in individual communities and asked the member during the conversation if the community he represented had expressed interest in slot machines.

           At no time was I asked nor did I offer to direct the B.C. Lottery Corporation to place slot machines in a particular community, and there is no suggestion that I did so in the newspaper article. I simply explained government policy to the member, which is clearly within the responsibilities of me as a member of executive council.

           Mr. Speaker: The Chair will now take the comments of both sides into consideration and rule on the point of privilege in due course.

Orders of the Day

           Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

           In this House I call second reading of Bill 4.

Second Reading of Bills

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND
CONSUMER PROTECTION AUTHORITY ACT

           Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

           The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act establishes an independent authority that will administer the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act and the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act. It demonstrates our government's commitment to finding new and better ways to deliver services and protect consumers in British Columbia. The authority will be responsible for licensing, inspections, investigations and enforcement of B.C.'s consumer protection legislation. It will regulate travel agencies, debt collectors, funeral services and credit reporting agencies for now.

           Our consumer legislation is forward-looking and has written-in flexibility to allow us to add regulation of other new industries to the mandate of the authority. It will allow us to move quickly to better protect consumers in the future, if and when such future protection is required.

           In addition to regulating specific industries, the other critical role of the authority is to administer the general consumer protection laws that affect all businesses in British Columbia.

[1440]Jump to this time in the webcast

           We are taking advantage of the unique position of the authority and set for it an additional purpose. That purpose is the promotion of fairness and understanding in the marketplace. Let me explain these features a bit more. The creation of a new authority will ensure better consumer protection in the province by increasing industry and consumer involvement in consumer protection activities through the setting up of industry

[ Page 9283 ]

advisory groups, providing an efficient and responsive structure to regulate specific industries, administering a consumer advancement fund which will provide for the education of consumers and suppliers and programs to increase compliance with the act, and increasing the focus on issues that are particularly critical to industries and consumers.

           As the authority will not be part of government, it will be able to concentrate all its energies and resources on improving business practices and consumer protection in the province. The authority will be accountable to government and to the public through administrative agreement with the government. The authority will be governed by an appointed board of directors. The process for appointing the board members will be transparent and based on merit, ensuring the board members have appropriate qualifications.

           The government will continue to be responsible for consumer protection legislation and regulations, setting the rules which govern businesses and consumers. The authority will not have legislation- or regulation-making powers. We expect the authority will be up and running by early July of this year. The authority will be a non-profit corporation achieving full cost recovery within two years. In order to facilitate a smooth transition to industry oversight by the new authority, the act provides for the appointment of an initial board and startup financial support to the authority. In this way, British Columbia will soon be able to realize the benefits of all our new consumer protection legislation.

           J. MacPhail: Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, is one of three bills introduced on February 26 by the Solicitor General aimed at changing B.C.'s consumer protection laws. The other two bills are Bill 3, the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, and Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act. The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act is a sweeping bill that repeals and consolidates six acts and four supplementary acts, including the Consumer Protection Act, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the Debt Collection Act, the Trade Practice Act and the Travel Agents Act.

           On this bill's first reading, the Solicitor General stated that together these bills will strengthen consumer protection in the province and support good business practices. Whether or not this will actually be the case will remain to be seen. We know the Solicitor General says one thing and then does another. He says there will be no expansion of gaming and then almost doubles gaming revenue in this province. It remains to be seen whether the minister's statement that this will strengthen consumer protection actually comes together or not.

           Bill 2, in conjunction with Bill 4, represents another attempt by government to off-load costs and responsibility through the creation of an arm's-length authority. This authority, which is designed to allow more self-regulation by industry, will provide the vehicle for government to off-load its consumer protection responsibilities.

           This new authority will have the ability to set, charge and enforce new licensing fees for industry operators. Small wonder then that travel agents, tour operators and funeral planners have already spoken out against this new legislation. They see through the rhetoric being given by the Solicitor General. They see what this bill actually represents — more costs being placed on the consumer.

           Despite what the Solicitor General said in the first reading of this bill and now second reading, Bill 2 and the means for its implementation, Bill 4, will allow this government to avoid its consumer protection responsibilities and off-load the costs associated with those activities on to the private sector.

           Where will the private sector get the money to pay for all of this? You guessed it — the consumer. Consumers — the same people who are paying higher MSP premiums. Those who earn $60,000 or less in this province are paying higher taxes than they did last year despite the Liberal backbench MLAs who say, oh no, their government is doing so well. That same group is paying higher taxes than last year. Everybody's paying higher tuition. Everybody's paying higher provincial sales tax, higher alcohol and tobacco taxes, higher park user fees, higher B.C. Hydro rates, higher ICBC rates. Oh no, that group is going to be hit again. The consumer's going to have to pay more. The list goes on and on.

[1445]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Any consumer protection that this bill purports to ensure, it is becoming increasingly clear, will come at a higher consumer cost. We will, at committee stage, be exploring this further and showing our disagreement and our opposition to this legislation.

           Mr. Speaker: We're on second reading of Bill 4. The Solicitor General closes debate.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I thank the member for her remarks. I look forward to committee stage of the bill.

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

           Mr. Speaker: First of all, we must call second reading. The question is second reading of Bill 4.

           Motion approved.

           Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 2.

BUSINESS PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

           Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the bill be read a second time now.

[ Page 9284 ]

           The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act meets three of the government's commitments: to improve consumer protection in the province, to support good business practices and to reduce the regulatory burden on business in this province. The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act repeals and replaces six consumer statutes: the Consumer Protection Act, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the Debt Collection Act, the Trade Practice Act and the Travel Agents Act. In addition, it replaces the consumer protection provisions of the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act.

           Contract provisions from various current acts have been brought together in one place and reorganized in order to clarify for businesses and for consumers what their rights and duties are with regard to consumer contracts. The bill does more than amalgamate and clarify the existing legislation. It establishes one streamlined licensing system for all industries covered under the act. One inspection and enforcement regime will be applied to all businesses regulated by the act.

           All deceptive or unconscionable acts or practices are prohibited. If an unconscionable act or practice is committed by a business, the result will be that the entire transaction will be void and non-binding on the consumer. It represents a significant disincentive for business to engage in behaviour which is deceptive or harmful to consumers. Federal and provincial governments have been working towards a consistent approach to ensure that there are common standards for businesses and common protections for consumers.

           This act incorporates harmonized provisions addressing disclosure of the cost of consumer credit. Credit granters will be required to ensure that information regarding the true cost of obtaining consumer credit is clearly presented in writing to the consumer. This act applies consumer protection provisions dealing with the Internet sales of all forms of distance sales, electronic sales, telephone sales or any other type of sales transaction that is not conducted face to face. These provisions enable consumers to cancel distance sale contracts in certain prescribed circumstances.

           This act also enables a harmonized list of prohibited debt-collection practices developed by all Canadian jurisdictions. This list prohibits the harassment of debtors and clearly defines actions and forms of communication by debt collectors which are not allowed. Credit reporting provisions in the act have been amended to reflect the fact that the province's new Personal Information Protection Act, along with the federal Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act, now deals with issues such as access to any collection of personal information held by the private sector.

           This act establishes administrative penalties that permit regulators to levy fines for breach of the act. These penalties will encourage full compliance with the law. The act establishes a consumer advancement fund to educate consumers and suppliers about the matters relating to the act and to increase compliance with the act. The main source of revenue for the fund will be financial penalties imposed on business if they don't comply with the act. The act also allows a consumer compensation fund to be established to compensate consumers who are the victims of unscrupulous practices.

           The travel insurance compensation fund, which compensates consumers when travel companies fail, will continue to exist.

[1450]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The new act gives the director of the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority the ability to seek a court order to dispose of assets that have been frozen during an inspection. Assets can be frozen now, but the current legislation does not address the seizure or sale of those assets. As a result, the assets cannot be used today to compensate consumers without the permission of the owner. The new act will allow proceeds from the sale of these assets to compensate consumers and pay inspection costs. The act also permits the publication of licensing or enforcement action. This will help educate consumers and help discourage businesses from breaching the act. This act will clarify that consumer organizations have standing in court proceedings, allowing groups of consumers to take similar cases against the same supplier to court together. Currently, it is often impractical and expensive for individual consumers to take a supplier to court.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, I'm sorry. I have to say that the notes that I read into the record were for Bill 2. On the first one, which was Bill 4, apparently the minister…. I'm sorry; I missed his opening call. My comments for the last bill were for Bill 2. The minister started with Bill 4, I understand. Anyway, I'm sorry. I missed my opportunity to read on Bill 2. I can't understand why the minister started in that order, but my apologies. I'll have to make my comments at committee stage. It does seem to be a bit bizarre.

           Mr. Speaker: Bill 4. Solicitor General closes debate. Pardon me, Bill 2. We've done Bill 4.

           The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor.

           J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. What I'm going to do, then, is remake my remarks around Bill 2 if I may — that would be in order, I assume — so that at least the record is clear. My apologies, Mr. Speaker. It does seem to be.…

           On Bill 2, Mr. Speaker, which we're now debating.

           Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act…. That bill is one of three bills introduced on February 26 by the Solicitor General aimed at changing B.C.'s consumer protection laws. The other two bills are Bill 3, the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, and Bill 4, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act.

           The Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, Bill 2, is a sweeping bill that repeals and consolidates six acts and four supplementary acts, including the Consumer Protection Act, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the

[ Page 9285 ]

Debt Collection Act, the Trade Practice Act, the Travel Agents Act. On this bill's first reading the Solicitor General stated that together these bills will strengthen consumer protection in the province and support good business practices. Whether or not this bill will actually be the case will remain to be seen.

           Bill 2, in conjunction with Bill 4, which I will talk about just briefly in a moment, represents another attempt by government to off-load costs and responsibility through the creation of an arm's-length authority. This authority, which is designed to allow more self-regulation by industry, will provide the vehicle for government to off-load its consumer protection responsibilities.

           This new authority will have the ability to set, charge and enforce new licensing fees for industry operators. Small wonder then that travel agents, tour operators and funeral planners have already spoken out against this new legislation. They see through the rhetoric being given by the Solicitor General. They see what this bill actually represents — more costs being placed onto the consumer.

[1455]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Despite what the Solicitor General said in the first reading of this bill, Bill 2 and the means for its implementation…. That's why I'm confused, Mr. Speaker. Bill 4 is the implementation of Bill 2. Bill 4 will allow this government to avoid its consumer protection responsibilities and off-load the costs associated with those activities onto the private sector.

           Where will the private sector get all this money to pay for this off-loading? You guessed it — the consumer. The same people who, if they earn $60,000 or less under this government, are paying more tax than they did last year. Everyone is paying higher MSP premiums, higher tuition, higher provincial sales tax, higher alcohol and tobacco taxes, higher park user fees, higher ICBC premiums and higher B.C. Hydro rates. Under this government all those have gone up. The list goes on and on. The consumer is now going to pay more under Bill 2. Any consumer protection this bill purports to ensure, it is becoming increasingly clear, will come at a higher consumer cost.

           The implementation of Bill 4 allows for the creation of an independent authority at arm's length away from the government to implement this. We've already seen the government do this with health authorities and B.C. Ferries. They're now trying to do it with safety standards. It's the same old wolf in sheep's clothing. Bill 4, which will implement Bill 2 — Bill 4 is the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act — provides the means for government to off-load the responsibilities and costs of consumer protection onto industry and consumers.

           This new authority will be charged with the enforcement of consumer protection laws and the regulation of industries such as debt collection and credit reporting agencies, travel agencies, funeral homes and cemeteries. It's going to be completely independent and therefore not accountable to anyone who has been elected.

           The authority will take over functions that used to be carried out by the public service, the consumer services division of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. But this government is a government that hates government. They don't want to have any direct responsibility, which in some ways, because of their incompetence, is good news. In terms of accountability, Mr. Speaker, it is a disaster. This government wants to be held accountable for nothing, and Bill 2 will be implemented through this independent authority that is accountable to no one.

           Of course, Bill 2, Bill 4 and Bill 3 have already been criticized by travel agents and tour operators and death care providers. The groups are very unhappy with the lack of consultation with stakeholders involved with the drafting of this package of legislation. The groups are also unhappy with the anticipated hikes in licensing fees that these bills are going to permit. The authority will be able to charge new fees onto businesses, fees which will undoubtedly be passed on to consumers because the economy isn't growing in this province, so businesses have no choice but to pass on consumer fees. Consumer protection, it seems clear, will come at a higher cost to both consumers and businesses.

           We will be expressing our opposition at various committee sections of both Bills 2 and 4.

           Mr. Speaker: Second reading of Bill 2. Solicitor General closes debate.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I was advised that the order of the bills coming in today was actually provided to her office before question period today. If that wasn't the case, I will look into that. I do know the House Leader did call Bill 4 first. Whatever confusion there was, I'm sure we can straighten that out.

           This actually is an accumulation of an extensive amount of work by some very highly qualified professional members of our civil service. When I became the minister responsible for this area of government, it wasn't by virtue of any other discussion than the fact that when I was briefed about consumer protection in the province, its strengths and its weaknesses, I asked a senior civil servant who had been working with consumer protection in this province for an extensive period of time what they would recommend to improve and enhance consumer protection in British Columbia.

           They felt that we needed to harmonize and bring the legislation together, that we should look at other jurisdictions, that we should do this and move forward so that we didn't have all the confusion that existed in consumer protection — as well as the fact that we actually had assets in our possession that we couldn't dispose of to get money back to people who were bilked out of money because we had to actually ask the person accused of the crime if we could have permission to dispose of the asset.

           The consultations on this bill were extensive. It's been a two-and-a-half-year project. I look forward to any discussion in committee stage with regard to all of that and the benefits of this piece of legislation.

[ Page 9286 ]

[1500]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Motion approved.

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

           Bill 2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call second reading of Bill 3.

CREMATION, INTERMENT
AND FUNERAL SERVICES ACT

           Hon. R. Coleman: I move the bill now be read a second time.

           Bill 3 repeals and replaces the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act. This bill is closely linked to Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, which I've already spoken about in this House. The contractual and consumer protection portions of the current Cemetery and Funeral Services Act have been moved to the new Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, where they fit well with other provisions regulating general contracts entered into by consumers.

           The Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act sets guidelines to operate cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums and crematoriums along with the rules regarding disposition of human remains — important issues that are best handled in a separate act rather than an act that deals with general consumer protection. The new act addresses three areas: public health and safety, land use and planning, and appropriate business practices to operate cemeteries. The act clarifies language and cuts unnecessary red tape. Mandatory filing of some information will no longer be required, with filing of information in some circumstances.

           More specifically, Bill 3 deals with the operation, opening and closing of cemeteries, mausoleums, columbariums and crematoriums; the licensing of businesses and key professionals who work in the bereavement industry and the occupational health and safety standards they must meet; the disposition of human and cremated remains; the disinterment of human remains; and the keeping of historical records about disposition.

           The act uses the same framework for licensing as the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and it adopts the same inspection and enforcement provisions. This makes sense and fulfils our promise to rationalize the licensing of different businesses while retaining one complete set of enforcement tools to manage a spectrum of businesses dealing with consumers. The act also adopts administrative provisions from the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act so that the two acts will be administered by the same people with the same expertise on consumer issues.

           J. MacPhail: Bill 3, the Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act completes the package that is made up of Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act. Bill 3 gives the option of repeal by regulation of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council of the 1996 Cemetery and Funeral Services Act and Supplement.

           The Cemetery and Crematorium Association of B.C. and the Funeral Association of B.C. have already expressed written concern over this bill in a letter to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. They are also distressed by the other two bills currently being forwarded by the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General — Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act. These stakeholders have not only criticized the lack of government consultation in the drafting of this bill but have questioned the underlying motivations of government in forwarding the legislation.

           The Solicitor General says he consulted a former public servant who is expert on consumer protection, just the same way as the Minister of Health Services, in choosing the appointment of the national health council and coming up with the Premier's brother-in-law, consulted the head of the BCMA. Wow, isn't that great consultation? This government doesn't like to go too far away from their friends and insiders before they make changes. They certainly have a different definition of consultation than the rest of the world.

           These groups, which will be directly affected by the legislation, do not believe this bill reflects the concerns they have been vocal in communicating to the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General. Maybe another definition of this government's consultation is that if everybody disagrees with us, but it's what we want to do for our friends, we're going to go ahead and do it anyway. And by the way, don't ever accuse us of not consulting.

[1505]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The very people whose lives are being changed by this legislation disagree with this legislation. They are not convinced that this bill addresses the interests of either business or consumers. The changes included in this bill will see the increased fees placed on service providers. Fees will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher consumer costs and services. This is becoming a trend British Columbians are well acquainted with under this government — paying more to get the same or even reduced services. In the case of B.C.'s death care industry, this means increased consumer costs for cremation, interment and burial services.

           This government and this bill add new meaning to the old saying: "Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes." I am certain that we will be hearing more from

[ Page 9287 ]

the stakeholders and consumers who will be affected by this legislation in the days ahead. Since the government back bench is unlikely to be speaking on behalf of these stakeholders, because it doesn't fit in with their government agenda to actually stand up for their constituents and because the CCPA hasn't released any evaluation of this legislation, they won't be able to attack the NDP about this legislation irrelevantly — absolutely irrelevantly. It will be left up to the opposition to defend the interests of the stakeholders on this proposed legislation in committee stage at Bill 3, and we will be doing so.

           Hon. R. Coleman: Oftentimes people dislike change, but I will assure the member opposite there has been consultation with the industry, and not all people agree with all the correspondence. Some of the correspondence I have received has actually been in favour of this legislation.

           The member misspoke a minute ago. She said we consulted an expert on consumer protection, and that's what drove the agenda. What I said was that a senior bureaucrat who had been working in consumer protection in British Columbia for a long period of time made the recommendation to the minister, when the minister took office, that we should modernize, streamline and improve consumer protection in the province, and that we could do it by consolidating these acts — having one set of rules so the consumer can understand where the protection is, one set of rules with regard to how contracts should be dealt with so we would protect the consumers in British Columbia. That's what these three pieces of legislation can do. That's what they accomplish.

           In addition to that, the member opposite would love for us to be able to sit here and explain to consumers why — if we know that somebody is operating a fraudulent operation in British Columbia and we have the power to seize assets, bank accounts, vehicles and property from the person who is accused of fraudulently bilking people in the province out of money, but we have no power to dispose of those assets and give them to the very people that the money was stolen from — it would make sense that we would actually bring in legislation that would allow us to seize the assets, dispose of them and put the money back in the case of the elderly person or whatever person in this province who had money stolen from them by somebody that wanted to fraudulently operate in British Columbia.

           I look forward to second reading debate, as one member of this House talks about a group of stakeholders, and I talk about the four million people in British Columbia that deserve to be protected from fraudulent operations on consumer issues. I'm glad to be looking forward to having that debate as we move forward, because what will become readily apparent is that this government cares about consumer protection for consumers in British Columbia.

           Motion approved.

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

           Bill 3, Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

           Hon. R. Coleman: I call the estimates debate. In this House, for the information of ministers, we will be continuing the debate on the Ministry of Health Services.

[1510]Jump to this time in the webcast

Committee of Supply

           The House in Committee of Supply B: J. Weisbeck in the chair.

           The committee met at 3:11 p.m.

 

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
HEALTH SERVICES
(continued)

           On vote 25: ministry operations, $10,404,260,000 (continued).

           R. Sultan: I would like to pose a series of questions concerning the '04-05 budget of the Health Services ministry, concerning the big picture, concerning the size and the scope of this key ministry of the government and, finally, ask a question reflecting on the importance of this ministry in the economic development of British Columbia.

           To put matters into perspective, we have testifying in the Legislature today individuals who set the course for an enterprise which accounts for a full 42 percent of all provincial government spending in this province and who are the ultimate stewards of spending which accounts for one dollar in ten of our gross domestic product in British Columbia. Furthermore, given the merger of the two ministries of Health Services and Health Planning, they now oversee the activities of what is, by my reckoning — and estimates can always vary depending on the accounting assumptions — approximately $2.5 billion more spending in the first four years of this government's term in office and which, by my reckoning again, is exceeding by a significant margin the growth in spending in the Health ministry of the previous government in its final four years in office.

           My first question to the minister is this: while by my reckoning you are increasing spending even faster than your predecessors, you — and we — are accused of cutbacks. Why is this so?

           Hon. C. Hansen: We were certainly elected with a mandate to bring some changes. I remember I had an

[ Page 9288 ]

encounter with an individual at one point, who said: "Well, when you ran for election, you said you weren't going to change health care." I said: "No, actually, what the Premier said was the exact opposite — that if we did not change health care, we would not be able to sustain the proud public health care system that we have today." Certainly, we were elected with a mandate to bring in some changes, and as we brought in those changes, clearly we have had to reallocate resources to areas of higher priority.

           But if you look at the growth in the spending, the big increase over this last couple of years since we formed government, most of it is actually as a direct result of increases to wages and benefits and increases to fees for physicians. Those make up the biggest chunk of it, and those were initiatives that were really underway as a result of the previous government, which we inherited after we became government and were saddled with those big cost pressures.

           Now, I don't begrudge them, because the fact that we pay our nurses the highest starting wage of any nurse in Canada helps with recruitment. We look at the total budget that we have for physicians in B.C., which is the highest per-capita budget of any province in Canada. That helps in terms of recruitment. It shows in the data. You know, we have the lowest population-to-physician ratio of any province in Canada. It's particularly true in the rural parts of B.C.

[1515]Jump to this time in the webcast

           We have made some changes. We have reduced spending in areas of lower priority in order to reallocate those dollars into areas of higher priority to meet patient needs. I certainly hear the comments around the province that the member has alluded to, but I think the fact of the matter is that we significantly increased health spending. Our goal now is to make sure that any increased dollars from here forward over the next couple of years get channelled directly into direct patient care.

           R. Sultan: All of this spending power and authority is exercised by the Health Services ministry on behalf of what citizens have come to believe is their entitlement from the cradle to the grave for excellent services, and in my own experience we deliver on that. One might say these individuals, in terms of what voters deem to be most vital to their lives, exercise more authority perhaps than any military commander or any bank president. This is an extraordinary concentration of authority. The spending they direct is growing twice as fast as the economy. Many, including myself, have speculated that it may reach one-half of the total spending envelope of the provincial government, possibly even within the time span of the careers of people in this room.

           Our British Columbia experience is hardly unique. A provincial Premiers meeting recently seemed to say with one voice that this trajectory is unsustainable on the present model, that a new formula must be found and, reading between the lines, that even if the federal government ceased reneging on its own health funding obligations, that would not constitute a permanent solution.

           My second question to the minister is this: given its scale, do you ever consider the possibility that the concentration and centralization of decision-making authority in one ministry under one set of decision-makers can be overly done and that, on management grounds if none other, a greater degree of decentralization might not be more prudent and advisable in the future?

           Hon. C. Hansen: What we inherited as a government was a structure that had 52 health authorities around the province under the umbrella of the ministry of…. Well, actually, it was previously referred to, under the former government, as Ministry of Health and Ministry Responsible for Seniors. Under that umbrella were these 52 health authorities, which I think was considered to be too much…. It was too fractionalized. It was too fragmented — that's the word I'm looking for — and probably too decentralized, in the sense that we had some very small health authorities that really didn't have enough of a critical population mass in order to run a comprehensive health care system under that particular health authority.

           The decision we made as a government early on was to combine those 52 health authorities into the six structures that now exist. It has actually turned out to be a very positive model. I've had discussions with other Health ministers across Canada and have certainly recommended to them the model we have landed on. I think it does allow for the ministry to have the broad policy-making responsibilities at the ministry level but to decentralize the actual health care delivery mechanisms — the operational side of health care services — to the six health authorities.

           Now, the one thing that's key to that is good communication, so we have regular meetings between the CEOs of the health authority and the senior staff in the ministry, which was referred to as the CEO leadership council. I think the original intent was that they would meet monthly. In fact, I think it has been more like every two weeks that the leadership council meets to make sure they discuss issues of common concern.

           The other advantage out of this is that you wind up with one health authority piloting certain projects or taking on certain initiatives that can then be replicated with the other health authorities. The other thing that you find is a much more cooperative relationship between the CEOs of the health authorities and the ministry staff when it comes to developing the policy and accountability frameworks we have that are driven from the ministry itself.

[1520]Jump to this time in the webcast

           To answer the member's question: yes, it is a very large ministry with a very large budget in excess of $10 billion. The structures that we put in place allow that to be divided up in a way that I think still allows us to meet the interests of patients in a regionally sensitive way but doesn't create entities that are too small to not benefit from the economies of scale that are there.

[ Page 9289 ]

           R. Sultan: I would like to explore the ramifications of the merger of the two ministries, the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of Health Planning. As I understand the previous division of labour between these two ministries in the past…. On one hand we had Health Services, a ministry concerned with keeping the ambulances running and the operating rooms at full complement, with paying the doctors, hiring the nurses and so on. On the other hand was a Ministry of Health Planning concerned with — perhaps one way of stating it — the relationship between resource inputs and health care outcomes and the planning consequences of those relationships — and one might hope, as a result, learning to spend more and more wisely on one side of the equation for the longer-term benefit of planning in the future.

           Since aging has become such an important driver of the health care costs, I suspect Health Planning probably spent a lot of time, for example, addressing chronic disease management strategies. Because of aging and the inventiveness of the pharmaceutical industry, I understand pharmaceutical costs are rising about 14 percent annually — perhaps the minister would have more accurate figures — if so, doubling about every five years. This might be a positive operating trend in the long run if we link those investments and view them as such in better disease management and health outcomes — keeping people healthier and out of hospital. But perhaps we're not sure. Do we really have those answers?

           The question of the linkage between the planning insight and the Health Services operations outcome, it seems to me, is critical. Some have suggested to me that in the past these two ministries operated as silos — Health Planning and Health Services — and really didn't communicate with each other very well. Perhaps insights acquired in Health Planning weren't actually deployed in better managing the finite resources on the Health Services side.

           My third question is: was this to some extent true, or is it just another theory that outside observers are prone to conjure? If these two silos were not as linked as they might have been or should have been, is the merger of Health Services and Health Planning going to be an opportunity to further maximize the benefit and the value of health outcomes as defined — for example, just to cite again chronic disease management?

           Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the member's comments remind me of a discussion I had with the then deputy minister when I first assumed this responsibility in June of 2001. She was talking about the establishment of this separate and distinct Ministry of Health Planning. The instructions that she had from the Premier's office were to take all of the FTEs from the former Ministry of Health and transfer them over to this new ministry, the Ministry of Health Planning. She paused for a second, looked at me across the table and said: "We don't have any FTEs in the ministry dedicated to planning." It was just an astounding statement when you think of what was at that time a $9.3 billion organization with not one senior official dedicated exclusively to the planning function.

           I think the initiative that the Premier took to really put a focus on planning in health was a very important and timely one. But it was also important that the planning function not be separated from the operational function, because you can't do good planning in a vacuum. You have to have the operational reality. The other side of it is that you can't get so bogged down in the day-to-day operational issues and management crises of the day to the point that you don't have enough time put aside for the ongoing long-term planning.

           The dynamic that has taken place over the last two and a half years was having two separate ministries but having a common executive. For most of that period of time, there was a common deputy minister, and the executive level within those two ministries was very much integrated. If somebody said these two ministries operated as silos, I don't think those were people very directly involved, because clearly it was anything but. I think there was a really good integration.

[1525]Jump to this time in the webcast

           I think the success we've had of getting that planning function rolling has been very beneficial, but now it is time to make sure that we bring it officially back under one roof, under the auspices of the Ministry of Health Services.

           The challenge and our commitment is that we will not lose the planning focus that we have built over this last two and a half years. The planning function within the ministry will continue to be a distinct responsibility. There will be officials for which that will be their primary responsibility, and they will be able to learn from the close integration that they have with those in the ministry responsible for the operational side of health care delivery. I think that synergy will serve us well as we move forward.

           I think the member mentioned issues around chronic disease management, for example. That is a perfect example where Health Planning had a function of developing the framework for that, but it is Health Services and the health authorities that have the operational side of delivering on that.

           There was good coordination leading up to those initiatives, but I think the new structure recognizes that that coordination has to continue to be well integrated.

           R. Sultan: I wonder if I could turn to issues concerning the interaction of this massive industry, the health services industry in our province, and economic development — or, if you want to be somewhat crude about it, industrialization. I think many would find that term offensive, but I think that is at the core, perhaps, of what I want to get at. It has been suggested to me that we could perhaps consider this breakdown in silos as in fact facilitating the industrialization process. I would be interested in any observations one might have on that subject.

           To set the stage on this industrial scene, let me describe some of the key players — as I have made in-

[ Page 9290 ]

quiries and as have been described to me — who make up what perhaps could be called the health innovation industry in British Columbia, as I understand it, or what is perhaps more commonly referred to as biotech.

           We have in British Columbia, I have learned, a remarkably diverse cluster of institutions and firms operating in biotech. In strategy terms, B.C. has managed to form a life sciences cluster. Some of the main players in this cluster are, first, the medical school and university research sector with particular emphasis upon the University of British Columbia and its medical school faculty, as well as Simon Fraser University with extensive biotech research infrastructure. I understand that with support from this ministry, this will soon be expanded to strengthen both the teaching and the research platforms at the main UBC campus, as well as UNBC in Prince George and the University of Victoria. Needless to say, the advanced education budget of this government is large and increasing, and I presume that spending by this ministry plays a key role as well.

           Second, the Michael Smith Foundation named after the late Nobel laureate, who was a pioneer in molecular genetic research. The Michael Smith Foundation funds university chairs for medical sciences. I understand B.C. taxpayers have invested $120 million in it.

           Third, the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network based in Vancouver and chaired for now by the former federal Finance minister, Don Mazankowski. I cannot help but note in passing the more than coincidence that these institutions seem to seek out Finance ministers for their titular heads, and I'm sure that's not a coincidence.

           Fourth, research-oriented hospitals, notably Children's Hospital in Vancouver and the research organizations housed there — also VGH, St. Paul's and a whole host of hospitals throughout British Columbia where international clinical trials on new medicines and therapies are taking place. I presume the British Columbia taxpayer is contributing to these endeavours through the Health ministry as well.

[1530]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Fifth, the regional health authorities, not to be overlooked since they organize people and resources for top-tier research, particularly the provincial health services authority. More of your tax dollars at work. Sixth, Genome B.C., heavily supported by the federal and provincial governments — world-class, expensive. Seventh, funding from the federal government via the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research — lots of dollars flowing here too.

           Eighth, funding and research grants from major research-based pharmaceutical organizations such as Merck Frosst, which in November announced a $31 million grant to the Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics based at Children's Hospital in Vancouver. Pfizer and other research-based pharmaceutical giants fund research programs here as well. Ninth, there's the B.C. knowledge development fund, BCKDF, which is B.C. government money — $217 million I'm told, so far — used by our institutions to lever far greater sums from the federal government and private money.

           My fourth question to the minister has two parts. Since government funding, including provincial government, of these entities is so significant, do the people here accounting for this ministry routinely monitor and interact with the recipients of these health science funds? If so, is the ministry doing all it can to positively leverage research sources from the private sector with the same enthusiasm as from other provincial jurisdictions? Secondly, what benefit do they foresee for the vast taxpayer investment in these organizations? If commercialization is in prospect, is the taxpayer benefit actually formalized?

           Hon. C. Hansen: This is a complex picture to paint for the member, because from the health care sector we do support research and innovation, and there is some direct funding that has gone into research, as the member has indicated. From the health sector per se we don't wind up with a direct…. Certainly, we are involved with those projects, and there are accountability frameworks in place, but in terms of a direct financial benefit back to the Health ministry, that is not the case.

           What we are trying to do is promote innovation. We're trying to promote the kinds of technological advancements that will support the health industry of the future, but we are one of many players in this if you look at other ministries of government that are involved — the Ministries of Advanced Education, Small Business and Economic Development, Finance, Agriculture. The resource industries are all involved, as well, in trying to encourage that kind of innovation, of which biotech is certainly one. The underlining objective for us is to create excellence of science here in British Columbia, and the economic drivers that generates in turn feed a health economy, which produces the revenues back to the health sector.

[1535]Jump to this time in the webcast

              [K. Stewart in the chair.]

           In terms of direct payback, if that's the right word, the approach that is being taken now is to concentrate that in certain sectors. When we wind up with the commercialization of a product that comes from some of the direct research that is done in this province, that typically winds up as a payback to the university sector — advanced education. As a product becomes commercialized, they wind up retaining a particular interest in that product so that if there is a dividend to be paid, then the dividend does come back to benefit the taxpayer in that sense.

           R. Sultan: Thank you for that encouraging response and certainly the support of the ministry and governments of the day and of the past. The investments they've made in this area have been phenomenally productive in terms of research excellence. I might just observe in passing that as our university system perhaps becomes more distinct from government itself, at

[ Page 9291 ]

some point perhaps the taxpayers' interests might be more directly considered.

           I would like to move on to considering this cluster of biotech research and application that has been created here in British Columbia by the endeavours the minister described and move on to the commercialization of research, as he referred to it. It's my understanding that this cluster of biotech activity in Vancouver is second only to Montreal in Canada in size and, in fact, here in this part of the world is the fastest-growing in Canada. I'm also told — and I find this astounding — that we have here perhaps a fifth- or sixth-ranked entity in North America after Washington, Boston, San Diego and the San Francisco Bay area — in my mind, a remarkable accomplishment.

           Spreading out from this research and development core we find numerous commercial ventures, some with market capitalizations in the $1 billion-to-$2 billion range. Some are companies started by a scientist from one of our universities with an idea backed by very early-stage angel investors. Notable examples would include Vancouver-based Angiotech, market cap over $1 billion; Inex Pharmaceuticals, a local company commercializing their own oncology pharmaceuticals now with their own distribution — that's special — $3 billion market cap; Forbes Medi-Tech, another UBC spinoff; QLT, another UBC spinoff and remarkable for actually having commercial products, including Visudyne, a product that can help retard blindness among the aged; Xenon Technologies, another UBC spinoff; Anormed and Stressgen, each with a market cap in the $300 million range; Inflazyme and Micrologix, each with a market cap in the $100 million-to-$200 million range.

           Here we have created locally in little British Columbia billions and billions and billions of dollars of market capitalization in the stock market in biotech — absolutely remarkable. In this regard, it's useful to distinguish biotech from high-tech. Biotech is identified with the life sciences: chemistry, biology, genetics. High-tech, of course, is associated with physics, engineering, electronics and computers.

           According to UBC's vice-president of research, last year almost half of British Columbia's top technology companies were biotech. We will go further and point out that the vast majority of biotech firms in B.C. — let us estimate about 80 percent of them — operate in the biopharmaceutical sector. The other 20 percent operate in fields as diverse as forestry and agriculture, as the minister has already alluded to. So when we talk about B.C. biotech, we are usually talking about B.C. biopharmaceutical. Let us also acknowledge that biotech or biopharmaceutical cannot prosper without high-tech. For example, sequencing the SARS genome involved data massaging and computer capacity on a scale undreamed of a decade ago.

[1540]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The commercialization spinoffs — and let's acknowledge that we are mostly talking biopharmaceutical spinoffs here — are funded by angel investors, by sweat equity and through partnership arrangements with more senior firms. Our venture capital industry, hardened by years of sorting out the wheat from the chaff in the junior mines sector, quickly became very knowledgable at doing the same thing among the winners and losers in biotech. Vancouver capital markets have a long and successful tradition in entrepreneurial finance, operating on the more extremes of risk and reward, so when biotech came along, it was not such a stranger to this financial neighbourhood.

           My fifth question to the minister, then, is this: does the Health ministry, in its development of health policy and plans, consider the large and rapidly growing presence of commercial biotech companies in British Columbia? Do we have a clear plan in the ministry to support our B.C.–based biotech cluster, or what some might call small pharma?

           For that matter, do we have a clear plan to develop partnerships with big pharma? Does it see interaction between health service policies of this government and the success or failure of commercial biotech ventures, and why? Is there a public policy issue here, considering the linkage between the economic development strategy of our province and the workings of this huge health care system? In sum, what is the responsibility of the Health ministry in facilitating economic development and return on taxpayer dollars?

           Hon. C. Hansen: Our approach to funding research in the province is really driven by a couple of principles. One of those is to make sure we leverage research to further develop the health sector as a dynamic, powerful asset to the provincial economy. This was the member's opening comments about how significant the health sector is to our provincial economy. Certainly, we want to use our resources when it comes to funding health research to stimulate that as we go forward.

           There is a lot of work done across ministries to make sure we do have a common provincial government approach to funding for health research. There is a lot of interaction involving different ministries in that regard. Also, it is important that the funding decisions around research be done in a way that is properly peer-reviewed. We have the Michael Smith Foundation, for example, which the member referenced, that is set up at arm's length from government. They make sure they receive proposals that are then properly peer-reviewed. The whole principle behind the Michael Smith Foundation is then how to lever that money, how we can get other contributions to that research from outside of British Columbia. I think they've been extremely effective at that.

[1545]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Finally, the P3 initiatives bring some opportunities here in that through P3s we can bring additional partners to the table to become part and parcel of those research initiatives. I think on all of those fronts we are trying to make sure there is a cohesive approach and one that really involves all of the ministries that need to be part of that unified approach.

           R. Sultan: I would like to point out, at the risk of straying perhaps considerably beyond the mandate of

[ Page 9292 ]

this particular ministry, that British Columbia didn't arrive at this very happy state of biotech excellence and stature by accident or serendipity. There was a large and active — indeed interventionist, if you will — government role. I refer, for example, to the pioneering work of a member of this Legislature, Dr. Patrick McGeer, who used his position 20 years ago to play a powerful role in helping to create a culture of innovation through fostering strategic investments by the provincial government, including the university liaison offices and research facilities through discovery parks; through venture funding of Discovery Enterprises, an organization of which I was a director for many years; and through nurturing other organizations, such as the Science Council and Advanced Systems Institute, or ASI. It's a long list. ASI was only one of four or five things that Dr. McGeer — a physician, by the way, and researcher — did to create more of an emphasis on the commercialization of research, particularly in the biotech area.

           All of what we see today didn't just simply happen. Government facilitated the emergence of a commercial biotech sector in many institutional ways and not simply through granting ever-larger dollops of cash. My next-to-final question is this: does he see a similar role and opportunity for government today to further advance the commercialization of biotechnology in British Columbia?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I would say that we continue to build on that good work started ten years ago by Dr. McGeer. Actually, Dr. McGeer was never a Minister of Health in the province. He was a Minister of Advanced Education, and today that is still the ministry that is really responsible for driving the research agenda for the province and is responsible for the provincial government's role when it comes to commercialization.

           I think it would be inappropriate to have various government ministries all competing with each other to try to maximize a commercialization benefit out of this research. As much as I would love to see more money coming into the Ministry of Health Services from different sources, I would have to say I think it is appropriate that be focused on advanced education as the route by which that is reinvested.

           Certainly, I believe the Ministry of Health and the health sector in the province benefit from that research enormously. If you go back to the example the member raised of QLT with the development of Visudyne…. You know, Visudyne is really a miracle drug for those who have suffered from the onset of macular degeneration. Individuals in the past who would have no treatment options available to them would just face deteriorating eyesight and progressive blindness. Today, as a result of research that was initiated here in British Columbia out of the University of British Columbia, that commercialized into QLT. As a result of that initiative, those individuals in this province and indeed around the world now can face a future prospect of continued eyesight rather than that progressive blindness they would have faced otherwise.

           The real benefit, I believe, to the health sector is the innovation, the treatments and the kind of therapies that will enhance health status as we go forward.

           R. Sultan: A final question. I just wanted to explore briefly the role played in this milieu by the global research-based pharmaceutical organizations — the sector that some describe, perhaps with a bit of emphasis in their voice, as big pharma.

[1550]Jump to this time in the webcast

           It seems that our health care systems around the world and our biotech commercialization systems around the world are certainly, if not married, in a long-term relationship with one another.

           As MLAs we're invited to a lot of meetings, and we're subjected to a lot of messages. One of the frequent messages is that we should celebrate our health science success, but the second message is that as we, like anxious parents, see these entities struggle to survive and prosper, there are many years and many disappointments and many risks along the way. Only a few, a precious few, of the great ideas that come out of the labs ever see, in fact, successful commercial application.

           It is further suggested that only the established research-based pharmaceutical companies have the pockets deep enough to fund the 25-year cycle from innovation through intellectual property and, ultimately, commodity status. It seems, again, that a common denominator is money. We have come a long way in British Columbia through the generous application of government money, through our native brilliance — and I think we should all take pride in that — and through the wisdom and foresight of pioneers such as Dr. Patrick McGeer.

           I think the question we must ask ourselves is: is this sufficient for the future? Looking at things globally, I've been told that we're already underfunded. We consume 2 percent of the pharmaceuticals in the world and account for only 1 percent of the pharmaceuticals research spending.

           I suppose one issue to ponder is whether we can continue to rely principally upon government funding in this sector. Personally, I doubt it. Governments' spending fancies change — biotech today; maybe it is Mars missions tomorrow. Who knows? Any strategy depending on a constant and ever-growing flow of tax dollars is, in my mind, vulnerable. So I appreciate any quest for long-term commercialization on this basis. Involving major pharmaceutical companies invariably raises the spectre of these huge giant, offshore big pharma companies. In my own conclusion, commercialization is necessary for sustainability in this sector. We could perhaps accomplish more through engagement than exclusion.

           My final question is to ask whether or not the ministry does buy into the proposition that it has an obligation to assist the various entities in the B.C. biotech cluster in fostering an effective commercialization system as well as an effective innovation system. And further, does it buy into the proposition that through

[ Page 9293 ]

focusing various activities of the Health ministry to maximize the return on the vast taxpayers' investment in biotech…? As an incidental add-on to everything else we ask this ministry to do, from running our ambulances and getting our loved ones to the hospital on time to looking after us when we're aged and feeble — as an incidental add-on and almost a p.s. — by the way, we would like you to do this as well. Can the ministry deliver on that on top of every other vast service we demand and expect?

              [J. Weisbeck in the chair.]

[1555]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: The member's comments and questions sort of trigger for me a sentiment that I try to share with my colleagues whenever I get the opportunity. That's that you can look at the whole spectrum of government activity, and somehow it has a health component to it. You know, if you look at the World Health Organization's report on the broad determinants of health, what you actually find in there are things like education. It's economic development. It's clean drinking water, which is a health responsibility, but so many of the broad determinants of health are not really what we think of as responsibilities that fall under the Ministry of Health Services.

           I appreciate the member's sentiment and the need for governments and our society as a whole to encourage research and innovation. I just want to be very careful how much of that responsibility I take on out of our health budget, because clearly it is stretched beyond its means even today.

           You know, obviously I think the ministry does have an important role to play when it comes to health research. I think that role is to be the link between what the needs of the patients are and what it is the next frontier of science can solve for us in terms of meeting the needs of individual patients. What are the challenges health authorities are facing that innovation from the research sector could assist with? To that extent, we can be a bridge between the needs of the population when it comes to health responsibilities and what that scientific community can bring.

           I think the real generator of those partnerships really has to come through some of the industry organizations. B.C. Biotech, for example, is an excellent organization that I think helps to foster that kind of partnership between, as the member says, the big pharmaceutical companies and the local science that is there.

           I think we have an important role to play, but it's not a role of being the primary funder, by any means. We can help out where we can, but at the end of the day we really have to ensure that our accountabilities are driven towards providing real and meaningful change in the lives of individual residents of this province when it comes to their health status.

           J. MacPhail: Has the minister or his staff had time to get me any information around Dr. Les Vertesi's appointment?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to share with the member the biography for Dr. Vertesi. He is a career emergency room physician with a track record for innovation. He comes with over 25 years of clinical and 12 years experience as department head in a busy trauma referral emergency department. He has a master's degree in clinical epidemiology, in which he has a special emphasis on computer modelling in management. Designer and founding medical director of B.C.'s paramedical, ambulance and advanced life support programs…. That was between 1975 and 1985. He was the first chairman of the Canadian Medical Association accreditation of ambulance training standards. He was the first winner of the Justice Institute of B.C.'s Cohen award for outstanding contribution to public safety. He has been the medical director at Royal Columbian Hospital and recently has a faculty appointment with Simon Fraser University for the Institute for Health Research and Education.

           J. MacPhail: My questions were…. The information I asked for was around the agency's board and commission process that led to his selection.

           Hon. C. Hansen: There was an ad that was posted on the website and was also circulated through the health authorities, asking for nominations of individuals whose names should be put forward for the health council. Let's see if I can find the date that process closed. I think it was in late October. Basically, that led to us submitting names, which were the four nominees from the province of B.C., to the first process. Then once that process was finished, the provinces had to designate their own individual appointees. That announcement was made. There was a press release that was put out on December 9 announcing the chair and all of the members of the health council. All of the biographies of the 25 members plus the chair were included in the press release that came out on that date.

[1600]Jump to this time in the webcast

           J. MacPhail: No. Mr. Chair, could the minister do what I asked him to do? I'm not talking about the process other than the process to appoint Dr. Vertesi, which was the direct appointment of the government — the process that was put in place around October. I assume he is referring to the four names chosen to put forward other than Dr. Vertesi's position. Am I not correct on that?

           Hon. C. Hansen: No, it was all part and parcel of the same process. The reason why the designation of the provincial representatives was not done until after the first process had been completed is that in some cases some provinces and territories put forward four names, not knowing which of the four might get selected. Then they had the option of designating one of the unsuccessful four to be their direct provincial appointee, so it was a process that happened after that. The process of collecting names and biographies was

[ Page 9294 ]

one process that then led to all of the B.C. names that went forward as prospective members for the health council.

           J. MacPhail: So Dr. Vertesi was one of the four put forward?

           Hon. C. Hansen: No, he was not. What I did in receiving the bios and information that came in through that process was that I then evaluated the names that had come in. From that I selected the four individuals that we were going to nominate as part of the initial process. I subsequently nominated Dr. Vertesi from the list of names that had come in through that process.

           J. MacPhail: Okay, so the first process was to establish…. It started in October. I'd appreciate the website ad, if I could, please, and also the process that was…. Was that done through Ms. Watson's office — the agencies, boards and commissions office — and therefore would it be an open process so that I could view the candidates that were submitted, etc.?

           Hon. C. Hansen: The ad that was placed on the website was placed through Ms. Watson's office.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, okay. I would like a copy of that, if I may. That produced the list, I assume, from which the government selected the four names to send to the federal government. That was a separate process from the selection and appointment of each province's and territory's personal appointment, of which Dr. Vertesi was the chosen one. Did Dr. Vertesi apply during the original ad sent out in October?

           Hon. C. Hansen: Names came in through a variety of individuals. I put forward some names of people I had encountered around the province that I thought would be likely candidates. We had some suggestions that came in from health authorities, and we had some direct names that came in specifically in response to the ad. We reviewed all of those names in trying to determine, first of all, whose names should go forward as the four nominees from B.C. and, secondly, who should be the direct B.C. appointee.

           J. MacPhail: So Dr. Vertesi was not one of the group of four that the minister put forward. When did his name get submitted to Liz Watson's process?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think, as I mentioned this morning, that Les Vertesi's name was first put forward and supported by Dr. John Turner.

           J. MacPhail: When?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have the exact date. In fact, I remember that it came to me verbally. I then asked for a written confirmation of that, which followed some time later.

           J. MacPhail: Okay, good. So Dr. John Turner has actually written a letter. Well, I'd like a copy of that letter, please.

           When can I actually see the process that Liz Watson did — the names. Maybe the minister has the names that were submitted to her for consideration, not of the four — well, all of the names of the four and when Dr. Vertesi's name was submitted and what process the people went through, the vetting process, and how he happened to be the one chosen.

[1605]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: In fairness to individuals who put their names forward who were not selected, I don't think it's appropriate that I circulate those names.

           I can tell you the individuals from British Columbia who serve on the health council. We have George Morfitt, former auditor general of the province. We have Bob Nakagawa — I was going to say Dr. Nakagawa, but I guess it's Robert Nakagawa — who, the member will know, is a former director of the Pharmacare branch of the province of B.C. The third person from B.C. who serves on the national health council is Dr. Les Vertesi.

           I'll send over a copy of the information that was posted on the website by the board resourcing and development office.

           J. MacPhail: It's all very well and good that the minister says, "Oh, Dr. Vertesi, even though he's the Premier's brother-in-law, was the best-qualified candidate," and then won't cough up any of a process of how he was chosen as the best-qualified candidate. Did the minister take the names, of which Dr. Vertesi's was one, from Liz Watson and sit down and say, "Go through the list," and then say: "Oh, Dr. Vertesi is the best"? Is it the minister that did that?

           Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

           J. MacPhail: Why is the minister embarrassed about revealing who the competition was? Why? What's secret about it?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think in fairness to people that put their names forward, if they're not selected, I would like to protect their privacy. Also, there are individuals whose names we put forward for a process that involved all of the provinces casting votes on the initial 13 members, and some people in B.C. were not selected as a result of that process. I think I have an obligation to protect their privacy.

           J. MacPhail: Which category? This ad lists two categories: expert councillors and public councillors. To which category was Dr. Vertesi appointed?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think if you look at the qualifications that are listed under both expert councillors and public councillors, you will see….

           First of all, to answer the member's direct question: it isn't a case of saying that somebody's appointed un-

[ Page 9295 ]

der a particular category. If you'll note up top in the second paragraph: "The health council will consist of 13 government representatives" — in fact, there are 12 because Alberta chose not to participate, and Quebec was never a participant from the very beginning — "as well as 13 expert public representatives and one independent chair, for a total of 27 councillors."

           If you look at the qualifications under expert councillors: "Expertise in health system issues." Dr. Vertesi certainly meets that classification. "Expertise in patient-client issues; expertise as health care provider; expertise in other relevant areas — including performance measurement in health, governance and accountability, and public finance; a well-respected leader in their field of expertise…and will not act as a representative for a particular organization."

           In the case of public councillors: "…demonstrated interest in health care issues, expertise in addressing health care issues at the local and community level, well-respected leaders in their community and will not act as representatives of particular organizations."

           I think in all of those areas, Dr. Vertesi is able to meet the test on every single one of those bullets.

           J. MacPhail: Dr. Vertesi wasn't appointed as an expert councillor or a public councillor. I think that's the point the minister made. He submitted four names under the category of expert public councillor to the government of Canada. Dr. Vertesi wasn't one of those four. He wasn't even chosen or submitted as one of those. Where is it here that it calls for names to be submitted for the government representative, to which Dr. Vertesi was appointed? Where? It doesn't say anything here about that.

           Hon. C. Hansen: When we went out seeking names, we did not have in mind that we were going to put certain names in one category and certain names in another. We went out to look for names that would make good, constructive representatives on the health council.

           As we mentioned this morning, of all of the provinces, four provinces chose to put forward the name of their deputy minister when it came to their designate to the health council. I think on top of that there were two of the territories that did the same — put forward their deputy minister.

[1610]Jump to this time in the webcast

           In B.C., I happen to know that our deputy ministers are overwhelmed with their responsibilities. The last thing they could do is afford the time to take on yet another responsibility. We first of all made a choice that it would not be a deputy minister. Then we found somebody that we thought could bring another level of expertise to that table specifically around the mandate of the health council, which is accountability. I think the experience that Dr. Vertesi has will be an invaluable contribution and addition to the makeup of the health council.

           J. MacPhail: I feel sorry for the minister, the way he's skating and skirting and avoiding. I feel really sorry for him that he is having to do this to justify the appointment of the brother-in-law of the Premier. This ad says nothing about government representatives' qualifications. It talks about people applying to be one of the four names submitted to the government of Canada, of which Dr. Vertesi was not one. Clearly, he didn't qualify as an expert councillor or a public councillor, because the minister didn't submit his name as one of the four. He just admitted to that. He didn't qualify for an expert councillor or a public councillor, it turns out.

           It turns out he only qualified to be the direct government representative, of which it's a secret process. We're getting used to secret processes in this government; that's for sure. Every day there is a new secret process about friends and insiders, or problems in the caucus, people being suspended, inappropriate use of their office. Now we have a situation where the minister is skating and waffling about the appointment of the Premier's brother-in-law.

           This ad has nothing to do with the appointment of the public representative, the government representatives. Dr. Vertesi didn't qualify to be one of the names sent as what the ad deals with — expert councillors and public councillors.

           What is the date of the letter that Dr. John Turner submitted to nominate Dr. Les Vertesi?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I don't have it in front of me, but I believe it was around the end of November or possibly the first week of December. As I mentioned earlier, it had come to me verbally, and I asked for it to be followed up in writing.

           I want to come back. You know, I am not skating at all. What I have said, quite bluntly, is that I made the appointment. The designation of the government representative was my responsibility to make, and I chose Dr. Vertesi because I believe that given his background and his experience, he will make a very valuable contribution to the work of the health council. I'm not the least bit apologetic about that.

           J. MacPhail: Well, that doesn't surprise me — that he's not the least bit apologetic. This government thrives on appointments of friends and insiders — thrives on it. This application closed October 22, 2003, so Dr. Vertesi wasn't part of this process. The minister needs to come clean in the House. Dr. Vertesi didn't have anything to do with the public process. The minister got a nudge from the head of the BCMA. It happened to work, I guess, for the head of the BCMA. The head of the BCMA probably likes a doctor that encourages privatized medicine, which of course Dr. Vertesi does.

           Interjections.

           J. MacPhail: I am very familiar with Dr. Vertesi's criticisms of my time when I was in government — very familiar. It turns out that the minute this government got elected and nothing changed, Dr. Vertesi de-

[ Page 9296 ]

cided to fall silent, and now he's getting his payoff. The Premier's brother-in-law gets to represent the province at the country level on the national health council, and everybody on the Liberal benches thinks that's just fine.

           Gee, who, as a friend and insider of this government, hasn't got a job yet? And what secret star chamber processes does the government use to find these people? Well, it turns out it is a secret process. It has nothing to do with the public process. A private little conversation between the head of the BCMA and Dr. Les Vertesi, the Premier's brother-in-law, a proponent of partially privatizing medicine — certainly, more than is available now….

[1615]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Let me ask this question. By the way, Mr. Chair, I'll be happy when the government produces the letter from Dr. John Turner nominating, at the end of November — what? five or six weeks after the process closed — Les Vertesi to be the government representative. How long will it take the minister to get that letter to me?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I will first of all determine if it's a public document, and if it's appropriate, I will provide it to her as soon as possible. To be quite honest, I'll have to find out exactly where that letter is filed.

           J. MacPhail: Why wouldn't it be a public document? The minister said the letter exists. It's way beyond the time frame that the competition closed. Of course it's a public document, if it exists. I'm sure I take the minister's word that it exists, because surely a casual private conversation….

           Oh, I'm sorry. That's how Doug Walls got his position in government. That's right. It was a casual conversation, taxpayer money in the hundreds of thousands going from the taxpayer to Doug Walls. The Minister of Children and Family Development says he didn't work for government. Really. I'm sure the taxpayers will be thrilled to know that. Let's see; he's related to the Premier's family as well. He got hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, and it turns out it was a conversation between the Minister of Advanced Education…. She said: "Oh yeah, he's a good guy."

           Now we have a conversation with the head of the BCMA — confirmed by a letter, says the Minister of Health Services — saying that Dr. Les Vertesi, the Premier's brother-in-law, is a good guy, and ignore everybody else.

           Will the Minister of Health Services be reviewing the performance of Dr. Les Vertesi at the national health council?

           Hon. C. Hansen: The national health council is a body that is set up to provide oversight for the additional spending under the health accord dollars. I think there are lots of people that have read lots of things into what they think the health council might become, but I think the touchstone for it is the agreement that flowed from the first ministers' conference in November of last year.

           It is not a policy shop. As I said when I participated in the press conference announcing the council on December 9, it is not a policy shop; it is an accountability shop. It is there to provide feedback to the public in terms of how the increased health accord dollars were being spent.

           Certainly, I have the opportunity to talk to Dr. Vertesi at any time in terms of the work of the council. I've made it quite clear that we are not asking him to be there solely in a capacity to speak for and on behalf of British Columbia. He's there to bring his expertise to the table, which is extensive. If there are issues we think are specific to British Columbia that we want to have introduced at the table of the council, then I have the choice of either contacting Michael Decter as the chair directly, or I have the opportunity of talking to Dr. Vertesi and asking if he would raise issues to the chair of the council.

           He is there designated by the province of British Columbia, but he is there to bring his own insight and expertise to that work.

           J. MacPhail: So we have a representative at the table who doesn't represent government — is that what he's saying? — Dr. Vertesi. The minister can't have it both ways. He can't say Dr. Vertesi isn't there representing British Columbia and now say that I'm wrong to say that the government doesn't have a representative there. There are 13 government representatives, it says in this posting. Who's the government representative? Who's speaking for the government of British Columbia?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think it might be useful if the member listened a little more attentively when I answered, because what I said was that Dr. Vertesi was there, designated by the province of British Columbia. He is there to bring his own expertise to the table. He does not have to feel bound to speak only lines that are somehow approved by the province. He is there to bring expertise, which he has an enormous amount of, to the work of the council.

[1620]Jump to this time in the webcast

           If there is direct representation that the province feels it needs at the table of the council, then I have the option of contacting either Michael Decter or Dr. Vertesi in that regard. In fact, I could contact any of those who are serving on that council from British Columbia.

           This council is not set up to be an agent of the provinces. It's set up to be an independent body that will provide oversight to the implementation of the health accord spending.

           In that regard, there is a process that was put in place to arrive at what was anticipated to be the 27 members of the council. In fact, it turns out to be 26. It is that process that designated government and non-government appointees, but these individuals aren't necessarily there to be solely representatives of their respective jurisdictions.

           J. MacPhail: Oh, that's great. British Columbia has a representative there that's the Premier's brother-in-

[ Page 9297 ]

law, determined by a secret process, and he's actually not even there representing the interests of the B.C. government. Let me just ask the minister this, then: does the minister agree with Dr. Vertesi's books — his opinions that he published, his views in Broken Promises: Why Canadian Medicare Is in Trouble? Is that the view that's representing British Columbia at this national health council?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I encourage the member to read the book, because it's thought-provoking. I actually read it two years ago when it was still in a manuscript form and provided some comments back to Dr. Vertesi at that….

           J. MacPhail: You're very close to him, it seems — very close.

           Hon. C. Hansen: The member says I'm close to Dr. Vertesi. I do have coffee with him on a regular basis, because I find his insights about how the health care system works very useful. He is very much a professional, and he very much takes his responsibilities in the public health care system seriously.

           I think if the member reads the book, she will actually find he brings an interesting perspective. It's not one that I'm prepared to say I endorse 100 percent, but certainly it is a useful piece of work that I think broadens the debate around health care. If the member reads it, she will realize it is not about a privatized health care system. It is about how to make our public health care system, our publicly funded health care system, work more effectively.

           J. MacPhail: Oh, it's such a cosy little world in this Liberal government. It's such a cosy little world. Either be a relative or have coffee. You get the appointment through a secret process, and you don't actually have to represent the government — even though they're called government representatives. That's what every other province is sending their government representative to do. Deputy ministers, academics — they're actually there representing the government, but not in British Columbia. If it was actually there to represent the government, how could they appoint the brother-in-law of the Premier if we had that high standard? We don't have that high standard.

           All we know about Dr. Vertesi — about where he wants the health care system to go — is a book called Broken Promises: Why Canadian Medicare Is in Trouble. The minister puts a very positive spin on Dr. Vertesi's ideas. I also recall the criticism that Dr. Vertesi levelled at the previous government every single chance he got. Fair enough, but it wasn't about extending the public medicare system. That wasn't what his criticism was about.

           Dr. Vertesi is there representing his own point of view. Our minister can contact the chair if he wants any input. Wow, British Columbians should feel just great about the representation we have on this national health council. The minister says it's a very interesting book. He's not endorsing it. Isn't that interesting? I wonder. What does the minister disagree with in the book?

           Hon. C. Hansen: It's about two years ago that I read it, and I certainly don't recall all aspects of the book, other than that I found it thought-provoking.

           J. MacPhail: Oh, I see. So, secret process, Premier's brother-in-law…. Minister says: "Oh, he's got some good ideas, but he's not representing the government. He's got his own ideas." He doesn't remember what his ideas are. Oh, by the way, if British Columbia has any trouble, they can call Michael Decter, the chair of the national health council, or he can discuss it with Les Vertesi directly as an option.

           What obligation does Dr. Les Vertesi have to the people of British Columbia?

[1625]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: The member keeps talking about some secretive process. It wasn't a secretive process at all. As I said to the member, it was a name that was recommended, and I appointed him. That's not very secretive. I made that decision. I made that recommendation, and it went forward.

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Please, member, let's listen to the answer.

           Hon. C. Hansen: The council itself does not have accountabilities back to any individual government. They have accountabilities back to the provinces and territories and the federal government collectively, but most importantly, if you're familiar with the health accord, the accountability is to the public. The work of the health council will be to monitor, to evaluate, the dollars that were spent around the health reform fund, for example, which is an initiative that is what part of that health accord money was for. They will be trying to assess whether or not the initiatives that were taken by different provinces, which will not be the same…. There will be different initiatives taken in different provinces, because this is all outside of the Canada Health Act. It's to evaluate whether or not those were effective and whether the additional health accord dollars actually produced meaningful results.

           That's the work of the council. That's not something where you would expect each individual province to be sending plays in from the bench to tell the council how to direct their work. I think they need a level of independence, but they need competent, talented, experienced people around that council. I'm very proud of all three representatives from B.C. who sit on that council, because I think they will add exactly that to it.

           J. MacPhail: The deputy ministers of other provinces who have been appointed as the government

[ Page 9298 ]

representatives are not there to represent their government. Is that what the minister is saying?

           Hon. C. Hansen: Basically, each of the 12 jurisdictions….

           Interjections.

           The Chair: Order, please. Order. Let's keep this down to one debate.

           Hon. C. Hansen: Each of the 12 jurisdictions had a right to designate anyone they wanted. As I mentioned, four of the provinces decided to designate their deputy minister. That's up to them. From the perspective of the council table, they're not there solely as an agent of their province. They're there because they have some health expertise that comes to the table.

           I can actually run through a summary of the various representatives who were appointed as direct appointees of the various jurisdictions. We've got Dr. Tom Ward from Nova Scotia. He is the deputy minister, but what he brings to the table in addition to being deputy minister is that he's known internationally for his expertise as a health care system strategist and planner. He has practised as a specialist in neonatal and pediatric intensive care. He established the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, so he has a B.C. connection.

           Albert Fogerty from Prince Edward Island. He is a teacher, principal, superintendent of education, senior policy consultant and executive director at Holland College. As I mentioned earlier, from Saskatchewan we've got Glenda Yeates. She is the deputy minister. She has chaired the national advisory committee on health services and co-chaired the national children's agenda — and board member of the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. She has a master's in public administration.

           Lyn McLeod was appointed by the province of Alberta. She has an MA in psychology from Lakehead University and has served in municipal and provincial politics throughout her career. She's currently the national spokesperson for the Centre of Excellence for Children and Adolescents with Special Needs.

           From the Yukon, Donna Hogan has worked in the health care field in the Yukon Territory for three decades — certified nurse assistant and then as a registered nurse. She particularly worked with first nations. She's currently director of the first nations health program and has been acting CEO and director of patient services at Whitehorse General Hospital.

           Michael Leger, New Brunswick, is a practising lawyer. He has served on several health care associations, notably the New Brunswick Hospital Association and the Canadian Hospital Association — as well as the Canadian representative on the International Hospital Association.

           Milton Sussman from Manitoba is the deputy minister. He oversaw programs such as long-term care for seniors, personal care home program and adult day care programs and participated in the health program planning and evaluation activities for the city of Winnipeg — extensive background in many social areas such as child care, community outreach and housing.

[1630]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Deborah Fry is the Deputy Minister of Health and Community Services for Newfoundland and Labrador. She was previously clerk of the executive council. She has a bachelor of science in nursing and a law degree. She has worked on neonatal intensive care, public health and nursing education in Saskatchewan and Australia.

           Dave Murray, from Northwest Territories, is a deputy minister. He's the former president of the housing corporation and held a number of senior positions in finance.

           Bernie Blais, from Nunavut, is also the deputy minister. He has more than 22 years of senior executive experience in the health care field, including service as an assistant deputy minister of health in Manitoba.

           Then finally is Les Vertesi. Those are the individuals appointed directly by the provinces and territories.

           J. MacPhail: Well, I heard 11 names — I must have missed two — of which six are deputy ministers. There are more than the four that the minister tried to say were deputy ministers. There are six deputy ministers. Then we have the brother-in-law of the Premier from here in British Columbia.

           Well, one of the things Dr. Les Vertesi advocates in his book is that certain services should be allowed direct access by the consumer if they've got the cash to pay for it. Another concept of that, given our current medicare system, is that that kind of system is delisting certain services. You delist certain services, and people can then have access to those services directly for cash. The BCMA has often pressured governments to delist services. I thought it was interesting that Dr. Les Vertesi and the BCMA joined forces in that particular concept.

           I'm wondering: at the bargaining table for the BCMA negotiations, will the government guarantee that in exchange for doctors taking zero and zero, there will be no delisting of medical services?

           Hon. C. Hansen: The answer is no. I think if the member goes back and checks….

           Interjection.

           Hon. C. Hansen: The member asked if there would be any discussion at the bargaining table, and the answer is no. I think if the member goes back and checks Hansard, she will note that I said quite clearly that there were four deputy ministers appointed directly by the provinces, and there were two deputy ministers appointed by the territories. Yes, that does add up to six.

           J. MacPhail: Oh my God. Amen.

           Mr. Chair, sorry. It's only the government that looks foolish as they say: "What I meant to say, what I

[ Page 9299 ]

meant to say." Unbelievable. Unbelievable. At no time did the minister ever say anything other than there were four deputy ministers.

           My question to the minister is: will he guarantee that there will be no delisting of medical services as a result of BCMA taking zero and zero in increases? The minister stood up and said no. Does that mean no, he won't guarantee that, or yes, he will guarantee it?

           Hon. C. Hansen: There will be no delisting of medical services as a result of the zero-zero arrangements for remuneration with the B.C. Medical Association. Is that member happy with that?

           J. MacPhail: Yes, I am. Thank you very much for that. I'm very happy about it.

           Is there any discussion of delisting at all at the BCMA table?

[1635]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: There were volumes and volumes and volumes of positions that were tabled by the B.C. Medical Association at the start of the negotiating process. We made it quite clear that we were not prepared to engage in negotiations at that negotiating table around issues other than remuneration. I'm not aware of whether or not the BCMA may have put forward any proposals around delisting. Certainly, we were not prepared to entertain any of those proposals, if there were some, at the negotiating table.

           J. MacPhail: I had some feedback from our discussion this morning. A person e-mailed and asked: "What's the time line for completion of negotiations before the government determines that they've broken down or been resolved?"

           Hon. C. Hansen: We are currently in a mediation phase with the mediator that was jointly agreed to. After April 1, once the working agreement has expired, either party can then ask the mediator to assume his role as a conciliator, and from there, the time line is up to the conciliator.

           J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's intent that the conciliator flips into a mediator, or is there a possibility that there would be two different people?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think it's our hope that the mediator will, in fact, be able to conclude a new agreement in his capacity as a mediator. But no, the provision that is in the agreement is that the mediator then automatically becomes the conciliator. John Hunter is the individual who was mutually agreed to by both the BCMA and government. If he cannot conclude this in his role as a mediator, then either party, after April 1, can request that he assume his responsibility as the conciliator.

           J. MacPhail: And who is John Hunter?

           Hon. C. Hansen: He is a lawyer. He is a Queen's Counsel, and he specializes in commercial arbitration.

           J. MacPhail: Is he from British Columbia? Does he practise in British Columbia?

           Hon. C. Hansen: Yes.

           J. MacPhail: How long is Dr. Vertesi's appointment? What does he do in terms of continuing to get input from British Columbians, or is he not required to do that?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I have to apologize to the member. I'm going to go from memory here, because I haven't got it right in front of me. I believe it's a three-year term for all of the 26 members who are appointed to the health council. The individuals that are there have a very specific mandate to provide oversight with regard to the additional spending under the health accord.

           They're not a policy shop. They're not there to come up with a new policy framework for health care. It is simply to report back to Canadians on how the additional health dollars were spent. In that capacity, they have a mandate and scope that is set out fairly explicitly by the first ministers, and as such, there is not a responsibility for them to consult back to individual British Columbians to get input on how that process should be done.

           J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I certainly hope that Dr. Vertesi has some method of communicating back to British Columbia other than being at his brother-in-law's dinner table. Dr. Vertesi is a big donor to the Liberal Party. He has, certainly, a close connection with the Liberals — not, I guess, in the role as government. The minister says he's not there to represent the government, so he's not there to represent the people.

[1640]Jump to this time in the webcast

           He's a donor to the Liberal government; he's the Premier's brother-in-law. I certainly hope there's some method by which he communicates back to British Columbia in a way that at least lets him be informed of what British Columbia wants from its health care system — other than attending Liberal party functions, donating to the Liberals or being at his brother-in-law's, the Premier, dinner table.

           Can the minister tell us what the budget is this year for payment of health authority directors and chairs?

           Hon. C. Hansen: The chairs are paid an annual retainer of $15,000 a year. The directors are paid an annual retainer of $7,500 a year; plus they're paid a per diem for board and committee meetings and travel expenses. There are maximums allowed, so the maximum for all fees and expenses for the chairs is $45,000. The maximum for directors is $22,500 a year. This is in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines for agencies, boards and commissions.

[ Page 9300 ]

           J. MacPhail: Sorry. Did the minister say the maximum includes travel fees and expense reimbursement? That's different than what he said last year.

           Hon. C. Hansen: Well, just to restate it, maximum payments for the chair, $45,000 — my apologies, I did misread this — plus travel fees and expenses, and for directors, $22,500 plus travel fees. I apologize for that.

           J. MacPhail: Yes. I was asking about the experience of the collection. When I asked in estimates last year for the information for '02-03, the minister didn't have that, so I assume he's got it now.

           Hon. C. Hansen: I am informed that we are in the process of collecting that information from all of the health authorities. The one that I have with me right now is the interior health authority. It's the only one that I have. What it shows is that for the period of April 1, '02, to March 31, '03, there were total fees of $175,433 and total expenses of $42,176.

           J. MacPhail: I just want to point out something to the minister. They claim people like the Hospital Employees Union are special interests and always have a hidden agenda, and they berate them and denigrate them at every turn. Well, I get more information out of the Hospital Employees Union than I get out of this government. When I give the government a chance to stand up and provide information with their explanation, he won't give it.

[1645]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The HEU issued a news release a couple of weeks ago saying what their interpretation is of how much boards claimed. I thought: "Well, I'll give the government a chance to provide their version of the information." The minister stands up and says: "Oh, I don't have it." I'm asking from '02-03. The reason I'm asking for it is because I couldn't get it last year in estimates. We're in estimates for '04-05, and the minister won't give me any information. One can only assume it's because it's harmful to him, harmful to his government.

           Let me read into the record the HEU news release, because their source of information is all I can get.

           Interjections.

           J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister would like to stand up and give me the information that I've asked for. He refuses to do it, so what choice do I have? Maybe we could get the back bench to lob a soft one to the government during question period. Maybe they'd be able to provide the information then, because it seems the government executive council have no trouble answering the soft-lob questions asked by their back bench.

           Let me read into the record the news release.

           "Campbell government health board appointees rake in $1 million in fees. 'Government appointees to B.C.'s six health authority boards pocketed $1,002,572 in directors' fees last year,' said the Hospital Employees Union" — February 20, 2004. "Financial documents obtained by the union under the provisions of the Financial Administration Act also show that the province's health authorities coughed up $102,271 in expense payments to directors. Dominated by forestry executives, financiers, resort owners and other representatives of B.C.'s corporate elite, the ranks of directors charged with running the province's six health authorities also include generous donors to the B.C. Liberal Party.

           "'In his budget speech the Finance minister said that dollars saved in health care restructuring would go back into care for patients,' said HEU secretary and business manager, Chris Allnutt, 'but it seems that one result of government policy is the diversion of a million dollars from health care's front lines into health authority boardrooms.'

           "In the five years leading up to their appointments to health authority boards in April, 2002, 30 of the 57 directors, either individually or through companies and organizations with which they are associated, donated $1,145,103 to the party's campaign war chest. They include Terasen's Vancouver Island CEO Jack Kreut, who received $44,500 in the fiscal year end, March 31, 2003, for chairing the board of the Vancouver Island health authority. Kreut is the former CEO of Centra Gas, a subsidiary of Westcoast Energy, bought in 2002 by B.C. Gas, now Terasen. Centra and Westcoast donated nearly $142,000 to the B.C. Liberals between 1996 and 2001. MacMillan Bloedel's former chief operating officer and executive vice-president, Keith Purchase, got $37,265 for chairing the Vancouver coastal authority board. Purchase is the ex-CEO of TimberWest Forest Products and a director of NorskeCanada. Those three firms donated more than $330,000 to the B.C. Liberals between '96 and 2001.

           "Joel Nauss got $12,971 for sitting on the province's health services authority board last year. His company, Westpro Constructors Group, donated $3,250 to the B.C. Liberals between '96 and 2001. Nauss is past-president of the Independent Contractors Association of B.C., which donated more than a quarter million dollars to the B.C. Liberals over the same period.

           "The government-appointed chairs of the six health authorities' boards of directors were paid fees ranging between $19,572 and $44,500 for the year ending March 31, 2003" — the same period I asked for information — "while directors pocketed between $7,750 and $22,401. On average, the six health authority board chairs were paid $35,318 in fees, while the 51 directors were paid $15,503.

           "By comparison, the Calgary health region paid its board chair $8,000 in fees during the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, the latest information available. Directors serving a full year were paid between $2,000 and 12,000 a year, an average of $6,000.

           "Before the B.C. Liberal government organized regional health authorities in late 2001, board members did not receive director's fees. 'When services are being cut and thousands of health care workers are losing their jobs in the name of austerity, it is disgusting that the government could boast of supposed savings through restructuring while treating health authority boards just like another corporate directorship to be shared amongst friends and insiders,' says Allnutt. 'The level of hypocrisy is truly obscene.'

           "Since their appointment by the Liberal government in March 2002, the six health authority boards of directors have announced they would close more than 3,000 long-term care beds and have closed more than half of

[ Page 9301 ]

those beds, despite promising to build 5,000 new long-term care beds and intermediate care beds; fired more than 5,000 health care workers and contracted out their work to foreign corporations, despite promising to respect their collective agreements; spent millions on health care advertising, despite promising not to do so; closed or downgraded hospitals in communities that include New Westminster, Kimberley, Summerland, Victoria, Delta and Vancouver; and allowed surgical wait-lists to grow by more than 25 percent since June 2001."

[1650]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Well, Mr. Chair, that's the end of the news release from the Hospital Employees Union. I expect it's lucky that they searched out that information, because direct questioning in estimates — when that kind of information should be made available — has been denied to me, and this is the third year running.

           Let me ask again. What is the total budget across the health authorities that they are allocating for directors' fees of the health authorities?

           Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, the numbers that the member was asking about earlier have been run in to me here. I can advise the member of the total that was paid out for board members in 2002-03. In the case of the Fraser health authority, $145,000 for nine board members, including the chair; interior health authority, $175,433 for nine members, including the chair; northern health authority, $158,023 for nine board members, including the chair; the PHSA, $202,000 for 12 board members, including the chair; Vancouver coastal health authority, $161,924 for nine board members, including the chair; and the Vancouver Island health authority, $213,384 for nine board members and chair.

           As far as the budget going forward, it would be up to each health authority to build into their budgets what that number should be. I know we had some discussions earlier around administration costs, and I do want to make sure that I respond. I know she asked for some specific information, so this is some of it that I now have. If you look at the total administrative costs that were in place in 2001-02, it was $217.39 million. By 2002-03, it had dropped to $165.853 million, so that was almost a 24 percent drop in that period of time. What is projected for the current fiscal year is $185.652 million.

           J. MacPhail: So in their first year of government, '01-02, the admin costs were $217 million, and '04-05 it's $185 million — or '03-04? Sorry. I had '01-02, '02-03, and then the next year was quoted, and I don't know whether that was '03-04.

[1655]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: I can run through the numbers again. In 2001-02 it was $217.39 million. In the current fiscal year of '03-04, the projection is for $185.652 million. That is just administration. That does not include finance. It does not include human resources. It does not include communications. It doesn't include nurse, in-patient, resident, administration, ambulatory care administration, community and social services administration. So, if you look just at that one line item alone, it's a decrease of 14.6 percent over that two-year period. This becomes part of the overall target reduction in administrative and support costs of 7 percent that we talked about yesterday.

           J. MacPhail: What's the budget for '04-05? Can the minister figure that out — the forecast? Then if he could also give me the information about the communications costs throughout that period as well.

           Hon. C. Hansen: We do not have the '04-05 numbers yet for each of the health authorities. They are obviously working on their budgets now, and as soon as we're able to give them confirmation around their budget allocations, they'll be able to firm up their individual budgets.

           In terms of the communications line, this is again by the health authorities in the province. I better just be careful that I'm…. Yes, so this would be expenditures by the health authorities. Communications in '01-02 was $17.878 million. In the current year it's projected to be $15.731 million for a 12 percent reduction.

           J. MacPhail: I'd like information too, when the budgets are confirmed, about what the communications costs are for '04-05. Tell me: what does communications entail in the health authority? The health care ads that the government is running are not out of the health authority budgets, are they? They're out of the public affairs bureau budget?

           Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct.

           J. MacPhail: Okay. So my first question was: the ads that the government is putting on air right now are separate and apart from this $15.7 million in communications that the health authority is spending? What does that budget get spent on by the health authorities?

           Hon. C. Hansen: At the health authority level, this would fund things like the health authority newsletters that most of them put out. It would fund their community liaison. I can think of dozens of different brochures that the various health authorities put out to provide patient information and direction. This budget would go to funding all of those different initiatives.

              [K. Stewart in the chair.]

           J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm reviewing our estimates from last year. I asked for information last year about the health authority expenditures on compensation, and the minister said he would get it to me. We never did receive that information. I really do hope that the minister will deliver the information that I've asked for this year around health authority expenditures covering their directors.

           In terms of the cost to health authorities, costs given to them as a result of demands around management…. The deputy minister was kind enough to answer a question I asked in Public Accounts around the costs to

[ Page 9302 ]

health authorities and the ministry in terms of performance agreements.

[1700]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The reason why I ask this is because I notice that the service plan has targets that aren't much clearer from the first time we debated the targets. For instance, I just opened up one to the performance of…. Here's one. This is interesting. This is under "Corporate Management," goal 3: "A sustainable, affordable health care system. Appropriate organizational capacity to manage the health care system and efficiently deliver necessary services."

           MOHS — that would be the Ministry of Health Services — strategy 14: "Embed sound business practices and a business management culture within the ministry." Performance measure 14 is: "Percentage of divisions with risk management plans," and for '03-04 it was not applicable. The target for '04-05 is 30 percent, the target for '05-06 is 80 percent, and the target for '06-07 is 100 percent.

           That's kind of meaningless to most people, because how many divisions are there, and how is one going to go about meeting that target? What's the evidence of meeting that target? It's not listed here. It's a percentage that, out of context, is meaningless. That's just opening it up to one performance measure.

           When I asked the costs attributed to meeting performance measures and delivering on performance agreements, the cost is approximately $12 million annually. Could the minister explain to me how that $12 million gets spent in assessing performance measures as listed in the service plan for the Ministry of Health Services?

           Hon. C. Hansen: The $12 million the member referenced is a rough estimate that is done. If you look at the shifting role of the ministry itself, it was at one point very much an operational ministry, but the actual operational side of the delivery of health care services has now been assigned to the individual health authorities. The residual role of the ministry is primarily around policy development and performance management. It's the accountability side, to make sure the health authorities are delivering on their obligations.

[1705]Jump to this time in the webcast

           When we talk about $12 million, that's really an estimate for primarily staffing costs within the ministry around the performance management division, finance and the statistics arm of the ministry, which are all part of ensuring we have proper oversight and accountability for the work of the health authorities.

           J. MacPhail: Okay, I'd like a concrete example, if I may. This is one. The minister can pick another one. He can pick one, and I'll pick one — if he wishes — because I don't want him to accuse me of cherry-picking out here. This is one that's very important to my constituents, and I think a lot of members get questions about MSP service.

           Here's priority strategy 15: "Improve Registration Services to the Public. Review the MSP and Pharmacare registration criteria and processes to ensure they provide appropriate and timely services to British Columbians and are managed and delivered by the most appropriate and efficient means." I would assume that's a strategy.

           Then there are two performance measures under that to determine whether the strategy is being implemented. I think that's how it works. We spend a lot of time on this at Public Accounts. There's a performance measure. Performance measure 21 says: "Percentage of the population adequately insured against catastrophic prescription drug costs. B.C.'s Fair Pharmacare is an optional program providing insurance for prescription drugs based on family income." Baseline '02-03 is not applicable. The target for '03-04 is 65 percent of the population registered for Fair Pharmacare. I'll ask about that.

           Then performance measure 22, which identifies whether this strategy is being met, is: "Turnaround times for MSP/Pharmacare beneficiary services to the public. Both measures capture MSP's and Pharmacare's efficiency in processing applications." Baseline '02-03 is 16 weeks turnaround time. Target '03-04 is eight weeks turnaround time.

           Can the minister walk me through those two performance measures and tell me what the results are and how the ministry went about meeting their target, just so we can understand it? Then the minister can pick one that he likes, if he wishes — or not.

[1710]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, to speak to the performance measure around B.C.'s Fair Pharmacare program, the target for the end of this fiscal year we're currently in would be to have 65 percent of the population registered. As we know, not everybody perceives that they can benefit from Fair Pharmacare, because their income levels may be higher and their prescription use very low. Individuals that really have very little need for prescriptions, perhaps none, may not take the time to register. We obviously would like to encourage everybody to register so that they're in the system and prepared in case the doctor issues them a prescription that may put them into a category where they're eligible for coverage.

           I guess the good news is that we're currently at a point where 93.9 percent of senior families are registered, so we're getting a very high percentage, which we're all very pleased at. We know that seniors are obviously the group that has the highest prescription use, and there is clearly a greater number of seniors who would have prescriptions that would put them into a position of needing financial assistance under Fair Pharmacare. We're very pleased with having 93.9 percent at this stage.

           With regard to the total number of families registered, we now are at in excess of 1.7 million families in the province. We are already well over the 65 percent level, which was our target for this year. We will continue to work at that in the years to come, because we would like to get as many people registered as possible

[ Page 9303 ]

in case they find themselves in a position where they would benefit from that financial assistance.

           With regard to the MSP and Pharmacare processing, this is part of the shift that we're doing from the 30-year-old paper-based system we have had in place up until now. As the member knows, we are seeking an outside company to partner with to bring some technology solutions to this file that will, in turn, bring down the processing time. We don't yet have the exact turnaround rate for the end of this fiscal year because we're not there yet, but we have, in the tendering documents that have gone out for the MSP project, built in the exact target — four weeks' turnaround time. That is built into the performance measures. We are going to be holding our private sector partner accountable for helping us to achieve that particular performance measure.

           J. MacPhail: What is the exact rate for '03-04? It's above 65 percent, but what is the exact registration percentage?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I do know that as of January 4, which is when this data was compiled, there were 1,325,743 non-senior families registered. There were also 408,615 senior families registered. My arithmetic in my head gives me about 1.734 million. I don't have the exact number as to how many families there are in the province, but I believe that would work out to about 80 percent.

           J. MacPhail: Okay. It's not a trick question; it's that the performance measures are in percentages. It's kind of interesting to do apples to apples; that's all.

           In terms of the turnaround time for MSP services, what is it now? What is the turnaround time now, as we speak?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I know that was in one of the binders we had in the chamber yesterday or in the prior discussions. I'm not exactly sure what date it was. I know we have that information in the binders that we have available. We can't find it quickly here, but I will endeavour to have that information. If I have it before 6 o'clock, I'll read it into the record.

           J. MacPhail: So the proponent who is going to be doing the MSP registry must meet a four-week turnaround time as of '05-06?

[1715]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: That's correct.

           J. MacPhail: What's the penalty if they don't? I gather that the company has been chosen.

           Hon. C. Hansen: No, there is a shortlist of two companies we are negotiating with. As we structure the contractual arrangements, there will be consequences for failure to achieve performance measures. That will be written into the contracts.

           J. MacPhail: In terms of the calculation of the $12 million cost…. I make no judgment on that, but in areas such as meeting those two performance measures, it seems to me — I could be wrong — that there would be no additional costs, other than the regular cost of doing the job, to meet those targets. Or would there be? That's question No. 1. If there weren't any additional costs, in what performance measures does the $12 million get expended to meet that performance measure?

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member is specifically focusing in on the service plan, which is one element of the work that gets done in terms of performance management within the ministry, but their work is much broader than that. We have a performance agreement in place with each of the health authorities. We have accountabilities nationally in terms of the performance indicators that come out through CIHI every year in terms of the information that is provided from British Columbia. We have an ongoing relationship between the ministry and the health authorities with regard to the performance of the health authorities.

           That $12 million budget goes to provide that overall performance measurement function of the ministry. It is not specific just to this particular service plan or specific to any particular performance measure in the service plan.

           J. MacPhail: Fair enough, but that does lead to more questions. I mean, we're spending a lot of time on this at Public Accounts. It's a huge initiative of the auditor general. It's a huge initiative of the government to set up performance measures through their service plans and then to have annual performance reports to show how the service plans are moving forward. The government has agreed to do this. The auditor general is monitoring it. Perhaps the minister could tell me where, other than the service plan, the performance measures are so that we know that information in Public Accounts.

           I also ask this question, then. The $12 million figure listed, of which I take no issue, in terms of meeting the performance agreements — is that the cost to the Ministry of Health Services alone? What, if any, costs are associated with the health authorities over and above that in meeting performance measures?

[1720]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: I wasn't entirely clear on the member's question with regard to where the performance agreements are. The performance agreements are all posted on the websites. There are links, certainly, from the Ministry of Health Services website to each of the performance agreements for each of the health authorities. It's all on the public record. The overall service plan for the ministry, of course, is also posted on that website.

           When we look at the $12 million in performance management and presumably additional dollars that are spent at the health authority level, these are not dollars that are going to hire a particular individual

[ Page 9304 ]

who does nothing else than try to count numbers to feed back into these performance measure outcomes. These are individuals who are an integral part of their finance and administrative structures that have a broad range of accountabilities. We have accountabilities through the performance agreements and the service plan. We also have accountabilities through various pieces of legislation we are obligated to follow through on.

           This is an integral part. It flows from legislation; it flows from policy initiatives. We have emerging issues that are unanticipated. All of these things wind up being part of the work that is done under the whole rubric of performance measurement. These are not stand-alone functions of individuals who do absolutely nothing else but.

           J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that and I appreciate that. Thank you for the information about the individual performance agreements. Part of the performance measures is to determine how much one expends on meeting the performance measures, so I assume the government would have that information.

           Mr. Chair, I note that we've got about 35 minutes left. Is that right? I'm going to cover off two topics in that period of time, and then we'll carry on tomorrow. I'll have information to carry on with tomorrow as well — questions — and I assume the government caucus members do as well.

           The two areas of discussion I'd like to have is the Premiers' conference and federal funding on health care. The second one will be water quality. It's a unique — yeah, unique is the right word — topic.

           On health care funding, can the minister update British Columbians on the exact amount of money that's flowing from the federal government to British Columbia as a result of, I think it is, the Prime Minister's commitment in the throne speech that there would be $2 billion in this federal fiscal year for health care funding?

           Hon. C. Hansen: We did have a chance to canvass this a fair amount with the member's colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. What we know at this point for certain is that the federal government has confirmed that $2 billion of the surplus from this fiscal year will be allocated to the provinces for health spending. That $2 billion is divided up on a per-capita basis, so B.C.'s share of that is $260 million, because we get 13 percent of it.

           The initial intent was that this was part of the initial three-year funding of the health accord, which is now a year old. The health accord funding was to flow in '03-04, '04-05 and '05-06. What we know for sure is that there is $260 million that will flow to B.C. What we do not know at this point is how it will flow. We don't know if it will be allocated based on one-third in the fiscal year we're currently in, one-third in the year to come and one-third in the year after. We don't know if we'll be forced to take all $260 million of it in one year or whether we'll be able to spread it over the two remaining years of the health accord.

           As is set out in the budget documents, it is our hope that we will be able to allocate that as $130 million to this coming fiscal year, '04-05, and the final $130 million to '05-06. That will allow us to give more stability to how those dollars can be spent over that period of time.

           What we're waiting for is, first of all, the federal legislation that will set up a trust through which these dollars will flow and whatever conditions are attached to it as a result of the legislation. We are also waiting for decisions or input from the federal auditor general and input from our provincial auditor general and comptroller general as to what the accounting principles are that will dictate how this money should be flowed.

           It's not up us to decide that we'd like to have it all in a certain format. We really have to take the advice of the auditor general and the comptroller general with regard to what the appropriate accounting treatment of that money is.

[1725]Jump to this time in the webcast

           J. MacPhail: What would change from the fiscal year we're just ending right now in terms of how the money flowed? We had, I think, a supplementary estimate of about $318 million. What would be treated differently this coming year?

           Hon. C. Hansen: To go back to the initial health accord funding, B.C.'s share of the initial health accord funding was $1.3 billion over a three-year period. The total pot was $10 billion at that time, and B.C.'s share was 13 percent — $1.3 billion.

           That was allocated based on $319 million in this fiscal year we're currently in, and we did not know that at the time the Finance minister brought down the budget last year. He brought down the budget without that allocation in it. The member is correct; there was a supplemental estimate that added that $319 million, because we made a commitment to British Columbians that any additional federal money that flowed would in fact be added to the health budget. Not all provinces did that.

           The allocation of that initial $1.3 billion is $319 million in that first year; $396.2 million in this coming '04-05 year, and that's built into the budget that was tabled on February 17. Then in '05-06 there is $595.6 million for the third year of that three-year allocation. The budget tabled in this House on February 17 includes those numbers, but it does not include the additional $260 million that will come as our share of the $2 billion top-up. We anticipate…. Well, we don't anticipate; we know that as soon as we get certainty around what years we can allocate that money to, there will be a supplemental estimate that will be brought into the House by the Finance minister to add to this current year's health budget — the amount of that $260 million that can be put into this current year.

           Also, I've just been handed the numbers with regard to the MSP turnaround time. Right now we are at a turnaround time of less than six weeks for both premium assistance and regular enrolment for MSP.

[ Page 9305 ]

           There was another piece of information the member asked for earlier, and that was the forecast for board expenditures during the current fiscal year. I don't have all of them; I have four of six, and the other two we're still waiting for. Interior health is forecasting remuneration expense for board members of $230,000; Fraser health authority, $169,875; northern health authority, $145,000; and for provincial health services authority, $159,800 is forecast.

           J. MacPhail: Let me just ask a question. We'll carry on with this federal money, but if the government is already at a target…. Let me see whether I can find this again. It was 21; let me just see if I can quickly find this. The target for MSP, it said, had a baseline of 16 weeks. I want to make sure I get this right. Oh, yeah, here it was. The baseline for turnaround time for MSP applications for '02-03 was 16 weeks' turnaround time. I assume that's not a made-up baseline; it's a baseline that was real — 16 weeks. Now we're already at six weeks' turnaround time. What happened?

[1730]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: The short answer to the member's question was the implementation of the call centres. In November 2002 a public tender was issued to…. Let me back up here. To improve customer service to the general public, on October 1, 2002, MSP entered into a temporary contract with IBM to operate a toll-free telephone inquiry centre for B.C.'s Medical Services Plan. In November 2002 a public tender was issued to continue this call centre with expanded service, and IBM was the successful proponent.

           These expanded services allow the call centre agents to complete simple transactions such as address changes, premium billing and account status questions. Between August 2002 and December 2003 they fielded about 660,000 calls, and it is as a result of that that we were able to get the initial turnaround time down to the levels that they are now. We are now looking for a private sector partner to assist us with additional technology that will allow us to bring those turnaround times down even further.

           J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, thank you for that. I am going to go and review the debate around the federal funding with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, and in the meantime I will yield the floor to my colleagues on the understanding that we will continue estimates in Health Services tomorrow.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: I need about another half day.

           Interjection.

           J. MacPhail: Yes.

           D. Hayer: Before I start the questioning to the minister, I have received a letter from one of my constituents regarding the concerns about foreign doctors. If the minister and the Chair allow me, I can read it into the record. This letter is from Mr. David, MD. He says:

"Dear Mr. Hayer:

           "I have passed the Medical Council of Canada evaluation exam, qualifying examination parts 1 and 2 and the English examinations that are required of internationally trained medical doctors in B.C. Due to a chronic shortage of provincially funded residency, I cannot work as a physician and now would like to seek your assistance.

           "I was born in the Philippines and became a specialist in internal medicine before coming to Canada in 1988. Since then I have become a Canadian citizen, raised my family and have familiarized myself with social, demographic and clinical practices in North America. I have tried several times to secure a residency training position and several times have been denied.

           "There is a chronic shortage of medical doctors in B.C. Instead of using existing resources like qualifying international medical graduates" — he calls them IMGs — "who are ready to work right away, B.C. recruits doctors from places such as South Africa, which is also in need of doctors. I think we are an important part of the solution, but we need your help.

           "As one of your constituents and as a member of the newly formed Association of International Medical Doctors of B.C., I would like to know what your government plans to do so that international medical graduates like myself are given the opportunity to contribute their skills and assist with the current doctor shortage.

Sincerely yours,

Mr. David"

I left his first name out, so it doesn't go into the public record.

           Before I say this, I remember back in the 1980s when I had a meeting with an individual from Surrey who was running as an MLA at that time for the Social Credit. There were some doctors on strike in North Vancouver. We brought those issues to the Social Credit at the time, and after that we had the NDP here for ten years, and the same type of concerns were there.

           Now we're here almost for three years, and the same issues are there. I'm just wondering: what is the minister going to do to deal with this? Do you have some way of looking at it so it can help our health care problems?

[1735]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think the important underlying principle is that we have to make sure that the interests of patients are put first and that the interests of the patients are protected. When we credential any professional who is trained in another part of the world, we have to make sure that their training is comparable and that they can work in the B.C. health care system in the same way that somebody trained at UBC would fit into the health care system. When you're in the middle of an operation, you want to make sure that everybody on that team in the operating room is on exactly the same wavelength and is approaching the challenges they face in a way that is totally predictable based on their training.

[ Page 9306 ]

           We do want to make sure that credentialing is in a way that will allow professionals to fit into our medical system. In terms of international medical graduates, I'm pleased to say that from the time we formed government in 2001 to today we have doubled the number of residency positions. In terms of funding, the IMG family practice–entry level residency seats have doubled in the province. The problem is that they've gone from six to 12. That is still a pretty small number, but it is a doubling over that period of time.

           We have certainly been working with the federal government. We've been working with other associations, including the colleges, around what measures have to be taken to improve access to residency positions and access to skills training and upgrading to make sure that their skill levels are consistent with what is expected in the B.C. health care system.

           I'm also aware that just recently the federal government announced some funding that will flow to assist with credentialing of international medical grads. We still don't know exactly how that's going to flow in British Columbia, but we know there will be an allocation to the province because the federal government has indicated they want to work with the provinces in the rollout of that particular program.

           D. Hayer: I appreciate the response to that. I think it's good to see there was some extra space available for them to practise. My constituents and I think doctors… I agree 100 percent. First of all, we must make sure the credentials are sufficient to reflect our requirement that the safety of patients is first. I appreciate that you're working at it with the federal government and that you are also looking at the budget in the future to see if we can increase the number of doctors that can do the practise, so they can increase and we can help them out. I appreciate that.

           I have three more questions. I understand that currently we're spending 42 cents of every dollar collected on health care costs in this province. For decades there have been concerns in this province and across the country regarding how to deal with increasing health care costs. Wait-list times for surgeries and to see specialists are increasing. What is your ministry doing to ensure that those needing such services are able to access them both now and in the future?

           Hon. C. Hansen: What we're doing is increasing capacity within the system to perform more surgeries. What we found last year is a net increase of 38,000 surgeries in the province. A significant increase in the number of hip replacements were done last year, a significant increase in the number of knee replacements, and a significant increase in the number of cardiac surgeries were done in the province — just to give three examples or three particular areas.

[1740]Jump to this time in the webcast

           The other thing happening is we are trying to make sure that procedures that do not have to be done in an operating room can, in fact, be done in the most appropriate setting. A breast biopsy, for example, does not need to be done in an operating room, but in the past that's where those biopsies have been done. They can be done in a procedure room or in a clinic setting. What we're trying to do is make sure that procedures that can safely be done in other settings are done there, thereby freeing up operating room time so that we can get more capacity and more throughput in our operating rooms.

           D. Hayer: My next question is: what programs are in place at Surrey Memorial Hospital specifically to deal with the fast pace of population growth we are currently experiencing in Surrey? Every month we get approximately 1,300 to 1,500 people moving in there, and we expect that by 2010 we probably will be the largest city in British Columbia — larger than Vancouver. Currently, we are the second-largest, plus the fastest-growing city in Canada.

           Hon. C. Hansen: Actually, this is a subject that was raised by our colleague from Surrey before. I didn't have all this precise detail at the time, so I'll share it with the member and the House at this point. Surrey has gone from having six operating rooms to its current total of ten, and these are regular operating rooms. In addition to that they have two operating rooms that are dedicated to ophthalmology and one operating room that is 100 percent dedicated to obstetrical surgeries. There is now a total of 13 operating rooms at Surrey Memorial Hospital, so we have been increasing capacity.

           The South Fraser region is one region that I think was really hampered under the old funding formula that really did not reflect the rapid growth in population. The new population needs–based funding formula we have put in place as a government makes sure that an additional share of resources flows to those parts of the province that have a rapid population growth. We're seeing some tangible evidence in terms of increasing the number of operating rooms, but we're also seeing that the funding and the resources are there to make sure that the growth can be provided for as we go forward.

           D. Hayer: Thank you for providing me with that information. I and my colleague the member for Surrey–Green Timbers visited Surrey Memorial Hospital about a month ago and toured emergency. They showed us some of the expansion in the hospital area and also in emergency, and we appreciate the help we are receiving. We just want to make sure that in the South Fraser health region we get our fair share, because the population in the Fraser health authority is higher than in other parts. Somehow they want to make sure there's a balance between the Vancouver coastal and the Fraser health authorities. As time goes along, I want to see that reflected in there.

           The other part is that I have heard concerns from my constituents about outsourcing of HEU jobs at Surrey Memorial Hospital. What is being done to ensure that patient safety will not be compromised and that the taxpayers will receive value for their tax dollars?

[ Page 9307 ]

           Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I'll point out that clinical services are not contracted out. What we are looking at under the Bill 29 initiatives are the support services. In the Fraser health authority it would include things like landscaping and grounds maintenance, laundry services, housekeeping and security services as well as retail food services across the region. As we have gone out to structure contracts with private sector providers of those services, we built into the contracts the quality assurance that is necessary and the performance measures they need to live up to, to make sure that quality of service is not compromised.

           In fact, we are finding that in many cases, the quality of service is enhanced under the new contracted models we are putting in place. Also, in each of the health authorities they have specific teams in place to make sure quality is upheld in the provision of those services, so there's regular monitoring. Built into the agreements there's that accountability, and there are consequences for a contractor who does not live up to those quality measures.

[1745]Jump to this time in the webcast

           R. Hawes: I have a few questions, too, of the minister. Earlier today the Leader of the Opposition was canvassing you about the Abbotsford hospital, the new hospital in Abbotsford. I just want to clear up a few things for my constituents — impressions that she may have left through her questioning and some concerns that my constituents have. I was hoping you could address them.

           One of them is that as we've pursued the P3 model with the Abbotsford hospital, we started with the four bidders. Two dropped out; we were down to two. Now another one has dropped out. We have one bidder left. Is this necessarily a bad thing? I'm hearing that a lot from those who would oppose that hospital.

           Hon. C. Hansen: I think it is not a bad thing at all. In fact the process, as we had designed it, was to start with four bidders and to narrow that down to two. In doing so it's not a case of… It's not the example I used of going out to buy a widget — you want to get the lowest price and which company could bid and give the lowest price for the widget. That's obviously not the kind of process you engage in when you're designing a hospital.

           In the proposal documents that have been posted on the website we set out everything that that private sector partner must deliver on in terms of outcomes. How they design the building is up to them. We're not telling them how to design it. We're telling them the function that must be performed by that building at the end of the day. They can bring their innovation to it. We have also indicated, in the proposal documents, how much we're prepared to pay for that. If it got to a point where we had four proponents in it and all of them were 100 percent certain they could deliver on everything that we expected of them for the price that we had indicated, then we may have had to come to a process where we would have to knock two of them off and continue to work with the remaining two as we got into more detail.

           As it turned out, there was almost a self-selection process. Two of them knocked themselves out of the process. We were still left with the two proponents that we were able to work with as we went forward on the additional detail and actually moving forward on that. Now we get to the point where we were coming close to a time where we were going to have to narrow it down to one final proponent. Again, if we had been in a situation where both of them had felt they could do it within the price that had been established for it and deliver on everything that we asked of them, then we would have had to knock one of them out. Again, one of the remaining proponents took themselves out.

           We are where we wanted to be, and that's with one final proponent. We now have to work with them to make sure that we cross the t's and dot the i's, which is going to be a very complex process of putting that contract language in place to make sure that all of the expectations are clear and concise for that proponent as we go forward.

           I think it's an exciting time. It shows that the process, as it was designed, worked very well. We're very confident that we're going to be delivering a first-class hospital for the eastern Fraser Valley, and we're going to do it within the financial parameters that we have set out in those proposal documents.

           R. Hawes: I want to toot our horn a little bit for the Fraser Valley. This is the first hospital and cancer centre that's been built as one unit, as an integrated model, I think, in the history of this province. It's a $300 million project, which is perhaps the biggest hospital built in this province in 50 years, and it's coming to the Fraser Valley. On behalf of my constituents, we're all really excited about it.

           The previous MLA from my riding has been saying that had his government still been in power, they would have built that hospital in 2001. In fact, they did announce it a couple of weeks before the election in 2001, and he's claimed that they had the plans and blueprints all ready to go. I sat on the regional hospital district at that time. I've never seen plans, and I've never seen blueprints for anything but a smaller community hospital.

           Is the minister aware of plans and blueprints that the previous government had drawn up for a regional hospital and cancer centre such as we're looking at building today?

[1750]Jump to this time in the webcast

           Hon. C. Hansen: I find the comments the member attributes to the previous NDP member from that constituency interesting, because when this new hospital was first identified as a need for the Fraser Valley in the late 1980s, I think the member was involved in local government at that time and was probably very much aware of that.

           The NDP were elected in 1991, and throughout the 1990s there was this ongoing commitment, this prom-

[ Page 9308 ]

ise that they kept making to the residents of the eastern Fraser Valley that there would be a new hospital. It never happened. We saw signs put up of construction sites. I gather there were ceremonious sod-turnings the previous government engaged in, but there was no hospital. I think for anyone associated with that previous NDP government to now come forward and say: "Well, we had ten years to do it. We didn't do it, but if we had been re-elected in 2001, we would have done it then…." I think the sincerity of that is clearly lacking.

           I understand that at some point in the 1990s they did do some conceptual drawings. By the time it came to the end of that decade, around 2000 or 2001, those drawings were already out of date. They may have been done at some point, but basically, when we formed government, the drawings that had been put in place were not of any use to us in terms of moving forward on this new vision.

           I think the good news for residents of the Fraser Valley is that we made a promise to them that we were going to build that new hospital, and we are now on track and well underway to delivering on that promise.

           R. Hawes: Thank you for that, minister. I think you've basically confirmed what I thought the former member from my riding was doing, and that's basically blowing smoke.

           Acute care discussion takes up probably most of the time in this House. Certainly, in our constituency offices the calls we get are mostly centred around acute care. But there are initiatives for preventative care. I'm quite sure you're looking at ways to build in accountability for personal lifestyle choices. I know that most of the things that are costing us a lot of money — many of them — are entirely preventable, like type 2 diabetes and some of the smoking-related diseases. Can the minister maybe briefly outline what we are doing to make people more accountable for the lifestyle choices they are making?

           Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, the literature in this particular area does not indicate that punishing somebody for a bad lifestyle will alter their behaviour. What is considered to be a far more compelling approach is to provide education to reinforce the positive lifestyle that you want to encourage. We need to support individuals in making better choices around their lifestyle.

           Our tobacco reduction strategy, for example, is a big success. We now have the lowest tobacco use of any province in Canada, and the trend line is down. It almost becomes a statistic that feeds on itself. Fewer and fewer people will be smokers in the future as a result of that reinforcement of non-smoking as a positive lifestyle.

           I think that's the approach we're trying to take across the whole area of health prevention generally: not to punish individuals for bad lifestyles but rather enforce and encourage and provide good education and information around the positive lifestyles that we wish them to emulate.

           Noting the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 5:55 p.m.

           The House resumed; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

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

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

           Hon. S. Brice moved adjournment of the House.

           Motion approved.

           Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

           The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of Supply

           The House in Committee of Supply A; K. Stewart in the chair.

           The committee met at 2:44 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY, ABORIGINAL
AND WOMEN'S SERVICES
(continued)

           On vote 17: ministry operations, $486,921,000 (continued).

[1445]

           J. Kwan: I'd like to continue on, prior to the lunch break, with issues around the impact on services — that is, cuts in services relating to the Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre. The information provided from the Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre is clear. They identified that the 1-800 B.C. crisis line…. None of them will talk to suicidal persons from Kamloops or a person in crisis, because there are no community crisis line services to refer them to. That is clear. The minister says that ain't so, that people can get access through the 1-800 crisis line, yet there is a direct

[ Page 9309 ]

contradiction from people in that community who are affected by this service cut.

           I'd like the minister to respond to that point, particularly, so let me stop there first.

           Hon. I. Chong: The Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre Society does receive funding in the amount of $91,766.40 for the Stopping the Violence program. The Stopping the Violence program includes a counselling service for women who have experienced abuse, and with the Stopping the Violence program there is also trauma counselling provided.

           J. Kwan: Actually, no. According to the government's own website, the Stopping the Violence program does not provide for crisis intervention. The website says that no one except for women's centres do. This is the government's own website. Here I have a copy of the government's own website, which identifies that. The minister is wrong in stating that the Stopping the Violence programs provide for crisis intervention. They do not.

           Let me ask the minister on this point. As we continue on this debate, the minister has provided wrong information today and yesterday with respect to the Stopping the Violence programs and the role they play.

           Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the dollars that are provided to the Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre Society for the Stopping the Violence program are still in place, and they are still able to provide the programs and counselling under the Stopping the Violence program.

           J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. No, it's not true. The minister can say they provide for counselling, but they do not provide for crisis intervention. Crisis intervention programs are not provided through the Stopping the Violence program, and that is what it says in the government's own website with respect to that.

           When a person is in crisis, it's not a planned crisis. These situations happen. People are in a crisis, and they need crisis intervention here and now. They don't plan it and say: "Let me book an appointment in two weeks' time. I plan a crisis coming." No, that doesn't happen.

           The Stopping the Violence program does not provide for crisis intervention. The government's own website states that. The minister is wrong in suggesting that information, or maybe the minister is purposely trying to mislead the House. I don't know. Either that or she's wrong — one or the other.

           Interjection.

           J. Kwan: She says: "Give me a break." Okay, I'll then give the minister a chance to respond. Which is it: is she wrong, or is she trying to mislead the House?

           Hon. I. Chong: I want to assure the member that she can calm down and tone down the rhetoric. I indicated to her that we do provide over $91,000 to the Kamloops Sexual Assault Counselling Centre Society to deal with the Stopping the Violence program. I indicated that this provides for counselling services for women who have experienced abuse, but also within that they are able to help deal with trauma counselling of that experience. That is what I said.

           J. Kwan: I will just, in a moment, get Hansard to reflect what the minister said yesterday about crisis intervention and put it on record. Let me just be very clear — and I want to set aside the Kamloops situation, because later on I actually want to go back to the Kamloops situation.

[1450]

           The terminologies have changed. The minister started to use counselling and other terminologies in terms of describing what the Kamloops sexual assault centre provides for. Generally speaking, the Stopping the Violence program does not provide for crisis intervention programs. The minister said yesterday that they do. I'll get Hansard to reflect the exact words the minister said momentarily.

           Let me ask the minister this: does the Stopping the Violence program provide for crisis intervention, or do they not? Was the minister wrong yesterday?

           Hon. I. Chong: In the Kamloops area we continue to fund a number of direct essential services. We continue to fund the Stopping the Violence program. We continue to provide funding for the Children Who Witness Abuse program, and we continue to provide funding for transition houses. There are a number of other programs funded through the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, which I indicated earlier today as well. Those would be community-based victim services programs and police-based victim services programs. If the member specifically wants to ask about how the Solicitor General's funding relates to those programs, she can certainly canvass the Solicitor General in that area. I indicated that to her, as well, this morning. Depending on which programs she is referring to, the ones this ministry is responsible for are the Stopping the Violence program and the Children Who Witness Abuse program.

           J. Kwan: My, my. The list the minister is responsible for is shrinking by the minute. There are only two things left on it; last night there were at least three or four. We'll check the list.

           Interjection.

           The Chair: Members, through the Chair.

           J. Kwan: Sorry, the minister was heckling me.

           We'll check the Hansard. Last night's Hansard is not available in the committee room. That's okay. I have used my BlackBerry just now and e-mailed my staff so that I could get the Hansard from last night brought up to this room here.

[ Page 9310 ]

[1455]

           Let me ask the minister this question. I'm not talking about Kamloops; I'm now talking specifically about the Stopping the Violence program. What programs the minister is responsible for provide for crisis intervention programs?

           Hon. I. Chong: Again, I would like to correct the member for the record, as she likes to imply that the areas we have responsibility for are shrinking. She was speaking specifically about programs, so I referred her to those programs. If she wants me to repeat them in every answer, I will, and I will remind her that we continue to fund transition houses, second-stage housing and safe houses.

           The transition house program provides for temporary accommodation. Through the transition house program it provides clients not only with shelter and food, it also provides for crisis intervention and referral support through their transition house, safe houses and second-stage housing. They also provide multicultural support and outreach services. The transition houses are able to provide not just shelter but, along with it, food, some referral and some crisis intervention.

           J. Kwan: Let me be very specific about crisis intervention. Who provides for emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis with no appointment?

           Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, because transition houses are able to provide crisis intervention, women can attend a transition house and receive that crisis intervention.

           J. Kwan: I want to be very specific. I'm talking about crisis intervention in regard to emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis with no appointment. The minister is absolutely sure that transition houses provide for emergency crisis counselling to women in the middle of a crisis. I want to be clear — if the minister is sure on that, then she should put that on record to say: "Absolutely. That is what is provided for." Then the minister should be aware that she is either purposely providing wrong information to the House, or she is simply wrong.

           Let's be clear. I'm talking about emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis. Do transition houses provide for that service?

           Hon. I. Chong: I've indicated to the member on a number of occasions now the programs we do provide, and I will reiterate for the record that we do provide, and will continue to provide, funding for direct essential services — that is, transition houses, second-stage housing, safe homes, the Stopping the Violence program and the Children Who Witness Abuse program. For her benefit, I will read into the record some other areas our government provides services for. Again, I had suggested that she may want to raise some of these with the appropriate ministry, but because she is choosing not to, I will provide her with an overview for some of the services.

           Our government has, in fact, done a great deal to afford greater protection to women and families and to reduce domestic violence. Here are some of the highlights, which I will read into the record.

[1500]

           Firstly, the criminal justice branch has reformed the spousal assault prosecution policy. This new policy places emphasis on victims' safety and on finding justice responses appropriate to each case depending on the level of severity.

           Secondly, the corrections branch of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General has established training requirements for probation officers relating to the dynamics of spousal violence. It has implemented targeted policies requiring risk and additional screening safeguards in cases involving spousal violence, developed and implemented a standardized treatment model for offenders, and established Respectful Relationships treatment programs delivered both in custody and in the community.

           Further, the Solicitor General has also undertaken other initiatives including VictimLink. It is a 1-800 toll-free, confidential and multilingual line for victims of any crime which now operates 24-7, providing immediate crisis support for victims of violence and other crimes.

           The ASAP, aid for safety assessment program, is a new safety assessment tool developed in conjunction with the B.C. Institute on Family Violence and risk assessment experts, which will be pilot-tested in British Columbia in the spring of this year.

           There are new release guidelines for police to improve victims' safety. In addition, technological improvements to the protection order registry include a new website that will provide protection order information faster and more efficiently. The Victim Safety Unit was established in April 2003 to address victims' safety concerns and provide input into the review of high-risk offender releases. Among other things, the unit works with victim service programs to provide security alarms and cell phones.

           In partnership with the B.C. Justice Institute, new manuals are being developed to train victim service workers on violence against women and children and on sexual assault. A victim service worker certificate program is being established. There is, as well, information on peace bonds and restraining orders. They're now available in Chinese, English, Farsi, French, Punjabi, Russian, Spanish and Vietnamese, and there is a version for aboriginal women as well.

           Our new provincial housing policy targets the housing needs of the most vulnerable British Columbians, which have been defined to include women and children fleeing abuse. Again, the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services' Stopping the Violence branch provides funding and programming for transition houses, safe houses and second-stage housing; counselling programs for women and also for children who witness abuse; and training for transition

[ Page 9311 ]

house staff. We also fund prevention projects targeted at each level of the education system.

           I hope that provides additional details for the member. If she would like more information on some specific programs that are funded through the other ministries, then she is well aware that she can canvass them when those estimates are up.

           J. Kwan: I'm asking a very specific question that is directly under the responsibility of this minister, and that is transition houses. Do transition houses provide for emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis or not? This is with no appointments.

           Hon. I. Chong: I believe I've answered the question to the member already. I indicated to her that transition houses are capable of providing crisis intervention. If she has something more specific, then she should say so.

           J. Kwan: Yes, I did say something more specific. I don't mean just crisis intervention generally. I specifically said emergency crisis counselling for women with no appointments. Do transition houses provide for that or not — yes or no? So it's not that complicated, Mr. Chair, the question that I put to the minister — and I expect an answer.

           Hon. I. Chong: I have answered the question. I have indicated to this member that transition houses are able to provide crisis intervention.

[1505]

           J. Kwan: Given that the minister would not use the words "emergency counselling services to women who don't have an appointment…." She keeps using the broad term "crisis intervention."

           Let me ask the minister — the real minister: am I to understand that the minister of state's response is that transition houses, in the scope of providing crisis intervention services, provide for emergency counselling services to women who are in crisis without appointments — yes or no? Just so I am completely clear what exactly transition centre services are.

           Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member can tell me what type of crisis intervention or crisis counselling she's talking about — whether it's professionals, amateurs or lay counsellors — and what she's expecting out of the answer. I don't know where she's going with the question.

           J. Kwan: I don't know what to expect out of the answer. I'm just trying to canvass with this minister of state about what services transition houses provide. Included in that would be crisis intervention in terms of emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis.

           As I said earlier, generally speaking — and I can say this, I think, and not be in error — women don't plan when they are in a crisis. A crisis happens. They then flee their situation. They often go to women's centres, which happen to be drop-in centres that provide emergency counselling for women in the middle of a crisis with no appointments. You can come in anytime. That is what I'm talking about.

           On the other hand, according to the government's own website transition houses do not provide for emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis without appointments. Maybe the website is wrong. Maybe it hasn't been updated. Maybe there's a new program. The minister of state keeps claiming that the ministry is doing all kinds of new, wonderful, fabulous things. Maybe the website is outdated. I doubt it, but I want to check it out.

           Do transition houses provide for emergency counselling services to women in the middle of a crisis with no appointments? I don't know how to make it clearer than that.

           Hon. I. Chong: Transition houses are available 24 hours as well. If a client needed to appear at a transition house, I would expect they would do it — as the member indicates — without an appointment. Women's centres have set hours. They're not open 24 hours around the clock that I'm aware of, whereas transition houses are.

           J. Kwan: During the hours that transition houses are open, do they take women who come in with a crisis situation and provide them with emergency counselling — without an appointment?

           Hon. I. Chong: I know that we have been trying to ask the member to be more specific about the kinds of counselling programs she's referring to. What I will attempt to do is perhaps give an example. I hate to generalize, but in an effort to move this along….

[1510]

           When someone arrives at a transition house, which is open 24 hours, they are able to speak to someone who can offer them some assistance to deal with the immediacy of the crisis they are in at the time. That may mean ensuring, firstly, that they are safe and that they feel safe. That may mean they would assist in referring them to other programs in the community — whether they are community-based victim programs or police-based victim programs. It may, as well, mean that they would assist in helping them with a counselling program that they would have over the course of a number of days or weeks or whatever their needs are. When they arrive at a transition house, they should be able to get that support, because that transition house is open and you don't make an appointment when you stop in at a transition house.

           I hope the member is able to glean the answer she is looking for from that rather general example. I hate to use examples, but it's the only way I can seem to express to the member that there are various counselling programs within the community and what is provided there. Without her being more specific as to what coun-

[ Page 9312 ]

selling program she is absolutely seeking, I can't give her a more definitive response.

           J. Kwan: Based on the minister's answer, then, she is claiming that transition houses do provide for emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis, without appointments. That's what she said on record. She's shaking her head, so I'll ask her to correct the record so I know exactly where I went wrong in that statement. That's what I gleaned from what she just said earlier on record.

           Hon. I. Chong: Because a transition house is able to operate 24 hours a day, people don't need to make appointments to come in to the transition house. They are able to receive some immediate assistance, and from that, that may mean ensuring that the person and their family, their children in particular, feel safe immediately and have shelter or food. It may mean that the staff there are able to also refer them to counselling, which may mean a program that's in the community. It may require that they receive some counselling and some trauma counselling over the next day or the next few weeks.

           What is clear is that because the transition houses are able to operate 24 hours a day, they are able to receive people and provide some immediate assistance when they arrive and when they are in that crisis.

           J. Kwan: Okay, so the minister has backtracked in terms of what she just said. Transition houses, while they're open 24 hours a day, do receive women who are in crisis who come in. However, if you need counselling when you come in without an appointment, at whatever time you come in, they would not be able to accommodate that. Those women would later on be referred to somewhere else. Those are the women, if they need a bed to stay at in terms of a transition house, who would be able to access that. But they would not be able to get counselling services.

           That's what I gathered from the minister's statement. They can at some later point in time be referred somewhere else to get the counselling from some other agency, but they do not receive emergency counselling services at the time when they arrive at the transition house without an appointment — without an appointment for counselling services is what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about just going into the transition house. Have I got it right?

           Hon. I. Chong: Again, for the member. Someone who arrives at a transition house in an emergency situation can, because the transition house is operating 24 hours, receive some immediate assistance. That assistance is to provide crisis intervention to assist them, as I say, with immediate issues of safety for their family and to ensure that they can access counselling, which may be the Stopping the Violence counselling program and which may mean counselling for their children who have witnessed abuse. That is very much a possibility. But they would get the immediate assistance when they arrive at a transition house, where there are staff available to meet with them.

[1515]

           The member may, perhaps, not be satisfied with the answer, because she may have a definition of what emergency counselling is. She has not been clear or provided what her definition of emergency counselling is. Maybe she should do that, Mr. Chair.

           J. Kwan: I've been very clear with the minister in terms of what I'm talking about. The information that I'm receiving and the information that I have seen in terms of the operation of transition houses and the operation of women's centres, amongst other agencies which provide for these services…. To my knowledge, women's centres are the only service that provides for drop-in emergency counselling to women in the middle of a crisis without appointments. They are the only service that provides for that. Transition houses do not.

           The Stopping the Violence program, on the government's own website, states that it does not provide for emergency counselling services to women. Even women's centres that are funded by the government for Stopping the Violence programs…. When those programs are delivered under the Stopping the Violence program, they do not provide for emergency counselling services to women who are in need without an appointment.

           That is the reality. The minister seems to contest that. The minister seems to say: "No, transition houses do provide for emergency counselling services to women in need." That's on record. We will endeavour to double-check these facts and then hold the government to account with respect to that.

           If it is the case that transition houses do not provide — if I'm right, and I may be wrong, and I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong — for emergency counselling services for women without an appointment, will the minister then commit to women's centres that do? Will the minister commit to fund those centres?

           Hon. I. Chong: I have attempted on many occasions now to provide clarification for the member. I know that what she is attempting to do is to choose words and phrases and then put them all together. I've clarified this since her line of questioning on this.

           Transition houses can provide immediate assistance because they're open 24 hours. They can provide that immediate assistance. It means to provide shelter or refer them to a safe shelter. It could provide food if they need it immediately. It means they could refer them to some counselling that is available in the community. It means that the staff are able to work with the individual or the family that arrives there in the middle of the night or whatever hour of the day they arrive there. They can get assistance. They have access to this direct, essential service. That is what I have attempted to clarify for the member.

           I'm asking her to be more specific about emergency counselling services. It's regrettable, but I don't feel she has defined that when she indicates that emergency

[ Page 9313 ]

counselling is available in terms of a drop-in. Well, as far as I'm aware, I've not seen all centres which are open 24 hours a day. Transition houses can operate 24 hours a day. It means that people definitely are able to drop in when they have an emergency matter and need some assistance.

[1520]

           At the transition house they can also refer them to some other services, which I outlined earlier. VictimLink is a 1-800 toll-free, confidential line for victims of any crime. That provides for immediate crisis support for victims of violence and other crimes.

           Again, if the member wants to provide what emergency counselling is in her mind, perhaps that would provide more clarity for everyone.

           J. Kwan: Let me just start from the beginning, then. Transition houses. Can a woman just drop in to a transition house?

           Hon. I. Chong: Transition houses are available for a person who is in crisis. They are able to drop in and access some assistance, if that is needed.

           J. Kwan: Actually, hon. Chair, maybe the minister can explain this to me, because transition houses' addresses are secret. They're secret for a very specific reason. It's so that the attacker — the abuser, if you will — cannot find out where the woman has gone when she goes to a transition house, because those addresses are secret. People don't know where the transition houses are.

           How is it that a woman who is fleeing a crisis, in a crisis situation, could drop in to a transition house when they don't know what the addresses are? They have to get a referral in order to go there, whereas with women's centres people know where they are. In the middle of a crisis a woman is fleeing the abuser, and the woman knows where that women's centre is. The woman can just go there, and she'll get access to emergency services and support. A transition house cannot provide for a drop-in service by the very nature of how they're set up.

           The minister just rolled her eyes, so maybe I'll stop there, and I'll ask her to correct me on any of the facts I've just put on the record.

           Hon. I. Chong: I would hope that the member should be more respectful of this House in the way she conducts her commentary.

           I want to just say that when I indicated….

           Interjection.

           Hon. I. Chong: I don't make comments about the member as she makes her gestures, so I would just hope that she is, again, respectful of the decorum in the House.

           Mr. Chair, what I indicated to the member was that transition houses are open 24 hours a day. That means that if they were referred there and they needed to drop in there, then of course they would be able to get immediate access. For women and children escaping violence, it may mean, especially in the middle of the night, that they will have had to access hospital services or perhaps police services, from which they would then receive a referral to a transition house, where there would be staff available to assist them to ensure that they get some immediate help in terms of shelter and security and safety for their children.

           I know that the member continues to pursue her questioning on women's centres. I have been very clear with her what our ministry is providing funding for. It is for the direct essential services for our transition houses, for our safe shelters, for our second-stage housing, for our counselling programs — for the Stopping the Violence program and for our Children Who Witness Abuse program. If she would like some more information on that, she can continue to ask, but I believe I've given her the answers in the fullest way possible and would ask that she move on to another area.

[1525]

           J. Kwan: It's interesting. The minister is offended with these questions I am perhaps putting to her. It would be wise for the minister to know that these questions are directly coming from women in the community as we speak.

           There is an advantage to this thing called a BlackBerry insofar as people are watching the debate and listening in on the debate. They take issue with the minister's comments, and they actually send information to us now. Before we had BlackBerry access in this chamber, my staff used to receive the calls or get the e-mails downstairs, and then they'd run it up as soon as someone heard the minister's comments. They run it up with pieces of paper, and then we'd put the questions on the record. Now, with the BlackBerry access, it saves my staff the legwork of having to run up and down the stairs. Therefore, I'm able to put these questions to the minister directly, as such.

           These questions I am asking of the minister come directly from the community — the community that serves women, the community where women need these services. They have explicitly put forward distinctions between the services that exist.

           Transition houses need referrals. People do not know where transition houses are because, as I mentioned, of the way in which they are structured — for the protection of the women and children that are there. They are not a drop-in service; they are a referred service.

           A drop-in service is a service you can go to without anybody referring you to it. I think I see that the former Minister of State for Women's Equality is here, and I think she actually knows the difference, from previous debates of the past. There's a substantive difference in terms of transition houses and women's centres. At women's centres people can just go and drop in. That's what a drop-in is. You don't need a referral to go there. That's a substantive difference.

           Women's centres are the only location that provides for emergency counselling to women in the middle of

[ Page 9314 ]

crisis with no appointments, no referrals whatsoever. That's the difference. Perhaps this is educational for the minister. She appears not to know that difference, and if she does know, she continuously works towards ignoring that.

           Here's an interesting tidbit. I have before me a confidential document, which happens to be a sample of a contract with the Stopping the Violence counselling program. It cites the referrals to be made to other agencies in providing related services for individuals or families who are faced with sexual assault or who experience sexual assault, violence in relationships, or childhood abuse or violence. These things are fairly recent.

           In the contract the only place that lists — and I want the minister to hear this — crisis counselling as a service that is provided for is under the topic entitled "Women's Centres." Nowhere else in the contract that has other services does it state that they provide for crisis counselling. Safe houses don't; other programs don't.

           Maybe the minister can explain to me about the government's own contract that is done under the Stopping the Violence counselling program. How is it possible that in this contract the only place where crisis counselling is listed as a service that is provided is under "Women's Centres" and nowhere else?

           Hon. I. Chong: I would like to again ask the member that she not imply into the record things that are not true. I am not offended by her questions. I have been taking her questions yesterday afternoon, yesterday evening, this morning and now. I'm continuing to take her questions and attempting to provide her with a response. I know she may not like the response but nonetheless I am providing that. I do take exception, Mr. Chair, that she indicated I was offended by that, because I am not offended by it. As I say, she likes to read things into the record which are not necessarily the case.

[1530]

           What I have indicated to her is that, in fact, under our Stopping the Violence program and our transition house program, the transition houses are able to provide for crisis intervention. That would mean that when someone arrives there, the intervention would be to allow for the staff to help provide assistance, some of which may be immediate in terms of safety and some which may be more of a longer duration in arranging for appropriate counselling under our Stopping the Violence program. That also is a program that may last for some duration, depending on the needs of the particular client. Those programs are what we will continue to fund and maintain.

           We've had a fairly thorough, I think, and long canvass of the women's centres, and I think it would appropriate for the member to move on to some other areas of this ministry.

           J. Kwan: Well, no. Actually, I haven't finished my questions in this area with the minister. If she's not offended by these questions, she would not keep indicating to the Chair that she wants to move on. She hasn't answered the questions, and I'm going to keep asking the questions until I get the answers. It's not that I don't like the answers; it's that the answers are not forthcoming. Hence, the problem that we are faced with.

           Let me then just canvass explicitly with the minister about the Stopping the Violence contract. Let me just put on record what the contract says under the heading "Family Justice Centres." "Counsellors are available in many areas to help families needing assistance with separation and divorce issues like child custody, access and guardianship, or child and spousal support."

           Under "Family Maintenance Enforcement Program" it lists: "Monitors and enforces spousal and child support orders and agreements that are filed with the program."

           "Justice Services. Keeps your family safe while sorting out separation and custody issues, information about protection orders and the protection order registry.

           "Office for Children and Youth. Provides advice for government regarding services for children under 19 in the province, conducts investigations at the request of the Attorney General, provides information on accessing services that meet the needs of children and families.

           "Separation and Divorce. Information and resources regarding decisions that have to be made when a couple separates or divorces, including child custody and access, guardianship, financial and property division issues.

           "Spousal Support. Information about financial support from one spouse to another. Also referred to as alimony or spousal maintenance."

              [G. Trumper in the chair.]

           Then it goes on to list under the heading of "Safe Places."

           "Transition houses and safe homes provide temporary housing for women and their children leaving abusive relationships. Second-stage houses help women make long-term plans for independent living.

           "Women's Centres. Women's Centres in British Columbia. Women's Centres provide a variety of services, including information and referrals, support groups, crisis counselling, job entry programs, child care services and housing registries.

           "Other Programs, Services, Initiatives. Employment Preparation. Employment preparation programs available to women leaving abusive relationships.

           "Keeping Safe: Women at Work. Provides safety and crime prevention tips for women working alone, going to and from work and travelling."

This is what is listed under the Stopping the Violence counselling programs.

           Nowhere under the headings, except for women's centres, does it include crisis counselling. Nothing in this contract, under which the minister is contracting with agencies that provide for the Stopping the Violence counselling programs, provides for crisis counselling — except for women's centres. In the situation where women's centres are shut, where will women go? Hence I establish the fact that women who are in the middle of a crisis without appointments have nowhere to go except to women's centres in order to get crisis counselling.

[ Page 9315 ]

[1535]

           Crisis counselling — true, maybe it could be set up by the transition house at a later date. Even though they're 24 hours…. And I understand that women's centres are not 24 hours. But for the hours in which women's centres are open, they provide direct service because they are a drop-in service.

           By the government's own website, by the government's own contract with agencies that provide for the programs, the Stopping the Violence program…. Nowhere in it does it deal with crisis counselling, with the exception of women's centres. I would submit that women's centres are essential in that service alone. If you don't look at anything else they provide, just look at that alone. It illustrates that they are a direct essential service to women. With that, I'd like the minister's comment.

           Obviously, as has been established, the Minister of State for Women's Services is not an advocate for women and would not answer questions. I'd like an answer from the minister himself, who, after all, is the real minister here. I'd like to ask the minister: given that these are the facts I've laid before him, would the minister agree that women's centres are the only service that provides for crisis counselling as a drop-in service? If that's not the case, why isn't crisis counselling listed under other headings like the transition houses and safe homes? Why isn't that service listed under this heading in the contract for Stopping the Violence counselling programs with which the government has contracted agencies?

           Hon. M. Coell: A number of comments. I appreciate the comments the member is making. She may be interested to know that the federal government, I believe, has come forward with some money for women's centres in the last couple of hours. She may wish to contact her office and check on that. I'm not sure how much per centre, but they have come forward. I know the women's centres did ask for funds from the federal government.

           Going back to some of the comments my colleague has made, government did a funding priorities of programs they wish to fund and has made a decision to put an emphasis on transition houses, safe houses and the counselling programs we feel are working in the best interests of women and children. That is a decision of government, and we obviously have a disagreement on where those funds should go. We believe we should take our funds and put more emphasis on transition houses, safe houses and counselling. The member feels that women's centres would be more appropriate. We have a difference of opinion. That's what this place and this discussion are all about.

           J. Kwan: Well, yes, this is what this discussion centres around. But within it specifically, it is about women's services.

           In fact, I've just got before me the transition house services contract. It explicitly says that transition house contracts…. Because the locations are secret, women must be referred. The contract with the transition houses indicates in its first point that in order for a person to be eligible, women must be referred. It is not a drop-in service, and there is a big distinction in that.

           You can appreciate what I'm saying, Madam Chair. When you are in a crisis situation, sometimes in that moment you don't even have time to pick up a phone to ask someone to refer you somewhere, because that moment, that split second could make a difference to the outcome. You are fleeing a situation where you need to go immediately, and you might not have time to make that phone call. Women's centres allow for and accept those situations and understand them exactly. Women's centres allow for women to drop in right then and there.

           Yes, I accept that they are not 24-hour services. I would venture to argue that they should be 24-hour services, but that is a discussion for another time. Right now I'm just focused on keeping their current hours open, never mind expanding their hours — which I wish to see one day.

[1540]

           On the notion that they are only open for certain hours, they do provide for this immediate service — emergency service, if you will — for women. Transition houses do not, contrary to what the Minister of State for Women's Services, who should know better in her role as the minister…. Contrary to her knowledge base, transition houses do not provide for a drop-in service.

           It says it explicitly in this contract, and I'll read the language on to the record: "Persons eligible to be referred for the services are adult women who have experienced or are at risk of abuse, threats or violence and their dependent children." This explicitly states that people who access these services are referred there. They're not a drop-in service. There's a distinction between just a drop-in and a referral, and then you go. Would the minister agree with those points?

           This is to the real minister, Madam Chair.

           Hon. M. Coell: I think the discussion is a little bit one of semantics here. The transition house accepts referrals from police, social workers, counsellors, school counsellors. Those numbers are pretty widely known in the professional circles. You also have the VictimLink and the 1-800 crisis line that is used, I believe, for referrals. There are a number of ways. Somebody would be referred, and they would be able to immediately drop in to a transition house. They don't need an appointment. They can be taken there by a professional or by themselves.

           I understand what the member is getting at, but I think the reality is that transition houses are very open. They're widely used by professional counsellors and police and hospital emergency rooms. I think they serve a great purpose, and I'm pleased we're able to put more funds to them and support them at a greater level.

           J. Kwan: No, it isn't just about semantics. It is very much about this direct access to services for women. It

[ Page 9316 ]

isn't just about language. I'm not a big stickler on language, as I think many members will know, but it isn't. The issue here is very specific. It impacts women on the ground. Referral services are one step preceding drop-in services. Drop-in services…. You can just go and be there and access their service, without appointments and without any hiccups. You don't need to phone anyone. You just go.

           Referral services require that you phone someone, whether it be that you first phone the police and then the police refer you to the crisis line…. The crisis line then tells you to go to the transition houses or the safe houses, or if you phone the crisis line, they then refer you to the transition houses. There is at least one step, at the minimum, which you have to access to get that information and then to make the next step.

           As I mentioned, this could have dramatic differences in the outcome of a particular situation. I'm sure the minister can appreciate what I'm saying given his previous life as a social worker. I'm sure he's seen all kinds of situations, perhaps far greater than my own experiences in my advocacy work. I'm sure of it.

           With that distinction, it isn't just about semantics. It is about the reality of how those services are being accessed, how they're being offered and how they're being delivered. That, I will submit, and I hope the minister would agree, is direct essential services for women. Drop-in centres that provide for emergency counselling and that allow for women to just go there when they're in need are completely different. What I would further submit is that women's centres provide for a full continuum of services in conjunction with the other services that exist: crisis lines, transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing. It's a continuum of services, and we must not devalue one service over the other. We must not do that.

[1545]

           We must not devalue the services of women's centres because they do advocacy. I know that was a big stickler — that they somehow do advocacy, and so therefore they got their funding cut. It appears to me that was the line of logic — in addition to the fact that they didn't have direct services that could point to direct statistics that illustrate that they have prevented or stopped violence somehow. Maybe that's the issue. I don't know, although I suspect the women's centres can provide those kinds of statistics to back it up.

           If the minister acknowledges the differences I have laid out, if the minister acknowledges and accepts those differences…. It's not semantics. It's practical and on the ground in terms of what goes on with the differences with these different services.

           Could the minister advise if the government would reconsider women's centre services funding if they take advocacy services out of the list of services they provide?

           Hon. M. Coell: From time to time there are new programs and additions in government. I think you've seen about a $2.5 million increase in funds for transition houses. There have been increases in the counselling programs as well. There will be opportunities for people to come forward for RFPs for new programs. I'm sure the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services is developing a strategy for government. That will unfold over the next coming months.

           I think the other thing is that within the last hour or so, as I said, the federal government has made some funds available for women's centres. That may assist them. As I said earlier, when government created its priorities, we felt that the priority for our funds was the transition houses, the safe houses and the counselling programs. The federal government may have a different opinion and may be willing to fund women's centres to different levels. I'm not sure what those numbers are.

           J. Kwan: Am I to take the minister's answer, then, to be that he acknowledges the differences between women's centres, drop-in services and transition houses? He acknowledged those differences. Even in spite of knowing those differences, he stands by the government's decision not to reconsider women's centre funding. Am I right? If we are, then I'll move on. Obviously, there's a difference in terms of the government's approach to these things. Then I can move on.

           I'm trying, it's true, to exhaust every avenue that I possibly can in trying to explore how to save women's centres in terms of their funding. If in fact the federal government has come through with funding, great. I'll be delighted, although it will be with no assistance from the provincial government. Setting that aside, if that's the case, the federal came in and saved women's centres for whatever period of time, whatever the funding might be. Great.

           Let me just understand exactly what is going on here. Given the information I put on record…. I see the minister nodding his head. Actually, I would like the minister to put this on record. Does he acknowledge the differences I've laid out in terms of referral programs, drop-in programs, transitions houses and women's centres and that even with full knowledge of that, the government is standing by its decision to cut women's centres' core funding?

           Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate the effort the member has made. I do understand that.

           I think the difference is that what our government has laid out is a continuum that we believe will serve the needs of women in crisis and women fleeing abusive relationships. I think my colleague the Minister of Women's and Seniors' Services laid out some of the programs that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General have put in place. Coupled with our increased funding in areas of transition and safe houses and the new 1-800 number, we feel that continuum will serve the programs well. I realize that the member differs from me on that and from our government. That's understandable. That's why we're having this debate.

           J. Kwan: Will the minister at least admit that none of the services under all of the government's programs

[ Page 9317 ]

for women in this area provide for drop-in services for women? Will he at least admit that? Because that is the reality.

[1550]

           Hon. M. Coell: I guess where we differ — and I think I understand how we differ on the issue…. We believe that the continuum set up through the Attorney General and the Solicitor General…. Our program, matching with health and police and that, has a continuum there that will supply the services needed. I understand that the member feels — at least I think I do; she can correct me if I'm wrong — there needs to be a drop-in type of facility, whereas we believe that the continuum we have will provide the same level of service for people fleeing abuse.

           J. Kwan: Who provides for a drop-in facility for women who are escaping violence? Is the minister suggesting 911, to go the police? Is the minister suggesting the hospital emergency ward? Is that what the minister's suggesting, and that's what provides for this full continuum?

           Hon. M. Coell: Well, I think that may be part of the difference in what you were describing as emergency counselling. From some perspectives emergency counselling is someone who's already in a police station or already in an emergency room and being referred, or in a social worker's office or a counsellor's office and being referred from that place. There are a number of avenues that a person fleeing abuse can use to access transition and safe houses and then bridging programs back into employment and that whole continuum.

           What I think the disagreement is, is the member's desire to see a drop-in as part of the process, whereas there is a whole range of venues that we're seeing as part of the continuum of service and services provided.

           J. Kwan: Let me just enlighten the ministers in this instance. I was a victim of violence, not in my family home but by a stranger. We reported it to 911. We went to the police with this issue. I was not able to get emergency crisis counselling. There is no such service that the police provide. They can give you a list of resources to go to if you wish to access that at some point in time, but there is no drop-in service for women in those situations.

           Luckily for me, though the experience is still traumatic for anyone, the violence which I experienced and the assault which I experienced were not so severe that it had lasting damage. It did not. From time to time, I must admit — although I think I have by and large overcome that — I do get a bit frightened when I walk down dark streets with big trees, because that's how I was attacked. Someone that I didn't know was hiding there and leaped from behind a tree, and I was dragged into a lane. I do kind of get nervous in those situations. I walk in the middle of the road now. I'd rather risk getting hit by a car than being attacked by someone.

           Let me just say very clearly to the minister that it is not an ideological thing. It is not a continuum of services that the minister, in his own mind — that services are provided by the police…. They provide you with a list of referral services. Then at some point in time later on you can go and get referral for services which you need.

           My own experience, I would say, is substantively different from that of perhaps other women who are faced with violence in the home, because they know the individual. When you're fleeing, and I…. Well, maybe I'm wrong, because I haven't experienced both. Somehow in my own mind I would think that if a person you know attacks you, violates you in some way…. I don't know. Somehow in my own mind and with my own personal experience I think that's more dramatic, especially if it's someone you love or care about. To me that would be a lot more shocking, because I would sit there and I would think: "Oh my God. How could someone who cares about and loves me do that?" Whereas with a stranger, you know, I suppose you can sit there and say: "Well, I suppose a stranger couldn't give one iota for my well-being, so probably that's why they attacked me. They haven't given any thought to my well-being."

           That's weird justification, because there's no justification at all for violence. I expect violence for everyone is just as dramatic and traumatic. But anyway, based on my own experience….

[1555]

           That's the distinction I'm trying to make here, Madam Chair, to the ministers. It isn't about an ideological thing. It isn't about semantics. It is about being on the ground when that happens to you. Where can you turn to? The continuum of services that the minister talks about being provided by the police is not there. I've accessed it, unfortunately, and that's the reality that women face with the closing down of women's centres. The emergency drop-in services will not be there for them.

           It's one step away for the immediate service and assistance and support that they need — the counselling, perhaps, that they need. I cited crisis counselling as one, because specifically, in all of the contacts on the websites of the government it does not list crisis counselling as a specific service under all of the other headings. It is only listed under women's centres. That, to me, is a big distinction, especially when both ministers say that their responsibility is to ensure that women have direct essential services. For me, crisis counselling is pretty essential — direct essential services for women who are experiencing violence at that moment. That's what I'm saying. I hope the minister will just simply acknowledge that the full continuum is not there.

           Hon. M. Coell: First, I'd like to acknowledge the member's own personal and private story that she shared here. There is no way we should tolerate violence in our society. I think everyone in our Legislature would agree with that.

[ Page 9318 ]

           We want to make sure that to the best of our ability we have programs in place that deal with making violence disappear in our society. I know every level of government, whether it's municipal or provincial or federal, is doing that. We believe we're doing that in the programs we've been debating with the member over the last couple of days. I realize there are differences of opinion. I acknowledge those differences of opinion that she may have with our set of programs and thank her for her comments.

           J. Kwan: I appreciate the minister's compassion, but I wasn't looking for compassion. I was looking for recognition of the services that women's centres provide and, therefore, acknowledgment of their importance with this continuum of services for women and for the government to recognize that even though they refer to services that fill in the gap…. I think both ministers' answers today and yesterday seem to indicate: "Women's centres can disappear, but do not worry; all of their services are provided for somewhere else by somebody else."

           The point I want to make is this: no, somewhere else — transition houses, the police station or whatever — does not provide for some of the services that women's centres provide. There is still a gap. In fact, one transition house manager just phoned in. She says that women's centres provide a very valuable service different from them. They do not provide for the same services as women's centres.

           She goes on to say that women can call a transition house but cannot go in person. The value of women's centres is that women who aren't able or ready to admit that they are victims of violence — or who can't articulate it over the phone because they're in distress or confused — can drop in, look at the books, start small talk and then disclose the information. She also said that the transition house refers the women back to women's centres, especially women who are not yet job-ready or even job training–ready. It acts as a pre-bridging program.

[1600]

           This is the language of the manager of a transition house who has phoned in to our office to offer this information to us as people are listening to this debate. Perhaps it's not just me who is feeling worn out about trying to convey to the ministers the differences in terms of the services that these service providers provide and the importance of their services.

           I don't share personal stories around my own violence experience. I don't, as a rule, make it a public sort of discussion. I chose to use it at this time hoping that it would make a difference in illustrating the point, so the ministers can't say that I'm just blowing smoke from somewhere. Rather, I've tried it firsthand, and that's the reality of it.

           More to the point, it is interesting to note that the contracts I cited, the Stopping the Violence program, lists within it women's centres as a referral service for other agencies, hence reinforcing further the point that this manager of a transition house has made.

           There is no full continuum. The minister may like to go home and sleep easy and say: "Oh, yeah, there is a full continuum." There are many sources that have now come forward to say that there is not a full continuum, that women's centres are essential as part of this continuum in preventing violence, stopping violence and supporting women who are faced with violence.

           I hope both ministers will at least acknowledge that — acknowledge and give credit to the incredible women who are working out there in our women's centres, putting their hearts on their sleeves and doing everything they can for the women in their community; acknowledge their importance in the minimum in this estimates debate.

           Hon. I. Chong: Was there a question?

           J. Kwan: The minister of state is saying: "Was there a question?" Yes, there was a question. I'm asking for both ministers to acknowledge the importance of the incredible work women's centres do in our community. Even though they may not want to fund them, even though they would not reconsider after all of these points have been made, even though they are still going to cut their funding, at least acknowledge them and give them credit for the incredible work they do in our communities.

           Hon. M. Coell: Probably a couple of days ago I may have said something…. I'll try and rephrase it. When we did a core review, there were a number of programs we thought were essential, and we funded them and increased the funding. That wasn't to say that the programs we weren't funding didn't have some importance in communities. What we did say was that we had the priorities of some that we were going to fund and enhance.

           I don't want the member to think we're saying that all programs that aren't being provided aren't heartfelt and well meant. What we tried to do was to say: "We've got a certain amount of money for programs. These are the ones we would like to fund. These are the ones we'd like to have a higher level of funding go toward." I hope that helps the member understand.

           J. Kwan: The final point I want to make on this is that funding for women's services has been cut by this government by $20 million. The ministers can continue, I suppose, to comfort themselves, to say: "We increased the transition house funding; we increased the bridging program funding." The reality is that overall the government cut women's services programs, under the heading of — let me get it exactly right — Stopping the Violence and regional programs. Under that heading, programs are being cut by $20 million.

           Don't take people for fools, for the spin to say that you increased funding in transition houses. It does not negate the fact that somewhere else within all of the programming — the entire continuum — $20 million has been taken out of those programs. That is the fact before us. People are not stupid.

[ Page 9319 ]

[1605]

           It may be comforting for you to say: "Yeah, yeah, we increased funding somewhere else." The reality is that $20 million is gone from this full continuum, and I've identified a gap that exists. I think — perhaps, I hope — it's for political reasons only that the ministers cannot acknowledge on record that there is a gap. I hope in their hearts, when they go to sleep at night, that they know there is a gap. I hope they'll do everything they can at the cabinet table to fight for women, to fill that gap.

           I'd now like to move on to another area. Actually, I said I was going to do child care. I think I'll follow through on that. I almost went to seniors, but I won't. I'm going to move on to child care, because that's what I said I was going to do. Let's do child care.

           Should I wait for a few minutes?

           Hon. M. Coell: No, we're good.

           J. Kwan: Okay. Let me first ask the minister this question. Could the minister please outline the pools of money directed toward early childhood development, child care, child care subsidies and early learning, and which ministries these moneys are administered by? It may be that some of them are….

           Hon. M. Coell: Can I get you to do that again?

           J. Kwan: Yes. Could the ministry please outline the pools of money that are directed toward early childhood development, child care, child care subsidies and early learning, and with those programs, which ministries are these moneys administered by? I know some of them are through MCFD, some of them are through MHR and some of them are through CAWS. Because they're kind of all over the place, I'm not sure which is where. If the minister could identify that for me, that would be great, and we can start the discussion there.

           Hon. M. Coell: If that member could give me just a couple of minutes, I'll go through those areas with my staff and get back to her.

           What I might do is start the member off with some numbers, and then I'll get some more for her. The child care programs. First off, she mentioned the early childhood development programs, which are federal dollars. I'm going to get some information on those for her in a moment.

[1610]

           With regard to the child care programs in this ministry, the program transfers and the funding overview this year would be the program branch operating costs, and they would be $9.3 million. The child care parent subsidy is $106.7 million. The child care operating funding — tell me if I'm going too fast — is $47.602 million. The child care capital funding is $1.5 million. The child care resource and referral is $7 million. That's a total of $172.102 million. Of the $172 million, there is $6.7 million for the early learning and child care agreement, and that's federal. An additional $3.3 million of federal money goes directly to MCFD for supported child care.

           I apologize for the confusion, but there are a lot of different pockets of funding, as the member asked for. Maybe what I'll do is sit down, Madam Chair, and the member can go through that. If there is anything else she needs, she can just ask.

           J. Kwan: I just want to confirm with the minister to make sure that I actually got the numbers right to begin with. For early childhood development, he's going to get me that information. Under the heading of child care, the operating funds are $9.3 million. The parent subsidy component is $106.7 million. If the minister can clarify this…. The operating fund, he said, is $47.602 million. I'll ask for clarification, after I've finished with the list of numbers, of what that operating fund refers to, because he said that operating, as well, was $9.3 million, and now there is $47.6 million for operating. He used a figure for capital, $1.5 million, and then for referral programs, $7 million, for a grand total of $172.127 million. Of this, there is an additional $6.7 million for early learning and child care under the early learning and child care agreement, which is federal money, and then there is an additional $3.3 million in MCFD money for supported child care.

           Confirmation that I've got the numbers right, and if you could explain operating funds versus the first operating dollars the minister had listed — what is the difference between those two sets of operating moneys?

           Hon. M. Coell: The child care operating funding is the money that goes directly to providers.

           Interjection.

           Hon. M. Coell: The $47.602 million. Then the program branch operating costs are our costs for operating that program and the other programs.

[1615]

           J. Kwan: The federal moneys, the $6.7 million for the early learning and child care agreement, in addition to $3.3 million in MCFD supported child care moneys — that brings us to $10 million. The budget book 2004, table 1.9 on page 23, indicates that there is $10 million being devoted to early learning and child care. Is that the federal money, that $10 million?

           Hon. M. Coell: That's correct.

           J. Kwan: Are those all the federal dollars in this area?

           Hon. M. Coell: There may be some money contributed to an earlier agreement. We could break it down, but other than that, that's the money which is allocated this year.

           J. Kwan: My understanding is that the federal dollars began not this year…. Well, when we were in gov-

[ Page 9320 ]

ernment the dollars actually flowed. Maybe we can date it back a little bit in terms of the federal dollars there. How much came from the federal government under each of the respective years? Let's begin with 2000-01, then '01-02, '02-03, '03-04, arriving at this budget cycle. Then, who is administering what moneys for what programs from the federal funds, and how much has been committed from the federal government?

           Hon. M. Coell: We could do that. There was a previous agreement. The new agreement, the early learning and child care agreement, is the $10 million. What we could do is go back. It's on the website — the reports on where it was spent every year from the inception of the program. I'm not sure whether it was 2000; it may have been 1999 that the inception of the program or the first agreement…. We have to report out every year to the federal government as to where those funds are spent. I could get those off the Web for the member.

           J. Kwan: If the minister could…. Well, actually maybe the minister can direct me to which website this is, because there is huge confusion out there in terms of the federal dollars and where they have actually gone since 2000. In fact, I don't believe it was last year but the year before in terms of the estimates in asking the Minister for Early Childhood Development. She couldn't account for where the dollars had all gone, so the confusion exists both in the community and with the opposition.

           We haven't been able to identify this website that shows where all the money has gone over the years. Nobody seems to have been able to do that, so if the minister can identify where that website is, maybe I can get my staff to see if it's there. If we can't find it, maybe the minister can provide a copy. Then, after I've received information, I can talk more about that.

           Hon. M. Coell: It would be on the MCFD website. There is the year 2001-02 report and the year 2002-03 detail of B.C.'s investments in the ECD activities. That would have been the prior agreement activities.

           There may be a report prior to that, but I don't believe it's on the website.

           J. Kwan: It's the full report that's on these websites, and within it, it clearly outlines how much federal money has come into the province for which program? Okay, I'll ask my staff to see if they can find this. If they can't, then if I could trouble the minister to provide that. Then we can look and see what's going on there.

           The minister was going to provide early childhood development figures.

[1620]

           Hon. M. Coell: Yes. The $10 million — $3.3 million has gone to MCFD, and in their budget they would have that pinpointed as to where those funds would be spent. The $6.7 million is allocated throughout our programs for this year. They would be reported out on next year as to where that money was spent within each program area.

           J. Kwan: That's a total of $10 million, then? Is that what I heard the minister say? That $10 million is for early childhood development, and those are federal moneys breaking out to $6.7 million and $3.3 million in the MCFD envelope. Okay.

           Could the minister advise…?

           Hon. M. Coell: I think the confusion may be that the federal government changed the names of the programs. The first one was called the early childhood development agreement and the latest one is early learning and child care federal funding.

           The FTP agreement was signed in March 2003. It was $121.6 million of federal funding over five years — a significant amount of funding, starting relatively small and building up. In '04-05, it's $10 million; in '05-06, it's $20.1 million; and in '06-07, it's actually $40.5 million — significant increases in the outer years.

           A Voice: She asked for the last number again.

           Hon. M. Coell: Sorry. The last number was $40.5 million.

           J. Kwan: For '04-05, $10 million; '05-06, $20.1 million; '06-07, $40.5 million. By my account, that's $70.6 million, and the minister said $121 million over five years. Okay — we're short a bunch of money.

           Hon. M. Coell: We're short $47.6 million, which is in '07-08.

           J. Kwan: Those are all of the federal dollars? The agreement that began in 2000-01 — does that include…? The $121 million — does that include the funding that came from the federal government, beginning in 2000-01?

[1625]

           Hon. M. Coell: There are two agreements. One started in '01-02. That one is pretty well managed by MCFD. Those funds flow directly into that budget. This one, starting in '03-04, overlaps, but it is new money. There would be some funds still coming from the federal government on the old program, as well, for a couple of years into this agreement.

           J. Kwan: This new agreement is called the early learning and child care federal funding, which started in '04-05. Then in '05-06, '06-07 and '07-08, each of the breakdowns respectively brings the total from $10 million, $20.1 million, $40.5 million and $47.6 million, to a total of $121.6 million. That's that one pot of money.

           The earlier agreement, called the early childhood development agreement — is the minister saying that under that agreement the dollars flowed to MCFD?

[ Page 9321 ]

           Hon. M. Coell: They're responsible for reporting out on all of those funds. They have been distributed into different programs throughout government, but they're the ones who are responsible for reporting out on how those federal funds were spent.

           J. Kwan: Okay. Was that agreement — the early childhood development agreement — also called the multilateral framework, or does that refer to the early learning and child care agreement?

           Hon. M. Coell: Actually, it's the new program that could be referred to as that. I guess its long name is early learning and childhood care multilateral framework. It's a federal government contribution of $900 million nationwide.

           J. Kwan: So that I'm completely clear, the early childhood development agreement, the earlier one that began in 2000-01…. None of those dollars flowed to this ministry. They're all in MCFD.

           Hon. M. Coell: Some would have flowed to child care, and they will actually be reported out in those two reports on the website that we'll get.

           J. Kwan: Could the minister just give me a quick overview on this early childhood development agreement? How much was involved in that? How was the funding broken down in the different years? How much of it went to MCFD, and how much of it went to this ministry?

           Hon. M. Coell: That'll take me a few minutes to get. I'm going to have to send staff out to get those briefing notes and the website information.

           The Chair: We'll have a ten-minute recess.

           The committee recessed from 4:29 p.m. to 4:43 p.m.

              [G. Trumper in the chair.]

           On vote 17 (continued).

           L. Mayencourt: This past week I was visiting with a group of ESL students at one of the many English language schools that I have in my riding. One of the really big irritants that was expressed to me by several members of that class was the issue around coming to Canada and going through a process of proving that they have a set of skills, that they have something to offer Canada, and then arriving here and not being able to practise with that.

           I think that one woman expressed it very well. She said: "You know, I'm not the only loser here. The province of British Columbia is losing out because of this as well." She's an engineer, in a career that we have a shortage in. Somehow we give people points for their career and their professional credentials, but when they get here, they aren't really able to practise in that, for whatever reasons.

           I wonder if we could get from the minister: what are we doing in order to make certain that when an immigrant comes here with a skill set that we have said we need, they get the opportunity to practise in that field?

[1645]

           Hon. M. Coell: A couple of things. I think yesterday or the day before we were talking about a similar issue. The international qualifications program has been in operation since 2001. We actually have been working with the engineering profession on the program and have an agreement with them. We're also branching out into a number of other professions, working with the registered nurses, UBC, Kwantlen College, to address the barriers facing immigrants. It's a real problem. It's one we acknowledge and one we're working on. I think probably in the next decade in Canada it's one we're going to have to spend a lot more time on than we have in the past.

           L. Mayencourt: I just signed a letter a couple of days ago to a physician that came here from another country. She's found out that, under some sort of regulations with the BCMA or somebody else, there are only two positions that are actually available for her to practise in, in the whole province. What's the story on that kind of thing? Because we are short of medical professionals in this province. It seems to me that if we've got doctors that have moved here from Bosnia or China or what have you, we should be able to find a way to have them practise in Canada.

           Hon. M. Coell: I think the responsibility, of course, for physicians is with the Ministry of Health, but we've been working with the College of Physicians and Surgeons to try and get the ability, the same as engineers, for the credentials to go through in an effective and quick way, and we'll continue to do that. It's an issue that…. As I say, the international qualifications program is one that we're going to spend some more time on. We're just negotiating a new Canada–B.C. agreement with the federal government on immigration. There's a whole range of things, I think, that will become more evident as the next couple of years go through for all those professions.

           L. Mayencourt: I thank the minister for his response.

           I want to read into the record a quote from Roslyn Kunin, who is a very respected business person in our community. She said at a recent conference: "All my outlooks for the economy and the labour market of Canada show that just about all the professions and probably all trades and technical occupations, with the possible exception of hairdressers, are now or will be in acute shortage. If we do not increase supply by increasing training and recognizing the credentials of people who come here, we will be facing very serious economy-limiting shortages."

[ Page 9322 ]

           I would just like to advocate that this is very important work that we need to be doing from our ministry over to Canada immigration, and I would encourage the minister to continue with that work.

[1650]

           I wanted to ask about…. Also in the area of multiculturalism, there is a critical incident response team that is under the ministry of multiculturalism. It is there to respond to issues that might occur in a community that are race- or religion-related. Obviously, it's a response team, but it's reactive. I'm wondering what the ministry is doing about being more proactive about reaching out to British Columbians and having them appreciate and accept the diversity that makes up this province.

           Hon. M. Coell: The member brings up, I think, a very important subject. There are a number of things that this ministry does, but there are also things that every ministry does now with regard to multiculturalism and what their ministry does and how programs are affected. The anti-racism and multicultural program reduces racism and discrimination in B.C. We administer anti-racism and multiculturalism projects delivered by third parties.

           The whole issue is one that's bigger than any one ministry. I think this ministry has responsibility for immigration and a number of other issues that are intertwined with multiculturalism. It's important that in every aspect of government, whether it be municipal, federal or provincial government — especially in British Columbia, because we have such a diverse population with a variety of different needs — we be very attuned to making people feel part of our community, making people feel part of government, making them feel that they have access to government at all levels.

           I really appreciate the comments. I know that there are a number of things in our ministry that we'll be pursuing in the coming months, as well, on profiling, the multicultural nature of British Columbia and how we can see greater successes out of that.

           L. Mayencourt: I agree with the minister on the multiple-ministries approach. I wonder how that is working. I recently worked with the international students safety forum on creating some safety messages for international students. Now, they're not immigrants, but they are part of our multicultural society because they come here for a year or so. I was able to get some money through the Solicitor General to develop those kind of materials. I'm just wondering: is there some sort of cross-ministerial approach to making our government publications more accessible to people — in Mandarin, for example, or Punjabi?

           Hon. M. Coell: I think it's more the individual ministry reporting on multicultural activities and how their ministry has effected them. I look at some of the program deliverables for this year that I think probably affect some of what the member's asking — the implementation of a more open and transparent tendering process for B.C. settlement and adaptation funding, provide support for the multicultural advisory board, increase participation in multilevel initiatives that seek to increase the labour market participation of newcomers and new immigrants and enhance community understanding of multiculturalism and cultural diversity to eliminate and prevent racism. Those are the sort of deliverables that the ministry has.

[1655]

           I think, too, if you look at government websites now you see how many programs you can get in different languages. We just need to keep expanding that to fit any need that we see.

           L. Mayencourt: Could we get kind of a rundown on what the B.C. settlement and adaptation program is about?

           Hon. M. Coell: Maybe I'll do a little bit better than that, as well. The immigration, settlement and adaptation program achieves economic and social integration of immigrants and equitable access to services by — I'll just give you some examples here — administering immigrant settlement service funding programs for delivery by third parties; developing and implementing performance management systems and frameworks to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs; developing policies, strategies and services; and it hopes to influence the federal policy to create accessible services to meet the needs of B.C.'s culturally diverse communities. Also, and I think a very important thing, is to increase immigrant access to the labour market.

           Another thing that we have done is with the Multicultural Advisory Council. It's comprised of 18 members appointed in October 2003 and is a legislated agency which provides advice to the minister on issues respecting multiculturalism and anti-racism and performs other duties and functions as we ask them to. So we've got a good sounding board there and a good settlement policy to try and make sure that people find employment when they come to Canada.

           L. Mayencourt: The membership of that multiculturalism committee — does it include people, for example, from MOSAIC, from SUCCESS, from the Immigrant Services Society of B.C.? These are just some of the groups that I interact with, and I'm just not familiar with who is on that committee.

           Hon. M. Coell: I believe that's on our website, but I'll get the list of the members and the organizations they represent to the member.

           L. Mayencourt: The reason I ask is that I've found them to be a very important resource in our community. I like to work with them, so I'd like to make sure they have some sort of influence in some of the things that we're moving forward on.

           The other question I have has to do with English language training. As I said a little earlier, I have a lot

[ Page 9323 ]

of private English language schools in my riding. A lot of the ESL in my neighbourhood is also delivered through Vancouver Community College and other publicly funded advanced education places. My concern is that private English language schools might get cut out of that if we're paying for the English language training, for example. What are we doing to ensure that we're not just using VCC for those purposes — that we're making sure private language schools are involved as well?

           Hon. M. Coell: We actually do, through B.C. Bid, go to tender, and the private schools are very much a part of that. The school districts, the NGOs and colleges are all part of bidding and providing those services for us.

[1700]

           L. Mayencourt: Last question on multiculturalism. It has to do with being proactive and making a difference in our community by getting ahead of racism. I wonder about the possibility of the ministry working on creating a toolkit for teachers to deal proactively with the issues of diversity to make sure that racist incidents don't occur in our classrooms and to be very much involved in that. I see that as being a fairly good starting point and also one that could be quite cost-effective and deal with some of those issues before they become a problem.

           Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I'd like to say that is a very good idea. We're working on one and should have it developed later this year. It would be for use in municipalities, school districts, for general community use.

           J. Kwan: Moving back to child care — and I can perhaps give this information to the minister for the purposes of his staff. I think that for the rest of today, at least, we're spending all of the time on child care. I don't think we'll move on to any other areas, so if the minister wants to give that direction to his staff, he's welcome to do so.

           Back on child care issues, the minister was getting the figures for me of what the federal dollars are in terms of the earlier years — whether they are under the early childhood development agreement or some other title.

           Hon. M. Coell: Did the member get the reports off the Web from her staff? If not, I can make copies of them, because I did go get them.

           J. Kwan: I only got the one — the early learning and child care. Is this the report? That's the only one….

           Hon. M. Coell: Okay. We were talking before the recess about the two programs. The first one is based on the federal-provincial territorial early childhood development agreement. The federal government is providing $291.2 million over five years commencing in the fiscal year 2001-02. Under that agreement B.C. was required to provide new early childhood development programs or enhancements to existing programs that are the equivalent in expenditure to the annual federal funding.

           Funding is provided for four key action areas. Child care falls within the category "Strengthen Early Childhood Development, Learning and Care." That's the first program that we're well into at this point. The latest program, which was — it had a little bit of a different name — early learning and childhood care multilateral framework, has $121 million in it that will start….

[1705]

           If I could just make a couple of comments. I think it's fair to say that the federal government is encouraging the provinces to invest more in child care while allowing the different provinces some pretty broad latitude on where they're going to put it — into which programs they're going to put it — and at the same time saying: "We want you to report out and tell us where you've put it, how you've developed those programs." We're just two years into that report out, and then, really, that reporting out will continue over a seven-year period, when you look at the new program coupled and overlapped with the first program.

           If that gives a little bit of…. It's pretty high-level information, really, so if the member wants to ask any more detail, I'll do my best to answer.

           J. Kwan: Yes. I will get into the details of these, because there is huge confusion out there in the community about what happened to the moneys. I think because there are two programs, perhaps that might be part of the confusion. Let me turn to the early childhood development agreement first, and then we'll come back to the early learning and childhood care multilateral framework.

           Early childhood development agreement. It is my understanding that the federal government provided to British Columbia $39.9 million for the year 2001-02 and $51 million for the year 2002-03 for this initiative, which includes child care services. Am I right?

           Hon. M. Coell: Yes. That's correct. The numbers would be 39.5 and 52.8.

           J. Kwan: Following the minister's comment, I believe and I concur that it is the federal government's hope that the provinces would increase and enhance their funding to child care or early childhood development initiatives. In that vein, British Columbia, as the minister advised, in '01-02 received $39.5 million under this early childhood development agreement from the federal government and then $52.8 million in '02-03.

           It is reasonable to expect that the infusion of these federal dollars would actually mean increased public investment in these aspects of early childhood development. Let's just look into that under British Colum-

[ Page 9324 ]

bia. How was the $39.5 million under '01-02 expended? Then, for '02-03, how was the $52.8 million expended?

           Hon. M. Coell: I've asked staff to get that information. I still don't have the full report back yet.

           J. Kwan: Okay. While we're waiting for that information, presumably…. When we get the information, then we'll know where the moneys went and how they were spent and if the full amount was spent, etc. So I'll set aside those questions for this early childhood development agreement for the time being.

[1710]

           Let me then just turn to the early learning childhood care multilateral framework. The minister gave me the breakdown for each of the years — how much the province was getting from the federal government. With those overall numbers for the years, there is one question. I understand that under the multilateral agreement on child care and early learning piece in the year '03-04, which was not a year the minister cited, the federal government transferred $25 million to the provinces. Is that not the case, or was there no money received?

           Hon. M. Coell: In that year there was $3.3 million, and it went to Children and Family Development.

           J. Kwan: That's the overlap, in terms of the years, possibly?

           Hon. M. Coell: Under the early learning and childhood federal funding, it was $3.3 million in 2003-04. There would have been an amount of money for the other program in that year, as well, and I haven't got the number. MCFD is the lead for that, so that's in the report that's coming.

           J. Kwan: Am I right to assume that all the information on the early learning and child care multilateral framework is also coming in terms of the full details around that? I'm just wondering if maybe I should wait to ask these sets of questions, too, until the minister gets the reports.

           Hon. M. Coell: The other one coming from MCFD is the early childhood development program. We have all the information here to talk about the early learning and child care federal funding framework. That's all…. We can account for that in this ministry.

           J. Kwan: Okay, then let's just double-check our years. Under the early learning and child care multilateral agreement…. Let's just call it the multilateral agreement for the purposes of this debate, and we'll know what we're talking about. That's what that is. "Multilateral agreement" — I'm calling it that.

           For that agreement we've got, in '03-04, $3.3 million that went to MCFD for supported child care. Then, in '04-05 we've got $10 million, and in '05-06 we've got $20.1 million. In '06-07 we've got $40.5 million, and in '07-08 we've got $47.6 million. If we're right on this track, could the minister break down for me, in each of the respective years, what programs…? At least, it may be that the minister doesn't have the information for '05-06 and beyond. But I would anticipate that for the early years, the dollars from the federal government put toward these programs would have been broken down, and the minister would know, then, how much went into what programs.

[1715]

           Hon. M. Coell: What I can do is that if you look at the numbers the member has just gone through — the B.C. portion, those at that number — we will flow through in every year $3.3 million to MCFD for their programming. There is another set of numbers that come to about $105 million at the end of '07-08 for this ministry, and the decisions for those funds will be made on a yearly basis. The ministers decided that they are going to review every year as to where those funds were allocated and then make that decision at budget time every year on an individual basis.

           J. Kwan: For the year '03-04, all of the moneys were allocated to MCFD for supported child care — all of it. So no other federal moneys came in for the year '03-04 for children-related services? Am I right?

           Hon. M. Coell: Under this agreement.

           J. Kwan: Under this agreement.

           Hon. M. Coell: Yep.

           J. Kwan: For the year '04-05, for which the government received $10 million, the ministry advises that $3.3 million will go toward the supported child care program in MCFD. That leaves $6.7 million. The $6.7 million goes into early learning, or where? Actually, what programming are these dollars directed toward?

           Hon. M. Coell: We're proposing to spend $2.7 million on the subsidy and $4 million on the child care resource and referral program.

           J. Kwan: Okay, so that's $6.7 million. Now, on the $2.7 million that goes toward child care subsidy, could the minister refresh my memory on what is the total budget for child care subsidies over the years, beginning in 2000 until now?

           Hon. M. Coell: In 2000-01 the budget was $117,850,000. In 2001-02 it was $126,402,000. In 2002-03 it was $107,302,000. In 2003-04 it was $104 million, and in 2004-05 it is $106,700,000.

           J. Kwan: And '05-06?

           Hon. M. Coell: In '05-06?

           J. Kwan: Yes.

[ Page 9325 ]

           Hon. M. Coell: I don't believe I've got that figure. We wouldn't have built that budget at this point.

[1720]

           J. Kwan: So what is happening is that steadily, starting in '01-02, where the budget was at its height — that is $126,402,000 at its height — the budget for subsidies has been decreasing steadily over those years. That really is the first real budget that this government brought in under their administration. After the election, the 2000-01 budget was, basically, a budget the government adopted from the previous government, and then it moved on to its own budget starting in '02-03 — from there on. You can actually see the decrease in the amount.

           With the exception of the '04-05 year, the budget went up by about $2.7 million. That increase is a direct result of the federal money — the $2.7 million in subsidies from the multilateral agreement. That's why it went from $104 million to $106.7 million.

           Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's correct.

           J. Kwan: The $4 million under the multilateral agreement for child care resources and referral…. Actually, let me backtrack on the question. Could the minister give me the funding over the years, starting in the year 2000, for child resources and referral?

           Hon. M. Coell: I can go through 2000-01. The budget was $6.49 million. The budget in 2001-02 was $13.12 million. In 2002-03, it was the same; in 2003-04, the same. The budget this year is for $7 million.

           I'll get the actuals for the member, because I'm interested in it myself. In those years, staff tell me, there was approximately $9 million spent. The budgets were $13 million, but they only spent about $9 million. I'll get that for the member. I'm interested in that myself. That would just be for the three years that were budgeted at $13 million.

           The program, having been at $13 million…. There is $4 million of the federal funding we're using in that and then $3 million found from its current budget and ministry budgets to make up the $7 million. So the $4 million federal funding is going in there, as well as $3 million from the global budget.

           J. Kwan: That's for the '04-05 year. That's $7 million of funding towards child care resources and referrals. Of that $7 million, $4 million is federal money and only $3 million is provincial money.

           Hon. M. Coell: That's right.

[1725]

           J. Kwan: This is a drop from a budget of $13.12 million to $7 million. It may be that of that $13 million, only $9 million was expended. The minister will check on that. Actually, I do have some questions around that front as well.

           These are the baseline pieces. Could the minister, then, give me…? We've dealt with the subsidies to the child care resources and referrals piece. Could the minister give me the operating dollars for child care providers and how they break down over the years, starting with 2000-01.

           Hon. M. Coell: If you go to 2000-01, it's $39.67 million; 2001-02, $62.583 million; 2002-03, $50.95 million; 2003-04, $48 million; and 2004-05, $47.6 million. What I'll do is I'll get staff to give me the actuals for those ones as well. That might do it. I don't think we're going to finish today anyway, so we can have that for tomorrow.

           J. Kwan: Again, we see a trend here. After the '01-02 budget there is an ongoing reduction in the operating budget for child care providers over the years under this government's administration.

           How about capital? What's going on with capital, beginning at 2000 on?

           Hon. M. Coell: For 2000-01, it's $1.49 million; 2001-02 is $1.99 million; 2002-03 is $1.49 million; and 2003-04 is a bit of an anomaly because it's at $2.5 million, but there was actually about $1 million worth of extra funding that went in that year for special one-time grants. This year's budget is back down to $1.5 million.

           J. Kwan: Could the minister give me the figures for child care spaces in the province over the course of the years, beginning at 2000.

[1730]

           Hon. M. Coell: We're currently supporting about 70,000 spaces, but I think the information the member wants is year-by-year, backwards, and I'll have to get that. I'll have that for tomorrow as well.

           J. Kwan: Does the minister have the information on…? Before I ask that question, am I right that I've included all the child care dollars in the areas I've asked for in terms of his breakdown? Have I missed some other area that exists within government that provides for child care services?

           Hon. M. Coell: With regard to our program budget and then the trends, I think you've covered the main areas. I can't see anything else you would have need for.

           J. Kwan: Could the minister give me the overall budget, then, for all of these areas for each of the respective years, starting with the year 2000?

           Hon. M. Coell: For 2000-01, $165.5 million; 2001-02, $204.095 million; 2002-03, $185.989 million; 2003-04, $173.564 million. Then this year would be $162.8 million, and if you added in the program of $10 million, you'd come to the $172 million that we talked about earlier.

[ Page 9326 ]

           J. Kwan: Okay, we've got the base numbers identified. Were there conditions from the federal government, when the dollars came in for the multilateral agreement, that those dollars have to be in addition to what the government is expending in child care and do not replace dollars of existing programs?

           Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's correct. Our baseline year for that program would be 2002-03, and the additions will be in the five years out from that. The money has to be spent within five years, and the baseline year is 2002-03.

[1735]

           J. Kwan: So the baseline budget is the $185.989 million that the federal government is using as a measure. That's when the agreement was signed. For the 2002-03 year from the federal government — where those moneys went and what programs they went into — we haven't got that information yet. We're awaiting that.

           Looking at the numbers themselves, the overall budget has gone down over the years from $185.989 million for '02-03 and then $273.564 million for '03-04 and $262.8 million in '04-05. How could the government meet the federal government's agreement that the federal dollar has to be in addition to the baseline budget, when the budget line is actually going down every year? Already, it seems to be that the government has violated that condition.

           Hon. M. Coell: Actually, no, that won't be the case. I think what I will do is ask staff to get me the baseline. Their baseline is 2002-03, which is that budget, but their money is only for children under the age of six, so that will vary. There is a baseline that staff have done up to show where that money will be spent over the five years. I'll ask staff to bring that with them tomorrow as well.

           J. Kwan: What did the minister mean when he said that their moneys have to be for children under six? Is it a federal requirement under the multilateral agreement that the federal dollars have to be spent for children under six?

           Hon. M. Coell: That's correct.

           J. Kwan: To that end, I think the minister said he'll get the breakdown tomorrow on children under six of where those programs fit, etc. I'll await that information as well — okay?

           Over the course of the years, the way the budget had been decreasing, starting in the '01-02 year of $204,090,285 etc., where did the moneys go that were taken away from the child care budget? Did that go back to general revenue?

           Hon. M. Coell: A little while ago we were talking about getting the actual numbers for those budgets, and I'll have them tomorrow. That was one of the first things I noticed when I was minister. There was a huge underexpenditure in some of these budgets that was traditional. I don't know why that was there, but there were, traditionally, large sums of money that were unspent in these budgets. What we wanted to do was to make sure we had enough money in the budget to cover the actual. When I get staff to bring that back tomorrow, we can have a better look at what the actual numbers were, rather than the budgeted numbers.

[1740]

           J. Kwan: It would seem wise to me to set aside these questions until we get the actuals for comparisons. Otherwise, we could recanvass all of this tomorrow to no avail. I don't think anybody wants to do that, including me. Given that is the situation and noting the time, Madam Chair….

           Interjection.

           J. Kwan: Oh, okay. All right. Why don't I yield the floor to other members to ask questions of the minister? I will come back to the child care piece tomorrow when we have all that information before us.

           Hon. M. Coell: Okay.

           B. Bennett: I wanted to ask some questions around the funding for child care. I understand there's a formula that is used to determine funding for regions on the basis of how the region is classified.

           Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member…. We have a number of programs. It sounds like you're probably referring to the capital program, but I'm not sure which program you would be asking about.

           B. Bennett: I really wasn't prepared very well to ask the question. I don't think I am asking about a capital program. I think I'm asking about a more operational type of funding. I'm specifically interested in the rural regions and the classification of regions — if I get the terminology correct — as rural, and then there's another classification called rural/urban.

           Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the member was very well prepared for this. It's a good question — and I know he has a rural riding.

           We are in the process of negotiating with 39 child care resource and referral non-profit groups. We are trying to build into the negotiations the distances required for rural areas and the number of children in rural areas and make those part of the contract. We're just in the process of doing that. I suspect the previous minister may probably have had something to do with the redesign of those contracts to make them more equitable for rural areas.

           B. Bennett: If I could just make a comment, more than ask a question. Sometimes it's tempting, I think, for governments to classify regions on the basis of whether they have maybe one centre that happens to

[ Page 9327 ]

be relatively larger than all the other centres in the region and the surrounding regions. I hope that in the negotiations and discussions taking place today, we'll end up with a formula that really does reflect the challenges of some of these diverse rural regions like the East and West Kootenays. I'll leave it at that.

[1745]

           M. Hunter: I didn't anticipate that I'd get the opportunity to ask a couple more questions. I wanted to ask the minister about issues to do with heritage. Just as a bit of background, I have been…. Last year, 2003, was the 150th anniversary of the Nanaimo Bastion, which is a famous, if not a heritage, site. As part of the 150th celebration, I began an inquiry into whether or not that building could be designated as a national historic site of Canada.

           It turns out that the process of getting a building designated as a national historic site is quite problematic, at least in the case of the Nanaimo Bastion, which history shows has actually been moved twice during its history. Even though the building is pretty well complete as an artifact — with the addition of firefighting and automatic sprinkling equipment and so on for modern standards — and is the original building built for the Hudson's Bay Co., the federal system does not allow the designation of that building as a national historic site, because it has been moved.

           What triggered this today and why I'm so happy to have another opportunity to ask a question is that I took advantage of the glorious March Victoria weather and walked past Emily Carr House and saw new signage as B.C. Heritage. I'm interested in how a place like the Nanaimo Bastion…. First of all, is it included in the provincial registry of historic places or whatever it is we have? Secondly, if it's not, how do we go about getting that designation?

           Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I don't have the staff with me to be able to answer that question for you, but I will have that answered for you tomorrow morning.

           M. Hunter: I appreciate that. I guess the complementary question to that is with respect to museums and artifacts. Can the minister just briefly explain in the time remaining today how the provincial museum system works? Can he give me a two-minute sketch?

           It seems to me there's a bit of a hierarchy. Obviously, the provincial museum, the Royal British Columbia Museum here, is special. We created that as a special place. Communities around the province that have special histories try to maintain the story through a local museum or a local museum society. It's not clear to me how the province is working to support those efforts. I'd appreciate any clarification the minister might have, either now or at some other time during this debate.

           Hon. M. Coell: The only museum we have a responsibility for is the Royal British Columbia Museum, and its mandate is quite lengthy. As I said, I sent some staff home earlier because they weren't needed. We didn't think they would be needed for this section of the debate. I can get that information. I think you're requesting information on smaller, community-type museums that might be scattered throughout the province. I can get that information for you tomorrow.

           Noting the time, I would move we rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

           Motion approved.

           The committee rose at 5:49 p.m.


[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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

TV channel guideBroadcast schedule

Copyright © 2004: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
ISSN: 1499-2175