Hansard -- Thursday, March 11, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 2 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		9427

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9428
	Hydrogen fuel
	J. Bray
	School bullying and death of Hamed Nastoh
	L. Mayencourt
	Drug labs and marijuana grow operations
	R. Stewart

Oral Questions		9429
	B.C. Rail port subdivision line privatization process
	J. Kwan
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Police investigation of government officials
	J. Kwan
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B.C. Rail privatization process
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Inland ferry services
	B. Suffredine
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Labour dispute at Gibraltar mine
	W. Cobb
	Hon. G. Bruce

Point of Privilege		9432
	G. Hogg

Second Reading of Bills		9433
	Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 15)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	B. Penner

Committee of Supply		9435
	Estimates: Ministry of Health Services (continued)
	P. Sahota
	Hon. S. Brice
	J. Bray
	J. MacPhail
	L. Mayencourt

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		9450
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. Coell

Deputy Speaker: Today I have the pleasure to make the first introduction. Joining us in the gallery today is a small contingent of a family of one of our caucus staff members, people that I have known for a number of years. It is my pleasure to introduce Pat Stiles, who is in Victoria this week to celebrate his seventieth birthday in style with his children. Pat is a longtime resident of Kelowna, a retired pharmacist and a former owner of one of B.C.'s most highly respected pharmacies and — I have this on good authority — one of the best fathers out there.

With Pat in the gallery is his daughter, Leah Cuthbert, and her husband, Bob, from Prince Rupert, who are here celebrating their twentieth wedding anniversary. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. J. Les: It's my pleasure this afternoon to introduce to the House Joanne Field and her daughter Leslie. They are from Abbotsford. Joanne is the chair of the Abbotsford school district, one of the very best-run school districts in the province. Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Cheema: I would like to introduce one of my former colleagues from Manitoba, Mr. Darren Praznik. He is at present the executive director of government relations with Canadian Blood Services. Mr. Praznik served Manitoba for 14 years from 1988 to 2002, including nine years in cabinet. He was responsible for a variety of departments, including health, labour, transportation and aboriginal affairs. From 1986 to 1988 he was a special assistant to the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare. Would the House please join me in welcoming Mr. Praznik.

H. Bloy: It's an honour for me to introduce 16 young people in the audience today. I met them about four weeks ago in the excitement of what they're doing. They're with a program that's sponsored by SUCCESS and the Canadian government. It's all about skills development.

After meeting them three or four weeks ago and today, I'm really impressed with what they're doing. I'd like to welcome them to the House along with their leaders. There's Evelyn Humphreys and Roxanne Charbonneau. The students are Jodi Anderson, Jeremy Beaulne, Ryan Blore, Sarah Mitchell, Erenley Poh, Harlan Roque and Stephanie Volos. My colleague from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain will introduce the remainder of the young people.

B. Locke: It is my privilege to introduce in the House today Karim and Nasima Nastoh. They are parents of a young lad named Hamed, who committed suicide…. I think it's five years ago today. The Nastohs have dedicated their time to fighting bullying in school, and I think their strength is good for all of us. It's certainly shining a light on this topic. I wish the House would please make them welcome.

K. Manhas: I'd like to join my colleague from Burquitlam in welcoming the Chance to Choose program class here today. I'm really pleased that Evelyn and Roxanne are here today and brought the group up.

Many of you have heard me stand up here and speak in the House about Youth Matters! and youth asset development. Evelyn is one of those rare and incredible people who took the seed of Youth Matters! and built something that she saw was needed in the community. She took that seed to build A Chance to Choose.

There are, as my colleague mentioned, 16 young men and women here in Victoria to take a look at what parliament is and how the provincial government works and to meet with many of us. Today I'd like to introduce Jodi Anderson, Jeremy Beaulne, Ryan Blore, Wade Bathurst, Matthew Bates, Julian Braga, Ryan Day, Ben Favelle, Ben Fjeld, Astara Johnston, Susannah Kloegman and Jessica Rheddy, along with the folks my colleague mentioned.

I'm really pleased that you guys are here. It is an incredible opportunity that you have here in this initiative to really find what your passion is, and I encourage you to be able to continue doing that.

I'd also like to introduce Wendy Cooper. Wendy Cooper is actually the chair of the Youth Matters! partnership team. She also happens to be here in the Legislature.

I'd like the whole House to please make all of these very significant, important individuals welcome in Victoria and send them back with a warm feeling about what Victoria really is.

J. Kwan: I have two very special guests visiting us today in the gallery. They are Sam Monckton and Brenda Tombs. Sam is a constituency staff in my office in Vancouver. She is definitely committed and hard-working, but also very talented. As we know, we're now 40 percent in the polls. That is to say that our staff has helped us with the resourcefulness they have in gaining the research material as well as the information in asking questions in this House and, of course, also in estimates and bill debate.

Also joining us is Brenda Tombs. She is a co-op student from the University of British Columbia. The students in this chamber have elevated the opposition in our ability to do our work in an incredible way. In addition to the interns, we have Brenda in Vancouver helping us out. She is definitely resourceful and smart and funny. Would the House please welcome these two special individuals.

J. MacPhail: I rise today on a very important occasion, March 11. There are about six decades of good news that occurred on this day. One is the birth last year and therefore the first birthday of Cee-Yan, the daughter of the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. One of the reasons I remember that is because it's also the birthday of the Minister of Human Resources, the member for Comox Valley. They're separated by a few decades, I believe. However, given that, they're still adorable water babies — both. Could the House please wish them happy birthday.

J. Bray: Imagine, in the year of the Olympics 2010, Arnold Schwarzenegger driving to Vancouver in his hydrogen-fuelled Humvee and Jack Layton driving east in his hydrogen-fuelled Yugo. The concept of a hydrogen highway is an exciting vision of the future. The notion of a hydrogen highway was launched about 18 months ago by the National Research Council, Methanex and B.C. Hydro. The vision is all about having hydrogen fuelling stations that will allow hydrogen-fuelled vehicles to operate from Victoria to Whistler. The goal is to get the highway in operation in time for the 2010 Winter Olympics.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Energy has opened some stations in California and is looking at extending the network into Oregon and Washington State. We could work with the Americans to eventually have this highway right along the west coast, a highway with cars operating whose only emissions are water droplets.

What makes this vision even more exciting is that British Columbia is at the leading edge of this new green technology. The fuel cell technology centre is located at NRC's Institute for Fuel Cell Innovation in Vancouver. The fuel cell technology centre was created as a research and development platform for the NRC fuel cell program. A total of 3,500 square feet of hydrogen-safe laboratory space equipped with fuel cell test equipment and commercial fuel cells are now available for industry co-locaters, universities, collaborators and NRC researchers. Also, leading-edge companies like Ballard Power Systems are taking the concept of hydrogen fuel cells from the laboratory to demonstrating commercial viability.

The Olympics challenge us all to shoot for the gold, to be our best. What better legacy for the next generation than to have a viable demonstration for the world to see, a hydrogen highway from Victoria to Whistler showing that zero-emission vehicles can be a reality. In fact, the vision for the 2010 Olympics is to create sustainable legacies for our athletes, sport development, our host communities, our province, our country…. I urge the federal government, the provincial government and industry to pursue this vision with a hydrogen highway.

L. Mayencourt: Four years ago a young student in Surrey was enduring bullying, harassment, taunting, homophobia and emotional cruelty from some friends in his school. It was so crushing to his spirit that he could not see any way out for himself and the torture he was enduring. It was on this day, March 11, 2000, that this student succumbed to the school yard bullying and made a fateful decision to end his own life.

His name was Hamed Nastoh, and he was 14. Hamed left a note behind for his family, detailing the taunting and the name-calling that he'd endured. He asked that his death be not in vain. He wanted a better and more peaceful world for students, for other students, for children. Although it was a world that he could envision, it was not a world that he lived in. He wanted a world where kids can grow up without the threat of violence in their schools.

I didn't ever have the opportunity to meet Hamed, but I remember the day I heard that he'd taken his life. I have had the honour of meeting his family and of reading his note that he left for them.

Nasima Nastoh, his mother, and her husband, Karim Nastoh, are here in the gallery today. We've already welcomed them. They have dedicated the last four years of their lives to making a difference in schools across British Columbia — to deal with the issues of bullying, harassment and intimidation and to deal with racism, with homophobia, with sexism and with all of the isms that make students feel different and separate and apart and make them feel despair to the degree that they don't want to be there anymore.

Nasima has taken up the charge that was sent to her by her son. I admire her, and I thank her for her continued commitment to kids all across British Columbia. Today at lunch she said to me that it really isn't about Hamed. It's about all of the kids in British Columbia. As chair of the safe schools task force and on behalf of the other members of that task force and all members of this gallery, I thank you, Nasima, for the important work you do. We are with you, and we will continue to help you in any way we can.

R. Stewart: Family neighbourhoods are home to street hockey and tricycles and hide-and-seek, but these days our neighbourhoods have become home to other things. In November, I spoke about marijuana grow ops. Next week we are holding an important neighbourhood discussion in Coquitlam on what can be done to stamp out the grow ops and drug labs that are compromising public safety in our communities.

In the past two years the Coquitlam RCMP have shut down more than 420 marijuana grow ops and are currently investigating hundreds more. This certainly is a more insidious form of hide-and-seek. These illegal

operations in our communities are putting our children and our families at risk. Criminals don't care if they set up shop near an elementary school or a day care or a playground, and they don't care about the damage they do to neighbourhoods and communities.

While I've been raising this issue for many years, it was really brought home for me a short time ago when police shut down two grow ops a few houses away from our home, down the road, on my daughter's paper route. We need to work together as a community to protect our neighbourhoods. We need to ensure that police have the tools they need to combat this issue. We need to toughen the penalties; we need to get communities involved.

On Tuesday, March 16, I'd like to hear what the public has to say. I'm inviting all concerned citizens to come to Coquitlam city hall at 7 p.m. next Tuesday for our forum. We will be joined by the Solicitor General, the Deputy Premier and Coquitlam mayor Jon Kingsbury. We've also invited representatives from the Coquitlam RCMP, B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Real Estate Association. I want people to come out and share their thoughts. It's time to loosen the grip that drug dealers have on our lives and to protect our neighbourhoods for a better type of hide-and-seek — the type our children play.

J. Kwan: On March 1 the police visited the deputy minister responsible for the sale of B.C. Rail and told him that the Roberts Bank deal was tainted. The Minister of Transportation was informed of this the next day, March 2. On March 3 the media asked the minister if he had any reason to believe that the Roberts Bank spur was compromised. Despite the fact that he was told by the deputy that day, on March 2, the minister said no. My question to the minister is: why did he hide the truth?

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, not surprisingly, the member opposite has got the facts wrong again. So I'll walk the member through that to make sure she actually understands what the real facts are.

Hon. K. Falcon: On March 2 — if the members would pay attention — I was visited by Deputy Minister Chris Trumpy. Chris Trumpy, in an unscheduled meeting, a very short meeting, advised me that he had received information from the RCMP which led him to believe that there may — and I underscore "may" — be a problem associated with the port subdivision. The next day I was in a scrum, as the member points out. In the scrum I was asked about whether I would be cancelling that particular port subdivision deal. What my comment was is that when I had information available, credible information that would allow me to make a decision based on facts, I would make a decision in the best interests of the public. That's exactly what I did.

J. Kwan: The minister hid the truth, and he knows it. When he was asked if he had any concerns about the Roberts Bank deal, the minister could have said that he wasn't comfortable discussing a competitive bid process that was underway. But he didn't. He chose to tell the public he had no concerns. Nowhere in the letter from the evaluation committee to the minister does the committee vouch for the integrity of the process to sell B.C. Rail. — nowhere. Given yesterday's announcement, how can the Minister of Transportation expect the people of British Columbia to have any confidence whatsoever that the sale of B.C. Rail is not hopelessly compromised by influence-peddling and leaks of confidential information?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite is fully aware of the fact that the port subdivision process is a very separate initiative. The port subdivision process refers to a 37-kilometre spur line. It's not attached to the B.C. Rail main line. The port subdivision process had a process underway. One of the members of the evaluation team, Mr. Chris Trumpy — I might add, a deputy minister of the highest integrity — was approached by….

Hon. K. Falcon: If the member is going to continue interrupting, I can't get my answers out appropriately. Perhaps if the member would try to stop interrupting for a moment….

Hon. K. Falcon: As I indicated, Mr. Trumpy visited me in my office on the afternoon of March 2. Mr. Trumpy indicated in a very brief conversation that he had a visit from the RCMP. They provided him with certain information that led him to conclude that there may — I underscore "may" — be information that could jeopardize the integrity of the port subdivision process. I subsequently met with Mr. Trumpy on March 4.

If the member would read the statement I released to the public, she will know that I advised him to go back to the RCMP to gather as much information as he credibly can without jeopardizing the integrity of the investigation, to consult with the evaluation committee to get their recommendation and to ensure that he puts

Deputy Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a further supplemental question.

J. Kwan: You know, the minister's story changes minute by minute. This is probably his seventh version of the story now, and I'm sure Martyn Brown is scripting him very carefully. I must say, Martyn Brown, you better try harder.

From the beginning, the B.C. Liberals have tried to downplay the scandal. The Minister of Transportation maintains that nothing is wrong until he's forced by the police to admit that something is terribly wrong. The Premier, in the middle of all of this, makes the bizarre statement that it's all a private matter involving staff. Incredibly, the Solicitor General, the minister who knows more than anyone else, told the public he's confident that the integrity of the government was not compromised.

To the Solicitor General: is he prepared to retract those comments and finally admit that the police raids on the Legislature are directly linked to the government's integrity?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have nothing further to add. I won't comment on an ongoing police investigation.

J. MacPhail: Oh, the Solicitor General has been muzzled now. Before, he was fine to say that there was nothing wrong with the B.C. Rail deal. He's been muzzled. He's been given a new version. Well, the continued stonewalling makes one wonder if the government realizes how serious the scandal is. The Attorney General mocks this whole terrible scandal.

In estimates debate last week the Minister of Finance admitted that he met with Pat Broe, the CEO of Broe Companies — of which Omnitrax is a subsidiary — on two separate occasions, once before the bidding on B.C. Rail even started and once after the sale to CN was announced and while the Roberts Bank spur bid was still open — twice.

Can the Minister of Transportation tell us if he was aware of this meeting and if he thinks it's appropriate for the Minister of Finance to be having a private dinner with the CEO of Omnitrax's parent company during the bidding process on a multimillion-dollar bid to buy the Roberts Bank spur rail line?

Hon. K. Falcon: What I can tell the member opposite is that I wasn't present at the estimates, so I have no idea what she's talking about. But I will tell the member opposite something that should be important to her.

Hon. K. Falcon: Perhaps if the member opposite would listen…. I'm going to quote directly from the statement I released yesterday, and I'm going to quote from a paragraph. I want to remind the member that before we issued this statement, we confirmed with the RCMP that the information released does not jeopardize their criminal investigation which — I remind the member — is ongoing. So I'll quote to the member. Since she never listens to facts, I'll try and give her a fact.

Hon. K. Falcon: This is part of the challenge of why it's hard to get facts opposite there, because they never close their mouths and listen with their ears. But I will say this, and I'll quote directly: "We have no information to suggest that the successful proponent, CN, has come into possession of any information that would undermine the outcome of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership."

I want to say this: the reason why they continue to be so negative about that is because they're afraid to defend the expansion of the Prince George Airport. They're afraid to defend the $17.2 million we're investing in Prince Rupert containerization. They're afraid to defend the additional $8 million of taxes up and down the communities of the line, and they're just constantly trying to be negative.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Finance has a private dinner not once but twice with the CEO of Omnitrax's parent company. When? While this failed bid was going on — an investigation of criminal activity, influence-peddling, sharing of information, and the Minister of Finance is meeting with one of the bidders. Shame. And that minister claims not to know about it. He's really in charge.

As more information comes out, the picture of this scandal comes into sharper focus — contracts worth millions up for grabs, B.C. Liberal insiders on the payroll of bidders, private dinners between a cabinet minister and a CEO of a company actively engaged in the privatization of B.C. Rail, police raids that the Attorney General mocks, criminal investigations. Every time this government tries to privatize something, the cops have to get involved.

J. MacPhail: It's clear that the privatization of B.C. Rail is thoroughly tainted by allegations of influence-peddling and leaks — at least four leaks that we now know about. Will the Minister of Transportation put an order immediately to halt the sale of B.C. Rail? He has no evidence that the two bids are not both tainted. Halt the sale now.

Hon. K. Falcon: It is just unbelievable to sit here and listen to a litany of non-facts, of misinformation.

Hon. K. Falcon: This member just never gives up. But I will say this. There appears to be a bit of a fixation here on the question of integrity, so I want to make a comparison here for the House on how a government deals with a situation. The moment we had an evaluation team.…

Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order. Would the Leader of the Opposition please come to order.

When the evaluation team came to this government and brought forward credible information that the process could affect the valuation or the values that the provincial government could receive, we immediately acted to terminate the process.

I will contrast that with the previous government. Do you remember when the NDP government had B.C. Ferries? They had a board of directors that advised them they had a problem. They had a problem in that fast ferries were having cost overruns. There was no business plan. Do you know what they did? They fired the board, and they put a new board of political hacks into place to make sure they could continue to undermine the public interest, and that ended up costing us half a billion dollars. That's the difference between integrity and no integrity.

B. Suffredine: In the Kootenays for some time now we have been going through a process where the Ministry of Transportation has been putting out the inland ferries for contract operation. People have asked me repeatedly how that can make sense, how that can make financial sense. The BCGEU has been out there irresponsibly alleging that this will affect jobs and service on these valued things in the Kootenays.

It's fair for people to wonder if the cost of seeking bids is a wise expenditure and if there's a benefit to that process. Can the minister tell my constituents: why is the government seeking alternate service delivery bids for inland ferries like the Kootenay Lake ferry, the Harrop-Procter ferry and the Glade ferry?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is actually important, because the inland ferries are an important transportation link in the heartlands, as the member correctly points out.

We as a government made a commitment to secure partners to operate and maintain inland ferries while protecting our transportation networks without increasing the public debt. This agreement goes a long way in meeting that commitment. This agreement provides reliable, toll-free ferry service at fair value to the taxpayers, but I think what is particularly important for that member to know is that the 56 employees who are currently working on the ferry routes will be offered jobs with the new operator. This contractor is required to maintain the existing service levels on the Kootenay Lake, Harrop and Glade ferry routes. That is good news for that member's neck of the woods.

W. Cobb: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. In 1998 Gibraltar Mines closed after 25 years due to low copper prices. Taseko Mines now owns that mine, and it wants to reopen, creating 270 jobs. There are seven who have recall rights. There are seven employees who stayed on for maintenance and safety reasons. They have taken a strike vote that could possibly keep this mine from reopening. Mr. Speaker, 270 jobs are too important to lose. Should 14 people have the right to keep 256 other people from working?

I would like to know what the Minister of Skills Development and Labour is doing to ensure this economic opportunity can be realized.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's always important to remember that when you have a labour relations issue taking place, a negotiation that's happening, you must deal with it in a prudent fashion. Obviously, the jobs that would come to that area are powerful to all of us in British Columbia, particularly to that community and that operation itself.

I'm quite prepared to meet with the parties in play, both members of the company and members of the union, simply from the standpoint of seeing whether or not we can assist in somehow bringing about a resolution, so everybody can get through this and we can find the mine again operating. With the 270 more new jobs happening in British Columbia, along with the 160,000 jobs that have been created in the last two

Just before I sit down, I know you all want to know this…. A few years back in the decade of decline, prior to them taking over — this would have been the NDP administration — there used to be 15,000 mining jobs in the province of British Columbia. Just after ten years of their administration, they took those 15,000 jobs and reduced them to 7,500. But with the turn we're making in this province right now, we're going to see mining grow again in British Columbia. We're going to see good union mining jobs through all parts of British Columbia, so people and families can prosper in this province.

G. Hogg: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to respond to a matter of privilege put forward by the member for Vancouver-Hastings on the afternoon of Monday, February 16. She had previously reserved her right to raise three matters of privilege on the afternoon of February 10. One of those matters concerned comments made by myself.

The Government House Leader has already observed that contrary to established practice, the member did not reserve her right at the earliest opportunity — which, as you know, is a strict requirement of the standing orders of the House. The importance of acting at the earliest opportunity is canvassed in MacMinn, third edition, pages 48 and 49. The failure to raise a matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity has resulted in members losing their rights to pursue such matters.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the allegations made by the member for Vancouver-Hastings. I take any suggestion that anyone would intentionally make a misleading statement in this House very seriously. British parliamentary tradition and conventions dictate that members honour parliamentary practice established over decades — indeed, over centuries — in order to carry out the democratic business of the people of this province.

The member for Vancouver-Hastings alleges that on March 24, 2003, I breached the privilege enjoyed by members of this House by misleading her as to the role of Mr. Doug Walls. In support of her allegation, the member for Vancouver-Hastings acknowledges that I consulted with the then Deputy Minister of Children and Family Development immediately prior to responding, and she submitted a videotape from Hansard taken during the relevant period of the debate in the House.

As you know, established practice dictates that the threshold necessary to establish a prima facie case for striking a committee to examine the conduct of a member is based on two tests: firstly, that the statement complained of was misleading and, secondly, that it was deliberate.

In response to the former, I respond as follows. A Hansard transcript of the exchange in the Legislature on March 24, 2003, indicates the member for Vancouver-Hastings had been asking me about interim authorities responsible for delivering social services and their interim CEOs. She eventually asked me specifically about the community living authority and community living. In response I stated: "Currently, the senior government representative is Elaine Murray. They will be going through a selection process sometime in the next number of months." Elaine Murray, like the Children and Family Development ICEOs I previously referred to, was a senior civil servant. The transcript is attached to my written submission.

It is a matter of record that Elaine Murray, an assistant deputy minister in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, was in fact the senior government representative assigned to work with the community living authority at the time I made the statement in the Legislature. Her role was to liaise with the interim authority and government in the process of establishing the permanent authority. As evidence, I have attached a written copy of the submission of a memorandum from the deputy minister of the Ministry of Children and Family Development dated January 10, 2003, explaining that Elaine Murray, ADM, had become the senior government executive responsible for the devolution of service to community living B.C.

Therefore, I submit that the statement I gave to the House was in fact accurate and not misleading, and certainly not deliberately so. Nevertheless, if anything I stated was misinterpreted or led to confusion, then for that, I apologize to all members of this House.

It is true that during the formational period of community living B.C., there was occasionally a lack of clarity concerning the position of interim CEO. The member for Vancouver-Hastings referred to a letter dated January 23, 2003, from the chair of the Interim Authority for Community Living B.C. to the deputy minister — and not copied to me — which stated that Doug Walls will be the acting CEO. But then the same letter also said his official title within the organization will remain senior consultant, planning and development.

For your consideration, I would like to refer to another letter from the chair of the Interim Authority for Community Living B.C., this one dated April 9, 2003. It says: "We do not currently have an ICEO." I have attached a copy of this letter to my written submission for your consideration, along with a draft organizational chart dated November 4, 2003, indicating that the position of the CEO was vacant. I have also attached a copy of a fax from the former chair of the interim authority dated February 18, 2004, which states that Mr. Walls continued to be the senior consultant. I have attached excerpts of minutes of the interim authority that provide a chronology and further information on this matter.

I specifically draw your attention to the minutes dated September 25, 2003, where the board resolved to

advise me of their actions with respect to Mr. Walls. This occurred a full six months after the member asked the question, which is the subject of the privilege motion. As the member for Vancouver-Hastings herself noted, I confirmed with my deputy minister prior to responding to her question.

The videotape submitted by the member for Vancouver-Hastings reveals an elapsed time of approximately 15 seconds from when she asked the question to the time I provided an answer. It was during this time that I consulted with the deputy minister. I repeated the information he provided me, as I believed it to be true and I believed it dealt with the member's question.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the evidence supports the position: firstly, that I act with the best information available to me and, secondly, that the information given was correct. I submit for the information of the Speaker the reference material.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you very much. I believe the Speaker will read the two presentations and come up with a decision on this in the near future.

Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply in the little House. For the information of members, they will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. In this House I call second reading of Bill 15.

The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management proposes amendments to the Assessment Act; the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; the Land Act; the Land Title Act; the Local Government Act; the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act; the Property Transfer Tax Act; and the University Endowment Land Act. The ministry also proposes the repeal of the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act and the Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act.

One of the new-era commitments undertaken by this government is to become more effective and efficient in service delivery. These amendments and repeals deliver on that commitment by eliminating outdated or obsolete requirements and streamlining public services provided under these various statutes.

Several amendments to the Assessment Act will now make it easier for property assessors and staff to provide information to the public by either facsimile or electronically. This will considerably improve the transfer of information, saving both time and expense. Another amendment to the Assessment Act eliminates time-consuming and unnecessary requirements by the assessor. Currently, the assessor must complete a statutory declaration as prescribed under the Assessment Authority Act each time an assessment roll or supplementary roll is completed. This requirement is now repealed and substituted with the much simpler requirement that once the assessment roll has been completed, the assessor must certify in writing that the roll was completed according to the requirements of the Assessment Act. It also eliminates the requirements for the certifications to be notarized and attached to the roll. This saves considerable time and makes it easier for the roll to be electronically transmitted.

To further reduce unnecessary regulations, the repeal of two acts is being proposed. The first is the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act. The Commission on Resources and Environment provided for the appointment of a commissioner by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for the purpose of providing independent advice to government respecting land use and environmental issues in B.C. The commission was charged with developing a provincewide strategy for land use and environmental management, facilitating regional planning processes, ensuring participation in such processes by aboriginal people and coordinating government initiatives with respect to resource management. The commission was required to report annually to government on its activities.

The Commission on Resources and Environment submitted its final recommendations to cabinet some years ago and no longer exists, making the act associated with this public body no longer necessary. As a consequence, we're repealing the Commissioner on Resources and Environment Act. Schedule 2 to the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act is pursuant to that and will also be amended. This schedule names the commissioner on resources and environment as the head of the public body responsible for the management of the records of the commission. This amendment now repeals a reference to the commissioner on resources and environment and replaces it with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management, who is now responsible for the management of these records.

The repeal of the Kootenay Canal Land Acquisition Act eliminates another outdated act. This act was developed for the Kootenay Canal hydroelectric project, authorizing government to acquire specific lands. These lands have been acquired, and therefore this act is no longer required.

Further amendments to the Land Act will provide Land and Water B.C. with the authority to make use of modern methods of Crown land disposition. Previously, Crown land could only be disposed of through such methods as public auction or public notice of tender. Amending this act will allow Land and Water B.C. to dispose of Crown land through more current methods in the real estate industry, such as listing a sale through a multiple listing service or public requests for proposals.

A number of changes are being proposed to the Land Title Act. One change is being made to support our new-era commitment to create a B.C. trust for public lands to encourage private donations of land for public purposes. In some circumstances, it may be unduly onerous to require a full ground survey to be completed before registering title to a property. This amendment allows the registrar of land titles the discretion to register a parcel where the registrar thinks it is appropriate, using a survey plan based on adjacent existing ground surveys rather than requiring a complete new survey of the parcel.

The bulk of the other land title amendments add definitions and procedures to support the electronic filing system project due to be implemented April 1, 2004. This system was initiated by this government to speed the transfer of land title information to and from the public. The project allows the land title document to be submitted electronically. In the case of land titles, it's extremely important to maintain the integrity and legal authority of the land title documents. Care has been taken to ensure that the timing of document filing, signature requirements and copying regulations are both efficiently and legally effective.

The proposed amendments will also allow documents authorized by other acts, such as claims of builder's liens, to be filed electronically and will allow for clerical errors in electronic documents to be corrected electronically.

The Property Transfer Tax Act is also being amended to ensure it is consistent with the Land Title Act in relation to the implementation of the electronic filing project. Additional amendments to this act correct previous drafting errors and undertake a few housekeeping and streamlining changes.

The amendment to the Local Government Act makes a housekeeping correction to reference the correct section of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.

Next, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act and the University Endowment Land Act are being amended. These changes will allow the minister to delegate authority under these two acts to public officials or employees of government corporations. These amendments clarify the authority of Land and Water B.C. to act on the minister's behalf in administering Crown land. This supports the timely approval of land tenures and sales and will assist Land and Water B.C. Inc. in meeting its service plan commitments.

This bill is an important step in this government's objectives of providing efficient service to the public and reducing unnecessary regulations. It gives me great pleasure to move second reading of Bill 15.

B. Penner: I rise just to share a few comments with respect to Bill 15. What draws my attention and interest is the provision repealing the provision that allowed B.C. Hydro back in the 1970s to acquire land for the purposes of a power project along the Kootenay Canal in the southeast part of British Columbia.

This last summer I had an opportunity to actually visit that area and visit quite a number of hydroelectric projects in the region. I think it's just worth remarking, as we debate this bill and take steps to repeal an act which helped move the province forward in terms of electrical generation, that, in fact, that project is still there working on behalf of all British Columbians and is an integral part of the B.C. Hydro system.

It's easy for us to take those kinds of measures for granted, because every evening when you come home and it's dark, you flip a switch and your lights go on. You go to turn on your TV, and it works. Well, in fact, it's only because of forward-thinking and decisive action of previous governments that we do have reliable electricity at a very low cost that's generated in a very environmentally sustainable fashion and which causes no emissions of any kind. If you are a believer in the theory of global warming, you should take comfort in the fact that large-scale hydroelectric projects do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions and are, therefore, a relatively benign form of energy, particularly when it comes to air quality.

I recognize that anything we do in terms of economic development will have some impact. Just getting out of bed in the morning has an environmental impact in some way because of the goods we consume. They don't come out of nowhere, just as the electricity that we count on to make this Legislature function today and make television and Hansard service available. All of that happens as a result of some decision that's been made, which has had some impact on the land base.

But the worst thing we can do and the most irresponsible thing anyone could think of is to do nothing. As we consider passing this bill and, certainly, taking a vote on second reading with respect to this bill, I'd like to encourage all members to think about the further projects we will need to take in British Columbia to maintain our standard of living and, in fact, enhance it for the future for all generations. Just as we today are benefiting from decisions of 30 years ago around the Kootenay Canal and the electricity that project generates for all of us, I hope that 30 years hence generations to come will benefit from decisions we make here today in terms of how we're going to supply our energy needs in an environmentally responsible fashion.

I know there's been talk about the potential for Site C or other forms of power generation in different regions. We have to carefully evaluate all of those, but the bottom line is: we have to do something. Doing nothing is not a reasonable alternative. I for one am not prepared to sit idly by and watch us become more dependent on imported electricity as, unfortunately, over the last few years we have because the NDP government in the 1990s decided to do nothing. Doing nothing is not a good option.

I'm proud to be part of a government that has a bold energy plan and is looking forward to the future so that we can continue to meet our energy needs going into the future.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no other speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 15.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 15 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Sustainable Resource Management Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

P. Sahota: My question relates to the Burnaby mental health program that was moved to Burnaby Hospital last year. I was wondering if the minister could comment on the addiction services portion of that, as the minister may be aware that mental health disorders in conjunction with substance use disorders pose a high cost to society. Since Burnaby Hospital now does have a mental health program, I was wondering if she could comment on the addiction services portion and what is happening to that in Burnaby.

Hon. S. Brice: The member asks about Burnaby Hospital and the mental health and addictions services. I know that the Fraser health authority has taken very seriously the thrust of the Ministry of Health Services to push for a strongly integrated program of mental health and addictions services. Fraser health authority has allocated $1 million to ten concurrent-disorder specialists. Those are for individuals suffering from both mental illness and an addiction problem.

They're going to be introducing a home withdrawal and management detox program for the residents of Burnaby, New Westminster, Coquitlam and Port Coquitlam. As well, they're expanding their early psychosis intervention program across all three of those health service delivery areas.

The member asks specifically about Burnaby mental health services. I would like to advise her that this briefing note that has been made available to me indicates that the Burnaby mental health services have moved to a new home in Burnaby Hospital, as the member points out. The first floor of the Cascade building is occupied by out-patient services consisting of central team day program 1 and 2, geriatric services, community residential program, community rehab services, secure program, addiction services, a concurrent disorder specialist and administration offices. Level 2 holds a 25-bed in-patient unit and a three-bed crisis stabilization unit. The emergency after-hours psychiatric program currently offered in the Burnaby Hospital emergency department will remain. It would seem that within the Burnaby mental health services, they are providing a very complete range of options for their public.

P. Sahota: My follow-up question would be in terms of the addiction services team. Who will they be seeing? Is there an age limit? Is it just for adults? Could the minister please comment on that?

Hon. S. Brice: I don't have that information available to me at this time, but I will commit to getting it to the member at the earliest possible time.

J. Bray: In Victoria we have the downtown core for the region in my riding. Over the last couple of years we've been dealing with what are often referred to as downtown issues. We've been focusing a lot of our energy in the capital region on people living on the street with concurrent disorders, both mental health issues and addictions issues. Certainly, three years ago when addiction services and mental health were combined, that was a significant structural improvement. When it was all placed under the umbrella of Health, that created the platform by which we could start to look at really good innovative solutions for people living with concurrent disorders.

I have spoken many times in the House about what Victoria has done to try to get coordinated services to deal with people who are living on the street or at risk of living on the street in Victoria. A year ago in January the city of Victoria, the Vancouver Island health authority and the Victoria city police got together and worked on a joint strategy for making sure they were focusing their energies in their areas of expertise. Out of that came some short-term strategies to deal with those living on the streets — where the health services could be focused on by VIHA, where the city could be focusing on some of the issues around housing, and where the police could be focusing on issues around those who prey on vulnerable people — pimps and drug dealers — and enforcement issues. We've had good short-term success. What I'm wanting to canvass with the minister are some of the intermediate steps —

One of the issues identified by the police was that they spent an awful lot of time on the criminal justice side dealing with people who were basically in a position, because of substance abuse, to at any given point in time not be able to go home. They didn't have a home to go to. They were basically being put in the drunk tank at the city jail, which was not appropriately staffed for people who are heavily under the influence. It was certainly not a particularly valuable place for them to be. There were no services. Or they were taking them to the emergency room at the Royal Jubilee Hospital, which equally was not a particularly valuable place for them to be — there were no services — or taking them to the emergency room at Royal Jubilee Hospital, which was equally not particularly appropriate, very expensive and created some blockage issues for people coming in for other health issues.

I know that very recently in my riding we opened up the Sobering and Assessment Centre. It would be the place where police could take somebody who couldn't go home or didn't have a place to go, who was under the influence, but could receive some of the services. It has only been open for a couple of weeks, but I'm wondering if the minister can let me know what the initial indications are from the centre as to the types of people they're seeing and how she sees it filling a gap in an urban centre where there is a downtown core. I'm wondering if she can start off with that particular service.

Hon. S. Brice: The member, of course, references the Vancouver Island health authority. They clearly have put considerable energy and financial resources into putting together a broad-based holistic mental health and addictions service plan for the area. They will be, obviously, looking to the whole Island to add to the range of options. But in the Victoria area, as the member mentions, out of the $6.47 million that is going to the mental health renewal initiative on Vancouver Island, there have been some very good programs here in the capital region.

It is a partnership — obviously the Vancouver Island health authority, the local police and many community agencies working together — and they've really hit on some of the platforms of what is a full range of services. They've provided a respite support program for mental health family care home providers and other caregivers. As the member points out, the Sobering and Assessment Centre has just recently opened. It is too early for me to have any meaningful data to pass to the member, but I will say that anecdotally I have heard from those who work with folks on the street that this has become another good opportunity for safe care for people who are needing such a facility.

The acute care groundbreaking for a new psychiatric emergency response unit at the Royal Jubilee Hospital has been embraced by the entire community and driven by the Vancouver Island health authority. In terms of outreach, which is the fourth very important component to a full range of services, we have additional mental health support workers in Victoria to provide psychosocial rehabilitation support activities for people in their homes or other places of daily activity through mobile community outreach.

The initial focus is on those living at risk in the downtown area and those with a lengthy history of mental illness and/or substance misuse.

Finally, housing, which of course is an absolute cornerstone to a solid mental health and addictions service delivery model. There are more housing options for those with mental illness. There are 12 supported apartments up-Island and 21 here in Victoria at the Blackwood house for adults with serious and persistent mental illness. Certainly, Vancouver Island health authority, working with other stakeholders in this area, is well on its way to providing a good, comprehensive, solid plethora of services for those with mental illness and addiction issues.

J. MacPhail: In the January 26, 2004, letter from the Premier to the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services, he gives her the assignment to continue to work on the ministry service plan, which includes: "…in concert with local governments, develop an integrated mental health and addiction service system." What is meant by "in concert with local governments"?

Hon. S. Brice: The issue of mental health and addictions is a community issue. Unlike times past, when these issues were taken and dealt with institutionally, efforts are being made to have them dealt with within the community. The UBCM, the spokesbody for local government, has come to the leadership council — the leadership council is made up of the CEOs of all the health authorities — and developed a relationship. They have made a commitment to work together on these issues. Certainly, the Premier has flagged this as an issue where he wants an even greater relationship between the health care providers and the local communities.

We are currently putting together a framework for addictions services. There will be an opportunity to take this to UBCM, to their health committee, and to hear back from them how they see that these programs can best be delivered at the community level.

The sobering centre in Victoria, for instance, is a great example of the mayor and council identifying a gap in services, working closely with the local health authority, coming together with a solution and meeting the need at the community level. There are also some very good communications and working relationships occurring in Surrey, where the city council and the health authorities have been dealing with the issue of methadone and how to deal with that very important issue at their local community level.

So there will be formalized structures, where it is between UBCM, their health committee and perhaps

the leaders council. There will be other less formal relationships that are already beginning. They'll be nurtured. Certainly, every opportunity that I get, I will be using the resources in my office to encourage the maximum consultation between those two bodies.

J. MacPhail: I want to ask the minister to offer assurances that this isn't about downloading of costs onto local governments. In these community plans, which everybody supports, services delivered at the community level are often the best services — not always, but often the best. If it is a service that should be funded out of the provincial government, is the provincial government going to continue to fund those services? Or is there discussion about where the local governments will be forced to pick up services that are no longer funded by the provincial government?

Hon. S. Brice: No. It is definitely not about downloading. There is a crossover of services, because obviously both entities are serving the same public. In the example of housing, for instance, oftentimes the role that the community, the municipal level of government, can play is in helping communities accept some of the housing proposals that are for the hard-to-house. Sometimes a NIMBY syndrome in a community makes it difficult for health care providers to bring in the kind of housing that is so critical to ensuring that those suffering from a mental illness get a good chance to have a healthy life. That's a key role the local government can play.

In policing, the relationship between the health authority and those who provide the policing in a community…. It didn't just start now; it has been growing more and more. Local governments have realized that community liaison, school liaison officers…. The jurisdictions don't have defined lines. There is a flow between the entities.

Certainly, providing things like recreation centres and libraries, encouraging healthy lifestyles — all of those things that go to building healthy, independent citizens — are all really a part of mental wellness and something that the local communities are very vitally involved in. All we are saying is let's maximize this joint interest in the local residents and, wherever possible, work together and oftentimes creatively come up with solutions that didn't exist before.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I asked about downloading is because the minister has brought up housing for the mentally ill several times. She was forced to admit under questioning by the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine that in certain areas of the province, when she creates housing for the mentally ill, it is at the expense of other health care beds, extended care beds — for instance, the Bulkley Lodge. I think she said nine rooms were going to be renovated for the mentally ill. Yeah, but they're not nine new rooms. Those are nine rooms that will be taken from the older people, the seniors there who require nursing care, extended care coverage.

We know this government has turned the B.C. Housing Management Commission — which was the group that used to build housing for low-income families, for the disabled, for the mentally ill — into an assisted-living housing corporation to make up for their broken promise around providing intermediate and extended care nursing home beds.

B.C. Housing Management Commission isn't building any beds for the mentally ill, and here's the effect it is having on my community, Vancouver. I know the minister will say there is no proof of this. Well, the Vancouver Sun just did a huge series on the homeless in Vancouver, and they report that in the last two years the number of homeless on the streets has doubled. Those are statistical studies, very accurate statistical studies. Homelessness has doubled, and four out of ten homeless are mentally ill.

There are 637 people waiting to get onto the list of 1,300 units of social housing in the lower mainland. There is no more social housing being built. There are assisted-living units for seniors being built, but not homes for the mentally ill. What's the minister's plan to do with that?

Hon. S. Brice: I'm just pulling together a couple of statistics here to respond to the member, to give her as much information as I can.

B.C. leads the country in social housing, and this year we are spending $153 million. It is B.C.'s highest budget in housing yet. The government funds….

The Chair: Members, if we can please refer our comments through the Chair. Thank you.

Hon. S. Brice: There are 700 shelter beds being funded and 200 extra beds during the cold wet months. As the member points out, homelessness in some parts of the province is a very, very serious issue.

We have integrated addiction services with mental health to provide a coordinated system of services, to stop people from being excluded. Those people with chronic mental illness and other frail conditions are of absolute importance to the Ministry of Health Services and to the health authorities. The authorities do provide a range of supported housing and residential care for people with serious mental and substance use disorders, and they've established strong links with B.C. Housing, the non-profit housing sector and private landlords to secure access to safe, secure and affordable housing.

There are six distinct types of housing related to services available in B.C. for people with serious mental illness and/or with substance use disorders. I would just like to put those into the record. There is mental health residential care. There are mental health family care homes. There are residential addictions

treatment facilities, supported recovery facilities, mental health supported housing and emergency hostels.

J. MacPhail: None of which has been expanded by this government, unless it is taking money from Peter to pay Paul. The number of homeless has doubled in Vancouver alone. In Surrey it is on the increase. In towns like Kelowna it is on the increase — Smithers, Prince George. And four out of ten homeless are mentally ill.

Tell me this. The B.C. Housing Management Commission used to work with the Ministry of Health to provide residential care — homes, housing — for the mentally ill. What have they done in the last 12 months to expand that? Why has only $20 million of the $138 million on the capital plan for mental health been expended so far? We're almost through the third year of this government.

Hon. S. Brice: It is not accurate to say that nothing has been done, and I would like to give some examples here. In Victoria there is a new apartment project that helps people with mental illness. It is called Blackwood Apartments, and it provides extensive service for people who need support as they move from the acute care system toward independent living. The tenant's level of functioning and degree of recovery will be regularly assessed to ensure the appropriate services are made available at the correct time.

This housing resource, this Victoria resource, will offer its 21 tenants a wide range of supportive services on a continuous basis. These include apartment-style living, medication support, home support, independent living skill assessment, support and assistance in developing skills to prepare meals and shop, social support, rehab planning and support, and referral to community-based services to facilitate movement to more independent living.

I know that at my fingertips here I do have another example from Vancouver for individuals at risk of homelessness and families with low income to have more access to permanent housing. That was the construction of the new Dunsmuir House. That's on Homer Street. I'm sure the member is familiar with that one. It is owned and operated by the Salvation Army, and the development will replace the existing Dunsmuir House for men. It is set to open in the spring of 2004. Dunsmuir House will provide a variety of employment, training and social services to help tenants become more independent. Classrooms and communal spaces will encourage social interaction and help break the cycle of loneliness that many tenants face.

The issue of the capital and the $138 million that is committed. To date $20 million of that has been expended, but a lot more projects are in the planning phase. As you set about to commit to the degree of capital program that has been committed to, a lot of the work in the planning and the land acquisition is at the front end, and the actual rolling out of the projects which have started and have shown to be of great value in the communities that already have them will be soon be expanded. Many more of these will be seen throughout the province as that capital fund is tapped.

J. MacPhail: So far we have 21 beds in Victoria and a proposed project in Vancouver, Dunsmuir House, of which the greater proportion is assumed by the religious order. The government funding has been cut back in that area. We're supposed to — what — wait for the other $118 million in capital funds that the former minister of state used to stand up every day and talk about when asked a question? It's right here in the New Era document update.

Funny — that police raid isn't in the New Era update. Here it says: "…dedicated $138 million in funding for new facilities, including new mental health centres now open in Coquitlam, Victoria, Prince George and Kamloops." I guess that's the $20 million. Maybe the minister could list the projects that are going to have the other $118 million expended in the next year.

Hon. S. Brice: The number of units that are completed or about to be opened is extensive. However, I feel the need to elaborate on it because it's important, and it's important to get it into the record.

Vancouver Island health authority in Campbell River, completed '01-02, six units; Chilliwack supportive housing, two units, completed '03-04 and '01-02; Canadian Mental Health Association in Horsefly, completed '01-02; New Opportunities for Women in Kelowna, completed '03-04; NOW Canada Society in Kelowna, completed '02-03; Nechako Valley Community Services Society, Nechako Valley, completed '01-02; Nelson District Community Resources Society in Nelson — two projects there, both completed in '01-02; Cascadia Society for Social Working in North Vancouver, completed '03-04; Community Friendship Circle Society, Port Hardy, completed '01-02; association advocating for women and children in Prince George, '01-02; Vancouver coastal health authority, Squamish, Powell River, '01-02; South Fraser Community Services Society in Surrey, '03-04; city of Vancouver in Vancouver, '02-03; St. James Community Service Society in the New World Hotels in Vancouver, '01-02; Vancouver Resources Society, '02-03; Cool Aid Society in Victoria, '01-02; and 178 under development in North Vancouver, Surrey, Vancouver and Victoria.

There are 784 more housing units completed and another 173 under construction. The cities where these are, are Kamloops, Kelowna, Kimberley, Langley, Nanaimo, New Westminster, Penticton, Prince George, Surrey and Vancouver, Vernon, Nanaimo and, again, Vancouver. The completion date ranges from September '04 to January '06.

J. MacPhail: The vast majority of the list the minister read off was completed '01-02. Guess what. They were planned, paid for and constructed under the previous government. It's embarrassing that the minister

The Chair: Members, can we allow the Leader of the Opposition to complete her question.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear. Any project completed in '01-02 was to the full credit of the previous government — full stop. Let me ask about the units that this government has planned for, paid for and constructed — this government and this government alone.

Hon. S. Brice: The member asks for projects completed and underway put into the record here. In Kamloops — Royal Inland, 44-bed acute tertiary mental health underway, completion by May of 2005. Kamloops — Overlander, 20 beds completed. Cranbrook — Green Memorial Home, seven beds completed. Vernon — five-bed residential home underway. Vernon — Polson, five beds underway. Trail — Harbour House, three beds and six opening next week. Prince George — Iris House, ten-bed expansion complete. Terrace — Seven Sisters 20-bed residential adult under construction. Smithers — Bulkley Valley, 14-bed psychogeriatric renovation underway. Fort St. John — North Peace Care Centre, eight-bed psychogeriatric renovation underway.

All of the other health authority projects are in the pre-planning stage. As I mentioned previously to the member, $138 million is committed, and so far $20 million has been expended. A lot of the other projects are in the planning and land acquisition phase. Very shortly we will be moving on to the underway stage.

J. MacPhail: By the minister's own admission, fewer than 100 beds added to the system. Some are underway. Some are part of the Riverview downsizing, so they're not net beds added to the system at all. The 44 in Kamloops…. It's the regional facility for the downsizing of Riverview. Fewer than 100 beds added, and those cabinet ministers like to say what a great job they're doing. Fewer than 100 beds even planned for, let alone opened. We have double the number of homeless in Vancouver alone — 600 people, of which 40 percent are mentally ill.

Is the minister committing that the full $138 million will be spent by April 17, 2005, when the election is called?

Hon. S. Brice: The amount of activity that is going on in this area is significant. Unlike times past where everybody who had a serious mental illness was institutionalized, now the philosophy and way of dealing with this is to have a wider range of options. Yes, there have been 100 beds added, and that is a good thing. But as well, there have been 229 supported-housing units, and there are 178 other beds under construction — 507 in total. We are very proud of that. That has been working in partnership to best meet the needs of the clients — a wide range of options.

The question about the $138 million…. The commitment is made to have $138 million dedicated to the completion of this by '07.

J. MacPhail: I can understand why you would say '07, because in your first three years of office you have only spent $20 million of the $138 million. It is all very well and good for governments to throw around commitments; it's the delivery that people are concerned about. What is the wait-list provincewide for people with mental illnesses waiting for housing?

Hon. S. Brice: The number of mental health beds…. The member asks about a waiting list. There isn't a waiting list per se. I will tell the member that the health authorities do provide a wide range of supported-housing residential care for people with serious mental and substance use disorders. At a later point in estimates the member may wish to canvass my colleague the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services on more detail about housing. But to focus on what the health authorities provide, they have established strong links with B.C. Housing, the non-profit housing sector and private landlords to secure access to safe, secure and affordable housing.

There are six distinct types of housing. There is the mental health residential, mental health family care homes, residential addiction treatment facilities, supported-recovery facilities, mental health supported housing and emergency hostels. In B.C. we have 1,500 mental health residential care beds. We have 125 mental health family care home beds, 300 residential addiction treatment facility beds, 350 supported-recovery facility beds, and there are approximately 2,200 clients receiving ongoing support through the supported independent living program. There are also supported hotels, approximately 150 spaces in four facilities: Hampton Hotel, Portland Hotel, Princess Rooms and Jubilee Rooms in Vancouver. For most of the residents, the provision of supported services is long term.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of State for Mental Health isn't aware of any wait-lists? Who does coordinate the wait-lists for mental health services? Is that a regional health authority issue? If so, can the minister tell me what health authorities — besides my own, the Vancouver coastal health authority — have cut funding to mental health programs? My authority, the Vancouver coastal health authority, cut funding for mental health programs.

Hon. S. Brice: The community-based mental health and addictions services at the health authority level in all five of the health authorities have increased from '01

to '04. In Fraser, interior, northern, Vancouver coastal and Vancouver Island, each year they have increased.

J. MacPhail: I don't know how the minister can make a statement about that. I know my own Vancouver coastal health authority has cut mental health programs. I know that. I don't know under what basis the minister stands up and says that, unless they're doing like they're doing over in Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. They're using child care money to pay for midwives, for instance. That's what they're doing over there. Money that's given by the federal government for early childhood development and child care, this government is using to pay midwives — not exactly what people had in mind. They're using it to pay for the nurse help line. It's not exactly what people had in mind. I'm sure somebody here is saying: "Oh, we can identify that as mental health, so who knows whether it has anything to do with mental health or not."

The minister made quite a statement about mental health services for children. What are the wait-lists for mental health services for children like?

Hon. S. Brice: As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the child and youth mental health services are the responsibility of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. MacPhail: Okay, we're certainly going to be asking those questions of the Minister of Children and Family Development. But is there no integration with the Minister of State for Mental Health? What about when a child is late teens — 16 or 17? What happens?

Hon. S. Brice: There is a good deal of coordination and discussion between myself and the Minister of Children and Family Development, as well as other ministers in government. We recognize that these issues really do cross over ministries. The former Minister of State for Mental Health was very involved in helping with the development of the child and youth mental health plan. I certainly will be having ongoing discussions. We have a shared interest, obviously, in the outcomes.

Early intervention means healthier individuals who become healthier adults. The member may have heard, as an example, an announcement last week of a new program that the Ministry of Children and Family Development launched, called the friends program in the school system. It's to help children identify cues for when they need help with coping skills. It's integrating education, health and making for stronger kids, so they will become healthier adults. Indeed, there is a lot of crossover between those two ministries.

J. MacPhail: Yes. It's a sad day today, when I might note that at the same time the government is doing this program, they're cutting the funding for the anti-bullying programs. It's very sad today that the government made a big deal out of some champions against bullying, a brave family, but the anti-bullying program funding has been cut across the board. The schools in my riding and in the community in which I live are being directly affected by that, and it's getting worse. Every day it's getting worse. There are no programs…. I shouldn't say there are no programs, but the programs to educate about bullying, a lot of which leads to mental health issues on both sides, the bully and the bullied…. The tools that educators and parents have available to them to deal with bullying have decreased every year under this government and have almost disappeared now.

In terms of the advocacy, what funding does the minister provide for mental health advocacy?

Hon. S. Brice: The provincial funding for mental health and addictions information, education and advocacy, which we do with our partners, who are absolutely focused and committed to their cause — the Canadian Mental Health Association, B.C. Schizophrenia Society, Anxiety Disorders Association of B.C., Mood Disorders Association of B.C., Association for Awareness and Networking around Disordered Eating and the Kaiser Foundation…. The province commits $1.6 million for that. Of those partners, each receives $120,000 in sort of base funding, and then they propose projects. From within the partners group they determine how the additional dollars are to be expended.

J. MacPhail: In the fall of this year, in the prebudget consultation tour of the legislative Committee on Finance, the Schizophrenia Society made a presentation in the Okanagan that their funding was about to be cut. Was it?

Hon. S. Brice: The Schizophrenia Society, which of course is a very highly respected partner in the provincial funding group of partners that we work with, was a part of the decision, informed by the letter here. I'll just read from it. It's to the president of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society. I don't have a date on this; perhaps somebody can get that for me.

This is one of the paragraphs: "I'd like to clarify for you the process that has been occurring over the past year and a half to provide a coordinated approach to the development and dissemination of evidence-based, quality and timely information to British Columbians in a standard manner. BCSS has been an active participant in all discussions and planning that have occurred, and I regret that you have not received regular updates in the process." There must have been some communication glitch there.

The Schizophrenia Society, as I said, like all other partners, receives $120,000 in base funding. They are certainly encouraged, at liberty and open — and I certainly hope will take advantage — to put other proposals together to the group who makes a decision about where best for these additional dollars to go. There is $1.694 million for the group to avail themselves of so

that there is less duplication, more integration and a better chance to get the message out. Certainly, the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, I have no doubt, will have some projects and some plans that they will be bringing forward in order to access that funding source.

J. MacPhail: Let me repeat my question: has or will the B.C. Schizophrenia Society had or have their funding cut?

Hon. S. Brice: In the process of redesigning the way the money is spent, most of the partners had a change. The B.C. Schizophrenia Society did have a reduction in the base funding. They have an increase in the amount of money available to them for the projects that they feel will advance the issues important to their society.

J. MacPhail: Well, one is a cut to their base funding, and the other is access to a pool of money that everybody has to compete for. What was the cut to the funding for the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, please?

Hon. S. Brice: Prior to the B.C. Partners, the Canadian Mental Health Association had $600,000. Now they've got the base funding. The B.C. Schizophrenia Society had $330,000. Now they have the base. The Anxiety Disorders Association had only $100,000. Now theirs is increased to get the same base of $120,000. The Mood Disorders Association had $242,000 and now has $120,000. The Association for Awareness and Networking around Disordered Eating went from $80,000 up to $120,000. The Kaiser Foundation went from $160,000 to $120,000.

There is an increase in the total funding. Prior to the B.C. Partners program, the total expenditure was $1.512 million. Now, with the B.C. Partners, it is $1.694 million. It is an increase. Each of the partners has the same base funding, and they now have access to a larger pool of money to do targeted projects in a coordinated way.

J. MacPhail: Well, I know the minister likes to spin as much as she possibly can about when a cut isn't a cut. The Liberal government doesn't like to ever admit when they've cut something.

Base funding is core funding for ongoing advocacy and services to families, those families who look after people, and offers support for their family or their friends with mental illness. It's what keeps them stable. What this government has said is: "We're going to slash the heck out of your core funding — and oh, by the way, bid amongst these other people for project money." It's not what the community advocates wanted, it's not what they asked for, and it's not what's good for making community services the right way to go.

The minister talks about how in the old days we institutionalized people and now we offer them community services. Well, it turns out that the community services funding has been slashed.

What's happening with the Riverview downsizing plan? Riverview, for those who may not know in the public, is the psychiatric institution that has been downsized over the past 15 years.

Hon. S. Brice: I apologize to the member. I was distracted. Would she give me the focused question again? Sorry.

J. MacPhail: We were talking about community services, and I asked for an update on the Riverview downsizing project. For those who may not know in the audience, Riverview Hospital was a psychiatric hospital that has been in the process of being downsized over the last — well, that I'm aware of — 15 years.

Hon. S. Brice: As the member points out, the Riverview redevelopment project has been underway for some time. I think everyone associated with this client group is excited about the potential. The Ministry of Health Services has committed over five years to the redevelopment and enhancement of this provincial tertiary mental health service.

The Riverview Hospital redevelopment project steering committee is responsible for guiding the redevelopment of tertiary and mental health services by '07-08, and the transition planning committees are in place within each geographic health authority to oversee the development of the new facilities and plan for the transfer of the patients.

The activity to date. I have read some of that into the record previously, but I think it will be good to do it here. Almost 75 patients have been transferred from the old and outdated facilities at Riverview to three new tertiary psychiatric centres recently opened in communities across the province. As we know, there are others opening even as early as next week. I mentioned before, of course, the Seven Oaks near Victoria on Vancouver Island. It opened 24 new specialized mental health beds. Iris House opened with ten beds in Prince George in April of '02 and expanded it in April of '03. As well, there's the new South Hills Tertiary Psychiatric Rehabilitation Centre in Kamloops. It opened 40 new beds.

Certainly, there is considerable work yet to be done. The health authorities are working on that, identifying land and resources. I fully expect that very shortly we'll be hearing about other phases of this redevelopment.

The Chair: Member, one second. One of the members would like to make an introduction.

R. Masi: It's my pleasure to introduce, from Union Bay Elementary Shool, 50 grades 5 and 6 students accompanied by six adults, along with their teacher, Mr. Morrison. Would the House please make them all welcome.

J. MacPhail: I have the two bulletins from…. Let me just see whether there's…. Oh yeah, there are more bulletins here. The Riverview redesign project. It's my understanding that the Vancouver coastal health authority is still in charge of the redesign project.

Hon. S. Brice: That is the responsibility of the provincial health services authority.

J. MacPhail: Okay. What role does the Vancouver coastal health authority play in it? My bulletins are from them.

Hon. S. Brice: Every health authority has a role to play in this, because as the community that these folks are returning to, the health authority has the responsibility to design facilities that will meet the needs of the patients who are being moved as a result of the Riverview redevelopment.

The Vancouver health authority will be responsible for and actually be receiving 209 beds as a result of the Riverview redevelopment.

J. MacPhail: Okay. If it's the provincial health services authority, what consultation information system have they got set up with the families of residents of Riverview Hospital and the residents themselves?

Hon. S. Brice: I'm going to go at the answer two-pronged, if I could. For the individuals who will be returning to the community through the redevelopment project, each individual client will have a care plan, which will involve their family and the receiving community and facility. Certainly, built into it is a very big expectation that the transition should be one that is easy for the clients and supportive of the families.

The member may be referring to the Access program, which is another sort of aspect of this, and it's a highly successful initiative designed to support patient goals of community reintegration. This initiative provided enhanced funding to support the discharge of patients from Riverview who were ready to leave hospital but continue to require mental health services and supports.

The Ministry of Health Services in total provided $4.050 million of annualized funding to place up to 125 patients under the Access project for the '03-04 fiscal year. Working with Fraser health and Vancouver coastal health authorities, Riverview Hospital has successfully discharged 133 patients to enhanced community placements as of February 2004, and planning is underway to discharge another 15 patients under the Access program by the end of March '04.

Fraser health authority and the Vancouver coastal health authority have used Access funding to develop new and expand existing mental health resources available in the community. These include creating new beds in residential facilities, increasing the number of semi-independent living placements, adding new outreach workers, increasing rehab staff and case managers, and increasing the number of support workers available to assist patients.

While it's not unusual for some Riverview patients to require readmission within the first year of discharge, patients discharged under the Access project have a readmission rate of only 12 percent in the first year. When compared to an average readmission rate of 25 percent for patients regularly discharged, I think by all accounts this can signal good health outcomes.

J. MacPhail: What happened to the Willow Clinic that was at the old Woodlands site and converted to a mental health community support clinic? What's its status?

Hon. S. Brice: The Willow is a Ministry of Children and Family Development program, so I would leave the member to put the questions when those estimates are on the floor.

J. MacPhail: Why? I thought it was a community clinic to support the people with mental health issues. Is it dealing with children? I mean, I'm wondering why I can't ask questions about it. It's an adult facility, as far as I remember.

Hon. S. Brice: The Willow Clinic is the responsibility of MCFD, so I certainly would want the member to get the most up-to-date information through those estimates. But I can tell the member that it has provided specialized assessment and care services for clients with IQ under 70 with a mental disorder. There we've got that dual diagnosis. Plans for closure of Willow Clinic are being implemented, but I don't have the up-to-date statistics on that. I would encourage you to put those to the minister when the estimates are up for MCFD.

J. MacPhail: Well, it is a community approach for people with dual diagnoses, and I was hoping the minister would be able to tell me it isn't being closed. We'll be asking those questions of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I want to ask a couple of questions about the indicators and the performance measures in the service plan, then addiction services questions and then perhaps some about the downtown east side, but that will probably be under the addiction services. Then that's it for me, Mr. Chair, on the Minister of State for Mental Health estimates.

I'm looking at page 11 of the service plan '02-03, '04-05. Was there an updated service plan for mental health indicators? No. Okay. Anyway, I'll just ask my questions, and the minister can tell me whether they've changed or not. The mental health indicators. Now, I spent quite a bit of time on this with the former Minister of State for Mental Health, because the indicators have no baseline. For instance, it says: "Mental health

indicators. Improved continuity of care measured by the proportion of persons hospitalized for a mental health diagnosis who receive community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge." I spent a lot of time on this with the former minister, because the target for '02-03 was a 3 percent increase. And I would say: a 3 percent increase of what? There was no baseline. Anyway, can the minister update me on the success of meeting those performance targets?

Hon. S. Brice: The information that the member refers to is part of the mental health care reform package, which you will find in the performance agreements, and those are on the webpage to give you the specifics. The breakout, looking at these days as a percent of hospital in-patient days, ages 15 to 64, hospitalized for mental health diagnosis in B.C. — we've got the figures for '02-03. They're for examination, and all but one of the health authorities have met the target.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm looking at the indicator 4(a) that says: "Improved continuity of care measured by the proportion of persons hospitalized for a mental health diagnosis who receive community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge." Is that the target that the minister is saying all but one have met — of a 3 percent increase?

Hon. S. Brice: On that same page, under "Percent of mental health clients receiving community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge from hospital, " in B.C. the target was achieved across the province — 72.3 percent.

J. MacPhail: I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. It may be that I have — because I'm pleased to get this information….

J. MacPhail: I'm on the service plan, but it's the service plan of '02-03, '04-05, dated February '02. I hope it's the same. I'm on page 11 of that. It's the mental health indicators. Perhaps the minister can just read her mental health indicator and the changes and the targets into the record — what the indicator was and what the achievement was.

Hon. S. Brice: Just a clarification, if I could, from the member. The service plan that was filed with these estimates is '04-05 to '06-07, and I'm under the impression here, by looking at these documents, that perhaps the member is referring to the '02 to '05. If that is the case, would the member wish a copy of the current service plan?

J. MacPhail: No, that's okay. I have a copy, just not the one here. I assume, because performance measures are supposed to remain consistent so that we can see the change, that the newest report has the same indicators. I would ask the minister to read the results of the performance measures into the record.

Hon. S. Brice: In the '02-03 annual service plan report, under "Improved continuity of care measured by the proportion of persons hospitalized for a mental health diagnosis who receive community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge," the target was 3 percent — and achieved, 3 percent.

J. MacPhail: Okay. This was the discussion I had with the former minister of state. How do you know that — 3 percent of what? You see, I could never find out what the baseline was. The minister clearly knows the baseline, because she says she has achieved it. What percentage of it was before '02-03 that led to the 3 percent increase?

Hon. S. Brice: There are a number of documents here, and I want to be absolutely certain that the information I give the member is accurate. I'm going to suggest that I'll have the information pulled together and make every effort to get it to her as soon as possible.

J. MacPhail: That's fine. I would like as much information as the minister of state has on achieving the mental health indicators in the most recent service plan, and that's fine. Again, I think the minister does understand that I need to understand how the minister of state reached those conclusions.

I'm sorry; my staff will kill me. I did have the service plan behind that service plan, Mr. Chair. My apologies to staff — that I look like I'm ill-prepared. They have it here. Anyway, that's fine. The minister can get that to me.

My last area that I'll spend a bit of time on now is addiction services. Can the minister break out the funding specific for addiction services? She gave me a global number of $622 million spent last year on mental health and addiction services. Does no one break out the addiction services funding?

Hon. S. Brice: The addiction figures are not extrapolated. The mental health and addiction services are combined, and rolled out in '03-04 to the authorities, it was $339,538,756 and an additional $147 million-plus to the PHSA. The program development is so integrated in terms of mental health and addictions that the money is given globally to the health authorities, and they design the programs best to meet the clients that they serve.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. The $147 million to the PHSA, provincial health services authority — what's that for?

Hon. S. Brice: I know Riverview certainly takes up the vast majority of that budget.

J. MacPhail: I was just confused. I was looking for a figure that added up to $622 million, because that's what I was told earlier.

Hon. S. Brice: The $622 million includes the acute care, the community based — all the programs. The figure of $339 million that I gave you was just the community-based mental health and addiction services.

J. MacPhail: I have many questions about youth addiction. Is that still the responsibility of the Minister of Children and Family Development?

Hon. S. Brice: That falls to the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services.

J. MacPhail: Well, there has been quite a series…. I'm sure the minister is aware of this, particularly in the lower mainland — the lack of addiction services for youth. I'm particularly troubled about it with the closure of the safe-house beds that affect my community — youth safe-house beds operated by the Urban Native Youth Association — because they were basically beds that dealt with addicted youth. Almost all of the youth that ended up there at the safe house were addicted as well. That's what I know is a cut to addiction services.

Perhaps the minister can outline what addiction services there are for youth today.

Hon. S. Brice: The addictions residential capacity funded by regional health authorities — those are the numbers I'll give you. In the Fraser health authority there is a total of 16 youth and three youth detox. The interior health authority have listed their total, with an asterisk confirming their youth residents, so that's not been broken out yet by the interior health authority for our purposes. In the northern health authority there are six youth and nine youth detox. In Vancouver coastal there are eight youth and nine youth detox. In Vancouver Island health authority there are two youth, ten youth detox and one youth care home.

I just would make a note that the youth with addiction issues who have come into conflict with the law come under the responsibility of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, so they're not included in those statistics.

J. MacPhail: Well, what plans does the Minister of State for Mental Health have to expand services for addicted youth? I mean, that's not a great record. According to this government, the issue of drug use is a huge issue. I just heard a member do a member's statement this afternoon on grow ops. We know that there's a huge problem with crystal meth use. Alcohol use is on the rise amongst young people. So what are the plans for greater investment in addiction services for youth?

Hon. S. Brice: Just to clarify my previous statement. Remember that, along with the publicly funded youth and detox and treatment facilities, there do exist some other privately funded agencies and organizations, as well, to add to the mix.

To the member's question, obviously youth issues around addictions — a hugely important public issue for all of us in this House as we look and see what is out there and what is coming in. We know that we have to work as early as possible for early intervention and to build a whole range of services for youth and addiction issues. As the member would know, it doesn't make sense to just simply fund more detox facilities, because it becomes a revolving door. That's why, working with the health authorities, their responsibility is to look at the community. We have combined mental health and addictions, because we do recognize that of the individuals arriving at a community with mental health issues, 70 percent have an addiction issue as well.

The building blocks are in place. The health authorities are having to work with their communities. Do I think we are there? Absolutely not. Is there a lot to do? There certainly is — and lots of people to be involved. The issue of youth and addiction is an extremely serious community issue, and there will be a lot of focus put on youth and addictions for my time in this office.

J. MacPhail: What services is the minister planning for aboriginal youth who are addicted?

Hon. S. Brice: We are currently working on the addictions framework. When that framework is complete, I will be taking it to each of the health authorities in order for them to have a framework upon which to build their programs.

Every health authority is required to have an aboriginal plan. Certainly, a big priority in that is aboriginal issues around mental health and addictions. The public health officer, of course, chooses to identify health issues for aboriginal youth as something that requires constant attention in this province. Some of the efforts toward the aboriginal tobacco strategy have been quite successful. The ministry has provided $9.66 million to health authorities to support aboriginal community capacity-building and direct services. There's a total of $540,000 in aboriginal mental health funding for the nine aboriginal mental health liaison workers in British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Does this minister have any input into the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. S. Brice: We are a strong partner in that agreement. Currently, the CEO of the Vancouver coastal health authority sits on the committee, along with an ADM from the Ministry of Health Services.

J. MacPhail: What other ministries of the provincial government are at the table at the Vancouver agreement?

Hon. S. Brice: The ministries represented are Health Services; Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; and Human Resources. Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services is the lead on that.

J. MacPhail: I wanted to make sure that my colleague the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant would have an opportunity to ask questions on that. She will in the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

The member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine asked some questions about the safe injection site in the downtown east side of Vancouver. I appreciate the minister's answers and recollect them. Perhaps she could answer a question about whether there are any other discussions going on about providing similar services elsewhere in the province.

Hon. S. Brice: The steering committee has included representatives from the Fraser, Vancouver Island and Vancouver coastal health authorities and also the provincial health services authority. They recognize that the supervised injection site is a pilot project. It will be evaluated, so they obviously will be extremely interested to see the results of that.

I would be thinking, in the interim, that a number of communities are starting to have some discussions. Obviously, community acceptance is a major issue when it comes to placing some of these services within communities. At this point, there are undoubtedly informal discussions going on. Everyone will be awaiting the results of the three-year pilot before any decisions are taken, I'm sure.

J. MacPhail: What's the arrangement for funding the safe injection site in Vancouver, and for how long?

Hon. S. Brice: The supervised injection site. Of course, the province put $1.2 million into capital, and the Premier committed to a $2 million one-time transition funding to ensure the project could get up and running. The Vancouver coastal health authority is currently looking at all of its contracts and agreements and looking at its whole range of addiction services to seek ways to find sustainable funding for that project.

J. MacPhail: I want to ask my final questions, which are going to be about smoking — tobacco addiction. I do want to urge the minister in her commitment, which I can only take as sincere, to addiction services for youth. There are a range of services needed, gaps that need to be filled. They've been long-term gaps — I make no bones about that — but it certainly doesn't seem sensible at all to cut what services are available now. The continuum of services also means that addicted youth sometimes show up as children who require safe housing. It just doesn't make any sense to eliminate residential safe housing, let alone any other services that would embrace addicted youth.

My last questions are in the area of the tobacco reduction strategy. Could I please have an update in terms of money spent on tobacco use reduction and an update on the court case of suing the tobacco companies by the provincial government?

Hon. S. Brice: In the budget for tobacco issues $3.5 million in fiscal '03-04 was spent, and that includes funding to health authorities of $1.67 million. There was an additional $675,000 provided by Health Canada to the ministry to fund the health authorities for enforcement of the federal Tobacco Act. Any dollars that would be dedicated to the litigation won't be disclosed, obviously, until that action concludes. The appeal has been heard in the B.C. Court of Appeal, and a decision is expected very shortly.

J. MacPhail: What are the smoking rates? What's the trend in British Columbia, please?

Hon. S. Brice: In this area, because of many years of combined effort from a number of levels of government, community agencies and such, we have made good headway in this province. In every category we are well ahead of the Canadian averages. In 15 years-plus we're at 16 percent in B.C., with a Canadian average of 21 percent. In the 15-to-19-year-old group, it's 15 percent. The Canadian average is 22 percent.

The 20-to-24-year age group…. Here's where there have been some concerns, because that group is actually smoking at a rate of 22 percent in our province — which has, you know, really very low smoking percentages. Officials within the ministry are looking at it to try and see just exactly what's impacting on that. Even that 22 percent is well under the Canadian average of 31 percent in that category. In those 25 years and older, B.C. is 16 percent, with a Canadian average of 20 percent.

J. MacPhail: I wasn't aware of that 20-to-24-year statistic. I'm pleased that the ministry is looking at that, and it's wonderful to see the trend lines down in every other category. Sorry, I did say last question, but I just have one other question. Is gambling addiction part of this minister's responsibility?

J. MacPhail: Thank you. I will ask my questions then. I'm going to yield the floor to my colleague from Victoria–Beacon Hill.

I would like to thank both the Minister of State for Mental Health and the Minister of Health Services, and particular thanks to all of the staff at the Ministry of Health Services for all of their efforts — a very big thank-you.

J. Bray: I'd like to pick up with the minister where I was earlier. My first question had been around the programs and services that the city of Victoria, the Vancouver Island health authority and the city of Victoria police were trying to coordinate to deal with issues impacting downtown — people with concurrent disorders — and trying to provide a coordinated approach to all those things. My first question was around the sobering assessment centre. The minister not only provided me a good answer to that question but actually outlined some of the other solutions being put in place. I have some more specific questions based on her answer.

One of the issues she raised was the start of construction for the Royal Jubilee emergency psychiatric facility. My understanding of the concept of this facility is that the Eric Martin Pavilion in Royal Jubilee served as sort of a tertiary centre for people with severe or acute mental health issues. The feedback, in my understanding, that came back was that the general emergency room was not appropriate for people suffering from mental illness who were having an acute break or other symptoms. It was a problem for those patients, but it was also, quite frankly, a problem for some of the other people in the emergency room.

My understanding is that the new facility is really meant to be an adjunct to the emergency room to provide a streamlined, properly staffed entry point for people having these acute mental health issues. Is my understanding correct as to actually what the purpose of that emergency psychiatric facility is for?

Hon. S. Brice: The member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, who has been a big advocate for services for mental health and addiction, is quite right in his assessment of the Royal Jubilee psychiatric emergency department. It will be designed specifically for those who are experiencing an acute episode, a psychotic event and others. These folks need specialized facilities, specialized services and specialized care providers, and this is going to be a fabulous addition to the health care services in this area. It will allow those people who are experiencing a mental health issue to be dealt with appropriately and then be moved quickly on to the next level of wellness.

J. Bray: That certainly is, I think, good news both for the region and, in fact, for Vancouver Island.

Is this a first facility of this type or first design where you're actually creating a separate space for emergency services for people with mental illness in British Columbia? Is this something that's quite common, or are we breaking new ground in British Columbia and Canada with really dedicating services in this up-front fashion for people accessing this acute mental health system?

Hon. S. Brice: The concept of providing special services to those with special needs is not new. There certainly have been programs in the past; Vancouver General had a facility. That was some time ago. Certainly, even though there were very dedicated staff and wonderful attempts, compared to what we'll be able to offer today, it's like night and day. The very contemporary facility that's going to be at the Jubilee will be, by all accounts, cutting edge and no doubt will be looked at elsewhere.

It was, as the member knows, the dream of a number of families who had experienced very sad cases in their family of individuals who had not had good care when they were mentally ill. It drove those families to spearhead some very significant funding through the Greater Victoria Hospitals Foundation that really helped boost that ahead. It is wonderful that those generous donors have come together, along with the health authority. I think this will indeed be a wonderful addition to the health offerings in the capital region.

J. Bray: My final two questions on this particular area. When is the facility anticipated to be opened? Has the Vancouver Island health authority satisfied the minister that they've got the right staffing strategy in place to ensure that when it's projected to be completed, the appropriate staff can be in place to start serving residents of the capital region when it's opened?

Hon. S. Brice: The expected completion date for that is this coming July '04, so it really will be available very shortly for the residents of the member's riding. In terms of the staffing for that facility, the Vancouver Island health authority actually has a very good track record of attracting some pretty dedicated and committed staff. Along with the new facility for medical school training at the University of Victoria, it makes it really quite an attractive offering for those considering coming to this area. I have every confidence that when the facility opens in July 2004, it will be staffed appropriately to maximize the advantage that it will provide.

J. Bray: July — we're certainly looking forward to that. I'd like to thank the minister for her advocacy in helping to get this project going and identifying it as a priority for the region.

Another area that the minister provided information on for me earlier in the afternoon was around one of the identified strategies of getting outreach and getting staff out into the community from the Vancouver Island health authority. My understanding is that we actually have some additional staff on the ground now as a result of some of the additional funding. I'm just wondering if the minister can advise me how many new staff we've got doing outreach in the last year, since January of 2003.

Hon. S. Brice: There are five new mental health workers through this year to this great capital regional area. Their job actually mirrors just exactly what we're trying to accomplish in mental health, which is a very holistic approach. They will be mobile throughout Vic-

toria. It will enable them to go wherever support is needed. Two of the new support workers and two of the current case managers are dedicated to the downtown core as part of a broader health initiative with the city of Victoria and the city police. Their job is to identify both mental health and addiction symptoms and to help develop individual treatment plans.

It may be of interest to know that treatment plans really do cover the whole range — things such as financial management; nutrition; personal effectiveness; interpersonal skills; community integration; health and wellness; and support in clinical planning, including medication and appointments, healthy choices, lifestyle. There's employment, support for involvement and volunteering in the community, personal care, household management, housing support, advocacy — every single skill a person is going to need to be able to integrate well into the broader community.

J. Bray: That's good news for our community and downtown, and I think it's an effective strategy in trying to bridge the access gap for our most vulnerable to actually get into the system. As we've heard earlier on today, there are lots of services in place in southern Vancouver Island for people with mental health or addictions or a dual diagnosis. We are finding that the one gap is that those who are on the street or at risk of being homeless have had the hardest time accessing. Having five additional staff people trained to do outreach should really make a profound difference for individuals who have had trouble in the past accessing the services and getting into what is now becoming a very comprehensive set of services.

My final question that I'd like to canvass with this minister…. As members of this House know, I've raised on several occasions the concept of a wet house, which is a form of housing that acknowledges that someone with chronic alcoholism is not going to be able to — or choose to — go into treatment now and continually either loses their home or housing or is at risk of losing it because of their alcoholism. Most facilities currently do not allow alcohol consumption or those under the influence to actually live there, so alcohol becomes an impediment. The concept of a wet house would actually recognize, for this small core group of chronic alcoholics, that if we provide stable housing for those individuals, it might be a platform that at some future point they could move into accessing treatment through the Victoria Sobering and Assessment Centre, Victoria Detox, the Youth Detox or others.

I'm wondering — and I know the minister is relatively new to this portfolio — whether or not she's had any proposals come forward yet through the Vancouver Island health authority or is prepared to meet with me at future dates to explore this concept further to see if there is an identified need in community support. This might be an area we can move forward on.

That would be my final question. In advance I'd like to thank her for her support for our issues here in Victoria.

Hon. S. Brice: In talking to professionals who deal with addiction issues, a theme is always that the widest range of options is needed to meet the clients where they are. The concept of a wet shelter would, in a range of options, be something that a health authority would want to give some consideration to.

There has been some considerable discussion in the community, some of it sparked by the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill, and there have been some discussions with the Vancouver Island health authority and some of the community groups. It is not known to me just how advanced those discussions are, but I know there is a lot of interest in this particular option. No doubt, with the continued interest from the member, it will find its way further up the discussion agenda of the health authority.

L. Mayencourt: To begin with, I want to congratulate the minister on her new appointment. We're all very proud. I happen to have a couple of constituents who are especially proud — your son and his partner, who live in my riding. Many people in Vancouver-Burrard now know of your good work in this area.

One of the areas I would like to canvass the minister on is the area of addictions. Specifically, what I'm interested in are the crystal meth issues. In my neighbourhood for the last couple of years we've seen a real upsurge in the number of street youth, in the number of people within the gay community and in the number of people even in the straight community who are starting to use crystal meth as a recreational drug. I understand that it's highly addictive, and I also understand that prolonged use of this particular drug can lead to some severe mental disorders.

I wonder if the minister could tell me a little bit about what's being done to deal with some of the treatment issues and even prevention issues around crystal methamphetamine.

Hon. S. Brice: The methamphetamine issue — crystal meth — is a hugely important issue for us to tackle. The member is absolutely correct. Not only are we in the Health ministry concerned, but the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the Minister of Education, the Minister of Human Resources and the Minister of Children and Family Development are all touched by this particular issue.

What is being done? There has been a survey of downtown south youth in your community to get an idea of just exactly the extent of the use. It's physician-led. It's a quantitative and qualitative survey to get as much information so that decisions can be made on the facts. There's a survey of relevant care providers to identify gaps not only in services but also in skill sets to see how we're going to most effectively deal with the fallout from this. There's a literature review of best practices with response to methamphetamine interventions, and this is currently underway. There will be a final report compiling all committees' research, find-

ings and recommendations. There are partnerships developing with other health authorities to exchange information on this, and this response, of course, has got to even be cross-border with our neighbours to the south, who have experience with this drug as well. I even heard on the media today individuals from the United States up here who have had communities with considerable experience with this drug.

There's an application to UBC to research long-term treatment methods for methamphetamine, and there's an application to the Canadian Institute for Health Research to research psychosis and methamphetamine, because the psychosis aspect of this drug makes it particularly dangerous. I had an opportunity about two weeks ago to attend a showing of a film that had been filmed by street youth who were users. It was a film to just show exactly the extent to which their lives are impacted and, indeed, being ruined because of this drug.

There's an application to the National Crime Prevention Centre for public awareness and harm reduction campaigns for youth and families, because even though we feel that everybody knows about this drug, in reality there is not widespread knowledge about just exactly what this drug is and how dangerous it is. I hear stories about this drug actually being given to youth to get them hooked, and then of course they can, you know, carry on. It's relatively inexpensive, even though it has these hideous side effects and total devastation for their lives. The partners in this are the Vancouver coastal health authority, the city of Vancouver, the mayors coalition, agencies and, obviously, a number of ministries from the province.

The next step, and this will be of particular interest to your community, is to release a vision document for citywide consultation. I would expect that would be something that would be coming out in the very near future, and I have no doubt that the member will find himself interested and involved in those consultations.

L. Mayencourt: I'm glad there's an understanding that it's affecting education, that it's affecting the justice system, that it's affecting health — that it's affecting a whole range of ministries. I'm encouraged by that, because I really see this as a major problem in Vancouver-Burrard, and I also see it as a major problem in the province. I was speaking to the member for Peace River South recently, and he said that it's become a problem up in his community as well. We know that it's a problem in Penticton and a variety of other communities — and I think even here in Victoria — so it is a fairly serious problem.

As you mentioned, there's a survey that has been done on street youth in my neighbourhood, and I was shocked to find the percentage of youth that had tried crystal meth within the last two days. It was something like 47 percent, which means almost half the kids on the street right now are surviving on this drug. It's a very serious issue, and I am glad to see that there's a developing partnership between the city of Vancouver, your ministry and others to work on this.

Do you have any information on this application that's before UBC? You mentioned there is…. I think the first bit is that we have a lot of kids that are addicted, and we need to start to find a way to get them off the drugs. My understanding is that the recovery rate — or the success rate, if you will — of bringing people off the drug is very, very low right now, so I'm very interested in that application to UBC. If I could get some sense of where we are on that — does it look likely that it will go through? — those sorts of questions.

Hon. S. Brice: Whether or not the application to the UBC research project will be successful, always think positively. We all hope that it will indeed be something we can work with.

There was a summit held — Methamphetamine Environmental Scan Summit is what it was called — and it was hosted by the Canadian Community Epidemiology Network on Drug Use. The summit resulted in the formation of a coordinating body in Vancouver, the methamphetamine response committee. There are working groups, and they're developing proposals to address the use of crystal meth — prevention and treatment, professional education, first responders and, of course, the justice piece as well.

This is evolving. We're starting to get a body of on-the-ground information. Some of the statistics actually do go back to 1999 on this drug. It's showing that more people are actually coming to the attention of detox and treatment and other resources in the community with amphetamine as a background.

Certainly, more research will have to be done. There is some current practical information, but I think at this point all the professionals are just putting their efforts together to try and get cohesive plans for communities. Obviously, it will take all the partners in the community to put together a plan that will be effective for our kids.

L. Mayencourt: I thank the minister for that answer. I think it's really good. What I'll do is lobby UBC and the National Crime Prevention group to see that something happens.

I have heard of the MARC group, and I've met with one of the physicians, Dr. Ian Martin. He's a great advocate for further research. He's working out of Three Bridges, and he's doing great work. I know a lot of the community has been involved in that, so to see that coming along is a great beacon of hope for those kids that are hooked on this. I'm also glad to hear about the National Crime Prevention Strategy — or the application, at least — to deal with some of the prevention issues, which could tie in very well in our school system and others.

I'm going to move off crystal meth for a moment to an issue of capacity. Although it's not in my riding…. The Strathcona Mental Health Team is located down in

the heart of the downtown east side. This is home to an awful lot of mental health consumers, a lot of people with addiction issues, and what have you. I have visited on a couple of occasions — probably a little more than a couple of occasions — and there's a great guy there by the name of Ralph Buckley, who runs the place.

When I go in there, there is something I observe about it. When I get in that place, I feel like people are stacked on top of each other in that office. The caseload is really, really heavy, and I'm worried about their ability to work with people. When I've talked to some of the workers there, it's almost like they have to cream the people with the most severe problems.

I wonder: what work are you and the Vancouver coastal health authority doing to address some of the capacity problems that exist in the downtown east side for a mental health team like Strathcona?

Hon. S. Brice: Obviously, the Strathcona Mental Health Team is something this particular member knows a good deal about and knows, of course, that they are core to the services in that area. They need support. It's going to be important for us to exactly track the workload to see whether or not they have the supports they need.

As we set about to redesign how health care is delivered, each of the health authorities are reviewing the many contracts they have. Vancouver coastal is particularly good at doing this. I know they're looking at a lot of the contracts they have to see whether or not they're getting the most impact from the dollars expended. I would be thinking that over a period of time they would be looking to see whether or not Strathcona Mental Health Team would be able to have additional supports. I don't know that; I'm not intimately knowledgable about the details of that. I do know how Vancouver coastal is working to make sure that any of the dollars they have go to support the programs that are really meeting the needs of the people such as those who are served through the Strathcona Mental Health Team.

L. Mayencourt: That's encouraging. There's been a vast improvement in the health care overall in the downtown east side in the last few years, so they're working towards it. Maybe I'll take you for a walk. We'll go down there one day and meet Ralph and see the situation. Maybe we can help them along with the work they're doing. It's important.

One of the new health facilities we have there is a supervised injection site. I've heard some talk about the number of overdose interventions, and it's an impressive number. But there are overdoses, and there are overdoses. I think in most people's minds in our community when we talk about overdoses, we're talking about overdoses that result in permanent brain damage or death.

I'm wondering, since the centre has opened, if there has been a reduction in the number of overdose deaths in the city of Vancouver. I know it's only been there a short while, but is there some sort of trend we can look to and say: "Yes, this is working, and it's helping"?

Hon. S. Brice: The supervised injection site, as you know, has only been open since September of 2003, so it certainly is too early to extrapolate any numbers that have any significance in being able to say because of this, then this.

However, there are statistics available about overdose deaths in the city of Vancouver over the years leading up to that time, so there will be some base figures, presumably, for people to deal with. In the year 2001 in the city of Vancouver there were 163 deaths from overdose; in 2002, 49; and in 2003, 53. The site opened in September of 2003, and we don't have available to us here statistics after that.

We do know that the supervised injection site, though, is averaging out at six overdose interventions a week. Whether those interventions would have been serious enough to have ultimately led to a death, we don't know. We can know, though, that it is a good preventive intervention. We can hope those numbers will go down. That, of course, will be an incredibly important piece of the data that ultimately comes as a result of the research as the three years roll out on this project — to see exactly what the statistics are relating to overdoses.

L. Mayencourt: That is an impressive number. That's one a day, basically. If we're only saving one person, one life out of that week, that's pretty significant, so I can support that.

The last question I have is on detox services. What I'm interested in is three things. We have three types of detox now. We have residential detox; we have day-tox, which is a program where people come to a facility, spend the day and go through counselling and what have you; and then we have what's called home detox, which is a fairly new thing in Vancouver.

Can you tell me: do we have more residential detox spaces? How many detox spaces do we have in day-tox, and how many are we anticipating we'll have in home detox?

Hon. S. Brice: Vancouver coastal health authority, of course, has had some tremendous challenges. They've done fantastic work in dealing with some very, very complex health issues. They work with best practices. They are constantly returning to the community, working with partners and working to better outcomes. They've expanded their withdrawal management capacity significantly.

They have indicated that in their recent redesign of services — and this is in Vancouver — for withdrawal management, they have increased the capacity of these services. They've indicated that individuals receiving residential detox will increase from 3,468 up to 3,869. That's an increase of about 400. Individuals receiving home detox will increase from zero up to 900, which is

really incredible. Individuals receiving day-tox services they plan to have remain at 145. Certainly, Vancouver coastal health authority has to be recognized as having very significantly dealt with this issue, which is just a part of one of the very complex health care issues that come before them.

Hon. C. Hansen: I move the committee rise and report resolution of votes 25 and 26 and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until Monday, March 22 at 10 a.m.

J. Kwan: Prior to the lunch break we were talking about the federal government programs. Particularly, we were talking about the early childhood development initiative program and federal dollars that were transferred to the province. We had discovered through these discussions and the annual reports that a significant sum of those dollars has actually not gone into what I would call direct services for children, particularly in the area of child care and early childhood development. Instead, they went into the health care budget line. Although related to children, traditionally and historically those services were funded by the Ministry of Health with their budget, not taking child care dollars to fund these programs.

This, actually, is interesting to note. I was in the big House doing estimates with the Minister of Health and talking about federal transfer dollars for health. The Minister of Health had actually put on record…. He advised that unlike other provinces, the federal dollars that they get…. Other provinces don't necessarily put them all into health care.

Here's a direct quote from the Minister of Health: "What we've said in British Columbia is a commitment that we will allocate every single dollar of increased federal dollar allocation to the health budget in this province, and that is what the Minister of Finance has done." My response to that, of course, is: good on the Minister of Health for taking federal dollars that were dedicated for health and putting those dollars into the health care budget.

The same could not be said here, with this minister. Dollars dedicated for child care have been taken away into other areas, into other line items. In particular, I have great difficulties with the government taking child care dollars, early childhood development dollars, into programs like childhood immunization, for example, or the NurseLine or the HealthGuide. Things like that were traditionally funded by Health and should continue to be funded by Health and not take dollars that the federal government had allocated for child care and early childhood development for these programs.

It's like other ministries, actually. We'll get to it with this minister in a little while, as well, in the area around housing. The federal government allocated dollars for the province to spend moneys in building affordable housing. This government took money away from affordable housing and again moved it into an area of Health called assisted living. As a result of that, there are no more affordable housing programs under this government — affordable housing programs as we know it — to address the homeless community and to enhance affordable housing options for people in British Columbia. Those programs have ended under this government.

It's now all being revamped. Federal dollars dedicated towards those kinds of initiatives have now been revamped into assisted living, into an area of Health. Formerly, assisted-living housing initiatives were funded out of the Ministry of Health's budget. Affordable housing dollars were spent for affordable housing.

Now we have a trend with this government — a trend we had established earlier, where child care dol-

lars, the budget, have gone down consistently under this government. The subsidy dollars have gone down. The child care resources and referral dollars have gone down. The operating budget for child care operators and child care providers has gone down under this government. The overall child care dollars have gone down under this government. The more disturbing trend is that the budget dollars…. Even though they have gone down, the actual spending of those budgeted dollars has gone down as well.

Let me ask the minister this question. In the year '01-02, where the spending has actually been less than the budgeted dollars…. In the area of subsidies, the budgeted dollars were $126.402 million. The actual spending was $119.637 million. What happened to the unspent dollars? Did they go towards paying down the deficit? Did they go back to the general revenues? What happened to those dollars?

Hon. M. Coell: I think what's important for the member to see is that many of these programs, especially this program, are demand driven. We had $119 million worth of demand for a program that we had budgeted $126 million, so that money wasn't spent. It would have lapsed at the end of the year and been returned to other government priorities.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on going and blaming the people who could not access these moneys for the unspent dollars in the area of child care subsidies. Let me ask the minister this question, and I'd like to have the full information on record. What were the criteria for eligibility for a child care subsidy in the year 2000? What were the criteria for eligibility for a subsidy in the year 2001? What changes did this government bring about in the years since this government took office?

Hon. M. Coell: I think this is pretty common knowledge, but in April 2002 the government did readjust the income threshold by $285, and that was the major change at that point.

Hon. M. Coell: I think maybe I didn't say it clearly. We reduced the income threshold by $285.

J. Kwan: I would like the exact amount, please. What was the income threshold for eligibility for a child care subsidy before the change, and what is it after the change?

Hon. M. Coell: I just need a clarification for the threshold. Was it the income level that the member was looking for or the yearly income? It makes a difference.

J. Kwan: Well, I'd like to have both of the numbers, then, if it makes a difference. What I'm trying to get at is this. I know that the income threshold is the key in determining eligibility, but I would like to know all of the differences in the changing of the criteria for eligibility since this government took office.

Hon. M. Coell: I can get all that information, but it will take me a couple of minutes. Could we maybe set this aside and move on to another question within child care?

J. Kwan: Well, I would need that information as we continue on with other questions in this area, but I'll let the ministry staff gather that information. I'll ask another question, which actually may take the ministry some time to gather the information on as well. I'll set aside the subsidy questions for a moment.

While they're looking for that information, let me put this question to the minister. How many people qualified for child care subsidies prior to the change in the criteria, and how many people have qualified for child care subsidies since the change in the criteria? When I say "qualify," I should also add in the caveat: who also applied.

Hon. M. Coell: It was 38,000. In 2002-03 it was approximately 33,000. Since then, your per-month is about 28,000. It's projected to be about 28,000 this year as well.

J. Kwan: Isn't that interesting? In 2001-02 the threshold for eligibility was higher for families, and there were approximately 38,000 children per month applying for child care subsidy. In 2002-03, since the government changed the policy, that had dropped to 33,000 — about 5,000 fewer children or families able to access child care subsidy. Even since that time there was a further drop to 28,000. In total, because of the criteria change, the threshold for eligibility had reduced approximately 10,000 children, 10,000 families, roughly, from accessing child care.

That goes to the point that because the number was higher in terms of families who use the subsidy — approximately 10,000 families higher…. It proves the point that the drop is not a result of lack of need but rather ineligibility imposed by this government because of government changes.

I can tell you, Madam Chair, I know of people who have two working members, working parents, in their family with children, and they're struggling to keep their children in child care because they are no longer eligible for child care subsidies.

I know of families — women particularly, I should say — who had to quit their jobs or they lost their jobs because they couldn't get child care, because they couldn't afford to get child care. I know of single par-

ents who lost their jobs because they weren't eligible to get child care. I know of single parents who told me, in my tour around the province, that as a result of this change they lost their job, but they had enough assets that they did not qualify for income assistance. They were in trouble insofar as being able to meet the needs of their family. And these are single mothers, single parents.

In fact, one woman told me — and I won't use her name or even the location where I met her — that she lost her job because she wasn't qualified for child care subsidies, and as a result of that, because she wasn't qualified for income assistance, she was working at a job that was underground, putting both herself and her children in jeopardy. That is a direct result of the government's policy change in eligibility for child care subsidy. It is not to say that the need is not there. The need is definitely there. It is to say that government changed the policy so that the people who have these needs for child care subsidies are no longer able to access them. That's the trend line under this government.

To add to that, just to put things into perspective, a study was done about women in the workforce, and apparently, women in the workforce have leaped to 71 percent. That is a record high participation rate amongst women according to the new Statistics Canada study. In fact, 71 percent of Canadian women are working in the workforce with children younger than 12, but only 12 percent of those children in that age group are in licensed spaces. That's quite a dramatic set of numbers to show you the number of people who couldn't access licensed space.

I'm not saying every single parent wants to access licensed space, because I do know of parents who have chosen to stay at home — what I call stay-home moms. I do know of people who are in that category, but I also know of people who are working and who could not get proper child care for their children because they couldn't afford it, and I know of women who lost their jobs because they couldn't get child care subsidies.

I would say that is an appalling set of numbers. I thought we should be working towards reducing that gap. Instead, we are going the other way.

The 28,000 and 33,000 number. When the government came in with their new policy to change the criteria for eligibility, therefore making it harder for families to qualify for child care subsidies, what analysis did the government do?

Hon. M. Coell: A couple of things. I'm told by staff that what would have happened is that they would have done a number of modelling exercises around how much budget was going to be placed there to find out what level of threshold could be reached for that budget, and then an estimate was given. That would have been done, probably by staff in the Ministry of Human Resources at that point, and then given as to the budget and the number of people expected to be able to meet that threshold and gain the subsidy.

J. Kwan: I would actually like to get the information from this analysis to show exactly what the projection was from government when they changed the criteria — that they anticipated so many people would actually apply and how much it would cost the government for child care subsidies. To be frank, I find it astounding that the budgeted dollars are underutilized.

Hon. M. Coell: I think it could be said that what we want to do is fine-tune this. I can give an example. In May of 2003 we actually increased the threshold by $100 with the thought that that would bring more people on. We'll continue to do that until we can match the budget to the number of people coming on.

As you can see, traditionally, this budget…. I don't know, if you went back ten years, whether there would have been the same fluctuation in the budget. What we've done, as I said, is to increase the threshold by $100 in May of 2003, expecting that more people would come on. We'll see at the end of this year, when we have our actuals, whether indeed that happened.

J. Kwan: So far, the numbers I've been able to glean from the government show a different trend. That is that under the previous government's administration, the actuals for child care subsidies were actually more than what they were in the budget. That's what we'd been able to get for 2000-01. Since the government took over, the reverse trend is actually true. The actuals are less than what was budgeted.

I would like to know what those numbers are in terms of the projections from government when they did the policy to change the eligibility criteria. What is the projection for eligibility? Is the government expecting that people would utilize the subsidy for the year 2001-02, for '02-03 and for '03-04? In '03, as the minister said, they changed the threshold by $100, so that again would shift the numbers. What are the expectations of government in terms of that number shift? I'd like to get that information and judge for myself what actually happened here.

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the short answer is that we had expected the numbers to match the budget. There are a number of other variables that have changed. When you think of the jobs that have been created in the province — about 160,000 during this three-year period — and there are also 80,000 fewer individuals on income assistance…. There are a bunch of other variables at play here that may have an effect. As I say, I don't know, but it may have an effect on the number of people who are actually applying for the subsidy.

J. Kwan: People can only apply for the subsidy if they are working or under training. If you weren't working or you're not under training, you're not eligible under this government's rules. If in fact more people are working, then in theory, more people who have

children will be needing child care — it's kind of logical — if they qualify.

Again, I would like the actual numbers. The minister says they expected the amount of the budget to be expended. Does the minister have documentation to back up that statement?

Hon. M. Coell: Staff tell me they could get that information, but it's actually in the Ministry of Human Resources, and they would have to liaise with them. We could get that in written form for you probably quicker than we could…. I would think within a couple of weeks at the latest, if that's….

I think, from the perspective of this budget, we realized there was a change downwards of $285, and that did affect the number of people who were eligible. I think that's a given. Then we have added back $100, so it's down $185. We would expect some more people to come back on, and we may see that's the case when we do the actuals for this year. For the modelling exercises that were done almost three years ago now, we could get that information, but it would take a while.

J. Kwan: Ideally, I would like to get the information while estimates are still ongoing so that I can look at the information and then ask questions arising from it. I understand that the minister may not have the information today or here with him. I can fully appreciate that, but before the estimates for this ministry are over, I would like to see that information so that I could determine whether or not I have further questions arising from it. If I could get that commitment from the minister, then staff don't have the labour of trying to work out those numbers now. I'll just receive the written documentation from the minister at a later time and save my questions for a later time.

Hon. M. Coell: Just so I can get clarification for staff so that I make sure I'm getting exactly the same thing, I wonder if I could get the member to repeat exactly what she's looking for.

J. Kwan: Okay. There are a number of things I've asked for so far. One is the analysis the government has done around how many people they expected to utilize the child care subsidies over the years as the government changed its policy. I would like to see that. So therefore I can determine in those projections whether or not the government's projections meet the budget targets.

The second piece of information I asked for earlier, which I think the minister said he'll take about ten minutes to get….

J. Kwan: He got it. Okay. I don't have to repeat that. I'll just let the minister give me that information, then.

Hon. M. Coell: What I've got are two examples that I think will make it very clear for the member. In March 2002 a single parent with one child whose net income was $1,582 would have been entitled to the full subsidy. In April 2002 that was reduced by $285, so the same person would only be entitled to the full subsidy if their net income was $1,297. Then in May 2003 we increased it by $100, so the same person and the same child whose net income was $1,397 would be eligible for the full subsidy.

I'll give you another example, because as the member knows, there's a variety with the number of children in households. I think this would be sufficient. A two-parent, two-children family in March 2002, if they had a net income of $1,918, would have been eligible for the full subsidy. In April 2002 for that same couple with two children, if their net income was $1,633, they would have been eligible for the full subsidy. In May 2003, after the addition of the $100, the same couple with two children — net income, $1,733 — would be eligible for the full subsidy. That shows you the change during that period.

J. Kwan: The first drop was $285. Then the net drop, since this government took office, is $185 in terms of the threshold, and that varies from children to children. Could the minister tell me: what is the amount for a full subsidy for a single parent with one child?

Hon. M. Coell: There haven't been any changes in the maximum monthly subsidies since 2000-01, and I can give the member this. These would be the maximum monthly subsidies by care type. I'll give you three examples. Family, zero to 18 months — the maximum would be $438; in group, the same, zero to 18 months — it would be $585; and in the child's home, zero to 18 months — it would be $394.

Although it hasn't changed much, there has been a little bit of a change in the average monthly subsidy per child since 2000. It has gone from $270 to $294. I think that probably, realistically, that's because you have more people with a lower income receiving a subsidy. That's probably why the average monthly subsidy per child has actually gone up, whereas the….

Hon. M. Coell: Yes. The maximum monthly subsidies for care haven't changed in the last almost ten years.

J. Kwan: I appreciate the minister's forthrightness. The average monthly subsidy would go up, obviously, because the numbers are more skewed toward lower-income types. The threshold for eligibility is so much tighter. I appreciate the minister's forthrightness.

Included in the point I would like to make, of course, is that it's not the case, I believe, that to make ends meet, only the lowest-income people should qualify for child care. I would argue that middle-income and even in some cases…. Child care is very expensive.

I know of people with two kids in child care, and together, the two working parents make close to $100,000. They've got two kids in there, and one full salary-plus goes to the two kids' child care. So over $50,000 of their income goes toward child care.

Even though it may appear that if you're middle income or even higher, you don't need child care subsidies, it is very, very expensive to put children in quality child care. That's just a reality. I know of people who are in those situations now, and they're wondering how they're going to carry on with a mortgage and those kinds of things. In fact, I know people said to me that in those situations, they may well have to quit their jobs, because they can't afford child care. It's not because they don't want it; it's because they can't afford it.

It's one of those situations where I fully support universal child care. I really do. Working parents, working families of all incomes should be eligible. It makes a difference for our children, and that's the bottom line. It's also a question of affordability for people. Okay, that's what it looks like in terms of the numbers for child care subsidies.

The minister has said that for the years where the budget was underspent, those moneys went to other government priorities. The process in which that happened — if the minister could walk me through it. I anticipate the process is such that when the ministry underspends their budget, the money is returned to general revenue, and it's up to the Minister of Finance to decide where that money should be directed toward. Am I right in understanding that?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess I could maybe describe it this way. It really doesn't go anywhere. It would depend on whether you're projecting a surplus or a deficit. You just might not borrow that much money or spend that much money. If you're over at the end of the year, I suspect Treasury Board's got to find some money to help you balance your budget. If you're under, it just goes into expended money. I guess that would be the way to describe it.

J. Kwan: At the end of that process, where the ministry has a bunch of unspent dollars, such as this line item here…. At the year-end, when the fiscal year has ended, those moneys go back to the general revenue. They go back to general revenue, and the government will decide what to do with it — whatever they want to do with it.

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try and explain. The moneys for this budget are actually voted here, and if they're not used, they're just unexpended. They really don't go anywhere else. We haven't used those moneys. At the end of the year there isn't time to reallocate them anywhere else if we don't use them. I'm not sure whether I'm explaining myself correctly to the member.

J. Kwan: I'm trying to put it in plain language for the public. I actually know how that process works, although I must say I don't ever recall being a minister of a ministry where I actually didn't spend every single dime that I was allocated. I don't remember that, although I could be wrong. I don't think so.

In plain language, let's use the year 2001-02 and just use this by way of an example. The budgeted amount for subsidies was $126.402 million. The spent dollars were $119.637 million, so there was approximately $19 million budgeted that was unspent. Those moneys, as the minister says, just went into some account somewhere for unspent dollars. When that fiscal year was over, those unspent dollars went into a place where government all got together and decided, presumably: "What are we going to do with our budget?"

If that's not the case, maybe the minister could tell me where that $19 million went. Did it go into a different program? If so, what programs?

Hon. M. Coell: Not being an accountant, I'll do my best. When you look at the approved budget for 2001-02, it's an estimate. When you look at the actuals, that's what we actually spent. We didn't have that extra money unless we spent it. It would go, as all ministries would, to the bottom line of government, which may be in surplus or in deficit. It wouldn't go…. We couldn't allocate that at the end of the year to other programs within this ministry. It would just…. Staff tell me we could reallocate it within this ministry but not within government, and I think that's what the member is getting at.

J. Kwan: Well, that does clarify things for me, not being an accountant, as well — thank God. No offence to the accountants. It's just that….

J. Kwan: Oh, including the member for Vancouver-Kensington, I have high record for accountants. It's just that I can't count as well — in the bean-counter sense — as accountants, which is good for me, from my personal view. Anyway, that is an aside.

The operative words that the minister said are these: unspent dollars, of budgeted dollars, could not be respent within government, but they could be spent within the ministry. Hence, we have this situation. Advocates all across British Columbia in the area of child care — oh, well, for that matter, for women's centres…. God, I think I just found the money for women's centres — $1.7 million that the government can actually reallocate within the ministry to save women's centres. You can reallocate dollars within your ministry but not within government.

Hon. M. Coell: This is history. This is four years ago — or three years ago.

J. Kwan: The minister says it's history. Well, actually, if you look at the '03 number, the '02-03 budget is underspent as well — $107.302 million underspent — because the actuals were $93.106 million. That's underspent.

The government could have known, when they said two years ago that they were cutting women's centres to the tune of $1.7 million…. The government, two years ago, could have said: "Hey, you know what? We found some unspent moneys that could actually fund women's centres." Two years ago the government announced that they were going to cut funding for women's centres, and the government didn't do it. They could have said, "Hey, you know, looking at the trend line, our budget is such that we underspend moneys in this area," but they didn't.

Now, the actuals for this year haven't come in. For '03-04 the actuals haven't come in — $104.2 million. I'm not sure what the actuals will be. I suspect that they will be underspent as well. I would suspect that. I could be wrong.

If it's the case that the actuals come in below the budget, will the minister commit to reallocating those dollars to child care services? It could go into operating budgets. The government just cut a bunch of areas in terms of operating budgets for child care providers. They weren't even big moneys.

In fact, there is a child care service in my riding, East Side Family Place, that lost, I believe, about $5,000. It's hardly any money at all, but for a very specific program, and that was for…. Oh, I forget the name of it now. It was for a specific program at East Side Family Place and other places like it, where parents go and join with the children and the child care service. I think it's called child minding in the child care lingo. I'm not quite sure, and I have to look in my documentation to find the right terminology. They lost about $5,000.

The government can actually reallocate this money all across the child care services for such programs — and I'm using that as just one example — or can take these moneys, the unspent dollars, and commit to funding women's centres to keep women's centres open for a few days more.

Another example, and I'm just pulling this from the top of my head, is areas where there are critical dollars needed and the government has cut to the bone. Actually, I should say it's to the marrow, not just the bones of these programs. People are suffering out there. The government is saying that they're not sustainable, but lo and behold, they actually have budgets where they underspent. Will the minister commit to spending every single dollar that is underspent in his budget and redirect those dollars to critical programs in our community, either in the area of child care or women's services?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I've enjoyed this discussion and looking back to 2000 through till now. I think it's been helpful for both of us, but we're looking at a budget this year and what's in the budget, debating the estimates for Budget 2004-05. I don't have the ability to go back into all those years and pull money forward. I don't think I'd particularly be able to do that even if I wanted to. In this year's budget, we have a certain dollar figure for child care subsidies, which is $106.7 million. That's what the government has put in as our child care subsidies for this year.

J. Kwan: I understand the years that have passed, the unspent dollars, are now lost to the ministry. I understand that, but I'm asking the government, the minister, for this commitment for the unspent dollars of this fiscal year — to commit to putting those dollars toward critical services that this government has cut. I just used a couple of examples.

Child care dollars should perhaps just go back to child care. I used the example of cutting East Side Family Place. I wish I knew the name of that program. I can get it. I think it's called child minding, where parents and the children both hang out together at a child care facility. Then if the parent needs to step out just for one day, for a couple hours or whatever, that service would be funded. Formerly, it was funded, and it's no longer funded. Redirect those dollars into programs such as that.

I'll tell you, a couple of thousand dollars makes a huge difference for a child care facility. I have to say, even if it were one-time funding, that in terms of upgrading the facility or buying toys for the kids, in terms of getting food for the kids — apples and oranges cut into little cubes for snacks for children, a couple of thousand dollars makes such a huge difference. It's crazy. In fact, I have another example. Well, actually, no. You can't do this, because you can't do it across government. You can only do it within the ministry, so let's just stick with this ministry.

Those are just a couple of examples I've put on the table. Will the minister commit that he would redirect every single unspent dollar that's budgeted for in his ministry to critical programs in the ministry in the area of child care or women's services?

Hon. M. Coell: I think we may show a difference between the member's philosophy and mine. When we set a budget, we try and do a budget that is sustainable. We try and balance that budget — not go over the budget but actually meet it. I think that's what we're attempting to do this year. We have a very slight increase in the budget for child care subsidies in next year's budget, and we have a slight change overall.

I think what we'll try to do is to set budgets that are doable. We'll try to meet them and be able to have them so that they're sustainable and so that we can have an analysis of the programs we provide, then make sure the planning that goes forward in the future isn't haphazard and is actually planned for.

J. Kwan: Nobody is suggesting that the minister go over their budget. I'm not suggesting that at all.

The minister is saying that if he makes a commitment to spend his unspent dollars in other critical areas that serve the community…. That makes no sense. If I ask the minister to go over his budget and to ignore his budget requirements and all of that stuff, then I suppose he can say I'm asking the minister to be haphazard in his approach to his budget. No, I'm not saying that.

The trend line with this ministry has been that it has underspent child care dollars. It has underspent child care subsidy dollars, and that's the reality. In fact, the minister advises that he has the opportunity, as we well know, to reallocate those dollars within the ministry.

Moving away from child care subsidies alone, let's look at the global numbers for child care budgets. The historical trend has been that the government has underspent in this area. In the year 2002-03 the global budgeted amount for child care is $185.989 million. Actuals, $148.522 million. That is unspent dollars in the area of approximately $33 million.

If the government last year had said, "We will reallocate that $33 million into critical areas," I know for sure that a range of programs could be funded — albeit on a one-time basis — even with a caveat that says: "These moneys are reallocated to you only because they were underspent in other areas and are reallocated to you only on the basis of one-time funding. That may change next year."

I expect that the government is going to underspend again this year, as they have consistently done with their budgets in this area over the last two years. Again, I ask the government, the minister, for this commitment: to spend every single unspent dollar from the child care area and redirect that back into child care services or women's services. Will he commit to that?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the problem with the member's request is that we won't have confirmation of our actuals until the auditor general actually closes the books, and that's usually sometime in June.

J. Kwan: Be that as it may, presumably by the time the auditors get to the books sometime in June, the numbers…. I see that the minister's staff, Ms. Lori Wanamaker, is here. She is a very able financial wizard. I know, because I had her in my previous life when I was in the ministry, and man, she kept a tight rope on everything. If ever I should suggest that we should spend more money than we had, she would never let me consider it. She would hound me and bug the heck out of me, let me tell you, and she is good at her job.

I expect that given the very able staff the ministry has on this front — and even if you gave it a cushion, just in case things aren't exactly as the numbers suggest — you've got $37.467 million from the budget year of '02-03 in unspent moneys, and I expect, as I said, that the '03-04 budget is going to be underspent as well. Even if you gave it some sort of cushion, I anticipate there will be unspent moneys in this ministry that the minister could recommit.

In fact, the minister could do it right away and do it quickly, because it is March 11, and the fiscal year doesn't end until the end of the month. We have some time. Even if the minister just made this commitment in terms of how big a cushion the minister might want to have, funding women's centres is only $1.7 million for the government, for the minister, to commit to funding from his unspent budget. It is not going to skew the minister's numbers all that much. It really isn't, in the scheme of everything, given that he has unspent moneys.

Here we have a huge opportunity for the minister to change a government policy direction that could result in positive outcomes for people in our community. Will the minister take that opportunity to do that today?

Hon. M. Coell: A couple of things. Going along the lines of thinking that the member is, one of the things is that in May 2003, we actually did increase the threshold by $100. That will affect this budget, and that's why I say we want to run a very financially prudent ministry. But we did that earlier this year.

As the member knows, we did fund women's centres this year, but they are not in the budget for 2004-05. That is after a core review and changes to government priorities. Previous to my becoming minister, the ministry looked and said that the previous year's budget was underspent, and they could change the threshold and increase it by $100, so they did do that.

J. Kwan: Yes, I know, and I have that information. That's not the question, and the minister, I think, knows that's not the question. The question is: given the trend line of underspending in the ministry, would the minister commit to reallocating the unspent dollars, which would actually not hurt his ministry's budget bottom line, to the critical programs that this minister has cut? I don't think that's too much to ask. I honestly don't.

I think if I were asking the minister to go over his spending — although I did ask the minister that, I suppose — you may accuse, Madam Chair, that I'm being less than prudent in the mind's eye of the minister. We'll debate that another day. But I'm actually asking the minister to spend unspent money, to reallocate it within the ministry in critical areas that would not hurt his budget bottom line. Would he do that?

Hon. M. Coell: To give the member…. This is previous to my becoming the minister. In the year 2002-03, we were underspent by $200,000 in this ministry, so there wasn't a lot of leeway that year.

J. Kwan: On that basis, where did the minister overspend? The minister actually underspent in '02-03 almost to the tune of — well, exactly — $37.467 million

in the child care area. Where did the minister overspend that took money away from child care in other ministries?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess when you look at the child care budget and expenditure trends, there are a couple of ministries involved here, so it's difficult for me to think along the lines the member is.You really have to look at what we actually spent in those years as to the actual budget — the audited budgeted numbers that were spent on the subsidy, the operating fund, the capital fund and the quality of support services. I'm having difficulty thinking along the lines that the member is.

J. Kwan: The minister might have difficulty thinking along the lines I'm thinking on because he's perhaps unable to get out of the box he put himself into. My suggestions actually allow the minister to step out of that box without putting his budget in jeopardy in any way, shape or form. The minister says that in the '02-03 year, the ministry underspent only $200,000. As I said, not looking at other ministries in terms of what they're doing in this area, but only looking at this ministry, the child care budget, global budget alone, indicates that the government had underspent almost $37.5 million.

He says that of that $37.5 million…. I don't know in what other programs the ministry might have underspent and in what programs the ministry might have overspent. When that $37.467 million nets only 200,000 unspent dollars, those moneys…. A significant amount of $37.2 million went somewhere. Where did it go?

Hon. M. Coell: You have the full public accounts. They're audited. The auditor general signs off on them. You could go through and see what moneys were spent in each area of that year, 2002-03. I believe one of them was a $10 million contribution to the Vancouver agreement. There are probably a number of other things in there that were new initiatives of government or one-time funding, which would be in the auditor general's audited accounts.

J. Kwan: Surely the minister knows where the moneys went in his own budget without having to refer the opposition to look at the auditor general's report. Surely the minister who is responsible knows exactly where those dollars went.

Hon. M. Coell: I could tell her where everything is intended to go in this year's budget, '04-05, because that's what we're presenting as the estimates for this year. I mean, I think we've had an interesting discussion of trends and that throughout the years, but any other years are in those years' audited statements, which I certainly don't have with me.

Quite frankly, I don't think that's an acceptable answer from the minister. I had the same line of questions with the Minister of Health, and he was able to recount for me…. We were talking about federal dollars, specifically, in terms of what happened to the federal dollars dating years back, starting at 2000 and 2001.

I'll accept this. If the minister says he doesn't have the information readily available with him, will he then provide that information in writing to the opposition to account for where, in each of the years, starting at 2000-01, the unspent dollars in his ministry went and then how much was left unspent at the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, we could take Public Accounts from those years, produce that and get it to the member in writing.

J. Kwan: I would ask the minister to specifically break out, as an example, the budget line from child care — right? "The unspent dollars in child care is this amount," and then of that amount, "It went here; it went there," or wherever it went. It's just so that we're clear, in terms of the level of accountability, where those dollars went. That's what I'm trying to drive at. I want to be clear, and I think the minister has committed that he will provide that to the opposition in writing at some point within a reasonable time frame. Okay, I see the minister and his staff nodding their heads, so that's great.

The minister would not, however, commit to reallocating unspent dollars in this budget area, the global budget area of child care, into child care or women's services. He would not make that commitment. He says that's correct, and I think that's very unfortunate. I really do think that's very unfortunate. I think this verifies, in part…. Well, never mind. Anyway, I think that's very unfortunate.

Can the minister provide me with the list of conditions that the federal government has put out with respect to how the early childhood initiative dollars are to be expended and the list of conditions for the multilateral agreement?

Hon. M. Coell: The member is asking about the second agreement, the multilateral framework. MCFD is the lead on the first one. We're the lead on this one, and I can give you the breakdown on that. Actually, these are the government report-outs that had both in them.

I'll give you the early learning and child care areas for investment. The ELCC objective is "to further promote early childhood development and support the participation of parents in employment or training by improving access to affordable, quality early learning and child care programs and services."

Here are what the areas of investment would be that we must support: "…provincially/territorially regulated early learning and child care programs" that meet quality standards established and monitored by

governments. The children must be under six, in "settings such as child care centres, family child care homes, preschools and nursery schools."

The types of investments include: "…capital and operating funding, fee subsidies, wage enhancements, training, professional development and support, quality assurance, parent information and referral." Programs that are part of the formal school system are not included in this new agreement.

J. Kwan: Is that the exact language in the agreement that was signed with the federal government?

Hon. M. Coell: I believe that to be very close, and I could get you the exact brochure if you want it.

J. Kwan: Thank you, minister. The minister says that for the first agreement that was signed by the government, the conditions of what those are…. The minister does not have a copy of it? Is it contained in these annual reports?

J. Kwan: I certainly appreciate that from the minister and his staff. He has been very, very forthcoming and helpful in these estimates today, and I do very much appreciate it, even though we don't agree on everything. Okay.

Let me ask the minister this question. The concern with the first agreement, the early childhood development initiative, from advocates in the community and elsewhere is that there was very little accountability with respect to how the government spent those federal dollars and, really, its relationship to early childhood development and to child care. There were a lot of concerns expressed. I know, in fact, that the minister who was responsible for this program is the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

I remember, in estimates with her during that process, trying to figure out the accounting of where those dollars went. We spent a big chunk of time on that to no avail. It was clear as mud. The community was not able to get the information. I know, then, that the community launched a campaign, both federally and provincially — but more particularly to the federal government — asking for more stringent conditions on the federal dollars for this second agreement, the early learning and child care multilateral agreement.

To this, I think the federal government responded on that, and so the criteria of where those federal dollars could be spent is much tighter. I think it does not allow those dollars to go into things like immunization programs, the NurseLine or the HealthGuide. It does not allow for things like that. It really has to be very direct toward the early childhood development of children. Am I right in understanding that the second agreement's criteria from the government are far tighter than those of the first agreement, because of the issues around accountability?

Hon. M. Coell: When you look at both programs — and I would add that I think they're both very good programs — there is a bit of a difference in the philosophical approach to both of them. When you look at the first program, the ECD program, it had in it promoting healthy pregnancy, infancy and birth; improving parenting and family supports; childhood development learning and care; and strengthening community supports.

Those aren't necessarily in the areas for investment in the second program, the multilateral program. When you look at it, it's provincially regulated early learning and child care programs that meet standards established and monitored by governments — still children under six — in settings such as community child care centres, family care homes, preschools, nurseries. There is a capital and an operating fund. The fee subsidies are different, so they're new in the second one. Wage enhancements — those are also new. Training and professional development — that's new. Quality assurance, I believe, is in both of them, and then parent information and referrals. They're more specific.

I think you've seen not a significant but a substantial change in philosophical approach to both programs. I'd have to say that in my opinion, they fit together very well. You're expanding a broader range now of child care, child health opportunities. I think we have to realize, too, that this isn't just B.C. This is Canada. You've got the federal government saying to the provinces, saying to British Columbia: "We would like to see you move in this direction. We're willing to fund new programs over and above the ones you've set up."

If there was a group that lobbied the federal government to do this, I think that was probably a positive thing. I think the outcome is two really good programs that will improve the health of families, the health of children on a broad spectrum of programs and new initiatives that should be good for Canadians and British Columbians.

J. Kwan: In fact, yes, there was a coalition of community groups that lobbied the government to put tighter restrictions on how those dollars could be spent. Then there was a study done to find out what happened to these federal moneys, as I put on the record earlier today, before lunch, for the minister's informa-

tion. The information showed that child care services had actually declined despite new spending.

In fact, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia had cuts to child care that undercut improved services in six other provinces, including Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan. That's what they found. They found that British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario had cut child care budgets, which resulted in overall losses in child care supports and child care spaces. The campaign of people who actually went out and did this work was a group called Campaign 2000, which used government data — Statistics Canada and other resources.

People were concerned that when the first agreement was signed, there was very little accountability, very little ability to find out what happened to these moneys. It wasn't just the opposition that had difficulties. People whose entire concentration in terms of their area of dedication, the area of child care, couldn't find that accountability. They'd been writing to the various ministers on that front and didn't get the answers from them either. I must say it's concerning for the community and certainly for myself.

I would disagree. Yes, I do disagree with the minister. Spending federal moneys that I think should have been dedicated to childhood development — to their learning, to child care opportunities, to childhood immunization, midwifery, the B.C. NurseLine and the like…. I think that's a colossal affront to the original intent of the moneys.

That's not to say those programs should not be funded. They should. They're valuable programs. In fact, I use them myself — immunization, the NurseLine. God knows, I've phoned the NurseLine enough times now with a new baby. I think they're very valuable, but I think they should be funded out of the health care budget, not out of the dollars that should have been targeted toward children for their development. I really do believe that.

I'd like to ask the minister this: is the minister planning on actually developing an expenditure plan for the multilateral agreement beyond this year? At an earlier time, the minister broke down for me how those moneys were to be expended for this year. I think it was $10 million — $3.3 million in MCFD and then $7 million in child resources and referral. Is the minister working on future plans? If so, when will that future plan be available? Will there be further changes with this year in terms of additional federal dollars into this area? Or is that it — what the minister has laid out — in terms of federal moneys?

Hon. M. Coell: I just conferred with staff, and they reminded me that there's a federal budget coming in ten days. We don't have any information that there will be additional funds. If there were, those would go into the four program areas. We don't have a breakdown of how they would move into those four program areas, but those would be the program areas that the additional funds would come into. That would be the subsidy, the operating fund, the capital fund and the quality support services. It's sort of wishful thinking at this point that the federal government will give us more money.

J. Kwan: It's sort of like my wishful thinking that the minister would spend his unspent dollars in critical areas that he has cut. I suppose it's the same line. You never know. Maybe there's a miracle out there somewhere, you know.

Okay, that's unanticipated dollars from the federal government in terms of whatever that budget might look like. We do know what the budget looks like for the multilateral agreement from the federal government. We have that broken down, and we know what those dollars are from the federal government. With that in mind, is there a plan, or is the minister working on a plan, for how that expenditure would be spent over the next three years?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I covered this a few days ago. The $2.7 million is in the child care subsidies — the addition in the budget — and then the $4 million is in the quality support services, and then $3.3 million goes to MCFD.

J. Kwan: Yes, I think I said that the minister was spending $3.3 million in MCFD. I thought it was $7 million, but it's actually $4 million — the minister is right — on child care resources and referral and $2.7 million in the subsidy area. That total was for the '04-06 year: $6.7 million under this ministry and then $3.3 million with MCFD for supported child care, for $10 million. I'm talking about '05-06, '06-07 — the three-year plan and beyond. If there's no change for '04-05 and there's nothing else anticipated, then for future years, what's the plan there? Is the minister working on a plan?

Hon. M. Coell: For '05-06, the ministry would have a $20 million dollar increase; for '06-07, $40.5 million; for '07-08, $47.6 million. That would total $117 million for us. We haven't got detailed plans for those out years as yet, but that would be what we'd be developing this year to bring forward for estimates next year.

J. Kwan: Would it be a three-year plan that the minister will be bringing forward next year for estimates, or is it just next year's plan and then each year sort of just year by year?

Hon. M. Coell: Basically, we have three-year budgets and then annual plans for each year that goes forward. We know what dollars we have on the out years, but the actual plan would be developed yearly.

J. Kwan: Am I right to assume that the ministry who would take the lead for the early childhood development initiative and how those dollars would be ex-

pended in the plan for it would be under the MCFD, or is it under this ministry?

Hon. M. Coell: The first agreement is MCFD — they're the lead — and we're the lead for the multilateral framework.

J. Kwan: I'll save those questions on the first agreement for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Okay. The child care resource and referral programs are sustaining a massive cut in their budget. Formerly it was $13 million in '02-03. Then in '03-04 it was reduced to $9 million, then in '04-05 to $7 million. Of that $7 million, $4 million is federal moneys and $3 million is provincial moneys. Does the minister have the list of cuts in this program area? Who is getting cut as a result of this budget reduction?

Hon. M. Coell: If you look at the entire budget, there are 39 centres throughout the province, and then there are the two provincial ones, the two larger ones. The aboriginal child care services isn't receiving any cut. Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre is the other, I would say larger, change. It goes from approximately $775,000 to $600,000. We have worked with the rest of the service programs, and there will be changes approximating a 15 percent reduction to most of their budgets.

J. Kwan: Have any of the child care resource and referral program providers had to shut down as a result of their budget change?

Hon. M. Coell: To our knowledge, none have shut down because of changes. One withdrew and didn't wish to be part of the program anymore but is, I gather, still operating.

J. Kwan: How did the government decide on the 15 percent reduction in this area?

Hon. M. Coell: There was quite an extensive consultation process with all the providers. We had a dollar figure of $7 million and worked with them to see how that could be divided up with each one of the centres. That was the method — that there was a budget established and then we worked with them to establish each one of their individual budgets.

J. Kwan: It is my understanding that in August the government was going to implement an initiative called the quality enhancement initiative, which the government backed off on. It is my understanding that the change in direction regarding the child care resource and referral program and the implementation of the quality enhancement initiative was decided upon back in August. Could the minister please advise this House what brought about the issues around the change in direction? What was initially planned, and what is now being implemented?

The quality enhancement initiative was something that was started, and some community consultations took place. It appears to me that it was to have these resource centres if not replaced then retooled into five deliverers throughout the province. I guess that in the initial stages, staff found — and correct me if I'm wrong — that the communities felt these were more effective. So the quality enhancement initiative never moved forward, other than those…. Then the budget for this program was put back in place, and budgets were negotiated between the providers of the centres. Also, it's our desire to see that the quality is enhanced in these contracts so that you may have all of these contracts but will have an enhanced quality in the contracts of the 39 centres throughout the province.

J. Kwan: How much time was spent on developing this quality enhancement initiative that was cancelled, and who was contracted to do that work? Was it internal to government, or was there some group that was contracted to do it? If a group was contracted to do it, how much money did the government spend on that contract?

Hon. M. Coell: Most of the work on the initiative was done in-house by staff. They did have a contract with Western Canada Family Child Care Association. They were contracted to do the consultation with the community groups.

Hon. M. Coell: The contract would have been $25,000. Also, the Vancouver Foundation put in some money for the consultation as well.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have the details on what this initiative would have looked like — the quality enhancement initiative? I don't have to have that information if he doesn't have it with him, but if he could give me some written documentation on what that initiative was aimed towards and what it looked like — just so I get a better understanding of it — it would be appreciated.

Hon. M. Coell: We would have some pretty general documents as to what we went out to the consultation with. We could get that to the member.

J. Kwan: I know there would have been a process for requests for proposals for this quality enhancement initiative which did not proceed. Would there be draft requests for proposals? Had it proceeded, would it have…?

Could the minister tell me what happened to the one-stop access centres? That program, I understand, has been cancelled and stopped.

Hon. M. Coell: The member is correct. There were four additional projects that had additional funds for the one-stop services. We're now looking at any of our new contracts and that they will cover those services. Of all of these ones here, especially in the smaller communities — the new contracts that we're going to have with them — we want them to cover those types of additional services that were provided by one-stop.

J. Kwan: Is it the case that the programs are coming to an end because the government decided someone else should deliver the programs, so then the government was looking for someone else to deliver the programs, or is it the case that those programs are not continuing because the providers of these programs decided not to deliver the programs anymore?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the government made the decision, but what we were trying to do is to even out the service so that all of these providers are now providing the same level of service. In some of the smaller services, in the contracts, we want to make sure they're providing the same types of service that were being provided by the four separate one-stop services.

J. Kwan: Would they provide for the full range of programs under the one-stop services or just a segment of them?

Hon. M. Coell: Staff inform me that the four were quite unique, so it would be hard to say that every program offered by those four would be replaced, but it's the attempt to make sure that parents do get the assistance they need in referrals to child care. We'd have to go back to the four individual programs to look at them and see what's being offered in the different regions, but it was the intent to make sure that parents did get those services and the referrals to child care.

J. Kwan: I can appreciate if the minister doesn't have this information here. I would like to get the information on the four centres that provide for the one-stop access services and the list of services they provide from each of the centres, and then who will be replacing or be providing for those services and the list of services the replacement would provide. If the minister could provide me with that information next week some time, we'll be back for estimates, so I can look at that. If I have further questions arising from it, I could certainly ask then.

Just for the record, the minister said yes and nodded his head, so I'll await that information.

J. Kwan: You understand my paranoia, Mr. Chair. I just want to get everything on the record. Great.

We've heard concerns from child care providers that the government is moving the referral away from a service model where real people, real human beings, are there to assist parents in person or over the phone, to a website. Is this fear founded or unfounded?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the easy answer is that it's in addition to. It will be linked to local resource centres, but it does give us the ability to have a provincewide Web. It should be an asset.

J. Kwan: So it's not a replacement, just to be clear. It's in addition to referral services over the phone and in person. I see the minister nodding. Maybe we'll get that on the record.

J. Kwan: Are parents required, if they choose to go the website route, to put their addresses on the website? Has the minister checked with the privacy commissioner around privacy issues on this website development?

Hon. M. Coell: We're not seeking information from parents. They would actually be retrieving information from the website and then going to the referral themselves.

J. Kwan: They would not be required to put their addresses or anything like that, to access the website or anything. We've heard from child care providers who were worried about this website program for parents in terms of having their addresses…. I'm sorry; it's the operators themselves who are worried. I've actually confused the issue here. It's the operators themselves who are worried, because formerly, operators didn't have to put their addresses out. They only have to put a phone number out. When they have a referral and they engage in discussion with a parent, then further information is provided.

In this instance, are the operators required to put their addresses out on the website?

Hon. M. Coell: It would only be if they wish to do that, and they would sign a consent to do that. They wouldn't be under any obligation to do it.

J. Kwan: There have also been concerns on the child care resources side. Child care operators have noted that there appears to be an increasing focus on licence-not-required care providers, who care for two children at a time as opposed to licensed family child

care providers, who care for up to seven children at a time. Has the minister heard any concerns in this area? If so, what concerns has the minister heard?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the easy answer is that we want to see an improvement in quality of all child care, whether it be one, seven or ten. Through this budget we're talking about now, we want to see increased programming, increased training, increased information to child care providers and to build that in to sort of the day-to-day life of the ministry as well. I think there's an important role to continue to improve the quality all the way through from, as I say, one to seven to ten.

J. Kwan: Is that a change in direction from the government, though, in terms of the switch in focus? The concern is about the switch in focus as well.

Hon. M. Coell: I think there may be a slight change in emphasis, where we're asking the CCRR to build that quality in everything — licence-not-required or licensed. We want to make sure the quality is there for whatever option a parent chooses for their child.

J. Kwan: How do they make sure the quality is there — the referral programs?

Hon. M. Coell: A number of resources would be provided from resource kits: some training, some outreach programs to touch base with people that are providing child care in one- and two-children operations — basically just to start to enhance the whole range. That's probably something that government is going to have to do as a long-range program as well to always have that there. As people start up child care programs and come into the system, you want to make sure they know where they can get some information and get some training, some education, some help, some outreach. I think that will be a positive thing, and it should improve the quality of child care.

J. Kwan: The licence-not-required care providers are not required to get a licence. They're really, in theory, not required to meet any standard, because there's no licence requirement. I guess I'm sort of not following how one goes about doing that quality assurance. How does one go about doing that when they're not required to get a licence?

Hon. M. Coell: What the ministry is trying to do is to say to someone: "We have some tools here that will help you improve the quality of your child care setting." That's generally going to be for the licence-not-required, smaller operations. It's to make sure those people have some opportunities to improve the quality, as well as the quality of other settings as well.

Whether one agrees with licence-not-required or not, I think it's incumbent on us and everyone providing child care to always want to improve the quality of the services they're providing. I think this particular group of tools will assist in doing that, and it's something we should be doing.

J. Kwan: May I see an example of these tools the minister talks about? What's contained in this tool kit that the minister is talking about?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm getting information overload from my staff here — which is all good. It's all very positive.

The member may be aware of the Westcoast Child Care Resource Centre in Vancouver. It has everything from a library that people can come and use, to toys, to some training programs for people to come in and use. A lot of the expertise is in the field here, and they're going to develop — I say "tool kits," but realistically, a library is a tool — those sorts of things, and the outreach as well. What we're asking these people to do is just to broaden their scope a bit and make sure those capabilities they have are extended to the licence-not-required sector, the smaller providers.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I interpreted that to mean that somehow there was some sort of kit put together. I thought maybe there was a bunch of stuff in that kit. Okay, so I see what the minister is saying.

Then the referral providers are Westcoast, as an example. Are they asked to do an outreach program with licence-not-required care providers? Is that how that would work, then?

Hon. M. Coell: That's correct. As part of contracts they would have, we would want them to be doing that. If you look at the global subsidy program, 50 percent of the parent subsidy goes to licence-not-required, so it's a big portion of what people are choosing to do. We want to make sure, and I believe we all have an interest in making sure, that that quality is improved and improved over time on a regular basis. That's the reasoning for not a major change in direction but a movement in the direction of the licence-not-required and developing more quality within their programs.

J. Kwan: The contracts for the referral centres — have they been finalized?

Hon. M. Coell: For the most part we would hope to have them all completed by the end of March.

J. Kwan: The increase in spaces that the minister referenced earlier — are those all licensed spaces?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the numbers that I was looking at — that's earlier yesterday, I think — were a comparison of '89 through 2003. There are now 80,000

Hon. M. Coell: In 1998 there were 67,964 licensed spaces, and today there are 80,203.

J. Kwan: Okay, let's turn to operating budgets for child care providers for a moment. The budget has been decreasing since '01-02 from $62.583 million to $47.6 million — a substantive reduction in the operating budget for licensed child care providers.

Does the minister have the information on which child care provider has had to shut down as a result of changes in subsidies, and therefore children going to their child care centre, or just as a result of being unable to meet their financial demands because of changes in funding?

Hon. M. Coell: During the average year, we have about 40 closures. In the year the member requests, 2002-03, there were 57 closures. They range in size. Although you can't be conclusive about the reasons why there would be 17 more in that year, I think maybe the Munroe funding agreement that affected about 39 child care operators was probably one of those reasons. I don't know whether you could say that conclusively.

J. Kwan: Could the minister give me the breakdown on closures of child care centres and the numbers of spaces lost, starting in 2000 and then for 2001 and on?

Hon. M. Coell: Unfortunately, the data is fairly incomplete. I could undertake to do some research. In any given year, we have 40 closures, but we haven't added in here how many openings we have. That would probably come through the health authorities. You have a number that close every year — they may retire, or they may go out of business — and you also have a number coming on stream. I don't have a net number of either increases or decreases for those years. All I've got is the one year that there were closures, but I don't even have the number of openings there were in that year as well. If the member could let us think about that, maybe we could do some research into it.

J. Kwan: Could you give me that number again — that earlier number you gave me…?

Hon. M. Coell: In the average year, there are 40 closures. Typically, there are 40 closures for a variety of reasons. In '02-03 there were 57 centre closures. As I said, I don't know whether it would be conclusive or anything, but it may be affected in that the Munroe agreement finalized that year.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate if the minister could have his staff turn their minds to this question. That raises an interesting point. If the minister is not sure and doesn't have the data before him on how many centres have closed over the years, therefore, in theory, we don't know how many spaces have been lost. Presumably, those two things correspond. Given that's the case, how do we know there's been an increase in spaces for '03-04 to 80,230?

Hon. M. Coell: That's actually the number from the health authorities, and they just track what's open that year. There may have been 20 closed, 20 opened. That's the net.

Hon. M. Coell: Yeah. This is the net. There may have been some closed and some opened, but you've seen, I would say, a fairly steady increase over that six-year period. That's just the net. I guess you could go back to the health authorities and say, "How many do you know that closed? How many do you know that opened?" but you'd come up with that being your net number.

J. Kwan: Well, they must have that information. Otherwise, they can't come up with the net increases in spaces — right?

I was just saying, Mr. Chair, that the health authorities must know which centres have closed and how many spaces have been lost and how many new have been created; otherwise, they can't come up with a net number to show an overall increase. They're not making this stuff out of clay or anything. There's something concrete there, so if the minister can get that information from the health authorities, that would be appreciated. I would actually like — in that process, as they're getting that information for the minister — to get the list of the child care facilities that have closed so that I'll know where, in what community. They must have that information; otherwise, they can't come up with the net numbers.

Hon. M. Coell: I would have to make a request to another agency, and I will do that. What it appears that they've given us is just the net increase in spaces, and it's not broken down here by region. We'll endeavour to get the information, if we can. That may take a while, would be my guess.

J. Kwan: Yes. I would appreciate that, just so I can sort of glean from that kind of information what's happening across the province in terms of increases, decreases, etc.

Okay. My colleague received a letter regarding a university school preschool funding, and I just want to ask whether or not…. I'm not sure if this fits into MCFD or this ministry, so let me just read the letter into the record and then maybe the minister can tell me if this is MCFD or this ministry.

It goes on to talk about how much they appreciate the city for their financial support. As of yet, I'm not quite sure what the future funding situation is going to be for this particular preschool funding. My question to the minister is: does this operation's funding cut from the provincial government come from this ministry or MCFD?

Hon. M. Coell: I think there are a number of issues there. Ours, of course, is based on enrolment, so if their enrolment is down, they would be getting less funds. They also may have multiple funding sources. If the member wanted to refer that letter to me, I would go through it with staff and analyze what the changes are and get back to her on that at a later date.

J. Kwan: From the letter, it sounds to me like the reduction for the preschool funding over two years was $20,000 and then a further reduction of $10,000, which almost forced their closure. Because they were able to get city moneys, they were able to keep it open.

Yes, I'll get more details on this situation. Then I'll forward that over to the minister so that we can get a clear understanding of how that funding cut came about and where it came about and see how we can, hopefully, assist the ongoing operation of this wonderful preschool operation in the city of Vancouver.

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

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY