Hansard — Monday, November 14, 2005 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		1709

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1709
	Candidates for municipal elections
	M. Karagianis
	Contributions of senior citizens
	D. Hayer
	Role of civilian peacekeepers
	C. Trevena
	Hidden Heroes education project
	R. Cantelon
	Passing the Fire initiative for Canadian volunteerism
	N. Simons
	Response to racist brochure in Langley
	M. Polak

Oral Questions		1711
	Handling of child welfare case after death of sibling
	C. James
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Review of children's deaths by coroner
	A. Dix
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Hon. J. Les
	R. Austin
	G. Gentner
	J. Kwan
	M. Farnworth
	Worker deaths and safety issues in forest industry
	C. Puchmayr
	Hon. M. de Jong
	B. Simpson
	Relocation of regional fire commissioners
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. J. Les
	Role of B.C. Utilities Commission in sale of Terasen Gas
	C. Evans
	Hon. R. Neufeld

Tabling Documents		1716
	Statement of votes, 38th general election
	Statement of votes, 2005 referendum on electoral reform

Committee of Supply		1716
	Estimates: Ministry of Health
	Hon. G. Abbott
	D. Cubberley

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1746
	Estimates: Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General (continued)
	Hon. J. Les
	G. Gentner
	M. Karagianis
	N. Macdonald
	C. Wyse
	J. Kwan
	Estimates: Ministry of Education and Minister Responsible for Early Learning and Literacy
	Hon. S. Bond
	J. Horgan

Hon. M. Coell: I have three guests in the Legislature. I'd like the Legislature to please welcome Arthur Wiens, and Laura and Al Radzanowski.

N. Simons: I'd just like to draw the attention of the House to two guests from the Kootenays who are here representing TASK, the Tourism Action Society in the Kootenays: Deborah Paynton and Eileen Fletcher, the executive director. I would like the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I have two introductions today. I would like to acknowledge His Excellency Dave Reddaway, high commissioner for the United Kingdom to Canada, visiting us in the gallery. He is accompanied by Martin Cronin, the recently appointed consul general of the U.K. based in Vancouver. I am pleased to say that we had a productive meeting with these two gentlemen and the Attorney General, and I would like to ask the House to please make them very welcome to the Legislature.

I would also like to welcome 40 grade 12 law students who are visiting from my constituency, from Robert Bateman Secondary School. They are accompanied by teachers Doug Primerose and Ms. Sherry Dunn. They are actually here for a two-day trip to visit the provincial Legislature and also to visit the Provincial Court and sit in on hearings in the Provincial Court. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome as well.

L. Krog: I note we have on the floor of the House today the distinguished conflicts commissioner. I'd ask the House to make him welcome.

M. Karagianis: I'm sure it's no surprise to anyone that municipal elections are once more upon us, with only a few days to go. I stand in the House today to actually celebrate several well-known municipal leaders who are retiring from politics and not running in the upcoming election.

M. Karagianis: Voluntarily, actually, prior to the ballots being cast. It truly is a celebration for them. I'm sure that it's taken a lot of anxiety out of their days.

First and foremost, Carol Pickup is very well known as a community leader here in the region. Carol has celebrated over three decades in local politics, from school trustee through to municipal council. Carol was a career nurse who started her political life at the school board and then moved — as many politicians have done, some in this House here — into a larger seat in politics.

Carol has been a fierce advocate in this region for affordable housing, for the arts, for community outreach and for environmentally responsible government. She has also been a mentor and sometimes critic of many of us in the region and is a formidable force, as many of us know. But she has always managed to help us all achieve excellence or strive for excellence in our role as local government, and for that we love and applaud her.

Within my own community of Esquimalt, Mr. Jim King has spent two decades — 21 years, in fact — as a municipal leader. Jim, who was a war hero and a prisoner of war, has been fiercely dedicated to his community for the 21 years that he's served. He's participated quite vigorously at CRD and library board, and I know that anyone who has served with Jim will join me in celebrating his retirement after a very illustrious career in local politics.

D. Hayer: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to salute our seniors, who have contributed so much to make B.C. the best place on earth to call home.

Last Friday, like so many others, I participated in the Remembrance Day ceremonies to honour those who sacrificed so much to bring the freedoms we enjoy today. Regrettably, there are fewer and fewer of those veterans, those senior citizens, to personally thank for all that they selflessly accomplished so many years ago for all Canadians. But every minute and every day, there is someone new in British Columbia joining the ranks of senior citizens.

Yet their contributions don't stop at the point that they retire. Our seniors are our most willing and most dedicated volunteers. They are our mentors who pass on lessons learned and their vision for the future. Like the veterans who went to war for us, we must remember the seniors who fought their own personal battles on the way to success and accomplishment.

We must remember them, and I am pleased to say that in the past six months this government has continued its support for seniors, with an additional $242 million over three years to improve their lives. These increases and others over the past four years are just one way we can say thank you to all who built our country and our province and made our communities a better place to live. As our economy gets even better,

this government will be able to give even more to this most important segment of our population.

C. Trevena: On Friday many of us were at Remembrance Day services. We wore a poppy to remember veterans who gave their lives for our freedom and our future.

But I also wore my poppy to remember friends and colleagues who have died in areas of conflict — people who are not members of the military but who worked for the United Nations and other international organizations trying to help people suffering from war and trying to help people rebuild civil society.

Two years ago a car bomb killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the head of the UN in Iraq. Friends and colleagues of mine died with him. I miss them, and I miss their energy and their commitment to those concepts of civil society which we take for granted here in Canada.

Every day civilian peacekeepers are working in countries before they descend into war or after a conflict has torn them apart, helping to develop human rights and to build democratic structures, working in hospitals and in schools — creating a foundation for those societies. Civilian peacekeepers, whether working for IGOs or NGOs, are in conflict zones with little protection. There are, of course, security precautions, but they weren't enough to help Chris Klein-Beekman from Courtenay, who died working for UNICEF in Iraq, nor the Canadian nurse Nancy Malloy, killed in Chechnya working for the Red Cross.

Civilian peacekeepers do not wear bulletproof vests. They don't carry guns. They're aware of the risks, whether in Afghanistan, Haiti, Iraq or Kosovo. It's hard work. It's uncomfortable living. There's often no heat, no water, no electricity. There is no quick victory; there is no quick fix. The work doesn't produce results for many years, but individuals still make that commitment to help the victims of war and assist in building civil society from the ruins.

Peacekeeping has become a Canadian icon. We're rightly proud of our blue-bereted military. We mark their achievements and remember their losses. So I'd ask the House to join me in also remembering, this year and in the future, the commitment given and the lives lost among civilian peacekeepers.

R. Cantelon: I stand today to talk about a program, which is working in school district 68, called Hidden Heroes. Now, hidden heroes are ordinary people and children who do small, everyday things that make a positive difference in their own lives or the lives of people they touch. The Hidden Heroes education project is a three-stage program that encourages children to seek out and write about hidden heroes in their lives. The goal is to improve student literacy as they work through the project.

In the first stage, students are motivated to seek out, interview and write or speak about a hidden hero in their life. They are encouraged to identify the positive values that make this person a hidden hero. In the second stage, they identify their own positive values and become hidden heroes themselves and then write about that experience. In stage three, they post their stories on the Hidden Hero website.

This program helps students to achieve several provincial learning outcomes, such as social responsibility, social studies and literacy. I have a great example of a young hidden hero. A grade three student revealed that she has four piggy banks: one for herself, one for her education, one to buy presents for her family and a fourth to help needy children at Christmas. At the end of the year, with matching donations from adults, she now has raised over $300 in her fourth pot for Christmas food baskets.

I'd like to thank Mr. Bill Robinson for founding the project, for helping students with literacy and for helping them to see the good features in those around them and in themselves.

N. Simons: In late October, 32 community leaders representing three generations in every region of the province participated in the 2005 volunteerism academy called Passing the Fire. The academy, presented by the B.C. Network for the Canada Volunteerism Initiative, provided a unique opportunity for participants to meet one another and to share ideas on how to increase the capacity of organizations to involve volunteers. Over 150 applications to the academy had to be pared down to 32, which is a testament to the strong interest in volunteerism here in British Columbia.

They included Natalie Lidster of Kamloops, who started a program in her school that encourages students to volunteer, and Rose Bortolon, a Brownie leader from Prince George, as well as David Stewart of Kaslo who, among other things, volunteers with the B.C. Choral Foundation. I ran into two participants from Powell River who are both active in their community: Barb Rees, a writer and coach who founded the Powell River Writers Festival — which, by the way, will be held for the third time this April — and Pat Hull, who chairs the United Way in Powell River and is also the chair of the chamber of commerce there.

They have returned home ready to pass on the fire, to spread the message of volunteerism, its intrinsic value and its central role in our communities. Volunteerism builds connections between individuals. It also strengthens ties between cultures and brings communities together in good times as well as in the bad times.

The goals of the Canada volunteerism initiative are to encourage Canadians to participate in voluntary organizations, to improve the capacity of organizations

to benefit from the contribution of volunteers and to enhance the actual experience of volunteering. Accomplishing these goals will allow people to connect with their communities to build a caring and tolerant society, where volunteerism is an integral part of life.

M. Polak: At the beginning of this month residents in my constituency received an unwelcome reminder of the hatred and intolerance that still exists even in a tolerant community such as Langley. A flyer denouncing mixed-race marriages, gays and lesbians, and minorities was delivered to the mailboxes of unsuspecting Langley residents. The flyer urges Canadians to join the fight against a Third World immigration invasion and promotes a homophobic, anti-Semitic, white supremacist American group.

Arlene and Hank Van Hove brought the hate literature to the attention of the Langley RCMP. Mr. Van Hove's reaction, as recorded by the Langley Times newspaper, is echoed by constituents across my riding. He said: "Our neighbours are Indo-Canadian, and they had this in their mail too. I'm embarrassed this was in the mailbox. This needs to be cut at the bud before it gets out there."

On November 11 we remembered all those who have fought and in some cases died to preserve the freedoms that we hold dear. They fought to ensure that people from all races, colours, creeds and backgrounds would be free of tyranny and oppression. Indeed, there are those in places around the world where they are still fighting.

We are fortunate that incidents of hate mail such as this are rare. At the same time, we must remember that a part of the battle for peace and understanding is fought by each one of us in our day-to-day lives. It is not enough to condemn the cowardice displayed by the authors of this message. We must move forward, each one of us, employing the bravery of understanding, acceptance and love.

C. James: Last week we learned some disturbing new information about this government's handling of child welfare. The Ministry of Children and Family Development took over responsibility for Jamie Charlie and lobbied the court to keep him in the home of his sister's killer. Can the Minister of Children and Family Development explain why his ministry would lobby the court to keep the child in the home of a man who was under investigation for the murder of a child?

Hon. S. Hagen: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, there is a court case involved in this particular case. However, what I can say is that the government has appointed a blue-ribbon panel to review our child-death review system, public reporting and advocacy roles. That panel will be reporting out early in the spring. I suggest that we let that panel do its work and bring back any recommendations that it may have.

C. James: I think there is a great deal of concern about the number of reviews and the number of panels that are now going on and the fact that Jamie Charlie has not been included. We saw the child and youth officer actually ask the Attorney General to expand her mandate so that she could review the issues around Jamie Charlie. At that time we heard the Attorney General say it wasn't necessary for them to do that.

It's time for the minister to stop hiding behind the reviews that he claims are going on. He's the minister; he's in charge. He should be able to answer the question. Again, he'll now have had time to have his staff answer this question, so I'd like to ask it once more of the minister. Why did the government leave Jamie Charlie in that home for five months?

Hon. S. Hagen: As the Leader of the Opposition should know, the child and youth officer is investigating and reviewing what happened in the death of the child but also why the brother was left in the home of the child. As a matter of fact, one of her members, the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, is involved with that.

C. James: The reason that the child and youth officer came forward to ask for that change of the mandate is because we asked the question. That was not part of the mandate, and the government was not going to look at this issue. Today I met with Harvey Charlie, the grandfather, who raised concerns again about the independence of the reviews that are going on. Mr. Charlie made it very clear that he and his family do not have faith in this government and its ability to do an independent review.

So again, I would like to ask the minister why we currently have eight separate reviews going on and why his government won't call one independent review to make sure the public and the Charlie family get answers to this case.

Hon. S. Hagen: In fact, all of these reviews are independent reviews. When the coroner decides to do an inquest or review, the coroner decides that, without any prodding or political interference from government. When the child and youth office decides to do a review, they do that under instruction of the Attorney General, under section 6 of the act. On top of that, this government has undertaken a full blue-ribbon panel

that will look at how this government deals with child death reviews. We expect to have that report early in the spring.

A. Dix: When the Premier and the government eliminated the children's commissioner, over 500 case files were simply abandoned, and at least 80 ongoing child death reviews were closed and not completed. These are the children this government forgot, this Premier forgot. My question is to the Solicitor General. Who made this mean-spirited decision to abandon these children and their families?

Hon. S. Hagen: The coroner reviews every child's death in the province of British Columbia — every child's death. The coroner will review the deaths as he can carry out the procedure. We don't interfere politically with that procedure. We expect the coroner to do his job and report out.

A. Dix: They did interfere politically. They eliminated the children's commissioner. They eliminated the child advocate. They cut the ministry budget by 23 percent in 2002. They intervened politically.

My supplementary question is to the Solicitor General, the minister responsible for the coroner's office and for the reviews. In 1996 the current Premier went on the attack, demanding to know why 49 child deaths had not been reviewed between the time of the Gove commission report and the formation of the Children's Commission. The first thing the Children's Commission did was review those 49 cases in its first six months. However, when the Premier eliminated the Children's Commission this time, they left dozens of open cases. These cases, I say to the Solicitor General, have names.

What is the Solicitor General prepared to do now to ensure that these case files he didn't know about, according to the chief coroner a few minutes ago, one month ago…? He didn't even know about them one month ago. What is he going to do to see that these files are recovered and the public learns what happened to these forgotten children?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I want to reassure everyone in this House and indeed all British Columbians that no child death goes unreviewed in British Columbia. We have ensured throughout that every child's death is reviewed through the coroner's office, as in fact has occurred for years here in British Columbia.

With respect to a number of files that may still be needing some form of conclusion, when that matter was brought to my attention I asked the coroner to come back to me as quickly as possible with solutions as to how that could be accomplished, and I expect to be working with him to achieve that in the very near future.

R. Austin: At least 500 case files were lost, and at least 80 child death reviews were never completed. On November 8 the chief coroner himself, Terry Smith, said that any outstanding Children's Commission investigations were closed and were never transferred to his office. The Minister of Children and Family Development has said in this House that nothing was lost when the Children's Commission was closed. He has said that his ministry is the most open of its kind in the world. If that's the case, can the minister explain why his government deliberately chose to abandon at least 80 ongoing files?

Hon. S. Hagen: As the Solicitor General has stated, all children's deaths are reviewed by the coroner's office. With regard to the broader perspective of how we do things in British Columbia, we've set up a blue-ribbon panel, which will look at the child-death review process and will bring back any recommendations, and we will consider those recommendations.

R. Austin: We obviously have some serious discrepancies here. The chief coroner last week told reporters that his office started from zero when it comes to child death reviews. The result is at least 80 forgotten children. He also said the Children's Commission's database of information on child deaths was never incorporated into the coroner's child-death review system. In addition, the coroner's office was given insufficient funding to deal with the transition and no legislative authority to access the proper records or hold in-camera meetings.

Can the Solicitor General explain why the coroner's office was not given the resources needed to complete child death reviews?

Hon. J. Les: The fact of the matter is that the coroner's office has always had the resources required to review child deaths in British Columbia. The coroner is going to continue to do that work in the province, and we look forward to working with him to accomplish that, as I've already said.

With respect to any other issues in terms of reporting out and those types of matters, I am sure that will form a significant part of the work of the Hughes panel that is currently out there in the province and that we expect to hear from early in the spring.

G. Gentner: On October 24, 2005, the Solicitor General said in this House that "no child's death in the province has gone unreviewed as a result of the transfer of those responsibilities to the coroner's office." You heard it again here today. We have to give the Solicitor General an opportunity here. Would the Solicitor General like to take the opportunity now to retract that

Hon. J. Les: It remains the case that no child's death in British Columbia goes unreviewed by the coroner's office.

G. Gentner: It's unfortunate where it could be that on that side of the House, less is more.

In 2002 the government eliminated the Children's Commission and its $4 million budget. The coroner's office was given $200,000 to take over child death reviews. But at the same time its overall budget was cut by $800,000. Since then, the coroner's service has released one child death review. Now the chief coroner has said: "We're now at a point where we need to start doing the fuller reviews." The government's overhaul of this system has been a failure — a complete failure. The coroner has not been able to do the job, and 80 forgotten children are the result.

Hon. Speaker, does the Solicitor General agree that it's time to bring back the Children's Commission?

Hon. J. Les: Along with everyone in this House, I await the recommendations of the Hughes report, which we expect early in the new year.

J. Kwan: Let's give a name to one of those 500 nameless, forgotten children. Austin Martel died during a superbug outbreak at the Children's Hospital in 1998. His Kitimat family told the Province newspaper on October 22 that they had believed the child fatality review was to be completed, until they received a letter dated September 24, 2002, from a chief investigator, John Greschner, who told her the review would not be completed as a result of the elimination of the Children's Commission. This is on record.

I'd like anybody from the government bench to please stand up and accept responsibility for that decision and explain to the family of the little child whose life was lost why the investigation was not completed and why it was cancelled in 2002.

Hon. J. Les: I am not intimately familiar with the specifics of the case that the member cites. However, I can assure her that that very unfortunate death, too, would have been thoroughly reviewed by the coroner's office.

J. Kwan: I don't know how it is that the Solicitor General says he is not familiar with the case, but yet he stands in the House and says with certainty that the review was done. In fact, the family of that little child said the review was cancelled as a result of the government's elimination of the children's commissioner's office. In fact, some 500 cases were lost in this process, and at least 80 cases — ongoing investigations — were not completed because of the loss of the children's commissioner.

The government wants to do the right thing, or at least they say they want to do the right thing. Well, they have an opportunity to do that. Will the government finally act now to honour the lives of those children who have been forgotten, whose lives have been lost in the shuffle, to ensure that those 500 lost files are recovered and fully investigated by an independent children's commissioner? That work is not being done right now.

Hon. J. Les: Listening carefully to the member opposite's question, there is only one thing I agree with her on, and it is that this government, in fact, wants to do the right thing. We want to make sure that in each and every one of those kinds of cases, the facts come out, and that is why there are several reviews ongoing at the moment.

What I find somewhat unfortunate is that what we see is a series of drive-by allegations by members opposite. I think it is clear for anyone who wants to review the files that in every one of these cases, a full and thorough coroner's investigation is done.

M. Farnworth: The Solicitor General has just stated that he wants to see the right thing done. He's stated repeatedly that the chief coroner reviews every death. Well, in March of 2005 the chief coroner pledged to review the cases that were lost in the transition period, but since that time he has admitted that he has neither the legislative mandate nor the budget to do it. So if the minister is concerned about the right thing being done, will he pledge to this House today to immediately give the chief coroner the resources and the mandate that he needs to do those reviews?

Hon. J. Les: We work with the coroner's office on an ongoing basis to ensure that the resources are there that they require. With respect to any legislative or perhaps regulatory changes that are needed, I think the members opposite would agree with me that it is appropriate to wait until the Hughes report comes in early in the new year so that we can do all of these things in context.

M. Farnworth: So the minister is saying to this House that those cases that were lost in the transition — which he says should be reviewed and, in fact, must be reviewed — have to wait for another inquiry, when he knows what is required and what the chief coroner has said about the mandate and, in particular, that the resources need to be there.

My question, again, to the minister is: will he commit to this House, and not delay, that those resources and the mandate should be given to the chief coroner today?

Hon. J. Les: I have already said to the House that I have asked the chief coroner to come back to me with

what his requirements would be to conclude any outstanding files he has in his office. To that end, I have already committed additional resources to that office so that the work can begin as quickly as possible.

C. Puchmayr: Since the House rose on November 3, the death toll in the forest sector has continued to climb. Two weeks ago a Helifor helicopter broke apart in midair in Bella Coola, plunging two of the young men to their death. Now we have just heard yet another tragedy, bringing the total to 37. I thank the Minister of Labour for that briefing earlier.

What is the Minister of Labour doing today to address these unacceptable numbers?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member and his colleague for attending earlier.

Yes, sadly, another fatality — this time north of Kamloops in a very remote area involving an individual in the falling sector, the fifth falling fatality this year. The numbers continue to mount. From all of us in this House, of course, our condolences, thoughts and prayers to the families.

I think the member is aware that we have begun a very intensive collaboration with the stakeholders, including the steelworkers union. I have directed WorkSafe B.C. to devote additional personnel and resources specifically to the forest sector and, of course, the forum that is being organized. It all seems to pale when you consider the tragic loss that, again, occurred yesterday. But suffice to say, we are resolved — and, I think, members on both sides of the House — to take the steps necessary to curtail an unacceptable level of carnage in the woods.

C. Puchmayr: Between 2001 and 2004 there have been 45 fewer workplace inspections, written orders are down 49 percent, and employer penalties are down by 36 percent. Does the Minister of Labour agree that the reduction in inspections in orders in forestry are causing alarm and are resulting in the increase in fatalities in our forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's certainly one part of a very complicated equation that people have focused upon. As I've just indicated to the member and the House, I have made a very specific request of WorkSafe B.C. in the last two and a half weeks to address that and devote some additional resources.

But I think it goes beyond that. The member, I'm sure, recalls our discussion earlier today where I talked about the changes in the forest sector, the differing harvesting practices but also the differing look of the industry and how there are far more contractors, smaller operators and our overall regulatory process. I acknowledge to him we have to ensure that it is one that matches that structure and takes proper account.

So I am hopeful and optimistic that with all of the stakeholders, committed as they are, and this member, committed as he is, we can wrestle this to the ground in a very meaningful way. The test for that will be when we don't have to stand up and talk about specific fatalities as, unfortunately, we have to do today — the day after yet another one.

B. Simpson: As the minister has indicated, our hearts do go out to the families of those who have lost their lives in our forest sector. However, I note that the minister admitted that the sector has changed dramatically over the last number of years. During forestry estimates, I asked the Minister of Forests and Range about those changes and whether or not it was time to look at those changes with respect to forest safety. The minister's response was that he did not feel compelled to take immediate steps because "we have a year that's outside the normal cycle."

To the Minister of Forests and Range: what constitutes normal with respect to forest worker deaths, and what number will it take before the minister takes concerted action to look at the policy changes that have occurred over the last four years?

Hon. M. de Jong: While I appreciate the question and the fact that it is essential we have the discussion, no one is claiming any proprietary interest in this. What we want to do is try and address a problem that, quite frankly, has become very much a part of the culture of operating in the forests.

Ironically, if we looked at the numbers last year, we could conclude that there was no problem at all, but those numbers were unacceptable. They were very low, by forestry standards. In my view, they were still unacceptable.

I don't think any of us should be satisfied. This is one thing that the steelworkers union, Mr. Hunt, the Forests Minister and I agreed on absolutely. No one should be satisfied until a forest worker can go to his or her workplace and know with some degree of certainty that they're going to come home and see their family at night and that they can do so safely.

B. Simpson: Again, I appreciate the minister's heartfelt response and the minister's own words that the government is resolved to do what it takes. Well, there are voices upon voices who are pointing out that forest policy changes have been implicated in the spike of deaths that we're seeing in the forest sector.

To the Minister of Forests and Range: will his ministry conduct an independent and comprehensive review of those forest policy changes to see what, if anything, they are contributing to unsafe conditions in our forests? My question to the minister is: what does the government have to lose if indeed it does that review and it actually contributes to reducing the number of deaths?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again to the member, there is — and I hope I can be clear about this — no hesitation on

the part of this minister, the Forests Minister or any member of this government to examine every facet of how our forest industry operates to ensure that we bring down a level of injury and fatality that is unacceptable. The member heard me, just an hour or two ago, talk about how we have a system that was built around the notion of the WCB safety officer going to the MacMillan Bloedel safety officer for a discussion. Our industry doesn't look like that anymore. There is absolutely no hesitation on the part of this government or any member of it to ensure that we have a regulatory system in place that properly takes account of those changes and that ensures that people operating in the forest sector can do so safely.

N. Macdonald: This government says that it does not download programs and services onto communities, but the relocation of regional fire commissioners to Victoria is a download onto communities. A question for the Minister of Community Services: why is her government relocating our regional fire commissioners to Victoria?

Hon. J. Les: The member and I had a brief opportunity to discuss this during, I think, the week that the House rose. I've had a brief discussion with the office of the fire commissioner since. I have not yet got all of the answers that I'm looking for in response to the member's question. It does, however, have to do with ensuring that we have a core group of people within the fire commissioner's office that have the level of expertise we want them to have. With respect to ensuring that, we need to sometimes make sure that we have enough of those people together in one place.

I can assure the member that the residents of his riding are in no way going to suffer as a result of that. With respect to any other issues surrounding that issue, I'll commit here and now to get back to the member with those answers.

C. Evans: For weeks now, every time that the opposition has raised questions put forward by citizens about the sale of Terasen Gas to Kinder Morgan of Texas, the Minister of Energy has assured us that the B.C. Utilities Commission will be looking after the concerns of the public.

The public — because they trust the minister — believed him, and 8,000 of them wrote in asking the Utilities Commission questions about jobs and taxes, the relationship of the sale to softwood, trade disputes, foreign ownership and the implications of NAFTA. Then the Utilities Commission said: "These questions are beyond the scope of this review." Then they said that because there were no questions, there didn't have to be any answers, and because there were no answers required, the sale was permitted. Kafka couldn't have designed such a bureaucratic nightmare of over there, over here — where absolutely nobody has to answer anything.

My question to the minister — I bet it doesn't surprise you that there's a question — is: now that the B.C. Utilities Commission has declined to consider the questions and concerns of British Columbians — I am sure the minister did not mean to mislead the House when he said that they'll look after it — could he lead the House now and tell us, if the Utilities Commission does not consider the concerns of British Columbians, who will look after the public interest in the sale of Terasen Gas?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I've said to this member — and I don't know if he's hard of hearing or he just can't remember it on a daily basis almost — the Utilities Commission is responsible for looking after British Columbians' interests and will continue to look after British Columbians' interests as they relate to the sale of natural gas from Terasen as it moves forward. I think the member is aware that the process is not finished. There's still Investment Canada, which has to make a decision on this issue. But if the Utilities Commission Act was such a mess — and is such a mess — why didn't you, when you were in government…? Your government spent ten years actually circumventing….

Hon. R. Neufeld: The government that you were part of spent ten years circumventing the B.C. Utilities Commission process. You issued orders from the Ministry of Energy and Mines office at the time to do specific things. So you circumvented it. If you didn't like the legislation then, as you're saying now, why didn't you change it then to what corresponded with what your government thought it should be?

C. Evans: Whether I'm hard of hearing or not or whether I was part of a government or not is irrelevant. There are citizens — 8,000 of them; I've read the letters — and they live in the constituencies of all the members opposite and of the members of cabinet. They are not New Democrats. They're regular people; they belong to all parties. They even live where that member lives. For 100 years…

C. Evans: …the people who governed in British Columbia have been trying to take power from Ottawa.

What we just heard that minister say is: "We don't have to decide. We give it over to Ottawa." Hon. Speaker….

C. Evans: I might get to one. Is the minister saying that if the 8,000 citizens who wrote letters — and the members of this Legislature who have an opinion — wish to have that opinion registered, we need to leave this capital city and our province and go to Ottawa to make our complaints known, because he won't listen to them?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'll remind the member again, in case he's forgotten, that the B.C. Utilities Commission is responsible for looking after the public's best interests in the province. In their approval of the sale, they actually put some conditions on the sale. Interesting — right? So they are, first, keeping the finances of Kinder Morgan and Terasen separate in order to protect Terasen's credit rating and the rates to customers. Get it? Second, they're keeping a separate board of directors from Kinder Morgan. Third, things like offices and customer billing information cannot be moved from their current locations without prior approval from the commission, to protect customer privacy.

Mr. Speaker, just quickly. If anyone ought to go to Ottawa, maybe that member ought to go to Ottawa and talk to Jack Layton.

Mr. Speaker: I have the honour to present the statement of votes for the 38th general election and the statement of votes for the 2005 referendum on electoral reform.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, in this chamber I call Committee of Supply, for the information of members, on the estimates of the Ministry of Health and in Committee A — the little House — continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Solicitor General.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I may just make a few introductory comments, Madam Chair. First of all, I would like to introduce the staff that's with me here. On my immediate right is Penny Ballem, who is the deputy minister for the Ministry of Health. To my far left are Manjit Sidhu and Dave Woodward, who are assistant deputy ministers. Actually, Dave is an associate deputy minister. Manjit is an assistant deputy minister with the ministry. Of course, there's a cast of thousands elsewhere to assist in finding all of the answers that are important around the Ministry of Health.

This is my first set of estimates as a Minister of Health. This is a very large, challenging and exciting ministry. I have very much enjoyed the five months, I guess, that I've had the honour of being the minister responsible for Health in the province. One of the reasons why it has been a very satisfying and very exciting position to hold is that I have a remarkably capable executive in the Ministry of Health to support my efforts as minister.

I am impressed every day by the excellence in the Ministry of Health, beginning with Penny and right down through the ministry. We have a very committed, very knowledgable and very talented organization that I think is doing an excellent job for the citizens of British Columbia in providing services that are very much valued by the citizens of this province. I do want to thank staff at the outset for their excellent work.

I want to say at the outset, as well, that I'm looking forward very much to the questions and comments from the Health critics opposite and, of course, from other members of the assembly on both sides of the Legislature. Health is something that all of our constituents, I think, typically value as the most important public service that we can offer to the people of the province. I'm very much looking forward to their constructive questions and comments.

I'll also begin with the startling admission that I have always found the estimates process to be actually one of the most valuable things that we do in this legislative chamber. I recall that on advising my colleagues of that back in about 1996, they thought I was utterly bizarre and perhaps quite unstable to think that estimates might be a particularly productive part of what we do in this chamber. But I've always felt that, and I continue to feel that estimates is a very important part of our work here and that there frequently is — how shall we put it — a more constructive climate or culture around the estimates process than one finds, for example, in question period, although it has changed somewhat, as well, over the years. In any event, I'm certainly looking forward to this process and the opportunity we'll have in the hours ahead to canvass areas of health care that are important to the members opposite and certainly important to all of their constituents.

Health is a major priority for our government. That goes without saying but is perhaps better for the saying of it. It is the largest element in the provincial budget. Somewhere, I believe, between 43 and 44 cents of every

tax dollar in the province is expended on the health care system, and that's good. Over time it continues to grow as a share of the provincial budget. I used to recoil somewhat more about that particular fact when I was a minister for other things, but now that I'm Minister of Health, it doesn't seem nearly as scary a prospect as it once did.

We have seen the health budget grow dramatically. Even over the first four years of our government we have seen health care expenditures grow dramatically. When we took government in 2001, the budget for health was $8.3 billion. Today it is $11.75 billion — a 38-percent increase over the past five years.

The health care system is also a huge employer in our province. About 120,000 people are directly employed in the health care system, and every day those 120,000 people set out to provide the very best health care they can to the citizens in this province. I think we actually have an excellent health care system in this province. I don't think I would claim, nor do I think many would claim, that the health care system is perfect, but it's a great system and one that we can be very proud of.

Every day there are tens of thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of interactions within our health care system. The great majority of those — a very, very high percentage of those — would be very satisfactory interactions in the system. They're that way because, across the province, there are doctors, nurses, orderlies, administrators and front-line health care workers in home care and elsewhere who are doing their very best every day to provide excellent health care to the people that they serve. So I think British Columbians do have a right to be very proud of the quality of care that is produced by the health care system in B.C.

Again, I think if one looks comparatively at where British Columbia sits in terms of outcomes produced by our health care system, British Columbians would be very proud and pleased by how well we are doing. Ours are among the best health care outcomes in Canada.

The other area where I think British Columbians should rightly be particularly proud is in the research area. British Columbia — and members opposite may know it, but if they don't, I think it's something they would want to know — has built an international reputation for the contributions which British Columbia's researchers make in the area of health. It is absolutely remarkable, particularly in areas like cancer, what we have been able to do as a relatively small piece of the world — four million people. Our contributions by those four million British Columbians to the world of health care research have been absolutely remarkable.

I had the pleasure to attend an awards event with the B.C. Cancer Agency just over a week ago and talk to Dr. Simon Sutcliffe from the B.C. Cancer Agency. We were talking about the quite remarkable contributions that had been made, and I asked him, both in a relative sense and in an absolute sense, how the world views British Columbia and Canada as contributors to the world of cancer research. His answer was pleasant from my perspective — more than pleasant, remarkable — that not only in a relative sense but in an absolute sense, British Columbia and Canada lead in many areas of cancer research internationally.

We are doing things in British Columbia which, not just in a relative sense but in an absolute sense, are world-leading, and every British Columbian should be proud of that fact. We're not only doing an exceptional job of managing the illnesses of people who are unfortunate enough to be stricken by cancer, but we are also undertaking remarkable research projects — not only in cancer but a whole range of other science-based and health-based activities — and really leading the world in terms of what we are able to produce. We should be very proud of that as well.

Across the health care system one can see how not only the research results but the day-to-day management by the doctors, nurses, orderlies and so on of the health care system are leading to excellent results. British Columbians, compared to all other jurisdictions in Canada, lead the longest, healthiest lives of Canadians. We should be celebrating that fact each and every day.

If you're a British Columbian, you're apt to live longer and healthier than other Canadians. In terms of physical activity — and I was very proud of this as former Minister of Sport — we lead the nation in terms of physical activity and the benefits that obviously can be derived healthwise from that. We lead the nation in terms of healthy body weights. Obesity and overweight have very much become huge issues for Canadians as well as people across the world. Again, relatively speaking, British Columbians are doing well.

We also have the lowest smoking rate in Canada, at about 16 percent, and again, that's something we should be very proud of. It's also a fact that helps to drive cost down in our system, because British Columbians are living healthier as a consequence of not being addicted to cigarettes.

We should be happy about all those things. But is there room for improvement? Absolutely, and we have committed to some very ambitious goals as a government to try to lower the number of people who smoke, increase the number of people with healthy body weights, have more people eating healthy balanced diets and have people get more physical activity. All of those will be important drivers in terms of health care costs and health care outcomes five years from now, ten years from now, 20 years from now.

We need to convince British Columbians…. I'll speak a little bit more later on this around ActNow B.C. We need to convince people that they need to take control of their own lifestyles in order to have health outcomes five years from now, ten years from now and 20 years from now which are satisfying to them and satisfactory to their families, and so on.

We have committed to improve in all of these areas to be the healthiest jurisdiction, we hope, to ever host a Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games, in 2010. This

is an ambitious plan, but we know that British Columbians are giving a lot of thought to their personal health, and we want to encourage them to do that.

The other point I want to make as we begin here is that human resources are really the foundation to a great and improving health care system in this province. We currently have about 8,000 physicians in this province. Again, relatively speaking, we have a pretty good distribution of those 8,000 physicians. There may be some corners of the province where it's difficult for people to get access to physicians, and even in some urban areas there may be difficulties in that regard, but we know that in British Columbia we do have either the second- or third-highest number of physicians per capita compared to other jurisdictions in Canada.

We want to ensure that every British Columbian has access to a physician, and we want to ensure that our future needs are met in terms of physicians. There are many physicians in this province who are, like me, into their mid-50s and are contemplating retirement at some point. We need to ensure that we are educating young physicians to, again generationally, take the place of those who may retire over the next decade. That's a very important thing to do.

I am happy to report that our government has, in fact, stepped up to the plate in a very substantial way in respect to that. We have committed to doubling the number of medical graduates in this province from the current 128 per year to 256 per year by 2007. This is a very important and very expensive commitment, as well, but one that we feel is absolutely vital in terms of ensuring that doctors, who are very much the foundation of a health care system, are available to the public.

I do want to thank our partners in that: the University of British Columbia, the University of Victoria and the University of Northern British Columbia. By 2009, I understand, UBC Okanagan will also be a part of this, so that's excellent as well.

Similarly, nurses are a vitally important part of health care in British Columbia. Currently there are about 37,000 nurses that work in this province, and they do a great job for us. Since 2001, to ensure that we have sufficient quantity of nurses, $67.1 million has been spent on recruitment, retention and education for nurses in this province. There are occasions when there are shortages of nurses, but happily, that is becoming less the case. There was an artificial restriction on the number of nurses being educated back in the 1990s. Only 85 new nursing seats were added through the period of the 1990s. Just prior to the 2001 election, as some may recall, some 400 seats were proposed for addition, but there was a real shortage in terms of having all of the skills and education and knowledge associated with nursing available to the public.

Since 2001 we have made a huge commitment around educating more nurses. We have added 2,511 seats — not to be too precise about this, but 2,511 nursing seats — to educational institutions across this province. That's going to be enormously important in terms of meeting human resource needs. That's a 62-percent increase in the number of nurses being educated in this province. We have also, I should note, recruited nationally and internationally another 600 nurses to assist us in ensuring that we have an adequate number of health professionals to deal with the challenges that we face each and every day.

I know the opposition has appointed a critic for mental health, and I think that's great. I look forward to his thoughtful questions in the House.

I just want to make a few comments around mental health. Again, this is an area that has probably in the past — and I'm talking historically now — not received the attention and the resources that are commensurate with its importance. We know that many more British Columbians are affected by mental health disorders, including depression, than one might have thought. Some would estimate as high as one in five British Columbians would at some point in their lives be affected by a mental disorder. We need to try to move away as a society from the stigma that is often associated with mental illness, and I think we need to make some cultural adjustments, not only in the way we look at this as a government but also in the way that society looks at and manages these challenges.

I'm proud of the work that the ministry has been doing in respect to mental health. Over $1 billion is devoted annually to mental health and addiction issues in this province. There is a strong correlation, often, between mental health challenges and addiction challenges. I have seen educated estimates that range between 30 and 60 percent, roughly, in terms of the correlation between those two challenges. In either event, we often need to look at some of these challenges from a holistic perspective, involving not just addictions treatment or mental health treatment but also issues of housing, employment and counselling for better physical health. A whole range of issues comes into play in terms of turning around some of the lives.

I'm proud of the new facilities we have seen brought on line over the past few years and which continue to come on line today. For example, Seven Oaks in Saanich; Iris House in Prince George; South Hills in Kamloops; Seven Sisters in Terrace; the Kamloops neuropsych centre, which is going to be coming into stream soon; Delta View in Delta; and Sandringham in Victoria — all important, new, regional mental health facilities in home-like kinds of settings, which I think are a very important part of helping manage mental health challenges and helping people to return, when they're ready, to a broader role in society.

There are lots of issues, and I won't go through them now. I'm sure that the mental health critic will canvass lots of these areas, including devolution of Riverview, as we move through this. I note also that the opposition has a critic for seniors and seniors' health and long-term care. I think that's very good as well.

I am, as a former Minister of Housing, particularly proud of what we have been able to do over the past five years in terms of Independent Living B.C. That is a partnership between the Ministry of Housing, B.C.

Housing and the Ministry of Health. I think there have been some remarkable changes made in that area, possibly not fast enough for some, but there have been huge investments made. Each and every day we see more and new and better facilities which are coming on stream as a consequence of that huge investment, both on the Ministry of Housing side and the Ministry of Health–health authority side. Over the past four years we've completed well over 4,000 new or renovated units.

It would be difficult to overstate the challenge we faced when we came into government in 2001 in terms of meeting the needs for not only numbers of units for the frail elderly but also the condition of those units. There were not sufficient resources, in my view. We may vigorously debate this in the hours ahead, but there were not, in my view, anywhere near the resources devoted to this important area between 1991 and 2001. Only 1,400 additional units were added over those ten years.

Worse, what we found on doing an inventory — a first-ever comprehensive provincial housing inventory for residential care and assisted living in 2002 — was that many of those units and buildings failed to meet building and fire codes. We also found that about 50 percent required major upgrades to meet the level of care needs that the patients or clients required. That was a challenge.

We saw, in many instances, the closure of four-bed and eight-bed wards, to be replaced, often and most commonly, by either single units or, on occasion, two-bed units. Again, this is a very important change in both the quantity and the quality of the units available for the frail elderly. In addition to the now 4,000-plus that have been either newly built or renovated from inadequate stock, right now around the province there are another 52 projects where shovels are in the ground in various stages of completion. We'll see another 2,100 units completed by December of 2006.

Even with the units that have come on stream today, I'm happy to report that the wait times for assisted living and residential care are way down from when we took office. It was about a year wait time when we took office. It is now down, typically, across the province to between 30 and 90 days. There's substantial progress. As we see the balance of those units come on stream between now and December 2008 — another increment of approximately 2,200 more units coming on stream between December '06 and December '08 — we will see that situation improve even more.

There have been huge investments made there, and rightly so. I think both the quality and quantity for the resources available to the frail elderly are going to be dramatically improved as a consequence of these investments.

Another area which I'm sure the members opposite may wish to canvass is the issue of surgical wait times. This has been a big interest to me as incoming Health Minister. I think the ministry has been doing remarkable things in terms of trying to meet unprecedented demand for surgical procedures in this province.

The first thing that one might note, for example, if you compare what we are doing in terms of surgeries in different areas to what we were doing back when we took government: surgeries in the area of knee replacements are up 65 percent over 2001 — a lot more surgeries being undertaken in that area. Hip replacements are up 35 percent over 2001; cataracts, up 20 percent; coronary bypass, up 7 percent; and perhaps most interesting of all, angioplasties, up 52 percent from what was done back in 2001.

Though the consequence of those additional resources being devoted to better surgical wait times has been very good in some areas, it remains a challenge in some other areas. In cataracts we've seen the average wait time across the province reduce from about 12 weeks down to about eight weeks, but for cancer radiation it's down from about two weeks to one week or less now, which is excellent. Similarly on cardiac, there are very good results in terms of reduced wait times.

Where we continue to have a big challenge is in the area of hips and knees, the orthopedic surgeries. Again, while the number of surgeries is up dramatically for hips, at 65 percent, and knees, at 35 percent, nonetheless, we are able only to hold the wait times relatively static as a consequence of a demand curve that is growing as fast as or faster than we can provide more procedures.

This is a challenge, and I would submit to the House, in the best non-partisan sense that I can, that it is going to be a continuing challenge for all members of this House and for any future government in this House. We have, really, two demographic waves that are going to always challenge us and really demand all of the ingenuity and all of the innovation that we can muster as governments or potential governments.

The first demographic wave is the one that my mother is a part of. She's 83. She is part of the fastest-growing demographic group in the province, which is the 80-plus group. Not only are British Columbians living longer than ever before, but they're living healthier than ever before. Their expectations about living long are greater than ever before, and they are demanding surgeries at a later age than we would ever have contemplated ten, 15 or 20 years ago. That group is growing quickly. That's a great thing, but it means some demands for, particularly, hip and knee surgeries. So we're going to be challenged in that area.

The second demographic wave that is coming at us is the group that I'm delighted to be a part of, which is the postwar baby-boomers. Actually, I can see a number of people around this chamber who might fall into that esteemed category — not looking at you, Mr. Clerk, not at all. You're well beyond that, I think. No, I'm just kidding. That group is now in their early, mid- or late 50s or early 60s — the postwar baby-boomers. If you look at the utilization of health care services by age groupings, what we find is that as we get to be approximately 60 to 65 to 70, the rate at which we utilize

health services climbs dramatically. For that group — which, again, I'm a part of — we are going to see those continuing challenges.

It's a challenge, but again, to place it in perspective: in British Columbia, if you need a surgical procedure, approximately half of them are done immediately. They are done on an emergency basis and done immediately. Of the remainder, 50 percent will be done within one month, and this is on average; 75 percent in less than three months; 90 percent in less than seven months; and 97 percent in 12 months. So relatively speaking, we are doing well on wait times, but there are some challenges, and I do hope the members of this House have some suggestions on additional things we might do.

Is that red light for me? No. Is it? Oh, really? I didn't know there was a time limit on introductory speeches.

Hon. G. Abbott: There is now. This is something new. I'll try to wrap up here in a moment.

We're going to work hard through ActNow B.C. to ensure that in smoking cessation, exercise, healthy body weight and fetal alcohol syndrome, people have the information they need to understand how they can largely determine their own health outcomes.

I want to close with this quote. This is from Edward Stanley, the Earl of Derby, from 1873. It's good that even belatedly we recognize the genius of Earl of Derby. "Those who think they have not time for bodily exercise will sooner or later have to find time for illness."

I hope you can forgive me for going over time, Madam Chair, in sharing that important quote with you. I look forward to the questions from the members of the chamber.

D. Cubberley: I want to thank the minister for his comments, for his thoughtful introduction. Like him, this is my maiden voyage as well. I've been on the opposite side of the House and haven't dealt with Health estimates before, so I beg everybody's indulgence of my missteps as I go along through the process.

The minister's comment at the very end about the quote reminded me of one that I keep pinned up nearby, which is from somebody less auspicious than his source. It runs that the human body is the only machine that wears out through lack of activity. I think it's something that, as we go through the prevention side of the estimates, we may want to keep in mind and that we can come back to.

Anyway, I also really do thank the minister for thoughtful comment. I didn't mind the filibuster. It was informative. I want to thank him and his staff for having provided all three of the critics with a very helpful briefing prior to the estimates, which will make it less cumbersome than it would have been without the briefing.

Stewardship of public health care is a collective responsibility. Each government that takes it on anew takes it over from a prior government, and probably, in some real sense, we're all standing on the shoulders of those who went before us. I know that the minister was canvassing some of the things that he was quite proud of and that are special about the B.C. system. He was talking a bit about health research, which is obviously becoming more acknowledged as an area of excellence.

I had other things going through my mind at the same time, thinking about things that do distinguish us. One of them, which I believe was a Social Credit innovation originally, was to establish the Centre for Disease Control, which I think showed immense value during the SARS outbreak, both in preventing it from taking hold here and in being able to call in plays, as it were, from British Columbia to a situation in Toronto. It certainly made me feel very proud and made me aware that some of these larger-scale apparatuses that can be put in place can have immense benefit when we're challenged with something like a SARS epidemic or like the pandemic that may be on the horizon.

As you know, the public in Canada and, I think, both parties in the Legislature care deeply about the health care system and are very attached to it. Quite apart from the sense of crisis that some on the far right like to sow about public health care, I think Canadians, by and large, are very attached to the system and are very satisfied with it, although they have concerns. Some of those concerns will be mirrored in some of the directions of questioning that we will take in the House during estimates.

Health care affects everyone at numerous points in a life, from cradle to grave. I know, for myself personally, that it's had an impact at many different points, whether dealing with a broken bone that I got from a cycling accident three years back or watching my own son born in a hospital or dealing with my own parents struggling to age in place and deal with end-of-life care. You engage with the health care system at many different points, and it's a wonder that it is there and that it can be there for all of us.

I think it remains the most important issue to most people in society throughout most of their lives that they have access to high-quality care in a timely manner. They might not use that exact language, but they will come up with something that equates to that if they're asked about it. I think that in a very basic sense the health care system that we have — a public health care system — reflects our commitment to one another and is arguably our most important social program. While it does absorb an enormous stock of resources, it's carrying out a very, very broad and diverse service to virtually everyone who's living.

Of course, that kind of system places an enormous responsibility upon all decision-makers and on the minister in particular. I recognize that. There's obviously the responsibility to show good stewardship of the system and to provide leadership, and that's an

ongoing challenge. It means planning well both for what you're dealing with now but for what's coming, as the minister said, in three years' time, in five years' time. The waves of things coming at us are only likely to increase.

Of course, you've got to pull together the resources to address issues as they arrive in real time. And they do. I can see the deputy's brow furrowing, and I'm sure she's had to deal with a bit of that. Of course, the minister has to engage in a spirited defence of the system's accomplishments — because they are many, and it's important to remind us of that — and, at the same time, be involved in implementing strategies that provide for renewal and lead a process of change in complex institutions.

If we think about the four strong winds of change in modern health care that have been identified by close observers as affecting public health care systems worldwide, they're certainly continuing to blow through our system today. Our collective challenge is to ensure that the changes that they prompt in system design serve the ends for which the system was conceived, while improving the efficiency and the effectiveness of the means by which they're achieved.

Stewardship is very much about both continuity and change, about preserving the best features, certainly the defining features, of a single payer, publicly administered and — largely not-for-profit — delivered system of health care while implementing new approaches that respond to new technologies and new techniques constantly coming on stream, capturing new benefits and extending avenues of care into entirely new dimensions that may have been unimagined ten years ago.

So there are numerous challenges facing public health care, but I think there's a sense of optimism out there. If you clear through the rhetoric on the extreme right about the system imploding, falling apart and being unaffordable, and look at what's actually happening with it, there's a sense of optimism and opportunity out there in the new resolve at the level of the federal government to put new resources into addressing the more pressing challenges that we face in health care. I welcome that initiative — we do on this side — because it begins to redress the historic imbalance that was created in the '90s, which perhaps the member will remember. Although if he was elected first in '96 — I don't know — it occurred before he became a member.

The federal transfer payments were unilaterally cut back, and it forced very, very difficult choices on the decision-makers of the '90s who chose to attempt to, as best they could, offset the missing federal money but, of course, were forced into compromises nonetheless because, in a real sense, health care spending had been reduced. In turn, over time that has created lots of bottlenecks that may not have been there had federal funding been sustained. The return of the federal funding, I think, or a portion of it, hopefully allows us to begin to direct resources towards those problems that were created in part or seeded initially by those cuts.

For me, and for us, estimates debate provides an opportunity for all of us to come closer to what the government sees as its priorities for health care. It's a very good chance to have an open exchange that I think can grow awareness and understanding, perhaps on both sides, and possibly even extend common ground — who knows? I'm an optimist. It can also clarify differences and the substantive policy issues, if there are substantive policy issues, that lie behind those differences.

With that, I would just like to say that we're proposing that we begin in the following manner — and I put this out so that the minister and staff can think about how this might flow — to approach general health issues, which is artificial as a distinction, by looking at the provincial budget, initially the update and some of the large numbers that are in there; federal funding agreements and the kinds of moneys that are coming on stream for what activities; wait-time reduction, wait-list strategies; primary care reform; health authorities; B.C. Ambulance; capital projects and P3s; alternative service delivery, including MSP; prevention; public health; and Pharmacare.

Now, we're going to try and jam all of that up to Wednesday evening, and then Wednesday evening to Thursday morning swing into seniors health — so the aspects of Pharmacare, community care, assisted living, Bill 73, palliative home support and seniors' fall prevention. Then on Thursday morning and afternoon, mental health, including Riverview redeployment, community care and housing, interaction with the criminal justice system, addiction services and the specific issue of crystal meth.

Never having done it before, this is all guesstimated as to how the time would go. I know there are other members who will want to get their oar in the water, probably on both sides of the House, so we'll have to see how that all works out. But I would think we'd probably try to get to the end of the wait-time stuff by the end of this evening, if not into primary care, but we'll see how that goes. If they're long questions and short answers, we'll just have to….

To begin with a higher-level review of projected spending levels that are shown in the service plan update from September 2005, just looking at the coarse numbers, regional health sector funding is projected to go up by $700 million in '05-06, then by $250 million and then by $90 million in '07-08. I'm interested to know what's in that $700 million — whether some portion of that is to provide for incremental costs for delivery of the same services. Some of it is presumably for

some elements of new services. So if you could comment on what's in there, that would be a good start.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, let me thank the member for his thoughtful and generous comments in introducing this section of the estimates. The staff and I are very appreciative of the opposition for laying out the general order of questioning for us. It is very helpful from a perspective of deployment of staff resources to be able to do that, so I thank the hon. member very much for that.

I also wanted to thank the hon. member very much for his comments in relation to the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. Again, I'm not sure what the starting date on the BCCDC was, but they do just remarkable work. I know we are certainly very proud of what they were able to do when faced with the very, very challenging situation of SARS, but they did a remarkable job then. I think we can all be confident as British Columbians and Canadians that should we at some point face a pandemic kind of challenge, we have a resource like the BCCDC that can be there to assist us.

One of the dangers, of course, in talking about some of the good things going on in B.C. is that inevitably we miss some of the remarkable things going on here. Of course, the work being done at the Michael Smith Foundation is amazing. The work being done in this province on genomics and on unravelling that whole area of health care management is remarkable. The Rick Hansen Foundation does great work on spinal cord injury research. So there are lots of very, very remarkable things being done by the research establishment in British Columbia, particularly at the universities but outside the universities as well.

In answer to the member's question in terms of the $700 million, first of all, the largest piece of that will be for the funding increase for health authorities. That would be to address pressures around things like diagnostic and joint wait-lists, youth addictions, palliative care, increased home care, maternity care enhancements, ActNow programs, dental health, hearing screening, FASD diagnosis and assessment, vaccination programs and specific programs as well as those. I won't go through it all.

As well, another important portion of the supplementary estimates will be for Visudyne, postgraduate medical education, Canadian Blood Services, out-of-province claims, autism, NurseLine access, public health and immunization trust programs. So that's another large block of the dollars.

Other things I should mention. The Michael Smith Foundation — $70 million has been committed to Michael Smith. Home and community care are important as well. Over the next two years we're aiming at improving care for seniors who receive services across the continuum of home and community care services. Funding will include things such as the purchase of equipment — beds and lifts aimed at improving patient care and reducing strain and injuries for health care providers; facility improvements to accommodate higher levels of care; training for case managers; enhanced home care capacity; ensuring adequate home care and residential care capacity while governments and health authorities renew existing facilities.

There is a broad range, as I'm sure the member can appreciate, of things that are being done there, but that probably can give you a pretty good sense of where that approximately $700 million will be devoted.

D. Cubberley: Just to follow that along a little bit, in no particular order, two questions. First, is there any capital spending in that amount at all — minor capital spending? I'm not thinking so much of equipment and beds and the like but more the actual construction of facilities.

The second thing is on home care and community care. Is there a defined increase in the number of hours of home care service and housekeeping services that will be available to people who are eligible for those kinds of services under the moneys being put into health authorities?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked a couple of questions to which we'll give the best answer we can. He may wish to pursue this further, and we'll try to get more precise as the questioning proceeds.

The answer around if there is capital involved in that $700 million is yes. There's some minor capital particularly involved there. Generally, one would find the major capital, for example, for new institutions or hospitals…. The funding for that would be elsewhere. The $700 million is incremental dollars, but there is some minor capital in there.

The second question the member asked was: could there be enhancement of home and community care with those dollars? Again, the answer is yes, particularly around the tools, the sort of facility amenities that would assist in providing assistance to those needing home and community care. Also, consistent with the standardized assessment tools that we've developed across all health authorities, if there is an unmet need, it could certainly go there. We know that every year we have an aging society where, all things being equal, there's going to be a growing demand, so the dollars here will assist with that growing demand over the next three years.

Also, end-of-life care. We provide, first of all, the coverage for case management, nursing and personal care at the end of life and also for short-term, acute, community mental health home care and short-term, acute home care. So those are all areas where we can do enhancements under the FMM agreement.

D. Cubberley: Just a couple of follow-ons there. Are there any resources that were formerly held in the ministry budget that are being transferred to health authorities through that funding, and is there any of the Riverview devolution money included in that? Is there anything in that money that provides for devolu-

Hon. G. Abbott: We think the answer to the first portion of the member's question is no, but we may have missed his point. If we have, perhaps he could restate the question, and we can try again. But as we understand the member's question, he is asking whether there had been any sort of pre-existing holdbacks from the province to the health authorities in the area of home and community care that would form a part of the $700 million that we're discussing currently, and the answer to that is no. There are no sort of residual funds that have not been previously transferred out to the health authorities that would be embraced by this $700 million. Again, I hope we've got the member's question right, and I'm sure he will rephrase if we missed some subtlety there.

Around Riverview, again the answer is no, and I think we understand the member's question clearly in this case. The capital portion of Riverview devolution resides elsewhere. It is $138 million. Operating funds move from the province out through the Provincial Health Services Authority, or PHSA. As beds or patients are devolved or regionalized, moved to regional facilities, the dollars follow them.

D. Cubberley: I'd like the minister to try to help me understand the next line in the general budget, the Medical Services Plan budget, as an entity separate from regional health sector funding. So really, I'm interested to know what's paying for what. What's actually paid for through the Medical Services Plan line item, if you will, and what's paid for through the health sector funding? And what's the division there that occurs?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you to the member for his question. In terms of the breakdown of expenditures in the MSP area, which is approximately $2.627 billion, the lion's share of that, close to 68 percent of it, is medical fee-for-service at $1.778 billion; laboratory services, $265 million, which is about 10 percent of the overall; alternative payments, $246 million; rural health, $157 million; physician benefit plans, $68 million; supplementary benefits, $64 million, and that would be chiropractors, etc; out-of-province payments, $26 million — almost $27 million; and primary care reform at $20 million. So that's the breakdown for MSP.

D. Cubberley: Just to understand a little better, what caps that amount? Does that have a relationship to what is taken in through MSP premiums? How is that generated?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to the member's question is no. The quantum produced through MSP premiums is $1.438 billion per year, and the expenditures under this general area are $2.627 billion. Obviously, there are additional budgetary provisions that allow us to provide the range of services, etc., that are embraced and that we previously discussed.

The main drivers in terms of whether that number goes up — I was going to say up or down, but it never goes down, only goes up — are the agreements we would have with the B.C. Medical Association and others around fee structures. Those are managed as well as possible by the ministry and by the health authorities. We try to contain these things, but as you know, we are entering into a new round of discussions with BCMA, and the chance of them demanding a reduction in any of their fees is probably scant.

D. Cubberley: If we could just drop down to the next item. I'm conscious of the fact that we're going to canvass this in detail later on, but could you just give me a sense, under Pharmacare, of what the cost drivers are there? I'm just interested in a general sense — it's obviously not going to be one thing — in what's driving it, whether it's new drugs like Herceptin coming into the formulary that are the main drivers, or if it's the expansion of existing drugs just being prescribed more widely. What's the combination of factors that's driving it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for a very good question. I'm going to have to contain my normal enthusiasm for responding to questions here so that I don't try to answer every conceivable question in this area in one answer and then leave these pre-emptively ending, unlikely as that might be.

Pharmacare is a challenging area for a whole range of reasons. It is a very challenging area of public policy. The Pharmacare area, notwithstanding some changes that have been made in recent years, continues to grow faster than the overall growth of health expenditures. There are a number of factors involved in that.

Basically, it is a price-times-volume equation that drives the overall costs of Pharmacare. but we are also seeing an impact of the things we talked about earlier, which was that not only is our population growing but, by and large, it is aging as well. As we age, our demand for drugs increases as well.

If we look, for example, at the last ten years in terms of B.C. Pharmacare and the growth in Pharmacare expenditure, which over the ten-year period is well in excess of 100 percent — probably about 120 percent over the ten years…. Population has grown, let's say, by about 15 percent; the number of beneficiaries probably by 30 percent to 35 percent; the number of paid prescriptions per beneficiary, about 50 percent; the expenditure per beneficiary, about 75 percent; paid prescriptions by about 90 percent. The combination of all those things leads to an annual growth in excess of 10 percent and, overall, well over 100 percent over a ten-year period.

Pharmaceuticals are a challenge, but in fairness, they often represent an opportunity for managing for better outcomes in the health care system. I'm pleased

the member mentioned Herceptin. Of the pharmaceutical announcements we've made in just the last few months, Herceptin is without doubt the most important.

In the area of drug research, we are constantly seeing new proposals from the pharmaceutical industry suggesting that their new formulation should be added to the formulary. Sometimes that has merit, and sometimes it does not. I won't go into the whole business of the common drug review right now.

Suffice it to say that Herceptin is an example of a breakthrough drug. For the treatment of breast cancer, Herceptin represents a huge breakthrough in terms of the impact it will have on particular kinds of breast cancer or, more precisely, on women who have a certain enzyme that promotes the cancer. Herceptin is both a challenge and an opportunity, and we know we'll save lives with Herceptin.

We know, actually, that there will be an offsetting cost saving with Herceptin as well. But where drugs don't have that same kind of breakthrough quality, we have to assess very carefully whether the drug being proposed adds something in terms of the range of the formulary or adds something in terms of at least a break-even or a cost saving. These are all issues, and that, I hope, answers the member's question in terms of cost drivers in the pharmaceutical area.

D. Cubberley: I want to go into some questions about capital funding. I need to understand, in order to do that a little bit better, what the next two lines in the budget represent, which are "Debt service costs" and "Amortization of prepaid capital advances."

I'm just trying to understand the system. I note that on page 8, there's a health care facilities item, which is presumably direct capital investment moneys. I'm interested to know what these other entities represent, whether they represent ongoing payment of debt incurred on behalf of capital expenditures and how one puts these things together to get a complete sense of what the capital plan would look like in terms of dollars.

Hon. G. Abbott: My staff have advised that this is absolutely fascinating stuff for accountants, particularly, and for those who get into this particular area, so they would be glad to provide a separate technical briefing around just how all these blocks tie together. The story is apparently fascinating, riveting, for those who deal on a regular basis with them. Happily, I'm not one of those, so I'm going to do the best I can to tell you what this means and then invite your further penetrating questions in this respect.

The debt service costs on the fourth line down that the member asked about, which shows $173.5 million, $169.5 million and $183.2 million. Those reflect our ongoing obligations as we build major facilities. They are reflective of the interest rates either being enjoyed at a particular time or, in the case of the '06-07 plan, anticipated interest rates. Really, the variation there is either real or anticipated interest rates.

The amortization of prepaid capital advances reflects the advances we make to health authorities on a cash basis for the initiation and completion — hopefully, eventually — of projects. That is our best estimate of the amortization of those prepaid capital advances.

D. Cubberley: If we were to go to the "Health care facilities" item — the $379.7 million in this year — what's its relationship to the amortization of prepaid capital advances?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, going from the reference point of the close to $380 million on page 8 — $379.7 million — that represents incremental capital spending by the ministry through the health authorities that year. That's just that year. The amortization that's shown on page 7 represents the amortization on that investment plus any historic unamortized facilities expending from the past.

D. Cubberley: Now I have to demonstrate with clarity that I'm a lay person and not an accountant.

The amount that's expended under the item on page 8, which is health care facilities capital, bears a relationship to the amortization of prepaid capital advances? And the prepaid capital advances represent what component of that? I'm trying to understand how it doesn't double-budget something because…. I'm going to leave it there. I'll let you help me out.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I may not be giving the comprehensive answer that the member hopes for here, and he can persist until he gets the level of detail that will be either satisfying or so perplexing that he'll simply walk away from the area, as I'd actually advise him to, and move on. Anyway, this is very interesting.

Again, on page 8, the $379.7 million reflects the incremental capital spending, one year. The way that capital spending shows up on the income statement on page 7 is through amortization and through debt service costs. Some portion of that, and I think probably about 10 percent — we don't know exactly — would probably reflect the current year's commitments.

So we're dealing with amortization and debt servicing that might go back as far as 40 years — probably not in most instances, but it could in theory. It would represent a portion of the figure you see there. The figures on page 7 represent historical management of the capital.

D. Cubberley: In looking at health care facilities on page 8, investment dropping by $100 million in '05-06, projected to drop…. Perhaps you could give me a sense of why that would be happening and how that lines up with the new money announced for additional beds, hospital commitments that we have and the like.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again from page 8, you'll note that there is a footnote two beside the figure of $379.7 mil-

lion. If we go to footnote two, it reads: "Includes $121 million for the transfer of the B.C. Children's and Women's Health Centre site from the province to the Provincial Health Services Authority." The figure there, under the rules of GAAP — generally accepted accounting principles — I gather would oblige it to be shown in this way.

Therefore, if you wanted to come to a more apples-to-apples comparison, you would reduce the approximately 380 by 120 and be down around 260. If the member would like to know more about the bounce from 260 to 280 to 240 to 215, we can do that, but I won't anticipate his question at this point.

D. Cubberley: No, that's helpful, and I should have picked up on note two. I think I have an inherent aversion to reading the fine print in the fine print. That's bad in a decision-maker.

I just want to very briefly ask a question about vital statistics. It's only because it shows up here, and it's probably the most appropriate place. Two questions. One is: is the security problem being handled, and how is it being handled? Maybe I'll just let that stand, and I'll ask the next one.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member references the break-ins and attempted break-ins that occurred in the early morning hours of September 14, 2005. The Vancouver vital stats office was broken into. Nothing was taken from that office. The Victoria vital stats office was broken into, and a range of certificate stock…. I won't go through the detail of it unless the member wishes, but birth certificates, marriage certificates and death certificates were stolen in that break-in.

The break-in was obviously of enormous concern not only to the Vital Statistics Agency but to police and others as well. Obviously, this was a very professional break-in that was undertaken, and the perpetrators didn't have the best interests of society in mind when they broke in there. They clearly have nefarious uses in mind for that certificate stock.

We are very concerned about it, and we have undertaken a variety of initiatives in concert with federal and provincial agencies to try to ensure that we can minimize the potential misuse of this certificate stock. The fact that the perpetrators were able to get into the Victoria office and get this material obviously says that there are additional security measures that are needed. Those have been undertaken.

There was an alarm on the building. There was a guard either on the premises or adjacent to the premises, but clearly, any time perpetrators are able to successfully break into a building and seize materials, the adequacy of the security features comes into question. There has been a bolstering of security in those offices to try to deal with what is obviously a pretty sophisticated crime network.

We've undertaken those things. I think it's probably not appropriate to talk a great deal about the additional security provisions that have been put in place, because that would simply invite those who might offend again to have some advantage in terms of understanding what they will face there. That's a general breakdown there, and I'm glad to answer any other questions the member may have.

D. Cubberley: The other question is actually at a much different scale, and it has to do with the future of Vital Statistics. I noted in some of the reading I had done in preparation that when there was an initial briefing around the expressions of interest regarding MSP and Pharmacare privatization, there was a question asked specifically about whether Vital Statistics would be available for privatization.

The answer given by the civil servant at the time was somewhat ambiguous. I simply ask the minister if there are any plans to include Vital Statistics as a possible entity for alternative service delivery.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are no plans for nor in anyone's recollection ever even an intention of undertaking such a privatization.

Grinding toward the end of this review of the coarse numbers, information systems shows a very substantial jump in '05-06. I'm interested in knowing what's in there. Is that a partial result of the infusion of federal money? What amount within that would be for a specific initiative like the electronic health record? Just to get a sense of what we're embarking on, on that…. That's not a small shift of resources; that's a very large increase. I'm interested in knowing what that's for.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct, at least in large measure. The increases reflect what is generally characterized as the Infoway initiative, which is a federal-provincial e-health initiative that has been produced out of some of the federal-provincial discussions for health information management. The Infoway initiative involves a commitment from the federal government of about $120 million over the next few years and $30 million from the provincial government over the same period. The figures that the member sees on that line do not reflect all of that money — only a portion of that money. Staff estimate that about 60 million of the Infoway dollars are reflected in that. So it will continue out beyond the horizon that is contained in this table.

D. Cubberley: Perhaps that's a segue into the federal money and the overall accord, rather than just continuing it along those lines. That's what I'd like to do, then — pass into the first ministers' agreement. One of the things, just to begin, so I have a sense of how this works…. The money that's allocated on an annual basis under the agreement — does it appear, in any fashion,

broken out within budgets, or does it disappear entirely? Is it included within these coarser numbers that we've been looking at? Is it fully reflected in there, and is that money, dollar for dollar, incremental to the existing provincial budget, or does it in some cases displace existing provincial funding?

Hon. G. Abbott: The FMM dollars are reflected in the table on page 11. So the answer is yes. All of those dollars are embraced in that table on page 11, and yes, they are all incremental dollars to the provincial health budget.

D. Cubberley: So those would be reflected in the budgets we have just been looking at? All of those dollars are in there?

D. Cubberley: Okay. From reading the text, I understand that this is a ten-year agreement, B.C.'s share of which is approximately $5.4 billion. The top priority is stated as improving access to care and reducing waiting times where they are longer than medically acceptable. It also says that each province is responsible for establishing its own priorities, although that identifies an overarching priority, and then gives five. I believe that cancer treatment, heart surgeries, diagnostic imaging, joint replacement and sight restoration services are identified as important priority areas to be considered. So I'm interested if the minister would outline B.C.'s priorities in their order of importance, as the government sees them, with a brief explanation for the ranking of those priorities.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is asking a very important question, and I thank him for that question. I won't do justice to his question, which could be quite broad-based and inclusive in a really good answer. Then again, we would risk that pre-emptive closure of estimates by me giving a really good answer to everything. This is a very important area of public policy, a very challenging area and a very interesting area. I think it's actually quite fascinating how the sort of mechanics of federal-provincial relations flow and how the application of the first ministers' agreement finds its reality on the ground in the health care system in B.C.

I'll begin with an expression that I frequently use. I never tire of it, but I'm sure that staff, particularly, who hear this in my speeches all too often, are perhaps remarkably tired of it. But I'll risk that by saying, to begin, there are no unimportant areas in health care. The five areas which the member mentioned — diagnostics, cancer, heart, joint replacement, sight restoration — are all key areas of health public policy that we will be pursuing in line with the objectives that the first ministers embraced in their accord of September, I believe, 2004.

There's a lot of work being done around all of these five major areas. I'm sure the member noted with interest the discussions that went on around the provincial-territorial and federal-provincial-territorial meeting of October in Toronto, where we wrestled with how we would be able to begin to meet the commitment for evidence-based benchmarks in those areas of health management.

There is a lot of very, I think, useful and in some cases quite remarkable work being done around how we manage wait times better in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, Quebec, Saskatchewan and so on, and all the provinces are at relatively different places in terms of how well they are doing in managing their wait times.

I think that in British Columbia we are either doing very well…. In some areas we lead the country. In cancer, we certainly lead the country, and we're doing well in most areas. As I indicated in my opening remarks, where we have a big challenge…. It's partially related to the aging of our society, partially related to the expectations of an aging population, but where we have a continuing challenge is in the orthopedic area. We really need to think about how we address that with some innovation and ingenuity, but I think there are a lot of great ideas that I hope we can bring to bear on this challenge in the months ahead around better management of those people who have not enjoyed timely service in terms of surgical procedures.

The other thing we need to think about, as well, is that the best outcomes for people's health are not always related to surgeries. There is a whole area of prevention that we need to aggressively address. For generations governments have talked about prevention, but we've never given it the kind of focus we intend to give it in the days ahead. That is, we can sometimes prevent the necessity for a hip or knee replacement if we look at issues like healthy body weights, healthy diets and prevention of obesity issues, which sometimes drive additional demand for procedures.

I salute the health authorities. Some of them are doing some quite exceptional work around the prevention piece — for example, the Interior Health Authority. They saw trip-and-fall injuries among seniors being increasingly a driver in terms of demand for procedures, so they've undertaken some work across their authority to try to use prevention as a way of reducing some of these pressures. That's all part of it too.

I don't do justice to the quite remarkable work that is being done by the staff that are with me today and the quite remarkable work that is being done across the health authorities to try to learn from the experience nationally and internationally and to take those best practices and translate them into better wait-times management in British Columbia.

D. Cubberley: I take from that that the minister is acknowledging the five priority areas that were identified by ministers in discussion and in whatever protocol was signed and assigns them some high priority. The minister has added a caveat that I think is an important one, which is that there are no unimportant areas.

By its nature being targeted funding, though, I would assume this would not be spread across the entire health care system, that it would be used for specific interventions in areas where we might deem there to be a higher level of need. Would it be correct to say — apart from the obvious priority which is placed on wait-times reduction here, as represented by the large amount of money put up front, which I want to come back to — that wait-times reduction is at or near the top in terms of priorities for federal investment?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member wanted perhaps to get a better sense, I'd direct him to — and I won't read the portion; my comments will summarize some portions of it — page 9 of the document that he previously referenced. The service plan update, September 2005, has a very useful section on the first ministers' agreement of 2004, which I think is important in terms of understanding the content, intent and direction of the first ministers' agreement of 2004.

I think a careful reading of those sections will suggest appropriately that there is a good deal more flexibility in terms of the purpose of those FMM dollars than simply all focusing on the five areas. I think the intention of the agreement was not to be prescriptive, but rather to, in a deliberate way, acknowledge those five areas of challenge and also say very clearly that to be successful in the health care system requires investments across the continuum of care.

For example, home care is a key part of ensuring that people don't end up, inappropriately or otherwise, in acute care beds. And residential care — ensuring that when people need that 24-7 complex care, it's there for them so they are not struggling on their own and perhaps injuring themselves and, again, either needing surgery or finding themselves in a long-term care bed. Also, primary care. I think all of the participants in the first ministers' agreement understood that primary care is now and will be of growing importance in terms of meeting the health care needs of British Columbians and Canadians in order to ensure that people have healthy lifestyles, that they get the best advice around chronic disease management and that they are managing as well as they can their own health outcomes. I think that's an important piece of what we want to do.

Certainly, identifying the five priority areas was an important part of the first ministers' agreement. But there was a far more holistic understanding of how success in those areas would be achieved, and that would be through the broader continuum of care — including Pharmacare, home care, residential care, all of those pieces — so that the system would not be driven by surgeries.

The system should be broad enough and expansive enough that not only do we try to provide surgeries on a timely basis when they're needed but also that the system is constructed in a way that we hope, either by early intervention or lifestyle counselling or other means of prevention, we can, in fact, avoid the necessity for surgery down the line. Hopefully, that helps to answer the member's question.

D. Cubberley: I want to work around this a little bit. We have a bunch of different line items here in the budget that indicate different transfers. What I'm sensing from what the minister's saying is that those are different federal envelopes but that they don't have a particular meaning in terms of any set strategy in any of the priority areas. So none of the money that shows up in there is actually aimed at anything in particular? Is that…?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is going to get a bit complex here quickly as well, but maybe not really.

Again, I'll direct the member to page 11 to start this discourse. The first line, "Canada Health Transfer (One Time)," shows $131,000 — pardon me, $131 million; we don't talk in thousands in this ministry; it's all millions and billions — and $262 million in '05-06. That can be characterized as one-time catch-up money which we can use as we wish.

If the member would then look down the column, instead of across here, for '04-05, the $131 million has been combined with the $559 million under "Wait Times Reduction" for the total, in brackets, of $690.9 million. I understand from staff, if I understand them correctly, that those funds came too late in the fiscal year to actually be expended. What has been done is they've been consolidated as the $690 million and then spread out over the four subsequent fiscal years, beginning at $116 million, then $228 million, then $267 million, then $79.9 million. In the case of those funds, those are intended to address surgical wait times. So that would be the same for the wait-times reduction in the line above.

The Canada health transfer of $295 million can be used across the continuum of care, so it could be used for any and all and more of the areas which I referenced in my previous answer.

D. Cubberley: Just before we go on to the wait times — because we've got a package there that we're going to pursue that's dedicated money, and that's getting a little closer to identifying it as an agreed priority, so I want to come back to that — I did want to ask about the one-time lump sum for home care and catastrophic drugs. Is that, again, money that can simply be spent wherever, or was that aimed at specific things?

Hon. G. Abbott: If we go back to the table on page 11, the $66 million was funds incremental to the first ministers' agreement. Again, the federal government, generally speaking, would like to see this expended in the area of Pharmacare or home care. But it is not completely prescriptive in terms of that, nor is the line now beginning "Deferral of 2004-2005 Funding" — that line going across.

Generally, we are looking at those funds for surgeries, not in a prescriptive, narrow way but in a more

holistic way, which might reflect the priorities of the government. If there was an excellent program that minimized injuries produced by an activity, for example, that might be an appropriate way to reduce the need for surgeries.

D. Cubberley: Just on the $66 million, then. If memory serves, I believe there were some cutbacks in the government's first term in home care and home support services. One of the questions would be whether this money would be used to either bring us back up to a prior level or to improve the level of service. This may be money that you're using for that area that you covered off under my initial question about the $700 million to health authorities, where I believe you referenced improved equipment for aging in place — beds and other things that were better both for the person aging in place and for caregivers.

The other thing is whether there is, as a result of that money, any thought of improving catastrophic drug coverage in British Columbia, if any improvement is required. I know that was a particular concern of Romanow and seemed to be shared by the Prime Minister and his Health Minister, that catastrophic drug coverage be put in place. I don't know enough to know whether we are already well-enough provided for in British Columbia and whether that money isn't needed for that purpose, or whether that would be an appropriate use for the federal money, given its earmarking.

Hon. G. Abbott: There were several questions embraced in the member's last round. Again, we may not be able to cover them all off in this one answer. I certainly invite him to submit further questions in those areas where he has an interest.

The expression of health care cuts is, I think, frequently a misnomer in relation to virtually any area of health care. As I pointed out at the outset, the expenditure for health care in this province has gone from $8.3 billion in 2001 to $11.75 billion effective with the most recent budget update from the Finance Minister in September. So there has been a very considerable growth in health care expenditures.

Where one occasionally sees concerns with health care spending is where changes have been undertaken that not everyone likes or appreciates, and in the context of the area of public policy, the member references home care. I would note, first of all, that standardized assessment tools for what is needed in home care were developed in the late 1990s under the former government. It was a quite appropriate attempt to bring some fairness and order and better management to an area of public policy that had been a challenge for the former government, as it has been for our government. One needs to know what the level of need is in order to meet that level of need but not have a disproportionate or exaggerated expenditure of resources where they are not needed.

The standardized assessment tools were developed in the late 1990s. They were not embraced, at least fully, by all of the 52 health authorities that existed prior to 2001. In some cases they were embraced, and in other cases they were not. There was some variance among health authorities in respect of how well those standardized assessment tools were adopted and enforced.

When we moved from the 52 authorities to the now six health care authorities across this province, the standardized assessment tools were put in place. As a consequence, I think some people had a sense that their entitlement under the home care program had been altered, and perhaps in some cases it was. It's not a case of there being fewer resources. It is a reallocation of those existing resources and an attempt to ensure that the needs of all British Columbians requiring home care were met.

Some people had become accustomed to having home care aides come in and do extensive housekeeping, and that was no longer envisaged in the policies that were developed in the late 1990s. I know there's been some dissatisfaction among some because of that, and that's a challenge — no question about it. But the aim of the program remains to provide the home care to those who need it and to provide it in a satisfactory and standardized way to those people.

Is the home care system we have perfect? I don't think it is, because we are looking for continuous improvement in home care, as we do in all areas of public health policy. I'm not sure where we want to be or where we need to be in terms of that, but I think there's been great progress made, and I look forward to more progress being made. We need to have the human resources available in the form of home care aide workers and to ensure that they are finding their employment satisfactory and rewarding so that we can keep them working in that area, because it is really a vital part of our health care delivery system to ensure that comprehensive home care is available.

The second major question the member posed — again, it's an important one, and I'm sure he will wish to focus more fully on it in subsequent questions. The catastrophic drug coverage is probably the best in British Columbia of any jurisdiction in Canada. We have undertaken through the Fair Pharmacare reforms to ensure that we come as close as possible to meeting the needs of British Columbians in that drug coverage area.

We have, I think, the most robust formulary in the country in relation to the classes of drugs that have been covered, and in British Columbia all breakthrough drugs are funded through our formulary. That's a very important piece. Again, I made the distinction earlier between the addition of a new drug that, perhaps, in the minds of the manufacturers has some superior traits but that from our perspective…. It's important that they be demonstrated to actually be either a cost saving or have some tangible benefit that would lead to them being recommended by the common drug review.

Again, I think we should be proud of the fact that all breakthrough drugs that have been identified

through the common drug review process are funded through our program. I'm happy with what we have done in this area of catastrophic drug coverage. I do want to advise the member, though, that our discussions with the federal government and with other provinces continue in this area. It is an area where we would like to see more federal engagement, and for those provinces that do not have the kind of formulary and the kind of catastrophic drug coverage that we do, it's also a very important initiative and one that British Columbia leads in the federal-provincial context.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I certainly share a degree of pride in what's been done with Pharmacare over the years. I think British Columbia has led for a very long time in the area of drug coverage and across many administrations. So I think we can all be proud of the overall achievement. It certainly is the best in the country. I guess we would have to credit, at a certain level, reference-based pricing for being part of the magic of what occurs with that system.

We will have a chance to canvass Pharmacare further, and I don't want to delay there. I just wondered whether that portion of the money might be aimed at some enhancement in British Columbia and, really for my own information, whether any was required. I think the minister has given me a sense that we are at the head of the pack currently, and we plan to stay there, and there are ongoing discussions about things that may come in the future.

I would like to go back for a moment to the home care one, though, just to try and clarify a little bit further. I heard the minister say that there was reallocation of existing resources based on the development of standardized assessment tools in the '90s, that that has begun to take more impact in the government's first term in office and that that is not fully embraced by all people, because the reallocation of some of those services would have pinched some individuals who may not have qualified, once they were brought in, for as much as they did before or for any service.

One of the things he broke out was housekeeping and the idea of care aides or others being involved in actually doing work around the home for people who are receiving a home care service. As a combination of two things, I guess, one of them a life experience which is having dealt with two older parents who, although dealing with some debilitating illnesses over time, successfully aged in place with a large measure of support from their children — in particular, my sister — and providing a whole array of inputs to their life that allowed them to stay in the family home…. It left a very strong conviction with me of the importance of non-medical services in allowing people to successfully age in place.

I combine that with a little bit of randomly acquired…. I won't grace it with the term "knowledge," but let's call it information. While passing through the Edmonton Public Library recently, I grabbed a public health journal, which had a very interesting summary of studies of home care and housekeeping services and, intriguingly to my mind, rated the housekeeping services and the availability of housekeeping services as of higher priority than medical care in the home in helping people to age in place.

I just want to come back to that a little bit and see if we can have a little bit of further discussion on that. It strikes me that while it's not medically necessary, if the cost-effective strategy is to have people stay in their homes — and I believe that it's really clear that that is the cost; we're not trying to move them along in the continuum; we'd like to hold them in the early phase of the continuum of care — then those kinds of things that enable it, whether they're medically oriented or not, would appear to this lay person to be of great value. I would just invite some further comment on that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I'll try to answer this at a fairly high level, although I'll also answer it at a kind of personal level and give my kind of — I guess vision is a bit grand a word for what I'll provide you — sense of how we need to develop in this area.

Before I do that, in my last answer in respect of catastrophic drug coverage, I should have mentioned this because it's actually important. It got lost in my rather longer answer, but it's really key. That is, in the area of drug coverage one of the things that distinguishes British Columbia from some other jurisdictions is that for cancer, cardiac, transplant and renal drug coverage 100 percent of those are covered in British Columbia. That's the most generous program in Canada.

Again, it's not to say that everybody else can afford what we can in British Columbia, but we should be proud of it. I think it's working well, and we look forward to productive discussions continuing with the federal government. I think the member's point around generics is also a good one, and I don't take any issue with that point at all.

In terms of the continuum of programs available to the frail elderly, I think my sense of what we need to do is in part a product, as the member referenced, of how my own parents' experience sort of indicates what we should do. My mother's experience is very different from my father's.

My father, at 79, had some mild dementia, but it wasn't until he had a series of strokes that he really required additional care. After those strokes he was not a candidate for home care. He wasn't a candidate for assisted living. He required 24-7 residential care in a facility in Salmon Arm, and he got excellent care there. He had some time. I think he was in an acute care bed for about three or four weeks before he was transferred to a residential care facility. He was lucky because he was a veteran of World War II, and he was able to get into one of the dedicated beds in an institution called Bastion Place. He was very unhappy in the acute care setting — very unhappy — but once he got into the residential care setting, he was very happy. It was the

For my mother, it's a very different situation. At 83 she's very healthy physically, mentally and emotionally. She doesn't require any home care. I hope that she's doing the same thing at 99. I mean, that's what we all hope for as we get older — that our genetic structure and our ability to avoid injury allows us to live independently for as long as we can. I think the direction that government has embraced is precisely that.

We want to have people have the opportunity to live as independently as they can for as long as they can, but we also recognize that in different instances, people have different experiences in their latter years. In some cases injury, illness or a sudden debilitating occurrence like a stroke will require 24-7 residential care. In other cases, happily, people will be able to age in place.

I said at the outset that I really like the model of the campus of care or continuum of care where, hopefully, one might remain in one's own home as long as possible with home supports. That's a very important part of the continuum — allowing people to stay in their home independently for as long as they can. We support and backstop that with programs like Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters, which we've recently bumped up and which we've recently, I'm very pleased to say, expanded to embrace those who live in a trailer that they own but pay pad rental on. I think that was a very important change in the SAFER program, a very welcome one.

When people, though, can no longer manage on their own, in their own home, there are also needs to be that campus of care that they can get into — either at the supportive seniors housing level, where there might just be occasional interventions by the health care system, or with assisted living, where on a more routine basis one would have assistance from home care plus two meals a day, typically in the facility, plus other sort of personal care supports. Then, as people may require it — and many people won't require it, but some like my father will — you have the highest level of 24-7 care, which is residential care.

It's that broad continuum which really allows people to live as independently as they can for as long as they can, but it's vital for government to ensure that all the pieces are in place, that we have the volume of those different pieces in line with what we project to be the need today and in 2009, 2012 and so on, because there are some demographic waves coming at us. We can anticipate them to some extent, but there are also the unknowns that we need to look at.

The final point on this. That is, health authorities are funding clients' direct health care needs, such as the need for personal assistance, as their first priority. They are continuing to provide essential meal and housekeeping services to high-need clients who otherwise would be institutionalized. So that's the direction of things, and I would welcome the member's further questions.

To pass a little bit into advocacy around the issue, my experience is in some respects similar to the minister's. My father is also a stroke victim. He had a series of heart attacks and then had a devastating stroke. He was not in a situation where…. He could easily have been institutionalized. His care needs were at a level where taking that on as a home task was a challenge. My mother took that task on, and my father lived successfully for seven years in the family home. One of the things that made it very difficult for her to provide what was obviously a benefit to him and a benefit to society at the same time was the lack of adequate support for her to be the primary caregiver.

It's in that sense that I am urging that we develop a broader view of the tools we give people that enable them to stay in the family home. Staying in the family home, we know the continuum only goes in one direction. It's not a happy direction for anybody to move in. We want to make it as happy as we can when we have to move along it, but it strikes me that the strategy should be to keep people down here on the continuum rather than moving them expeditiously along it, in part because it's better for them and in part because it's far cheaper for society. So it's better for society if that happens — for them to remain in their community. That requires the availability of or access to services that are not strictly medical in nature.

I don't want the minister to…. I'm not trying to get you to agree to review the assessment tool here in the chamber, but I do want to urge, with some money targeted from the federal government which could be aimed at these kinds of services, that we make sure we are proceeding cost-effectively in the broader sense and not simply proceeding cost-effectively in a narrow sense around the management of home care and the housekeeping side of home care.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his observation. I think, again — and I can't, obviously, speak to his personal situation — I would say in a general way that based on the experiences I've had with aging parents and others have had with aging parents, the suggestion about respite — for example, allowing the 24-7 caregiver to have a break — is an important part of this. We are looking into and thinking about innovations that might assist on the respite end, because the caregiver over a long period of time can burn out unless they have an opportunity to get a break. That's a given.

Similarly, I think we're always looking for better ways of managing this system and better ways of meeting the needs of clients and caregivers. This is an area where we should celebrate innovation and welcome innovation as well. So we're always receptive to suggestions on how we do it better. I think the member was referencing the need for respite and the need to have the level of home care that's commensurate with the need of the client and the caregiver. I don't, at a general level, have a dispute with that either.

D. Cubberley: Just to move on to another item on page 11, it notes that in addition to the operating funding that's laid out in the chart, the first ministers' agreement provides B.C. with an additional $66 million in medical equipment funding in '04-05 and that this combines with $200 million in medical equipment funding in '02-03, which is being spent over the three years ending in '05-06. It sounds as though some of it is rolling over and will be an expenditure in '05-06.

I'm just interested, in general, in where we have got to with diagnostic equipment — in particular, whether any of this money is for the big machinery that relates to diagnosis and where we are relative to where we were in '01, say, and whether we have begun to be more capable of handling access to diagnostic equipment in a more timely manner, what the improvement is there and where we have to go in order to get the benefit of reducing that component of a wait time.

Hon. G. Abbott: As the member observed, the $66 million is incremental to the funds that are contained in the table previously on page 11. The $66 million is being used to purchase equipment in three major areas, so I'll run through them. No doubt the terminology is fascinating on its own.

Diagnostic and therapeutic equipment such as MRIs, CT scanners and nuclear medicine equipment; linear accelerators; major laboratory equipment and picture archiving communications systems, which have the handy acronym of PACS; also, medical-surgical equipment such as lithotripters for blowing up kidney stones, surgical lasers, anaesthetic gas machines, sterilizers, defibrillators, ventilators; and comfort and safety equipment for patients and staff, including patient beds and lifts, mobility equipment and patient bathing equipment. There's quite a range in there, from the sort of mundane to the more exotic like lithotripters for blowing up your kidney stones. So that's the sort of general area.

Within that area some $25 million of the federal funds, supplemented by an additional $10 million in provincial funds, has been used in the area of what's referred to as high-tech and new emerging technologies. For example, in the Fraser Health Authority there's been the purchase of a 64-slice CT scanner for Royal Columbian Hospital. The IHA has purchased a mobile MRI to provide access to the communities and surrounding areas of Penticton, Trail and Cranbrook, as well as a 32-slice CT scanner for Kelowna General. The Northern Health Authority has purchased an automated supply and medication management system, picture archiving communications services and radiology information system throughout the region.

The Provincial Health Services Authority has purchased — and I actually got to open one of these — what's called the PET scanner. You'll want to know what that means. It's a positron emission tomography system scanner with computed tomography and a radio pharmaceutical lab and cyclotron for the Vancouver cancer centre and the Laboratory Centre of Excellence for Genomics.

Vancouver Coastal purchased a 64-slice CT scanner for VGH and an upgrade 1.5 MRI at UBC Hospital. VIHA has purchased a 64-slice CT scanner for Royal Jubilee. The total there is $35 million. So overall, over the whole period, we anticipate about $155 million in these kinds of equipment purchases right across the range that I laid out at the start. I can give whatever level of detail the member would like, but hopefully that gives you some sense of the equipment range and purposes.

D. Cubberley: I really want the minister to explain more about lithotripters, because as it happens, minister, I know someone who needs a kidney stone blown up. He's going to be excited to know that we're getting more capacity in British Columbia.

The acronyms, I guess, are helpful except that if somebody asks you what it means, you have to remember what the words are, which I would find troubling.

A couple of questions around the investment over the years in CT and MRI scanners and the bigger machines. From some general reading that I had done, I had an impression that Canada generally lagged other G-8 countries in the availability of publicly supplied diagnostic equipment. I don't know whether that came from just a pattern of not investing adequately in it or how that occurred. I'm wondering if the new investments by the federal government in this area, along with whatever investments B.C. is making out of B.C. resources — whether that brings us up to the Canadian average and whether the Canadian average is improving as a whole as a result of this. I guess the question it leads to is whether this kind of investment in diagnostic equipment allows British Columbians the security of knowing that they can get diagnosis done in a public facility.

Hon. G. Abbott: Always be careful about the question you ask, because you may get way more detail back than you'd ever really imagine you'd like.

Let me begin with some detail around the CT scanners, MRI scanners and PET scanner. Prior to June 2001 there were 31 CT scanners in the province. Since June 2001 we have increased that by eight. Now there's a total of 39 installed, with about half a dozen more pending. MRI scanners — there were nine pre–June 2001. There have been eight added since June 2001, for a total now of 17 MRI scanners — this is in the public system — in place, with one new pending. PET scanners — the first one was recently installed. That's the first for British Columbia. So there have been fairly substantial increases — 26 percent in terms of CT scanners, 89 percent more MRI scanners and of course it's a limited figure, but obviously 100 percent more PET scanners.

In terms of how B.C. compares to the rest of the nation in terms of CT scanners and MRI scanners, the

evidence is sort of here and there, and it varies, obviously, between the two kinds of technology by province. For example, on CT scanners, British Columbia is probably slightly below the Canadian average. Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan are higher, and Ontario and Alberta lower, in terms of the number of CT scanners per capita. In terms of MRI scanners, British Columbia is well above the Canadian average — again, above Ontario, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but slightly behind Quebec and Alberta, who have obviously been investing in a lot of MRI scanners as opposed to CT scanners.

So that perhaps is a useful summary of where we are. I'm sure there's other detail around that, which might tell us this and that, but I don't know how far the member wishes to go into that area.

D. Cubberley: Just a little bit further. I am interested to know whether that has a measurable impact on the timeliness of diagnosis, whether having more equipment…. I suspect the answer to that is yes. But I'd be interested to know. It obviously would confer more opportunity within the public system for people and therefore allow them not to deal with perceived delay in other ways.

I guess one question — because one wants to see ground, once gained, maintained — is whether there's a life cycle costing and replacement plan in place for major diagnostic equipment at, say, the health authority level or how that might be handled so that we fund the cost of replacement with some kind of annual allocation as opposed to simply rolling it along until the end of capital life and then having to find a large amount of money.

Hon. G. Abbott: Clearly, the addition of new MRIs or new CAT scans, and so on, has an impact, and that will vary by region. For example, if you happen to be in the Kootenay, Penticton, South Okanagan area where a new mobile MRI service has gone into operation, the ability to access an MRI in a timely way is going to be greatly enhanced. The same might not be said, at least as decisively, in other corners of the province. But generally, as we add capacity, it does improve the timeliness for people accessing diagnostic procedures like MRI or CAT scans.

In terms of life cycle replacement planning, that is being done now, at our direction, by the health authorities, and we support it through provision in the global capital plans for that. It's important to note — and I should have noted it in my earlier answer — that since 2001 we have had 18 CT scan replacements and six MRI scanner replacements. That's the sort of powerful evidence that, in fact, that kind of work around planning for replacement is being done. So that's good.

We have plenty of data which shows that the number of diagnostic procedures is growing on an annual basis. It is up substantially year over year. What we don't have available at this point in time and are trying to find out — and we're working on it not only in British Columbia but with all of the other provincial jurisdictions — is how the growing number of procedures being done reflects on the wait-lists. We don't know whether the situation would be more akin to orthopedics where despite a lot more resources being devoted to procedures, we have a kind of static wait-time situation because the demand is growing so intensely, or whether it's like some of the cataract, cancer or other areas where we've been able to reduce wait times.

I guess a best guess would be that we're seeing a lot more references to CAT scans and MRIs than we ever would have in the past. So I suspect — but we only suspect — that it is probably more comparable to the orthopedic kind of wait time. We don't know that for sure, and we're doing the work around that so that we have better answers to that question.

D. Cubberley: Just to roll that along a little bit, is there evidence that these are being used in areas where MRI or CAT scans are not particularly useful to a diagnosis but are simply being used because the technology is available? Is there any kind of management response to that which can help to shape the demand without removing anything that anyone might be entitled to in order to have an appropriate diagnosis?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises a very important question here and one that is the object of very considerable scientific and other analysis at this point in time. There is a concern — and it's not a British Columbia concern; it's national and perhaps in some respects international in scope — around whether there is potential overuse of some of these diagnostic tools for purposes beyond what they were originally envisaged or intended. That work is largely being done through the Canadian Institutes for Health Research. The provinces have asked CIHR to work on this to see if we can develop appropriateness criteria to ensure that when people are referred to these kinds of diagnostic procedures, in fact, it is a useful part of determining an appropriate diagnosis rather than some kind of potential safety valve for these things.

So we're working with CIHR, the federal government and other provinces to help develop that appropriateness criteria and to help inform the evidence-based benchmark work, which we're doing around diagnostic procedures as part of the FMM agreement.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for those responses. It's useful and an interesting subject. Obviously, containment of the resort to a whole array of technologies and techniques is a challenge in managing overall demand for health care services. It's a business that we have to be involved in, in many, many spheres from Pharmacare to this kind of thing with diagnostic equipment. It's a very large challenge for the ministry, and I'm sure you're mobilizing around it.

We're getting fairly close to the end of our time. I want to go a little bit further with the actual money targeted towards wait-time reduction — the federal money — and then go from there into a broader discussion of wait times. We can usefully embark on a little bit of that in the time that remains and maybe just get a look at…. This money appears to be targeted for wait-time reduction, and certainly there's been public discussion of the minister looking to set benchmarks as an agreed-to first step in a wait-time reduction strategy.

There appears to be some broader agreement around the prioritization of this area. I'm interested to know how well that money is defined in terms of strategic interventions of one kind or another or whether the money that is there from '05 through '08-09 is notional and there to support activities that have yet to be determined.

I guess the question would be: is the benchmarks component of it — the clinical guidelines for how long a person can go before they have to have surgery…? That is what I took to be the part of the agreement that has been focused on publicly, and ministers have given a sense that we will not be able to put that in place in the time lines originally contemplated. Was that as far as the strategy went, and were other elements on hold? Or are there some other components of a strategy that are being worked on for that money?

There are a bunch of questions there, and I apologize. I'm not trying to marshal a tsunami; it just happened.

Hon. G. Abbott: Noting your advice, I will try, despite my legendary ability to give very long answers, to keep it relatively trim, noting the hour.

I'll point the member towards a document entitled A Ten-Year Plan to Strengthen Health Care. This was the discussion document associated with the FMM. If the member doesn't have it, I'm glad to share it with him. It's a public document, so I'd be happy to do that.

There are a couple of areas that I'll reference in it before providing some additional points here.

That's the flexibility we talked about in our earlier discussion. Then on page 3, the other particular one that I would highlight for the member is that:

There is more to this than simply directing more money to a greater number of procedures, although that indeed is part of it as well. But there are also opportunities in all of the areas mentioned to have better wait-times management, possibly additions to our wait-time website, things like patient registry, better management of that registry and a range of other initiatives that might improve the situation.

I know we'll be returning to this important area of public policy. Noting the hour, Madam Chair, I move that the committee recess until 6:45.

D. Cubberley: I wonder if the minister did want to finish anything off or if that was just humour. I'll refresh the question.

We had got to the beginnings of a discussion about the federal transfer that was specifically aimed at wait times reduction. I was interested in exploring the agreement that the first ministers have signed about the way in which this money will be invested and what the framework is that's to guide the investment. We've seen quite a bit of ink the last while over the matter of putting in place some clinically defined guidelines for maximum waits for surgeries, and that's one component of it. I'm interested in the concept behind the strategy and then exploring and probing a bit further.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair, and I thank the member for his question.

Before I begin that, I should introduce two new members of the staff and executive that are with us. Assistant Deputy Minister Patricia Petryshen and executive director Rebecca Harvey have joined us for this portion of the discussions.

The member's question was around the benchmarks for wait times associated with the FMM agreement. This is a very good and important question. I have learned more than I would ever have dreamed I would learn about evidence-based benchmarks over the past couple of months, after two very intense provincial-territorial and federal-provincial-territorial meetings in recent months. So here are the high points of what I've learned about evidence-based benchmarks.

First of all, they are grounded in science and scientific evidence. An evidence-based benchmark is not what we decide it should be. It is what the weight of science tells us is the maximum wait time between di-

agnosis and treatment that prescribes best outcomes in different procedural areas. So, for example, there might be an evidence-based benchmark in cataracts or cancer or cardiac, etc. Again, it's not what we pull out of the sky and say, based on pain and suffering or some other subjective measure, what we think the wait time ought to be. It is, in fact, informed by national and international studies and clinical experience and the broad range of information that might be brought together to say that for procedure X, medical outcomes start to diminish after this length of time.

An evidence-based benchmark is something that is transferable between jurisdictions. An evidence-based benchmark is going to be the same in British Columbia as it is in Alberta, as it is in Ontario, as it is in Nova Scotia. Similarly, it likely would be the same as in Britain. It's the same because human beings and their bodies are going to respond basically the same way across national and international jurisdictions.

Evidence-based benchmarks are not only based on the available science, but sometimes you have to find the science or get an institution like the Canadian Institutes of Health Research to really pull all of the science together so that we can in the next month to month and a half ahead come up with a series of evidence-based benchmarks in the five areas that we talked about earlier in this discussion.

Certainly, what we said to the public at our federal-provincial-territorial meeting was that we are very confident that we will produce benchmarks in all of those areas. There was agreement that there would be at least one benchmark in each of those areas. As we're progressing here, I think we're probably getting more confident about the kind and range of things that can be done.

Again, this is a work in progress because it has to be based and informed by science. We can't be setting ourselves benchmarks that are based in anything other than science, or else we simply create a kind of area where public expectation may not be met and where we may create a disappointment.

There is a big distinction, and I hope I've made it clear. I don't want to belabour it, but I hope I've made a distinction between access targets, which are something that can be set politically, based on subjective what-should-be, versus evidence-based benchmarks, which are really science-based and say that for this particular diagnosis, this treatment needs to be undertaken within a period, or chances are that health outcomes will deteriorate after that point. So that's part of it. That, again, is just part of what we're wanting to do here.

Associated with it is a series of principles that also will be very useful, I think, in terms of better management of people waiting for surgical or diagnostic procedures. Among those principles — and my deputy's noted some of them, and there was good discussion of this at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting — is information for patients. There should be transparency around, realistically, where you are in terms of your wait time and ensuring that we have proper management. If someone has been on a wait-list for 14 months, we need to know why they continue to be on there when they have gone some considerable distance past what would be average for the province.

Always with averages, it's a product of those who get their procedures very quickly and those who wait longer than we might like for the procedure, and the median of that or the average of that is, obviously by definition, in the middle. We need to have better wait time management.

Similarly, assessment tools. We need to have far more rigorous assessment tools around what the acuity or need of a particular patient is. So one of the things I think there is general agreement on is that the current assessment tools, in most instances at least, are not as rigorous as they should be. We need to have a better sense of what's needed by particular patients and then put them in urgency categories depending on need.

I guess the last principle is: first up, first spot for surgery. That may mean that, for example — and this is hypothetical — if we found in the area of cardiac procedures that they were more readily available, that the wait time was significantly shorter in Prince George than it was in Vancouver or Kelowna, should we offer up the opportunity for patients to access an earlier procedure in Prince George?

These are the kinds of important issues and principles that we will work through as part of this attempt to bring, I think, more rigour, more fairness, more predictability to the business of wait time management in British Columbia.

D. Cubberley: Just to follow along a little bit on that. I take it that the development of maximum waits for best outcomes based on science is a building block for a wait time strategy. The money in place that's projected over a number of years here will be spent, presumably, on a set of strategies and tools that will allow us to manage specific wait times down for specific classes of surgery. In the event that it proves more difficult to develop science-based benchmarks than it appears to be — I'm not trying to put the minister on the spot about this; everybody seems to have this problem — won't that hold back putting in place other components that allow wait times to be brought down?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, a very good question. The answer is no, it won't. In fact, in the absence of evidence-based benchmarks and, really, without a lot of the other tools or principles that we hope to develop in the weeks and months ahead, we've actually made, as I noted at the outset, very considerable progress in respect of wait times in this province over the past few years. We have on cardiac, particularly, and cancer and cataracts. In all of those areas, we have been able to bring down the average or median wait times. Is it still too long for some people? It probably still is in those

areas, but generally, we are somewhere near optimal in terms of the wait times for those kinds of procedures.

Again, where we have the big challenge is in the orthopedic area. For a range of reasons, principally demographic, that is really going to be where I think a lot of this innovation and ingenuity is going to come into play. We're going to need all of that to really make the kind of dent around that area of procedure that we'd like to see.

D. Cubberley: The minister mentioned access-based targets, which could be set politically. I guess what I would like to open up is having referenced orthopedic surgery and the scale of problem that it represents, which is a growing one. It's not just in British Columbia but right the way across Canada and probably right the way across that part of the world that has a similar demographic shift occurring.

The question in my mind is whether the notion of science-based outcomes with maximum waits for a best outcome is the appropriate way to approach orthopedic surgery. At a certain level orthopedic surgery is hampered in the configuration of needs that we have now by dint of being an elective surgery. We call it an elective surgery. That probably tends to mean that, in practice, if a stressed system is confronted with a large number of emergency surgeries, elective surgeries tend to get pushed off and not to be done as promptly as one might like. This is probably a contributing factor.

At one level, one wonders whether another configuration of waiting times, based on another set of criteria, which might include things like quality of life lost for defined periods of time, might be more pertinent. It's not a political decision so much as a recognition of the fact that while it's not life-threatening to a person, there are changes in a person's self-concept in a relatively short period of time when they start to lose their mobility

I raise that question because it could take considerable time to come to an agreement with science about what that actual maximum wait is. It might even be misleading with regard to certain kinds of surgeries. For example, there are restorative surgeries for vision, which I understand can be enacted many years after the faculty has declined. In a sense, a science-based wait with a best outcome is indefinite for that kind of surgery. There is no inherent impetus to have it today based on how much capacity will be ultimately lost by waiting. You could wait indefinitely and do it, but a great deal of quality of life would be lost as a result of not doing it on shorter time lines. I'm interested in some comment on that.

The member is right. There are a number of ways that we can look at the issue of wait times for surgery. One certainly is the evidence-based benchmarks which we are pursuing as part of the FMM agreement. Again, evidence-based benchmarks are science- and evidence-based. They are transferable between jurisdictions, and they are empirical in nature. They are subjective rather than objective, and they are intended to guide the creation of a well-informed public policy around this area.

The issue of access targets, which again are more subjective and which may or may not be informed by evidence…. Hopefully, in the best case, they would be informed by evidence, but it wouldn't necessarily have the same rigour that one would find with evidence-based benchmarks. The object, though, in terms of what really should drive our wait time management…. When you get into the orthopedic area particularly, pain and suffering tend to be parts of the elements that we look at.

When it comes to how quickly you should get treatment after it's been determined that you have a form of cancer, it is pretty clear in that case that the evidence-based benchmark can say: "Yeah, you know, for this kind of cancer, you need to get your treatment promptly, within X days after diagnosis, to maximize your opportunities for a happy outcome from that." In orthopedics it starts to get a little more difficult. We're confident that there will, hopefully, be one or a few or whatever of the evidence-based benchmarks in that area.

In that area things like pain and suffering tend to move into the equation more because your medical outcomes are not always being prejudiced by the lack of timely care. It's more a matter of your loss of productivity, the pain and suffering that you incur and the difficulty that comes into your life when you have to wait too long for that. Where that comes into play or where it can come into play….

Again, I want to salute the excellent work that's being done by the Ministry of Health and the health authorities in respect of developing an assessment tool in this area for orthopedic or hip and knee procedures. These are elements in the assessment tool that they have developed and are currently testing so that it can be a guide to assessment and to accessing procedures on a priority basis.

For example, pain on motion. Does it hurt to walk? Does it hurt to move? Pain at rest. Ability to walk without significant pain. Can you, for example, walk over five blocks without pain, or are you immediately in pain on movement? Other functional limitations. Can the prospective patient climb stairs, put on their shoes? Are they able to sit at a desk and work? These are all part of it.

Threat to patient role and independence in society. Is there a disability that allows the patient to work, or does it completely impair their ability to contribute to society and to live independently?

Abnormal findings on physical exam. Are there physical deformities that are contributing to it? Potential for progression of disease documented by radiographic findings. Are there physical or physiological elements that are coming into play?

These are all…. I'm summarizing here, you appreciate, but this is, I think, an excellent example of how you can start to bring things like pain and suffering

into the equation in terms of what the urgency is that should be attached to this particular case. The assessment tool is one of the important pieces in moving forward.

There are some other ones. We've talked a little bit about them, but I'll mention them again. Actually, I haven't mentioned this one before.

We have been engaged with the health authorities on what I think has been just an excellent project called the provincial surgical services review, and I really want to salute the staff that's here and the leadership in the health authorities for the provincial surgical services review. One of the examples is at Richmond Hospital. They have been working on how to manage operating room capacity in a much more efficient and effective fashion than has ever been the case in the past. They've learned some quite remarkable things by that attention to those ORs and how they could be managed. The next step will be to take the best practices and best lessons that have been learned at Richmond and then apply those across the public system to the rest of the province. I think that project holds great promise. The assessment tool is a part of that. Registry is a part of that. Constructive or progressive management of that registry is a part of it as well.

Other areas we shouldn't lose sight of…. Prevention of injuries is a very important part of this — fall prevention, as I mentioned, and the initiative in the IHA. I think there have been initiatives elsewhere and also building capacity. Having resources is one of the elements, but building capacity, ensuring that you have sufficient human resources — i.e., surgeons and OR room nurses and anaesthetists and all of those folks that you need to be able to have surgeries on a sustained and reliable basis — is an important part of it — having capacity, having resources.

These are some of the areas that are being worked on, and I think they're tremendously exciting. I think we have come a long, long way in recent years in this province, and I believe that with these kinds of initiatives, we're going to see real and substantial improvements in the years ahead as well.

D. Cubberley: Well, that's exciting to think about, because obviously, one of the most pressing issues that the system faces as a whole is delivering timely access to rising volumes of certain kinds of surgeries. I would assume, perhaps wrongly, that in areas like cardiac and cancer we are probably among the top performers in the country in providing timely access to needed surgeries. I'd be interested in knowing where the minister would rank us on so-called elective surgeries and whether there's a clear understanding that that needs to be a priority area for government, especially in light of the Chaoulli case at the Supreme Court.

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me begin with the legal context. The member framed the question up around the Chaoulli decision by the Supreme Court of Canada back a few months ago. That is a good starting point for me in terms of the context. To be clear, Quebec, in their look at the public care–private care debate, is certainly driven by time and the direction of the decision to do some things and to do it within, I think, a one-year period around, perhaps, some changes in the way that care is delivered in Quebec.

British Columbia is not driven by the same imperative. The Chaoulli case was a 4-3 Supreme Court decision. There were three justices who believed that the decision had general application; there were three who believed it did not. The fourth judge, who sort of landed on what became the majority side, said: "Yeah, this decision has application only to the province of Quebec and has application only to the Quebec version of the Charter of Rights, not to Canada generally." Not only was it a split decision, in terms of did this case have merit or not, but also the majority said: "No, it doesn't have application to British Columbia and Alberta and Ontario and so on."

So we're not driven in the same way that Quebec is to try to find some reconciliation of the issues that were raised by Chaoulli. That's not to say they aren't important, because they are. That's not to say that it doesn't help to inform our thinking, but there isn't a legal compulsion that drives us in the same way that it would in Quebec, although I shouldn't deign to speak for them, either.

Second point. The member used the term "elective surgeries." Just to be clear, all of the surgeries that are governed by wait times are…. I don't know if they're elective surgeries, but let's leave that aside for the moment. About half of all surgeries that are done in this province are done on an immediate, urgent, emergent basis. There are about 450,000 surgeries that are done annually in this province. About 225,000 of those will be done immediately.

The balance, which have a range of lesser urgency assigned to them by the medical practitioners, would ultimately have some wait times associated with them. Many of the procedures are done within weeks of diagnosis, but some go out into a much longer period of time. Indeed, one can, on occasion — and these are certainly much more the exception than the rule — find people, particularly in orthopedics, who have been waiting longer than a year. That's regrettable, unfortunate and inappropriate that they should do so, and when that happens, it should tell us that we need to do better. Those are the folks who are driving this extensive body of work that we are doing now.

In terms of the member's questions about elective surgeries and how we're doing on that, again, there are, I suppose, elective surgeries in all of the areas, whether it's cataract or cancer or cardiac or orthopedic, but there are just different levels of urgency that would be assigned to those procedures.

Again, just to sort of recap, we're doing pretty well in terms of reducing wait times on cataracts, on cancer, on cardiac. But we are not doing as well on orthopedic.

So that's where I think a lot of this intense work we are doing will come to bear.

D. Cubberley: That's really where my thinking is going as well. Orthopedics appears to be the problem area. It's certainly where the demand spike is very, very strong. It's also the area that the Chaoulli case made a judgment around. It was an individual who was deemed to have waited too long for access.

I don't see the Supreme Court decision as…. I'm not trying to construct a direct link to British Columbia, but I think it's inevitable when you have the Supreme Court weigh in and tell you, without ever defining it in science-based terms, that certain waits are too long and that that level of rationing of access to health care is unacceptable and that that creates a justification for private medical insurance, which they authorized. Then there's a very clear signal to decision-makers everywhere that attention has to be paid to this class of surgeries, which are particularly orthopedic surgeries.

One of the things, just as an aside, that I found interesting reading the Chaoulli judgment is that the court didn't place any responsibility whatsoever upon the individual, which is intriguing because I understand that the patient in that case actually complicated his own treatment by seeking a second opinion. So in effect, having started the clock running on a wait time, he reset it in the course of his dealings with the medical system, and that prolonged the amount of time it took him to actually get to a surgery.

So I think — and I would take Senator Kirby's approach on this — what we should take from that case is that we have to focus on reducing wait times, in particular in the category of orthopedic surgeries. That's a bit where my attention is focused.

Just as a general question: within this array of funds that we will see over the next number of years that have some dedicated moneys for wait-time reductions, are we going to focus some element of that on bringing down wait times for orthopedic surgeries?

Hon. G. Abbott: I actually agree with the member that while Chaoulli may not drive us from a legal perspective, it certainly is a reminder that the goal we should set for ourselves from a public policy perspective is always trying to ensure that the public — those patients within the body of the public requiring procedures — should be able to enjoy those procedures on a timely basis. So I think that's very important.

How do we set about doing that? I'm going to give the member a slightly long-winded answer to his question. He's perhaps become accustomed to that now. I hope it will be useful, as well, because it will inform the final answer which is: yes, there will be more attention around orthopedics. That having been said, there won't be attention around it to the exclusion of the other very important procedures that go on as well, but we'll recognize that it is in the orthopedic area where we have the greatest challenges right now and where I think some of the initiatives that have been undertaken can bear the most fruit. That's the answer.

Here's the challenge. I've noted these figures before, but they're important. Knee replacements are up 65 percent over four years ago. Hip replacements are up 35 percent over four years ago. Notwithstanding that big bump in the number of procedures — this is major — we still are unable to move the wait time down the way we would like to.

There are a number of issues that come into play here, and a couple of them I'll note. Compared to 1990-1991, an 80-year-old British Columbian today is twice as likely to have a knee replacement, twice as likely to have cataract surgery, twice as likely to have a coronary bypass and eight times as likely to have an angioplasty. That's not to say we don't want them to have them.

It goes back to the point that I made in my original comments, which I know went on far too long, but I don't need to apologize for that again, do I? I apologized once. That's enough. It's that people in British Columbia are living longer, healthier lives, and they have, I hope, as they live those longer, healthier lives, expectations of living for a hundred years or more. That would be wonderful, but they are also expecting procedures that would not have been contemplated ten or 15 or 20 years ago.

The other set of figures, which again are interesting: the long-term impact, 1990-1991 to 2004-2005. Compared to 1990-1991, B.C. surgeons performed more than five times as many angioplasties, almost four times as many knee replacements, more than three times as many cataract surgeries and almost twice as many hip replacements and coronary bypass surgeries as 15 years ago. That is quite remarkable.

That sort of lays out the bounds of the challenge — that as we get more successful and as we are able to do more procedures, not only are we getting the demographic demand curve going up, but the anticipation that one can readily secure these kinds of procedures also drives more business in the system as well. Again, that is a challenge and one we're going to have to work with. I'll leave it at that and invite the member's next question.

D. Cubberley: I was looking at a report from the Canadian Institute for Health Information which I think confirms the numbers that the minister gave in the area of orthopedic surgeries. The report notes that the number of these surgeries Canada-wide has doubled in the past eight years, so the phenomenon in British Columbia is probably just a slightly more exaggerated version of the national number because we have a higher proportion of the aging population and are likely to catch more and more of that aging population as it reaches early retirement — freedom 55 or 60 or whatever the age is — and says we'd better get to the west coast, which a lot of people are going to do.

I guess the question, though…. I understand the minister's desire to ensure that we put a focus on wait times for all classes of surgery. I want to stay with the orthopedics because that's the area of surgery we hear

the most about from the public in terms of feedback. I certainly do, both in my work as an MLA, in constituency work, and as the Health critic, where I get another level of it. In the election campaign, of course, it was an issue. People use election campaigns to make you aware of their issues, and this idea was one of the issues that figured in the election.

It's also — if you will, flipped over — the poster child issue for those who see public Medicare as failing. The wait time they point to that indicates the system can't deliver the service that's wanted when it's wanted is for orthopedic surgeries. That's because the waits are longest for orthopedic surgeries. The question comes down to beginning to look at the kinds of strategies that can be implemented to overcome whatever the delays are in the system that we currently have.

I would be interested in having some discussion about what priorities are there. One of the things the ministry has done is to establish a wait-list website, which has some levels of information that were not available in the previous iteration. One of the things that jumped out of that at a lot of people, and there was some copy on it afterward, was the disparities in access across regions and within regions — so between regions but also within regions.

When we look at the disparities of access, you can see somebody in Maple Ridge waiting a very long time for a particular class of surgery, and 30 minutes away in another community that it's practically connected to as a suburb, the waiting time is a tiny portion of that.

One of the questions that I have is around the allocation of access to existing capacity for this class of surgeries. How big is that problem, and what kinds of things are we going to do in order to begin to manage that part of demand?

Hon. G. Abbott: I won't provide an exhaustive answer to the question, but hopefully, this will go some distance to assisting us here. A big part of the answer around hips and knees, I think, is in the area of innovation or productivity, also known as efficiency, within the public system.

Again, the project that I referenced earlier, the Richmond hip and knee reconstruction project, I think is a very exciting one, which has been led, obviously, by Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. The goal of that project was to reduce average waiting time for hip and knee replacement down to four to six months, which is certainly less than it is today. They wanted to reduce the length of stay to four days for hip reconstruction and three days for knee reconstruction, to improve operational room efficiency by 20 to 25 percent and to have strong evaluations on patient outcomes. They had a look nationally and internationally at the best practices around operating room organization and management and, in particular, looked at the configuration of the two orthopedic operating rooms in Richmond Hospital and reconfigured the thing so that basically there was a process for operating two operating rooms concurrently. They were able to achieve a 44-minute, or 25-percent, decrease in the average time for those procedures. That is a remarkable lesson for us to learn in the public system.

I think some of these innovations and efficiencies and so on probably have been undertaken in the U.S. — and, I'm sure, Canada as well — in some of the private care facilities. We need to learn those lessons for the public system, as well, so that we are getting as many procedures as we possibly can out of the dollars that we are expending. Those targeted funds are very considerable. Perhaps we can deal with that next, if the member wishes. So the innovation and productivity in the public system is one element.

The member referenced the wait-time website and the apparent disparity across and among regions. I think that's true. I think objectively there is truth there. Whether the disparities are as great as what appears from the numbers, because the numbers again, while adjusted to our best information, I think, on a quarterly or monthly basis…. There will always be, probably, some discrepancies based on how fulsome the information is coming from physicians to the health authorities to the website, but I think it's reasonably good, and I think it's pretty clear that there are some disparities across regions and among regions.

One of the things we want to do once we have a registry in place, assessment tools in place and all the new technologies and efficiencies and so on in place in terms of getting the best we can there…. One of the things we're thinking about, and I'd actually like to hear the member's view on this, is: should we be offering to patients who have been waiting on a list or in a registry for some period of time — and let's arbitrarily pick eight months off the shelf — an opportunity to go elsewhere in the province to secure their procedure?

Now, you always have to make it optional, because as I've learned here, there are some patients — and they are a significant portion of patients — who will only be comfortable with a particular surgeon and a particular facility and a particular time frame and all of that, and I guess that's fine. We'll be trying to oblige people in respect of that. But where it's all the same to the patient whether they get the hip replacement at St. Paul's or Prince George Regional Hospital, should we offer them the opportunity to go to Prince George, go to Vancouver, go to Cranbrook or wherever if they can secure the procedure more quickly?

This is an important public policy issue to think about, and I'd be interested in the member's view and whatever additional questions he may have in respect to this.

D. Cubberley: Well, there are a range of things that the minister covered off there, and I'd like to speak to each of them. They sort out into separate questions in a way. Maybe I'll go back to where I began, and then we'll come forward to some of the things the minister said.

One of the things that I was getting at was the certain inequities in the distribution of opportunity of

access to operating rooms within regions, between regions and for particular surgeons. I have no great knowledge of how surgeons are allocated access to OR time, and I'm sure that it is both very complex and probably riddled with seniority and other political issues. There are, nonetheless — when you look at the availability of surgery time — great disparities between doctors of relatively comparable skill, and the inequities in distribution are reflected in shorter or longer patient lists and more timely access issues. Those can vary dramatically within 30 minutes of location.

I think one of the things…. I had kept a story that was done in the TC, but it quoted a couple of docs, one of whom was from Maple Ridge and had an extensive wait-list and who was ticked at the fact that 30 minutes away in Vancouver patients could get a surgery done in a matter of weeks where, for him, it was up to a year to get the same surgery through. And there's a difference in the point of view between what doctors and health authorities say about how the operating room hours are allocated.

One of the questions, really, is whether it's a distribution problem that can be sorted out and solved, where some aspect of central management of these lists comes in and looks at patient waiting times and numbers of patients waiting and begins to do something about access to OR time — whether that's one of the tools that should be used. Is the ministry beginning to move down that path with health authorities if that's an appropriate tool? I'll come back to the other questions.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you for the member's question, because it is an important one — the access to operating rooms. I'm sure it would be impossible to generalize in terms of what determines access to operating room time and how much each individual surgeon might get. It's going to vary within regions, across regions, and by facility, institution and surgeon. As I understand it from staff, there are a lot of historical elements that tend to come into this determination, and those will, again, vary by institution and by surgeon.

The other elements, though, that are certainly more measurable parts of the equation…. Health human resource capacity is a very important one. One can't have an efficient operating room without having a sufficient supply of operating room nurses. One can't have an efficient system without an adequate supply of anaesthesiologists to do it. Of course, there are other related skills in the health human resources area that are essential to proper operation of operating rooms. Skills come into play in terms of the distribution of OR time, and the wait times that are present also have an impact.

We agree with the member's general submission that we should try to line up the resources based on urgency and priority — that is, the patient's urgency and priority, not necessarily the surgeon's, but obviously, that's going to be a part of the equation as well. We'd like to see a fair and appropriate allocation of operating room times and the organization of those operating rooms along the lines of the best practices that we've learned from the Richmond project. I think the combination of all of those things should produce better, timelier procedures, particularly, as we've been discussing, in the orthopedic area.

D. Cubberley: One of the things that's noted in this piece was a quote from someone from the Fraser Health Authority surgical planning team. The co-chairperson noted that hospitals assign operating room hours after balancing wait-lists for each medical specialty with medical case priorities, so I think the matter of urgency, obviously, comes into the allocation of access to OR time.

It may well be the case, in fact — and to a layperson, it seems likely it would be the case — that emergency surgeries, urgent surgeries, would tend to bump elective surgeries. If there are constraints in overall capacity, that would push out the waiting times for gaining access — in particular, in this case, for orthopedic surgeries.

I was interested in the minister's comments — this is to get back to his prior response — indicating an interest in the Richmond experiment and also an openness to the idea that we may need to have more resources focused directly on orthopedic surgery. I'm getting the sense of an openness toward the idea of stand-alone surgical centres within the public system that might help take some of those patients out of the competition for access to the universal OR theatre and put them into hopefully shorter lines and more promptly dealt with lines going into specialized facilities.

I know the minister referenced that some of the innovations in these areas have been done in the private sector, and I think it's quite the case that the principle of specialization was certainly applied in medicine to the south of us before it came into Canadian medicine, and it's late to come into our hospital system as a focus.

I'm interested to know if that's one of the tools that you see in the toolbox and whether some of the money we see in here might be used to actually sponsor additional stand-alone surgeries of the kind we see at Richmond that would be regionally distributed in some fashion to help relieve the pressure for getting these surgeries into standard operating rooms.

Hon. G. Abbott: We generally are in agreement with the member's suggestion. That is very much supported by the Richmond pilot project where, in fact, the orthopedic operating rooms were protected. I guess that's the best way to express it. Those procedures were not interrupted by the flow of emergency, urgent and trauma cases and so on that might otherwise come into play and throw off the schedule for orthopedic surgeries.

Generally speaking, what I think we will learn cross-system from the Richmond example is that in a number of institutions' facilities, perhaps with some

reorganization, we can build either centres of excellence or sort of dedicated areas where we can get these done on a reliable, sustainable basis and get those numbers down.

Again, that alone won't do it, but that in combination with some of the other initiatives we've been discussing holds great potential, I think, for hopefully improving the situation for those awaiting orthopedic surgery.

D. Cubberley: I wonder if the minister can tell me if there are any plans for any other pilot projects of that kind that are in the works currently. Are there any other locations that are being considered for stand-alones?

The minister might wish to comment on whether there's the sense that the Richmond facility can stand as a kind of model or template for how these might be done or whether some of the configuration might be for out-patient surgeries — to have an actual entity unto itself as opposed to something within a hospital.

Hon. G. Abbott: The Richmond pilot project has reported out relatively recently — about two weeks ago, I think — to the chief executive officers of the health authorities. I think it's fair to say that the information was received with interest and enthusiasm. I do expect that the best practices that have informed the results of this project will be embraced widely across the province.

You know, these are the early days. We're not going to be prescriptive about saying that everything has to be realigned by next week, but this is very useful work. We would expect, just because…. The business of government is always about the allocation of resources, so this is an opportunity for us to do more and do better with existing and incremental resources. It's very exciting. I am certainly very excited by it, and I think the health authorities are excited by it as well.

I think we will see some very dynamic changes in terms of the business model around this area of hospital operation in the months and years ahead. Again, we'll look forward to seeing the results of this.

D. Cubberley: One other question before passing on to other things. Would the minister envision this kind of evolution taking place within the public system so that these would be within the public hospital sector?

Hon. G. Abbott: Certainly, we do expect these changes to occur within the public system. That is the area of the realm that we get to manage. Our principal concern, obviously, is with that public system and making it work as efficiently and as effectively as possible so that we maximize the benefit to the public of the public system. So the general answer is yes.

The more refined answer would go on to say that we will see some of these improvements in the structure and functioning of operating rooms and hospitals. It's also important, I think, to recognize that health authorities have done some very, very impressive work in terms of moving some of the work that was traditionally done in hospitals out to special-purpose clinics — for example, for cataracts. That's still, obviously, within the public system and so on but is on a clinic out-patient basis as opposed to what we used to do, which was, traditionally, to do all these things inside a hospital.

That's been very good. Also, we've come a long way in terms of ambulatory care centres, where many, many procedures are done on an out-patient basis and have secured better outcomes and greater efficiencies as a product of that.

I won't speak for the private system and what they'll do. I am always looking at whether it is possible, in the public interest, to effectively use those resources that are available in the private system. That's not something that scares me or confounds me. I'm always prepared to look at whether there are ways that public benefit can be secured by a better alignment with some of the private resources that are available.

I guess the best example that we have was after the Hospital Employees Union dispute of 2004. There was a backlog of some 5,000 cases that had been accumulating during that dispute. The health authorities, supported with resources from the province, took those resources and were able to purchase or procure from the private sector a lot of those 5,000 procedures, thereby allowing the OR time to be opened up in the hospitals for some of the more complex surgeries — the hips and knees and so on. Some of the out-patient surgeries were able to be procured from the private sector.

My mind certainly isn't closed around that subject. Again, all of this is framed around how we produce the best outcomes for the public system and for the many constituents who look to the public system to meet their needs.

D. Cubberley: The minister, a couple of questions back, wondered what my opinion would be on the idea of patients being offered the opportunity to have a surgery in another location if the wait time to gain access through their own doctor or in their own city appeared to be too long. That rather conveniently segues into another area that I wanted to ask the minister's opinion about — but I will give him enough of my own that he will be encouraged — and that has to do with central registries or central management of waiting times.

I certainly, personally, see it as being something that will be necessary in the future in order to be able to manage demand — to offer opportunities to people, where it can be cost-effective and more humane to do it, to achieve surgeries in another location. In fact, I would see it as being an integral tool in helping to sort out this problem we have where one doctor has a thousand people waiting for surgeries, which are going to take a ridiculously long period of time because of OR access, and someone else not that far away might have

a few hundred and have very good access to OR time. It could be a tool in managing that.

I think it comes back to the question of…. It's obviously a challenging one. I'm asking it not at a level of specificity — how you would put it into the field — but whether the ministry is looking at the idea of central registries and centralized management of waiting times to attempt to reallocate opportunities for surgery amongst patients and amongst doctors.

I think there's considerable research on the subject. I don't know whether it has produced as much success in the short term as the proponents of central registries had hoped. I wonder if the ministry's aware of it and if that's one of the directions that we're looking at.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is a timely one. The central registry is under construction now. It will be a central registry for the province, which we hope will be one of the fundamental tools in terms of the management of wait times in the province.

The provincial surgical registry will be a provincewide system to track all patients waiting for surgery in B.C. We're working with medical practitioners across the province to establish how the registry will be constructed. It will be a fax- or web-based data entry and web-based reporting. So that's useful.

We are hoping — again, it will get functional as we build the information base with the doctors and other medical practitioners — to have it in full operation by the end of fiscal year 2006-2007. We have committed, at this point, capital funding of $4.452 million to the project, up to and including March 31, 2007. This is exciting work — and ultimately, we hope, very productive work — from the perspective of patients all across the province.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for the response. It's very interesting to think about that development. I wonder if, as part of the central registry, there will be staff associated with it who will be, for lack of a better term, wait-time managers who will involve themselves in some fashion in bringing opportunities to people's attention and actively managing lists, or whether the initial idea is to make this something patients would be trying to use for themselves to navigate their way around the system?

Hon. G. Abbott: I really apologize for lulling you into that kind of quiet place that we were earlier. That was really a product of my last answer, which was probably less exciting than it should have been. The answer here, and I'll keep it brief, is yes. The central registry we are building at the Provincial Health Services Authority. We are currently building the staff plan around how the central registry will be managed.

D. Cubberley: I'd like to go on to another aspect of wait-times management. I'm thinking that we were canvassing surgeon access to operating room time and that issue of unequal access. I want to roll that over a little bit and ask some questions about operating room time in the province, whether we currently have the capacity in place for the volume of surgeries that we need.

I know there have been some relatively recent studies done. I haven't read the detail on them, so I don't exactly know the quality of them, but I know the BCNU did a study on hours of prime operating room time that are unused on a weekly basis in British Columbia and generated a relatively large number. One of the questions that I have, then, is about capacity and whether we have any significant amount of mothballed capacity or underutilized capacity in the system at the present time.

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of capacity for operating rooms really has at least two elements. There are probably more than these two elements, but these are the two principal ones. First, the question of physical space. The member asked whether there are some spaces that could be opened up that have been mothballed in the past. In some instances there probably are. In fact, there undoubtedly would be. That having been said, some of that space is old and probably not suitable for contemporary surgical uses. But some could be, I'm sure, retrofitted as well. The other thing about some of the physical space is that it's not, in some cases, strategically located for optimal efficiency, either. Again, the member was asking a general question, so that's a general answer. Yeah, there probably is some, but that's just one factor in terms of OR efficiency and capacity.

The other at least equally important — and, depending upon the circumstance, more important — is health human resources. Again, we referenced earlier the three elements that are essential to being able to undertake a surgery. One is the surgeon, one is the operating room nurses, and the third is the anaesthetists who assist the surgeon. Those can be a limiting factor in terms of the capacity for opening up more OR space in the public system.

D. Cubberley: It's true. I've certainly heard that some of the ORs are idled due to a lack of trained nursing personnel. I have heard that said both by health authorities and by others within the system. I've also heard it contradicted quite strenuously by both doctors and nurses that there is a lack of trained personnel. Their argument is that there is a lack of resources in the hospitals for the opening up of access to the surgeries. It could be that they are one and the same thing, in a sense.

My question is around that same area. Is it a question of having adequate resources in the health authorities to bring the operating rooms on stream, or is it a human health resource issue? If it's the latter, can that be addressed? Is the question of having operating room nurses in adequate supply a question of some added-

on training for our ends? And are we doing something about that, if that's the system limit?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of if it is resources or the health–human resources limitations that are coming into play, the answer is that there might be some mix of the two, but principally, our biggest challenge right now is on the health–human resources side — on operating room nurses and critical care nurses in particular. The government has invested $77 million over three years on nurse training to try to ensure that we do have that capacity in the future. So it's another one of the pieces, and I think it's been very useful.

We've talked about a lot of different pieces that could be a part of the puzzle here, so I'm not saying that any one of these things is the missing piece and that once it fell in place, then everything else would be perfect. It's not that simple. There are a whole lot of things that come into play. Health–human resources, we reckon, is probably the biggest constraint right now, but there are others as well, and there are always going to be variations between facilities and health regions in this area.

D. Cubberley: The minister had alluded earlier to strategies focused on nurses, among other health care professionals, around retention, and he's also mentioned training. I'm interested to know more. How large a challenge is it in British Columbia retaining nurses? Is it an issue for us today? I know that some years back it was certainly an issue, with nurses bleeding off into other jurisdictions or being attracted into the United States in particular, I think because of student loan forgiveness schemes down there and some very rich benefit packages that they made available.

I guess the question in part is: how big a problem is it today? What kinds of strategies are we using to help retain nurses and to make sure that nurses who come out of the four-year program at university integrate quickly into nursing and become lifetime nurses in British Columbia, rather than quickly deciding that nursing on the ground isn't the job for them and trying to find a way to move into management or somewhere else? I'll just open it up with that.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll attempt a reasonably comprehensive answer in terms of nursing. The issue has been an important one. Again, part of the challenge we have today reflects the fact that for a time, at least, it was broadly accepted in health public policy, particularly back in the 1980s and 1990s, that you could constrain the pressures on health care budgets by constraining the number of professionals practising in the area.

For example, in the 1990s there was an increase of only 85 nursing spaces through that period. There were 400 committed pre-election in 2001. Since that time we have been working very hard to dramatically increase the number of nursing seats in post-secondary institutions across the province. So we've added, by our calculations, 2,511 seats since 2001 — a 62-percent increase. As well, we have recruited nationally and internationally for nurses in Canada and abroad through the immigration program to bring in prospective nurses for British Columbia. The upshot of that is that we are strongly a net importer of nurses.

Our latest figures from 2004 indicate that about 90 percent of nurses who are educated in British Columbia remain in this jurisdiction. So that's great news. There will always be some nursing professionals who will be excited by the opportunities they might have to work in Australia or New Zealand or the United States or Europe. That's an exciting opportunity for a young person, and there will always be some that will be attracted to that. However, we are doing our best to keep them in British Columbia by being a wonderful place to be and to live and to work. But also, we have added the B.C. loan forgiveness program for nurses to forgive their student loans if they stay in British Columbia. We hope during that period they will attach themselves to other British Columbians and want to stay in British Columbia forever and not travel the world and apply their skills elsewhere. That's a good thing as well.

I think we're doing well. I think we continue to invest a lot in educating and upgrading programs, both for registered nurses and for licensed practical nurses. These are very important elements, again, in ensuring that we have the skill sets that we need.

Retaining through the attractive package for nurses coming out of school, the strong recruitment nationally and internationally and, obviously, creating more nursing spaces in post-secondary institutions: the combination of all of those three is putting us into a much better place in terms of meeting the human resource needs for registered nurses, for licensed practical nurses and, as you know from the recent bill introduced in this chamber, for nurse practitioners as well. We believe this will be an important addition to the medical professionals in the province.

I just wanted to ask another question around nursing and the conditions under which the work is conducted in hospitals. One of the things that I hear from a lot of nurses is that it's a burnout profession. It has to do with the conditions of work in hospitals. I've also heard — not from nurses but from people who study health care systems — that it's among the most dangerous callings, in terms of occupational health and safety, of any. It may be the most dangerous.

The question that I want to ask is whether we at the ministry level are looking at work design in hospitals, in particular — and in other care settings, but particularly in hospitals — and whether we're looking at things like shift duration and the impact it's having on the ability of nurses to lead a normal family life outside of job hours.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member set out some of the challenges very well in terms of the nursing profession. It is a challenging one, and I think we do see some issues there that will require resolution so that we see

nurses feeling more satisfied about their work; feeling more fulfilled in terms of their ongoing role in the system; and being safe, healthy and contributing. I think there's a range of issues around achieving better health, safety, job satisfaction and so on.

Again, the ministry has been engaged in nursing policy discussions since 2004 with the B.C. Nurses Union and others to try to see if there are ways, quite apart from the collective bargaining process, that some of these issues can be resolved. Some elements, like shifts and so on, are driven by collective agreements, but we do need to find ways to make the workplace a better place for nurses.

Those nursing policy discussions have been very useful to date. They've looked at issues like responsive shift scheduling to see if there are ways that we can build more flexibility in to meet the needs of, let's say, a nurse in her late 50s as opposed to a nurse in her late 20s, whose relative desires to work long shifts might be quite variable.

A review of casual and overtime hours has been undertaken in that policy discussion and of a phased-in retiree and new-graduate partnership program, which involves nurses 60 years and older sharing a position with a newly graduated nurse to get the benefit not only of some job sharing but also some job mentoring.

These are all, I think, very positive and constructive discussions that have been proceeding with the B.C. Nurses Union and others. We look forward to those discussions continuing, both within the context of collective agreement discussions and outside of that as well.

D. Cubberley: I'd just like to compliment the minister and the ministry on that direction. I think there are, obviously, very large dividends from attempting to address issues outside of the collective bargaining process. Usually, when you wind up trying to do it within collective bargaining, it's because no attempt has been made in the workplace to do it, and the resolution becomes more difficult, not easier, as a result of that.

One question I have — because, obviously, I'm seeing minister-ministry and over here health authorities and then, within health authorities, hospitals as the venue of work: how does the minister-ministry develop the leadership direction for change and then find the way to charge health authorities with meaningful implementation of those kinds of changes? How do you begin to effect a redesign in the way that you are of some aspects of work and of the way that shifts are developed within a workplace at several removes?

Hon. G. Abbott: The basic question was: how do we derive the positive initiatives, which I outlined in the previous answer? There's a number of elements, really, that come into play in terms of building the leadership to put these positive changes into place. A lot of the work is done through the chief nursing executive of the ministry and their work with their counterparts in the health authorities. There is a vice-president of human resources counsel that works on issues like this. At the highest level there's a leadership council of health authority CEOs and board chairs that meet with the ministry to discuss these kinds of issues. Closer to the working level the ministry works with the Health Employers Association of B.C. — HEABC — and the B.C. Nurses Union on these specific issues.

In terms of how things come together after that, there's obviously some monitoring and evaluation that's done by the ministry through performance agreements and otherwise. But I think the best answer, really, is that a lot of these changes are in everyone's interest. When you have recognition on the part of the employers that these are key and valued employees who want to do great work on behalf of the people and patients of British Columbia and who recognize we want them to be happy and healthy and satisfied with their work…. I think the recognition on both sides that it's in everyone's interest to see these kinds of changes achieved probably makes it relatively easy to implement.

D. Cubberley: One final question, and then I'll move off this area and into another one. Have you ever considered the idea of giving nurses a fundamental say in both the design of the shifts that they work and the actual bidding of who works the shifts? Have you ever thought of devolving that power to nurses so they could involve themselves and feel involved in a direct sense in the allocation of person power to meet the requirements set by health authorities?

Hon. G. Abbott: The kind of approach to managing nurses' shifts and so on embodied in his question would come under the area, which I referenced previously, of responsive shift scheduling. Within that, I guess, is the question: would something like self-scheduling ever be contemplated? The answer is yes. There's actually been considerable work that's been undertaken in respect of working that through with respect to HEABC and the ministry and the BCNU and so on. There's a software program that's been developed around that. There has been some training undertaken by nurses and administrators on how to manage that software program and the general challenge of self-scheduling.

I guess it's fair to say that this is a work in progress, that it has not been widely embraced to this point. I think there is some cultural resistance, if you like, to this concept, but I think all parties feel that it still has considerable promise and that we want to continue to work and try to build more of the culture around that. But it is, I think, fair to say that it is a work in progress at this point.

D. Cubberley: I would just encourage further work in that direction. I can tell you from direct experience, although it was many years ago, of having worked in a part of the airline industry — the old CP Air — where

the passenger service agents were allowed to design their own shift. The company established what coverage was required on a quarterly basis. The union withdrew with its members and had a shift bid, and they designed the coverage. It was completely removed from the company.

It was a lot of horse trading in that system, but the interesting thing about it was that the level of job satisfaction that went with employees being able to be involved in picking when they would work went way up high. Motivation was strongly affected by taking that step of allowing employees a role in the design of their own work environment — when they were going to be there and not be there.

I think it's a lot more complicated in a hospital environment to do that than it is for passenger service agents. I mean no disrespect to the work they do, but it's just obviously a more complex environment with, in many respects, more riding on it. But I would encourage you to continue in that direction, because trying to raise the intrinsic satisfactions to accord more with the sense of calling that people have about the profession of nursing is, in my opinion anyway, the right way to go.

Anyway, prior to going off into nursing and job satisfaction and the like, we were looking at some of the limits on access to operating rooms. I've been operating to some extent in the context of orthopedic surgeries, although it's broader than that. Taking that still as my frame of reference, I'm wondering whether there are any other limiting factors. The one that I'm most interested in hearing about would be the acute care beds that we have available in our system. Do we have adequate numbers of acute care beds to allow us to optimize the surgery capacity that we have, and what kind of limit does that constitute?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll attempt to give a balanced answer here to the important question the member poses. Again, it's around if the availability of acute care beds is a constraint around the effective management of surgical wait times. The answer, generally speaking, is no. Staff here and I would not consider the availability of acute care beds to be a constraint in terms of better management of wait times.

In terms of the national and international trends in respect of acute care beds across Canada and across the globe — and it's certainly the case in British Columbia — the number of acute care beds per capita has been falling over the last decade or two. Generally, the number of acute care beds per capita — not the absolute number but the relative number expressed as a per-capita percentage — has been dropping.

There are probably a number of important elements in terms of that reduction in the number of acute care beds. Among them would be the emergence of out-patient ambulatory procedures. That has become an increasingly important element in terms of the need for acute care beds.

Secondly, pharmacological management has been improved over the years, so that if one's drugs are managed carefully and appropriately…. Of course, the range and effectiveness of some of these drugs has improved dramatically over a long period of time as well. So that's improving.

A third point is that the inappropriate use of acute care beds by people who should otherwise be in residential care settings or assisted-living settings has also been diminishing.

Those are, I think, important elements in why we would see, on a per-capita basis, the number of acute care beds reducing. There will be occasions, though…. If, for example, we have a rash of influenza or we have, in a particular facility, a large, complex car accident or something that involves numerous injuries, there may be occasions when the OR flow is disrupted by those events, but that is just a practical aspect of life. The number of acute care beds can be expanded or contracted fairly quickly based on population need at a particular point in time.

Across the health authorities, generally speaking…. In the Northern Health Authority we would probably say there are, in most instances, too many acute care beds and an adjustment needs to be made there; in Fraser Health, the reverse. There's some regional variation in respect of acute care beds, but generally speaking, we would not put it in the same category as some of the other elements — health human resources particularly — that are constraints around more effective management of wait times.

D. Cubberley: Just to pursue that a little bit further, I understand that the trend line across advanced nations with large-scale responsibility for public health care has generally been downwards in terms of acute care beds. The data that I've seen on what's happened in British Columbia, looking from 2001 on, suggests that in 2001 British Columbia already had the fewest acute care beds per capita of any province in Canada and that between 2002 and 2004 we closed another plus or minus 1,300 acute care beds.

I've seen it said — and not by somebody who works for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives — that British Columbia has a razor-thin margin of acute care capacity. I know that the minister wound up commenting on surge capacity, but it's just interesting. Can a hospital system operate across a range of circumstances with a razor-thin margin of acute care beds without it having impacts?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're going to get more information for the member in respect of whether British Columbia was lowest in 2001 and whether there has been any additional change since then. We don't have that immediately with us.

What we do know, though…. I think this is very important in terms of understanding the relative balance of acute care beds with other elements in the system. The best example of this would be Vancouver

Coastal, which, relatively speaking, has a lower number of acute care beds per capita than other health regions, but for all the best of reasons. Vancouver Coastal have been leaders in terms of implementing ambulatory out-patient care in the province. They are probably among the leaders in Canada in terms of effective utilization of ambulatory care. They have also been very well supplied in terms of alternative level of care beds. Typically, one won't find in Vancouver Coastal, unless it's a transitional issue, an inappropriate occupation of an acute care bed by an ALC patient.

Those are two of the elements which really make it difficult for us to compare British Columbia, for example, with Ontario or New Brunswick or any other Canadian jurisdiction. They may have on a per-capita basis…. We don't know that they do, but let's say hypothetically that they do. Even if they did have a higher ratio per capita of acute care beds to population, that doesn't mean that somehow their system is better constructed or working better. It may, in fact, mean the reverse. It may mean that they are counting acute care beds that are inappropriately occupied from our perspective — maybe not from theirs — by alternative level of care patients.

It's a little tricky getting the apples-to-apples comparison across jurisdictions. If you do a poor job of ambulatory care, you are going to oblige your system to have more acute care beds. If you do a poor job of alternative levels of care — assisted living and residential care — you will oblige your system to adjust by having more acute care beds.

We've gone the reverse here. We want to make the acute care system work as it should by ensuring that where we can use ambulatory care, where we can use alternative levels of care, and where we can ensure that we don't have too many intersections of mental health issues and addictions issues with acute care beds, the system works best when it's dealing with the things it knows best.

I think that's the best answer I can give you right now. We'll try to find those comparisons. We don't believe it to be the case, but on the other hand, because of the sort of apples-to-oranges comparison here, it may or may not prove anything in the final analysis anyway.

D. Cubberley: A little bit of context for the question about acute care beds and another question. My understanding is that in- and out-patient orthopedic surgeries are the majority of total surgical waits. There was a BCNU study of ORs that pegged it at about 55 percent of the total surgical waits.

My question would be: what percentage of in-patient surgeries are…? What percentage of total orthopedic surgeries are in-patient surgeries that require access to an acute care bed in order to be accomplished through a hospital operating room? You may not have that at your fingertips. I wouldn't blame you if you didn't. Part of the question — I'm trying to see if there is a connection with acute care capacity and these wait times we have for orthopedic surgeries — is to get a sense of the volume that has to flow through acute care beds in order to achieve the outcome.

The other thing that I had in mind to ask about…. I'm mindful about the fact that our time is running out, but it may be something you want to look into along with the acute care bed reduction. I had a number that between 2001 and 2004 there was a net loss of some 1,464 long-term care beds provincewide. I'm not putting long-term care beds together with assisted living spaces or other forms of care in the continuum of care. That was just around long-term care beds. I heard the minister say either that there were fewer patients waiting now for placement into a facility, and thereby occupying an acute care bed, or that they were waiting for shorter times.

I do know from my experience on the capital health region that in the capital region that's not actually the case. The length of time for a placement into a long-term care bed out of a hospital is far longer than it was before, and the length of time for placement into a long-term care bed from living in another facility or being in the community is longer than it was before. I'm pretty sure we have a net loss of long-term care beds over that period of time in the region.

One of the outcomes of that is that at any given time — and I know this would apply to any hospital system to some extent at any time, no matter what policies were in place…. Currently in the capital region 14 percent of our acute care beds are occupied by people waiting for a placement into a long-term care facility, and they're there for a very much longer time than they used to be. Sorry, that's a bit of a barrage. If we're looking at numbers, it may be something to follow up on in the downtime. Oh, happy thought — work in the downtime — but that's my last gift for the evening.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's astonishing that so many of the colleagues of the member opposite and myself on this side are expressing impatience after what has been a scintillating debate here this evening. But let me say this. I think we will need to return to the issue of alternative level of care beds. I think there have been many things said about that. Some of them may have been grounded in reality; many of them have not been. I think we need to explore this issue in a good deal more depth and, hopefully, after a reasonable night's sleep.

Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. J. Les: Just by way of introduction, if I might, Mr. Chair, I have with me today Paul Taylor, who's the president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia; Anwar Chaudhry, the corporate controller; and Mark Withenshaw, who's the vice-president of loss management and operation support.

G. Gentner: I'd like to thank the minister and the members with him today for coming here and dealing with a very important Crown corporation that came forward in the early '70s, I believe, via an honourable chap by the name of Bob Strachan.

To begin, hon. Chair, would the minister explain why the government is telling the public that auto insurance rates are now being approved by the B.C. Utilities Commission, when cabinet uses its regulatory powers to issue special directions to strip the commission of its powers to set appropriate capital levels and retained earnings for ICBC and its basic compulsory insurance business?

Hon. J. Les: I just want to correct the member, if I can. I don't want to put this too strongly, but the member appears to be under some misapprehension.

We were in no way stripping any of the powers of the Utilities Commission. As the member is aware, the Utilities Commission was set up as the panel that would review any rate increases by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, and they did so earlier this year. To be clear, earlier this year on the 19th of January, they said:

So we have a clear expression of concern by the Utilities Commission in January of this year. Cabinet recently, by responding to that, has dealt with that concern and has ensured that both lines of business — both of the main lines of business of ICBC, both the basic and the optional sides — are fully capitalized.

This protects not only the ratepayers against future rate shocks, but it also protects the taxpayers of British Columbia, who can now rest assured that the business of ICBC is based on very sound principles, is properly capitalized and will minimize, certainly in the short term, any need for rate increases.

The Utilities Commission has appropriately discharged its responsibilities, cabinet has responded appropriately to that expression of concern, and the net result is a stable and sound business environment within ICBC and a stable rate environment for the ratepayers.

G. Gentner: Has there been any discussion or correspondence between ICBC, its board or officers, regarding the decision, the correspondence between ICBC and cabinet regarding the decision to comply with BCUC?

Hon. J. Les: Subsequent to the decision by cabinet, I've issued a letter instructing the ICBC board to comply with the cabinet direction.

G. Gentner: Would the minister confirm that the government's recent special direction to the B.C. Utilities Commission of moving $530 million from the optional to the basic compulsory insurance business is the last time the government is going to move over $500 million, which is appearing to be, I hate to say, a shell game designed to avoid the scrutiny of the regulator and avoid rate increases?

Hon. J. Les: As I have stated before and want to reiterate, we are determined that the decisions around ICBC are determined based on the evidence and determined ultimately by the Utilities Commission. However — and, again, I repeat — the Utilities Commission in its findings in January of this year expressed a clear concern with respect to the cross-subsidization issue. Cabinet responded to that concern, as I think it appropriately should have done.

With respect to the member's question as to whether this will be the last time anything of that nature occurs, I would suggest if, in the future, the Utilities Commission has concerns with respect to the operation of ICBC that can only be resolved by specific cabinet direction, I suspect the government of the day, whoever that may be, will have to take that into consideration.

I reiterate that the actions recently in terms of transferring that $530 million were absolutely in accordance with the findings of the Utilities Commission that they independently arrived at earlier this year.

G. Gentner: Mr. Minister, what I am receiving from you is that without question, the cabinet can make directions, with or without the B.C. Utilities Commission, relative to moving money from optional to basic.

Hon. J. Les: The legislation that governs makes it very clear that cabinet has a role in setting capital targets. It's also clear that the job of the Insurance Corporation is to comply with those directions, and the utilities corporation is there to ensure that the corporation has, in fact, complied with those directions. As I've already discussed with the member, the utilities corporation also has a very significant role from the public's perspective, obviously, in terms of dealing with any applications for rate increases.

G. Gentner: Therefore, in moving this $530 million, is ICBC complying with cabinet, or is it complying with BCUC?

Hon. J. Les: It is, in fact, cabinet that is taking appropriate notice of the concern expressed by the Utilities Commission. Cabinet, subsequent to that, has issued a directive, which ICBC has complied with.

G. Gentner: I'm somewhat, well, not dismayed but somewhat perplexed by that in many ways. We heard today the situation relative to, of course, the play of Terasen and that a decision will be made up by the Utilities Commission, and yet cabinet can make a decision relative to ICBC.

Would the minister agree that ICBC's recent submission to the B.C. Utilities Commission, that the convenient recent movement of $530 million in capital that government ordered in July 2004 to be allocated to its optional business — and, I believe, it was $509 million by a special directive of IC2 in July '04 — has allowed ICBC to avoid having to increase basic insurance rates by 4 percent?

Hon. J. Les: It is clear, as ICBC itself has stated a number of times in the recent past, that claims experience is somewhat adverse at the moment, and that needs to be carefully analyzed and scrutinized over the months ahead. At the same time, the transfer of the $530 million to the basic side of ICBC's business, in addition to stabilizing the basic side of the business — which I think everyone would agree is a good thing, that that should be fully capitalized — also gives ICBC some time to properly and completely analyze the claim rate experience it's currently going through. It also is important to understand that in any event, the decision of whether or not rates will go up, down or sideways on the basic side with ICBC is going to be made by the Utilities Commission.

G. Gentner: Would the minister confirm he is aware that by special direction of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council in July '04 ICBC allocated $509 million in capital and retained earnings to its optional insurance business, leaving a mere $25 million to its basic business that the BCUC called a subsidy and departure from its past practice of ICBC where it divided the capital on the basis of premium income, which if used as a guide would amount to what BCUC deemed a potential $287 million subsidy of optional.

Hon. J. Les: When the original decision was made to fully capitalize the optional side of ICBC's business, there was in fact not enough capital in the corporation to fully capitalize both sides of the business, the basic and the optional. So a decision was made at that time, because the optional side of the business is the one that's out there being fully competitive with the private sector, that that side needed to be fully capitalized.

It's only because of the hard work that has been done over the last several years that ICBC was able to generate some relatively significant profits that enabled the capital to be put together over these last several years to provide the resources for the complete capitalization of the basic side of the business as well.

G. Gentner: As a follow-up, if BCUC views that this is a fair way to decide capital and surplus retained earnings, why is the government this year, by special direction, allocating $530 million back to its basic compulsory business at this time?

Hon. J. Les: I think I explained that in my previous answer. The short answer is this: we now have the resources to fully capitalize both sides of ICBC's business, the optional and the basic, and that is what we have done.

G. Gentner: Would the minister confirm that he or his colleagues in government have received correspondence from private insurers protesting last year's action of cabinet to allocate $509 million in capital last year to ICBC's optional competitive coverages?

Hon. J. Les: In the course of the events of a day, a week or a month, I receive all kinds of correspondence from a variety of people with a variety of interests. I take all of those expressions of interest, and I try to distil them in a way that leads to proper expression of the public interest.

G. Gentner: Will this move of the $530 million this year not have to be made up in higher rates on optional, to make up what is now going to be a huge capital deficiency on its optional business?

Hon. J. Les: No, on the contrary. The optional side of ICBC's business is completely and fully capitalized, so the removal, if you will, of $530 million from optional to the basic side of the insurance business will have no effect on the optional side of the business.

G. Gentner: Isn't this convenient reallocation — just about the government avoiding an embarrassing basic insurance rate increase for '06 and more criticism from B.C Utilities for its prior actions, moving over half a billion dollars last year the other way?

Hon. J. Les: On the contrary. I will read, again, the findings of the Utilities Commission in January of this year to which government responded. The commission says here it concludes that:

The Utilities Commission, when it made that statement, was not in any way apprehensive of a potential rate increase in the future. They were dealing with the facts that they had before them. There are no political considerations in that process. Rather than be embarrassed by that situation, as the member suggests, I appreciate the direction of the Utilities Commission.

I think the public in British Columbia would be appreciative, as well, to know that ICBC today is on a very sound economic footing, which is a remarkable difference from what we had four and five years ago, perhaps six years ago, when the government of that day was mailing out refund cheques to British Columbians that ICBC could not afford. As a matter of fact, it took ICBC to the brink of insolvency in trying to accomplish some political objectives that had nothing at all to do with what was good for ICBC or its ratepayers.

G. Gentner: I think we'll return later in the day relative to this notion of brink of insolvency.

Would the minister confirm, then, that it is the government's intention to require policy holders to pay higher insurance rates to meet capital targets designed to prevent private insurers from going insolvent?

Hon. J. Les: ICBC's two major lines of business are both fully capitalized, so there is no need to raise rates or raise additional capital to fulfill that objective. It is fully capitalized. There are, of course, other pressures. I've already talked about claims experiences that are somewhat adverse at the moment and other issues like that that ICBC will have to deal with, but there is no need to provide further capital for ICBC.

G. Gentner: Why does ICBC's compulsory insurance business require excessive capital levels designed for private insurance companies that might go insolvent and not be able to pay claims, and not take into account that it is required insurance?

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member opposite will appreciate, the insurance business is a volatile business, and therefore, it is entirely appropriate that ICBC, on the basic side of the business as well as the optional, would have a significant capital reserve. I would point out, however, that if ICBC was a private sector company, those reserves would be somewhat higher.

For the member to suggest that we don't need these reserves or don't need them at this level is, perhaps, irresponsible, in that if ICBC were to run into some adverse claims experiences to a very significant degree, the backstop is, in fact, the taxpayer of British Columbia. I think it is far better and far more sound business practice to ensure that ICBC has the capital reserves in place so that it can survive the good times and the bad times on its own resources as opposed to having to resort to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

G. Gentner: Mr. Minister, you were saying "taxpayer." Were you referring to the ratepayer?

G. Gentner: Why did the government impose this capital regime on ICBC through special directions and regulation rather than let the Utilities Commission exercise its legislative powers to set capital levels?

Hon. J. Les: It's of great interest, of course, to government that the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, which is a significant Crown corporation, is appropriately capitalized and funded, so government has the ability to ensure that that happens by special direction. It is then the role of the Utilities Commission to ensure that those directions from government have been complied with.

G. Gentner: Is it not true that basic insurance policy holders would be getting rate decreases this year if they did not have to have the capital levels of private insurance?

Hon. J. Les: It is important to this government to ensure that ICBC is properly capitalized and has the appropriate reserves so that when we have the inevitable downturns and the inevitable adverse claims experiences, we are able to deal with those through ICBC and its reserves as opposed to inevitably having to rely on the good graces of the taxpayers of British Columbia. We now have an insurance corporation that is pub-

licly owned, a Crown corporation that is sound economically and financially and that will be there for the long term for British Columbians. They'll be able to rely on the services of ICBC without any fear of them being hit again through their taxation.

G. Gentner: At this time I believe that the member from Esquimalt may want to have a few supplementals for the minister.

M. Karagianis: I have some questions here regarding referrals for ICBC claims. I confess that I've been accident-free for something like 30 years and haven't had to go through the claims process — if ever, in fact, that I can remember. I wonder if you could just tell me: what is the referral process for someone who has had an accident?

Hon. J. Les: Like the member opposite, I don't have any personal experience I can draw on here either, but when somebody is involved in a motor vehicle accident in British Columbia, they call their local claim centre. Often, if it is not a serious accident and if they qualify for one of the express claims, they will then be directed to whatever licensed body shop they wish to have their car fixed at. If it is a complex case that involves serious damage or bodily injury, they would, in fact, have to attend the claim centre in their area to discuss the case further.

M. Karagianis: So someone has had an accident. They go to the claim centre. Could you just explain to me what an express claim is? That is something I actually have never heard of before.

Hon. J. Les: I just want to make one small correction. In response to the previous question, I said that initially, people would call the claim centre. In fact, they would call the call centre, and from there it would be directed either to the body shop or repair shop of their choice or to the claim centre in the case of a more serious type of accident.

The member, in her latest question, asked about the express repair. There are actually two types of those. First of all, there's the glass repair. People have a rock go through their windshield or what have you. They go directly to the glass repair shops, and there is a process that those glass shops are quite familiar with. They make the repair, and they bill ICBC. I think a lot more people, in fact, are quite familiar with that. Then there's the repair for vehicle damage, which is a separate process. Again, as I said, in many cases people can call the call centre. They can be directed to the repair shop of their choice, and almost all of those can be done either electronically or over the phone with ICBC.

M. Karagianis: A person has an accident. They phone the call centre, and they are then directed automatically to either a glass repair shop, if it's of that nature, or, to pursue a repair, to a licensed shop of their choice. Those are, I believe, the exact words. Am I correct in that?

M. Karagianis: In the case of the licensed repair shops, is there some kind of system whereby ICBC approves licensing or has some kind of registry of repair shops?

Hon. J. Les: Indeed, the repair shops that have a relationship with ICBC are required to conform to a variety of standards, and I say a variety because there are different levels of service that are provided by these repair shops. Depending on the degree to which they conform to such things as…. A basic thing like business licensing, for example, would be applicable to everyone, but as you work your way up to the higher levels of service and a greater degree of autonomy that goes with that, there are higher requirements imposed by ICBC that relate to employee training and those kinds of issues. ICBC is, of course, very careful to ensure that those who carry out repairs on its behalf are appropriately licensed, have licensed personnel on their staffs and, in some cases, are the kinds of concerns that can issue guarantees and warranties around their work.

M. Karagianis: I believe I understand you to say that first of all, the business must have some kind of relationship with ICBC. How is that relationship initially established by a repair shop?

Hon. J. Les: Really, it's a very basic process that wouldn't be unfamiliar to folks who are in business. Somebody with the appropriate credentials and skills and qualifications who has an autobody repair shop and wants to repair cars on behalf of ICBC simply applies to ICBC, establishes the appropriate credentials and gets the appropriate supplier number from ICBC.

M. Karagianis: When a company applies for this vendor number, how do they actually conform to the variety of levels that you talked about earlier? Do companies come in at the lowest level and work their way up through a process of oversight from ICBC, or do they automatically come in at some level dependent on some criteria?

Hon. J. Les: Typically, someone starting out a brand-new autobody repair shop in British Columbia would probably start out at the lower level of certification for that business and then, at the discretion of the owner of that business, would work towards achieving the higher levels of certification. If, on the other hand,

the new location was simply a new location of a larger concern that had already been approved and certified at a higher level by ICBC, that, of course, would be a different story. If it's a single-proprietor type of business, typically they would get their supplier number and then work towards ever-higher levels of certification. All of that, of course, is appropriately monitored by ICBC.

M. Karagianis: My understanding from your answer is that companies, when applying…. A new business applies for this vendor number and the lower level of certification, and then over time they can work their way up to achieving a higher level of certification by ICBC, unless they are a large franchise chain. Is that clearly…? I see you nodding your head, so I will take that.

Minister, can you explain to me how this application is done? Is it done on line? Is there an application process for a new business? What is that process to apply to ICBC?

Hon. J. Les: Again, I don't think this will be a huge surprise or revelation. If somebody wants to become a supplier to ICBC, they make the appropriate application. At this point we're not sure whether there's an electronic version of that application available, but certainly there's a paper-based application.

The appropriate scrutiny is done by ICBC staff to make sure that the people involved have the qualifications required to carry out the work. There would be an inspection of the premises, as well, to ensure that it complies with the appropriate level that we deem necessary to ensure that the public can be well served. The application forms that the aspiring repair shop would want to obtain are available at any claim centre of ICBC.

M. Karagianis: So the staff scrutinize the application and inspect the new applicant's business to determine whether or not they qualify for the lowest level of certification. Is that how that is done?

Hon. J. Les: Again, this isn't unusual in these kinds of arrangements in a variety of industries. The new business on the block, if you will, would achieve the lower level of certification to start with and then over time would be able to work its way up to the express designation, but as I'm sure the member will appreciate, what is important is to develop a business track record before the highest levels of designation can be conferred.

If we weren't careful to do that, then ICBC itself would be at some greater risk, not knowing the performance of a certain business. The kind of monitoring that's done over time before the express designation is conferred is that a number of cars which have been repaired by the business are, in fact, checked and monitored by the appropriate ICBC personnel so that we have some confidence that these businesses do a good job of repairing cars before we move forward with their express designation.

M. Karagianis: One of the questions I did have, and you've begun to answer it a little bit, is how the oversight is done for a company moving up in the certification process. Is it based on the number of cars successfully processed or repaired? Who does that evaluation?

Hon. J. Les: These new shops on the block, if I can refer to them that way, have their work inspected by claim centre personnel, who are, obviously, located at the claim centres. I just want to caution, as well, that there isn't a bias towards large volumes. What we're interested in is the quality of the work. You need a sufficient number of cars repaired to be able to establish confidently that the quality of the work is good, but we're not necessarily saying you must put through a minimum volume every day or every week or that kind of thing. In no way do we discriminate against the smaller shops.

M. Karagianis: Certainly, I would assume that there must be thresholds that you examine rather than producing a certain volume every day. The number of cars processed — is there a threshold? Once a small business has repaired 250 cars, for example, is that a threshold where they can then move up in certification? Is that how that is determined?

Hon. J. Les: There are no minimum thresholds that a shop has to achieve. What ICBC is interested in, on behalf of its customers, is ensuring that the cars are professionally and properly repaired. The claim centre personnel will be interested in ensuring that they have seen enough cars from a certain establishment to satisfy them that it is indeed a premises and a business that does good work at the right price. Once that confidence is established, they would establish that supplier relationship, but it's not something that is necessarily driven by volume.

M. Karagianis: So a claims inspector, in fact, makes the determination where and when a small business is basically given a higher certification level. Is that what you're saying?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, it would be local claims-manager personnel who would make that determination.

M. Karagianis: I guess I have a couple of questions kind of leading out of that as well. Does the inspector have, then, the same ability to decertify a company if, in fact, the work that they are seeing has not met the standards required?

Hon. J. Les: There definitely is the ability to decertify. That would typically happen in a progressive way

after a series of warnings and other disciplinary measures. There is also, however, the ability to discontinue the supplier relationship immediately if, for example, there's evidence of fraud being practised by the supplier. Again, ICBC is always vigilant to ensure that its customers receive the highest level of service that they are entitled to, and it takes seriously, I think, the mandate to ensure that all of its suppliers perform work to the highest standard. Anybody who does not comply with that would be in jeopardy of losing their supplier relationship.

M. Karagianis: In the case of the large companies that were referred to at the beginning of this discussion, it was my understanding some large companies, if they open a new franchise, automatically receive the highest certification or the certification that is appropriate to the rest of that franchise. Is that in fact true?

Hon. J. Les: The certification for that premises, in a case such as the member outlines, would be likely but not automatic. There is still the need to inspect the premises, to inspect the equipment that is utilized at that location. There would still be those processes to ensure that…. If that particular large company, for example, had already achieved the highest level of approval by ICBC, ICBC would want to make sure that the new location of that business or the next location for that franchise would be able to achieve those same high standards. There would be the inspections and what have you that go with that.

M. Karagianis: But in fact, the new franchise holder would not be treated as a small new business and come in at the lowest certification level?

Hon. J. Les: I think I've already answered this question. Obviously in the case of a large chain, that large chain — by virtue of its business arrangement with its various locations — stands behind all of the work that its many locations would do.

I've already said that ICBC would be interested in ensuring that the new location to be certified is appropriate as to a whole variety of measures, including equipment, so that ICBC can assure itself that that high level of repair can be achieved at that location. Given that all of those things would check out, ICBC would, quite appropriately, rely on the reputation established over time by that larger business and the people who stand behind that business as an appropriate business partner.

M. Karagianis: There are probably several other questions I could ask about this on behalf of the small business owners of this province. As the small business critic I do take their concerns quite to heart here.

I would like to just move on, conscious of the time here, to another question. I've spent quite a number of years involved in the motorcycle industry, and I know that one of the anathemas of the motorcycle manufacturers was aftermarket parts. Can you let me know how ICBC views aftermarket parts with regard to car repairs and the car industry?

Hon. J. Les: In approving the repair of cars in British Columbia, ICBC will use a variety of solutions — sometimes including new OEM parts, at other times aftermarket parts and at other times used parts. The common denominator is always this: safety cannot be compromised. For aftermarket parts to be utilized, for example, they have to pass stringent safety tests to ensure that the customer's vehicle is in no way compromised.

M. Karagianis: Just one last question, then, on this. You mentioned that repair shops can use used parts as well as aftermarket or OEM parts. How do you actually guarantee that used parts meet the safety standards that you are currently expecting them to meet?

Hon. J. Les: Using used parts, of course, is sometimes appropriate, but again, as I indicated earlier, we want to ensure that the customer is looked after properly and does not end up with an inferior product. The body shop repair people can certainly take a look at a used part and say, "You know, this isn't going to work here," then get in touch with our claims centre and indicate that.

Also, car shops and express shops back up their work with lifetime guarantees. If a used part has been utilized and does not stand the test of time, of course, they certainly are able to rely on those guarantees to ensure that they have a repair that they can rely on for the long term.

M. Karagianis: One last question. I certainly hope the lifetime guarantees aren't like the ones that are only the lifetime of the ownership of the car rather than the actual vehicle itself. However, my question is with regard to warranties. In the case of new vehicles in need of repair where used or aftermarket products may be used, how is ICBC's relationship with the car manufacturers holding them to the warranties? I think we all know that a compromised part, especially aftermarket, is often rejected as part of the warranty for vehicles.

Hon. J. Les: For the newer cars that are on the road today, for the first several years there are very few aftermarket parts available, so the common practice for the newer cars on the road is that they get repaired using OEM parts. Beyond that, if the aftermarket parts are utilized, as I said previously, there are warranties in place. It is the case that not all aftermarket parts are approved for use by ICBC. They have to be listed and approved before they can be used in repairing the cars of clients.

M. Karagianis: It was my intention to make that my last question, but you provoked something here with that. You mentioned that very few aftermarket

parts are used on new vehicles. In fact, there is a whole industry of knockoffs in the car industry just like there is in every other industry in the world, and those are classified as aftermarket parts. How would you ensure that that is not occurring in any of the vehicle repairs that ICBC is approving?

Hon. J. Les: I just want to indicate that before any aftermarket part is used in repairing a car that's insured by ICBC, the part has to be certified. If a repair shop were to use any parts that were not certified, it would start to impinge pretty seriously on their relationship with ICBC.

N. Macdonald: I get one question, so I'm just going to give you the context quickly.

N. Macdonald: That's all I get. It's a pretty straightforward set of questions. The context is this. It comes out of a question with a family-owned, longstanding autobody shop in Columbia River–Revelstoke — so a smaller community. Around that you have, obviously, the community interest in having that service remain. You have interest in just having a business do well. They have, like any smaller autobody shop, issues around the economies of scale. They're not ever going to get the numbers through that some of the bigger shops would.

They have expressed concern around two things. One, I think, has been recently negotiated, but nevertheless they wanted me to raise the concern. One is the material rate. They're wondering if the material rate is due for an adjustment. Obviously, their view is that it's appropriate that there would be an adjustment up. The second is around the door rate. While it was recently negotiated and agreed to, there is concern that with their fine line in terms of profitability, that's onerous on them.

Those are the two questions I have. If you could address those, I would appreciate it.

Hon. J. Les: Without getting into a long, involved, technical and detailed discussion here, I can relate to the member that ICBC has fairly recently concluded a three-year agreement with its suppliers. It contemplates possible rate increases — door rate increases, for example, in 2006 and 2007. I think it's safe to say that those reviews will happen at the appropriate time and that there will be increased compensation as conditions warrant.

G. Gentner: It's time to put on our service plan thinking caps for a second. The service plan states that there are "new anticipated rules for the optional product." Could you please let us know what they really are?

Hon. J. Les: I would refer the member to the Ministry of Finance estimates. That's where they appropriately lie.

G. Gentner: Further to the service plan: "Further, integrating proposed legislative rules into ICBC's business will involve complex modifications to ICBC systems and processes in a relatively short period of time." What are the complex modifications, and how much for structural changes?

Hon. J. Les: Again, that is all relevant to the implementation of Bill 93, which is a bill under the purview of the Minister of Finance, so I would invite the member to canvass that in the Ministry of Finance estimates.

Would the minister give us sort of a ballpark percentage, let's say by '07, for ICBC's anticipated share of the optional insurance market?

Hon. J. Les: An interesting question. I can advise the member that today we have market penetration of about 85 percent on the optional side. I'm sure the member opposite will anticipate the rest of my answer. I am simply not going to speculate on ICBC's strategies and assumptions going forward as obviously that would be disclosing competitive information, which would not be in the best interests of ICBC.

G. Gentner: Would the minister therefore agree that if it was compulsory insurance without private insurance, then you would be able to disclose that projection?

Hon. J. Les: The ability of private sector companies to sell optional insurance in British Columbia is not new. That has been going on for some considerable number of years — certainly pre-dates the election of the current government in 2001.

To the member's question. If these private sector companies did not exist, then obviously ICBC would have 100 percent of the optional business. But again, that has not been the experience of British Columbians for quite a number of years.

G. Gentner: I'm glad the minister can do the math. Of course it's 100 percent. My question therefore is: how much market share on the optional insurance side does ICBC need in order to keep it afloat?

Hon. J. Les: Again, the member asks me to speculate on what I guess could fairly be considered to be privileged information. If I got into a lengthy dissertation of that, I would be disclosing information of great interest to ICBC's competitors.

ICBC competes fairly for the optional insurance business in British Columbia. It is ultimately the customer that decides where he or she wishes to do business in terms of optional auto insurance — whether to acquire that from a private sector company, as approximately 15 percent of British Columbians do, or whether they want to simply buy their optional insurance from ICBC.

G. Gentner: Maybe we should try it this way. If ICBC got out of the business of providing optional insurance, could it provide basic insurance under the current model?

Hon. J. Les: Well, I'm a little puzzled. I think, if I understand the member correctly, he is advocating that we should sell off a chunk of ICBC's business. We have no intention of doing that. We want to make sure that ICBC continues to provide both basic and optional insurance. We know that is a package that British Columbians — 85 percent of British Columbians, in fact — are interested in purchasing. We're interested in continuing to provide that service on a competitive basis on the optional side. Frankly, I'm a little astonished that the member opposite would be contemplating a very serious reduction in the role of ICBC.

G. Gentner: There is no contemplation on this side. It just seems to be the direction, over the last number of years, in which this government is headed. If private insurers base their rates on discriminatory means — whether it be gender, age, etc. — how many lower-risk drivers will be lost, and will ICBC be forced to higher rates due to a greater customer share of higher-risk drivers?

Hon. J. Les: As I'm sure the member opposite knows, ICBC does not discriminate based on issues such as age or gender, for example. It doesn't propose to do that in the future, and given the nature of ICBC's business and some of the competitive advantages that it enjoys, we see no reason why that balance would be jeopardized in the future.

G. Gentner: I'm pleased to hear the assurances from the minister relative to a change in business. We do know that private insurers do base their rates on discriminatory means, and they may actually be able to take some of the cream.

Now, the minister did mention Bill 93, and he is aware of what it can do. Does he foresee that the government plan in the next year is to implement all aspects of Bill 93?

Hon. J. Les: Bill 93, as I'm sure the member is aware, has been passed by the Legislature. However, the implementation of Bill 93 is a fairly complex issue and is therefore currently a work in progress. If the member wishes to canvass Bill 93 further, I would again refer him to the Ministry of Finance estimates.

G. Gentner: There is an anticipated court tariff increase that will have a negative impact. How is this going to happen and by how much?

Hon. J. Les: That is a matter that is going to be brought forward by the Attorney General. I would refer the member to the Attorney General for his estimates.

G. Gentner: Do we know when the Attorney General will be making a decision on that?

Hon. J. Les: We are not aware of the exact timing related to that. Again, that is a process within the Ministry of Attorney General. I would refer the member to that ministry.

G. Gentner: The service plan states that there are to be "prudent fiscal management practices." Can the minister clarify what that means?

Hon. J. Les: Of course, running a corporation the size of ICBC, it's always of interest to ensure that we employ those business practices that keep the entity in question as balanced as possible, making sure that we employ all efficiencies possible to ensure that, in this case, the ratepayers of this insurance corporation pay the lowest possible rates. Just as an example, since the year 2000 there's been a reduction in terms of the number of staff that work for ICBC. In fact, there's been about a 25-percent reduction in full-time-equivalents.

That is obviously a very significant reduction in overhead. It is just one example of the prudent financial management that has been instituted at ICBC, which will enable it to remain a strong insurance corporation going forward and will ensure British Columbians pay low and stable insurance rates for their automobile insurance.

G. Gentner: There has been a reduction in staff. How many more staff reductions are anticipated?

G. Gentner: Is the ministry or ICBC contemplating any contracting-out of work?

Hon. J. Les: The corporation has recently made a decision to not contract out its information technology services. Having said that, however, on a going-forward basis, it would be rather ridiculous of me to stand up here and say that not ever would ICBC outsource any of its work. There may well be situations where that might prove to be the prudent option for the corporation. For now, there are no further outsourcings contemplated.

G. Gentner: One of the unions involved is COPE Local 378, I think. Their contract is up in '06, I believe. Obviously, it's not this budget that will secure enough money for possible increases. Is that correct?

Hon. J. Les: None of those considerations are reflected in the budget which we are reviewing today.

G. Gentner: The service plan further states: "The optional business will be required to prepare for pro-

posed legislative changes." Again, what changes to the optional side will we see?

Hon. J. Les: Those changes have to do with a more transparent disclosure to ratepayers so that they will be able to judge very clearly how much of the money they're paying is related to their basic insurance and how much is clearly related to their optional insurance — presenting that in a way that is absolutely clear and transparent to allow them to make a value judgment, particularly as it relates to the optional side of the business.

G. Gentner: I take it, hon. chair, that the minister's statement is that we're looking at probably the fine line in the contract between the user and the insurance corporation.

Hon. J. Les: What we're talking about is a proper contract that ratepayers would be able to refer to so that they would easily be able to understand their rights and obligations with respect to their insurance relationship with ICBC.

G. Gentner: ICBC delivers "expanding web-based claims services." Why is the optional insurance so poorly advertised?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure if, in fact, the optional product is poorly advertised. I point out again that ICBC achieves 85-percent market penetration with its optional insurance product. So arguably, I would say that that is indication of pretty decent success.

G. Gentner: I photocopied the webpage and how it comes across. The first is the introduction. The first page, before you click onto something else, gives you the basic Autoplan insurance. You therefore have to click around to get into another page on basic Autoplan. Then at the very, very bottom there's just one question here. It says, "Do I need more coverage?" — very poorly advertised.

It takes you several times before you actually get down to optional — the third click, if you will — to actually find it. It's not even under optional insurance. It's got: "More coverage for your vehicle." Clearly, hon. Chair, the minister will agree that this is a very poor, ineffective way of selling optional insurance.

Hon. J. Les: I'm sure the member is aware that the website is not where you actually buy this insurance. When one goes to purchase or to renew insurance, you go to one of the approximately 900 broker locations around the province. That is where you receive advice with respect to what you're buying.

There's no question, I'm sure, that every website in the world could stand some improvement somewhere. I certainly take the advice of the member with respect to this particular website, but again, I point out that the website is not meant as a place where people actually make their buying decision. That is what they do in consultation with their broker when they buy their annual insurance.

G. Gentner: Thank you to the minister for his explanation, but clearly, the webpage Autoplan ICBC is showing and advertising optional as sort of secondary importance, and by no means should it be. But the minister does raise an interesting point. In the near future, or in the long-term plan, when will we see the ability to purchase insurance on line?

Hon. J. Les: On-line purchase of insurance from ICBC is not contemplated at this time.

G. Gentner: I'm sure, as main broker for the country, he looks very happy with that answer.

Now, ICBC has looked at the possibility of independent claim centres. Are there plans for private claim centres, and when?

Hon. J. Les: Briefly, ICBC has no intentions of getting out of the claim centre business.

G. Gentner: How many more claim centres, therefore, do we anticipate to be decommissioned in the next two years?

Hon. J. Les: There is one claim centre that is being closed down, I believe, as we speak. The reason it is being closed down is that the RAV project in Vancouver…. The construction is starting, and that particular construction will go right through the middle of the claim centre, so that is why that one is being closed. The business that was done at that location is being distributed to other claim centres in the region.

G. Gentner: I anticipated that answer — that it will not be replaced, that the business will be redistributed elsewhere. My question to you then: will there be attrition with the workers there? What's going to happen to them?

Hon. J. Les: There is no downsizing or attrition that results from that particular circumstance. The staff at that particular claim centre will simply be redeployed to other ICBC claim centre locations.

G. Gentner: Back to the service plan. There's a strategy to "streamline point-of-sale and related processes." Do we know what that really means?

Hon. J. Les: Like many other businesses, I suspect that ICBC is always looking for opportunities to modernize, streamline, improve service to the public. I think any business that wants to be successful in the long term wants to continue to do that. There are many opportunities today, given the evolution of technology that enables a lot of those processes which, at the end

of the day, result in better service to the public. I think we have an obligation, working together with our staff, to look for all of those opportunities to achieve a corporation that not only is profitable and provides a great service but that operates as efficiently as possible.

G. Gentner: The service plan also states a higher expected level of claims for '06 and '07. Can we account for why?

Hon. J. Les: We have the situation in B.C. today where the economy is growing and a lot of people are moving here from other places in Canada — indeed, from other places around the world. So we have a growing population. With a growing population and a stronger economy, we have a lot more vehicles on the road in British Columbia, which obviously — and I wish it weren't so — does result in more accidents and more potential claimants. So that's one side of the equation. It is just the growth of the economy, the growth in the population and the consequent growth in the number of cars.

There is a greater cost that seems to be developing with respect to bodily injury claims. That is something to which the answer is somewhat more elusive. ICBC will be studying that very carefully in the months ahead to try to figure out what drives that and what the impact of that might be on ICBC rates going forward.

G. Gentner: The service plan says the corporation will "positively influence vehicle repairs and claim costs by improving efficiencies within these shops." Is this an indication that ICBC will be promoting more express shops?

Hon. J. Les: The number of shops that achieve express shop status is actually driven by those shops themselves. There is a required level of expertise and workmanship that is required to be achieved before express shop status can be conferred, and so ICBC is not the main driver of that. It is, in fact, those businesses that for obvious reasons wish to achieve that status. They are the drivers in terms of how many there are.

G. Gentner: I also quote the service plan: "Review delivery model that will help minimize overhead, eliminate unnecessary tasks and automate functions while enhancing the overall customer contact experience." That's a lot of doublespeak or bureaucratic talk.

Overall customer contact experience — are we talking collision? I hope not. Can you tell me what this means?

Hon. J. Les: ICBC, like any other good and thriving business, wants to ensure that it is very efficient in its operations. It also wants to ensure that when customers do business with the corporation that it is a satisfactory experience. I think we have an obligation to provide that, and that is what the service plan reflects.

G. Gentner: One of the many programs that ICBC manages is the fraud reduction initiative or bait car policy. How much money are we delivering in this budget for this program?

Hon. J. Les: With respect to the bait car program, ICBC contributes about $2.5 million to that program. I'm sure the member would be aware that in addition to that, there's a significant amount of police time that is required to properly run that program. Of course, that funding would come out of other parts of my ministry.

G. Gentner: Fire and theft is part of the optional rate provided to customers, so ICBC is providing money to reduce theft and competing with private insurers that sell optional insurance for theft. I'm not against ICBC's program, but my question is: how much money are private insurers offering for fraud reduction?

Hon. J. Les: I'm not sure if private companies have an estimates process, but if they do I would suggest the member ask them.

G. Gentner: Sort of anticipating that, hon. Chair, the general ratepayer is paying for insurance to ensure that there is a good fraud reduction program, yet the private insurers want to get involved in the insurance market. My estimation is they are putting very little money into that program. It's obvious.

The new driver comparative crash rate, injured person rate and auto crime rate have been discontinued for the purposes of the service plan. If they are no longer in the plan, where will they be reported? Will they be downsized, and will their budgets be the same?

Hon. J. Les: Those indicators that were maintained in the past often were difficult to maintain at a current level because some of the experiences, as I'm sure the member can appreciate, took years to accumulate. What you really ended up with was an information set that was quite outdated. However, ICBC does continue to do a lot of tracking to ensure that it can make appropriate decisions.

G. Gentner: However, the minister did not answer the second part of my question: will their budgets still remain?

Hon. J. Les: This is about a $40 million budget within ICBC, and there are no plans to reduce that allocation.

G. Gentner: "ICBC is looking at a seasonal staffing strategy to deal with high-volume periods of the year." Is this provision of auxiliary workers part of the collective agreement?

G. Gentner: The customer approval index is projected to decrease for this year. Do we know why?

Hon. J. Les: This is a new area of customer service that ICBC is measuring. It has only been in use for a year or two. We want to be careful and not overly enthusiastic or overly exuberant. As time goes by we will gain a little bit more experience in that area of measurement and have some more confidence in it going forward.

It certainly does not represent in any way a plan by ICBC to reduce its customer satisfaction levels or anything like that. We are still obviously very, very committed to that. But it is still a useful exercise to measure that. It is just something that we're going to have to develop further as the next few years unfold.

G. Gentner: Quickly, to road improvement programs. What is the projected annual budget for '05?

G. Gentner: So $9.5 million. That's been quite stable. It hasn't changed over the years. It has always been $10 million, which is unfortunate, in my estimation. Do we know generally what projects have been chosen in this budget for $10 million?

Hon. J. Les: I suspect that the member might be at least somewhat familiar with this program, given his municipal background. This is an allocation of money every year that in the past year, apparently, has funded about 250 projects around the province.

Those projects are established in consultation with the Ministry of Transportation and the various civic authorities around the province to determine where that money can be best spent — high-crash locations, for example, or intersections that have proven problematic in the past. Quite a variety of projects have been undertaken with this money in partnership with others, specifically the municipalities. My experience is that it has been a very welcome part of ICBC's programming in the various municipalities, and I suspect it will continue to be a very popular program going forward.

G. Gentner: We can go on about red-light cameras set up and everything else, which could be fun, but I think we should have a little more fun than that. I want to talk about the transparency relative to bonuses. I'm certainly pleased that the president is here, Mr. Chair. Mr. Taylor has been given the mandate to profit-share. Performance pay is given to managers based on, I believe, intimidation, while gainsharing is a one-time payment for company performance. My question to the minister is: how is performance pay determined? Who, and with what criteria, determines merit?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, let me say that I applaud ICBC's decision some time ago to move toward some level of performance payment. I think it is a concept that is tested and true and, obviously, has been very well received by ICBC personnel.

The determination of performance pay on the excluded side, which is about 600 employees of ICBC, is based on corporate, divisional and individual objectives. Then, of course, there is the gainsharing program that applies across the corporation to all employees. And the corporate objectives that I talked about a minute ago apply to the gainsharing program as well.

G. Gentner: I believe our chair looked at closer to $10 million to 750 managers, and executives, of course, get the lion's share. Having been in municipal government, we had a similar program, and we got rid of it. The confidence is still there, and it's working effectively. You do your job. You do your job.

But, you know, I have another 15 pages of questions here, and I'm not going to get to them because it's time to roll the dice with the Lottery Corp. Anxious people here want to get busy, and if I could indulge, hon. Chair, for a five-minute recess and reconvene and get going with that?

I'd like to thank Mr. Taylor and his colleagues here. It was, indeed, wonderful to have this opportunity. I believe, if I could also ask Mr. Taylor, that there's a chance we could meet on the 15th?

The Chair: I'll just declare a recess. We will stand recessed for five minutes and then reconvene.

G. Gentner: At this time I believe the member for Cariboo South would like to start some intros.

C. Wyse: Hon. minister, I have a series of questions around gaming funding for non-profit organizations — if that assists you. My first question is: is the gaming revenue now considered part of general revenue?

Hon. J. Les: Gaming revenue in the province has always been considered part of general revenue. However, having said that, there's an annual allocation set aside for the distribution to charities, for example, and that is again the case this year.

C. Wyse: Has this allocation, then, led to changes in criteria for gaming funding being awarded to non-profit organizations?

C. Wyse: Are administrative costs of a society still covered by gaming funds?

Hon. J. Les: Yes, anything that is required to support the delivery of those programs and services would be covered.

C. Wyse: My apologies to the minister. My mind went away on you, minister. Would you mind repeating your answer? Thank you.

All of the supports that a society would have in overheads would all be covered by the funding from lotteries.

C. Wyse: Are gaming funds excluded from the community funding category for a non-profit organization?

Hon. J. Les: I'm sorry. I'm going to have to ask the member opposite to repeat the question. For whatever reason, we didn't understand the question.

C. Wyse: It may assist you. The rationale for asking these questions very specifically is that I have had meetings recently with representatives of some non-profit community organizations in Williams Lake, which is part of my society. They've received rulings from your ministry that have severely curtailed their funding, based upon these particular questions. As a consequence, the effect upon these particular organizations, whether they are a Boys and Girls Club and so on, is absolutely profound.

The rationale that had been provided to them for the decrease in funding from these particular areas is around these two questions, so I will try it once more with a little bit more background. The funding for these organizations required 25 percent community involvement in the past. The rationale is that gaming funding no longer may be considered part of the 25 percent community funding in their overall budget. As a consequence of that interpretation, their availability of receiving funding from the gaming funds had decreased significantly, in many cases, and to no funds, in at least one case.

I will outline for you very briefly the effect of these decisions from your area upon these particular programs.

Hon. J. Les: It's been the practice since 2002 to ensure that these local groups, when they apply, contribute at least 25 percent of the operating funding towards whatever objective it is they are trying to achieve. In other words, we will not contribute more than 75 percent towards any given project or undertaking. That's been in place now for at least three years. I would be interested to learn from the member what problems that has brought forward recently, but we think it is appropriate that there is a contribution from these local groups, rather than providing more than 75 percent from these lottery funds.

C. Wyse: The rule may have been in existence since 2002, but the interpretation in this particular community is new. As a result, I will outline for you specifically by organization…. I will be requesting a response from you to this information at the end. I understand that I may not necessarily get it today.

The Boys and Girls Club of Williams Lake: the effect will be that the youth centre will close at 3 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. That's a result of the 25-percent community funding that I've referred to, and the administrative costs of the society are no longer covered by the gaming funds for reasons given.

The CMHA of Williams Lake: the contracts have been frozen for three years, plus the gaming revenue with the denial and reductions there…. They'll be shutting down their 24-7 crisis line and/or their crisis counselling. The child development centre will lay off their street worker, with possible cutback of hours for the intake worker and the preschool activities. Again, these are all around the same questions I've asked.

The Women's Contact centre has $40,000 at risk. They will leave reduction and advocacy work, community referrals for women and support for women leaving abusive relationships.

The Big Brothers/Big Sisters have no change in their funding, but they have encountered a huge increase in terms of hassles in order to process their applications.

Hon. minister, I will leave those with you, and I will be expecting a response around these areas. I do assure the hon. minister that I will be following up with you through your ministry on these various items.

Hon. J. Les: I will commit to the member opposite that we will follow up on those examples. I will be corresponding with the member to sort out the issues with respect to those applications. I can't really comment any further at this time, as I'm sure the member appreciates, on those specific applications, but where we can help, we will.

G. Gentner: According to the service plan under B.C. Lottery Corp., it states that new entertainment technology poses risks. The Internet has increased competition, and this poses a threat. What risks and what threats are we talking about?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chair, as I'm sure the member is aware, we live in the world of the advance of the Internet, and I think there are a great variety of almost completely offshore entities who have established websites where people can indulge in gaming on line on a 24-7 basis. I gather some people do that. I don't think it's a great leap of logic to understand that when people engage in gaming on line that that is probably at the ex-

pense of gaming activities in which they might otherwise involve themselves, such as visiting their local bingo hall or their local casino. Clearly, that represents something that we need to keep an eye on and see how that might affect the business of the Lottery Corp. going forward.

G. Gentner: Yes, I see that now. I thought maybe we were talking about gambling addiction, which is a risk and a great threat as well.

"The B.C. Lottery Corp. will introduce new products, tap into new markets and realize new efficiencies and internal processes and government-to-business relationships." What new products are we talking about?

Hon. J. Les: The lottery business is no different than any other. You have to, from time to time, freshen up your offerings and the products that you have on the market, and B.C. Lottery Corp. is no different. The member, I'm sure, will be familiar with a variety of Scratch and Win products, for example, that are made available from time to time. You simply can't continue to offer to the marketplace the same old Scratch and Win month in and month out, year in and year out. You have to provide different products, and they do that.

Another example would be the sports lottery that involves the Vancouver Canucks that was introduced, I think with great success, two years ago. It's something that was not operative, of course, during the last year because the NHL was not playing, but now that it's playing again, that Canucks sports lottery is available again. That has proven to be a benefit not only to the Lottery Corp. but also to the Vancouver Canucks and, of course, to some of the players — people who play the Canucks lottery.

So those are just a couple of the examples of new products that are entered into from time to time to ensure that people who want to engage in various lotteries in the province of British Columbia have an interesting array of products with which they can engage.

G. Gentner: To the minister: how do we expect to reduce operating costs of lottery tickets and other gaming for entertainment?

Hon. J. Les: Mr. Chair, the Lottery Corp., like any good, sound business, is always looking for opportunities to reduce its overhead and its costs. In respect to that, recently we have begun offering 6/49 tickets, for example, on line. That is, in part, in response to consumer demand, but also, it helps to reduce the Lottery Corp.'s overhead with respect to the sale of those items.

G. Gentner: That allows me to segue into the following question. Revenue from lottery sales decreased in '04-05 from the previous year of '03-04 by about $20 million, I believe. Yet the projected increase in '05-06 is about $30 million, and an additional $30 million in the following year. By '07-08 the projected increase from '06-07 is estimated to be about $160 million. How much of this increase is due to e-lottery ticket sales?

Hon. J. Les: There is a variety of reasons why we would expect lottery revenues to grow over the next several years. We just talked briefly about e-lotteries and how those products being available on line will make it more convenient for people, obviously. It's too early in that process for us to start predicting how that alone might increase lottery sales, but we definitely think that it will.

There are different products being offered all the time. When we offer new products, we expect that they will not only maintain sales but, perhaps, increase sales as well.

As well, the national lotteries — such as 6/49, for example — where the ticket price recently went from a dollar to $2…. We expect that kind of presentation to continue as well. As the member opposite probably saw not too terribly long ago, when there was a particularly large pot of money available, national interest certainly exceeded expectations.

We think it's a combination of things. We certainly see no evidence of lagging public appetite for lottery products. On the contrary, there is good interest, and we expect that to continue and to grow.

G. Gentner: I concur with the minister, I guess, in the belief that we don't know what e-lottery is going to do. The corporation has estimated that it's going to increase substantially by '07.

I just don't understand how the corporation…. It must have some acumen here or some analysis to come up with these numbers. Would the minister like to comment? I mean, a $160 million increase is substantial.

Hon. J. Les: What the B.C. Lottery Corp. has been engaging in is much more sophisticated market research to determine what products the public would like, and we have been responding to that. As well, what the research shows is that people are actually quite interested in cause-related lotteries, such as the Vancouver Canucks, which I already mentioned.

When you make a product like that available and you hit a chord, so to speak, amongst the public that buys lottery products, there's a very, very good response. So that will be continued in the future. I expect that as a result of those initiatives and dealing with lotteries in a professional way and treating it like a business, we should achieve the success that has been outlined.

G. Gentner: We've seen these projected numbers. Income is increasing every year, Mr. Minister. The net income doesn't reach '03-04 levels until after '07-08. Is there a reason why?

Hon. J. Les: As in many business ventures, when you roll out new products, upfront you incur a lot of

marketing expense and other product development expenses. The lottery business is no different. We expect to incur some of those upfront and reap greater profits down the line. I think the service plan reflects that.

G. Gentner: Of course, some of the new products are racetracks and other new products of a similar ilk. My question to the minister…. Keno was once available at pubs or lottery info centres, and it's now played on line. When will these new products also be offered on line?

Hon. J. Les: There's been no determination made at this point in terms of adding any other or new products on line.

G. Gentner: It's a question I get from the minister that's a matter of…. It's a question of when as opposed to never. I understand that Lottotech was created as a shell to defer GST on capital purchases. Lottotech can buy equipment and then lease it to the Lottery Corp.

Hon. J. Les: We're not exactly sure what the absolute answer is to that question. The best I can say at this point is that we don't think so. There's only one lottery operator in the province, and that is the B.C. Lottery Corp.

G. Gentner: I suppose, therefore, that information is transparent and we can find out.

Therefore, does the B.C. Lottery Corp. lease or lend out equipment to or from a third party?

Hon. J. Les: All of the equipment to do with lotteries, casinos and bingo halls in British Columbia is owned by the B.C. Lottery Corp.

Hon. J. Les: We don't have that information at our fingertips here, but I can give the member an undertaking that I will get that information to him at the earliest opportunity.

G. Gentner: Back to the service plan. Consumer dollars are disposable, and therefore, as the service plan would state, "competition for the discretionary dollars of British Columbians will continue to affect B.C. Lottery Corp.'s business environment…. Consumers are becoming more sophisticated and knowledgable about their entertainment options."

What entertainment options is the B.C. Lottery Corp. competing with? Bingo? Skiing? Movie theatres? What entertainment options are we competing with?

G. Gentner: We know that River Rock is a very successful entertainment centre. In fact, I was in there yesterday. I had lunch, and I walked by an ATM machine. I've been to Vegas. Everybody was having fun. But we saw in today's Vancouver Sun that a drop in the revenue from casinos in New Westminster has left the city short on revenue to projects and operations.

When River Rock was permitted to build in Richmond, was there a cost-benefit analysis done on its impacts to other smaller casino operations and its relation to the revenue stream to other municipalities in competition with Richmond's mega-casino?

Hon. J. Les: The B.C. Lottery Corp. actually undertakes a very sophisticated market analysis whenever a gaming location decision is to be made. That applies not only to casinos but also to such venues as bingo halls, for example.

More recently I met with municipal councils at the UBCM, people from Trail and Castlegar, all of whom were looking for a community gaming facility, and they talked a fair bit about the impact of where a facility like that might be located.

The Lottery Corp. does a lot of due diligence around the impact that a facility like that might have on existing facilities in the region, and certainly, it's not a surprise at all that River Rock Casino is doing very well. The market intelligence before it was constructed indicated very clearly that it was the right location for a significant casino, and I think experience has borne that out.

G. Gentner: Therefore, it would seem to me that if this type of expansion continues…. Is it the vision of the corporation that we're going to see larger casinos in the next five years and the decrease of the smaller casino?

Hon. J. Les: The way we see the casino business evolving in British Columbia is not necessarily any larger casinos than what we see today at River Rock in Richmond. There may well be some other casino locations currently that grow somewhat in size. But along with that we wouldn't be at all surprised if actually we ended up a few years down the road with one or two fewer locations for casinos.

There seems to be, I think, a fact that casinos have a certain critical mass, and of course, that's not a concept that is new in business. There is an optimum size. We're not 100 percent sure what that optimum size is for casinos. As I've already indicated, River Rock is doing very well. That optimum size will not be the same, depending on the various locations where casinos might be located.

What we are seeing today is a casino infrastructure in British Columbia, where there's…. In fact, even today there's one casino less than there was five years ago. Some of these locations have grown somewhat in size, and that seems to be where the marketplace wants

to go. We, of course, need to respond to the marketplace to run a successful operation.

G. Gentner: Indeed, it certainly is a direction that the large casino operator wants to go.

Now, according to market projections the corporation ranks B.C. eighth in per-capita gaming compared to other provinces, and I quote the plan: "…over the next three years will result in per-capita gaming expenditures in B.C. moving closer to the Canadian average." Why is this such a goal?

Hon. J. Les: We don't have any particular evidence that British Columbians don't want to participate in gaming that would approximate the Canadian average. If the appropriate product is not available in British Columbia, I think we already know what happens. People go into Washington State, where casinos are fairly readily available, especially to people from the lower mainland. For years people from British Columbia have been taking their winter vacations in places like Reno and Las Vegas simply because the gaming experience has been available there for many years. As we've already canvassed a few minutes ago, there is, today, the availability of Internet gaming which people will engage in as well, particularly if they don't have domestic product available to them.

For all of those reasons, I think it is worthwhile to continue to monitor the marketplace to ensure that we approximate the Canadian average over time — not to aggressively make these products available, but to ensure that we are responding to the wishes of the marketplace. Our track record over the last several years indicates that we've been able to do that successfully and, at the same time, to grow revenues for charitable and other sectors and also to ensure that we have those programs in place that deal with anyone who might be caught up in problem gaming.

I think some of the measures that we've ensured, such as making sure that slot machines, for example, are only available in casinos, have been very successful in ensuring that we don't have a great problem with problem gaming. We have seen it in other provinces, and I've seen this on numerous occasions myself, where these slot machines are available in any and all locations including pubs, bars, motels and hotels. Anywhere you go in some provinces you are confronted with slot machines. In British Columbia we have clearly decided to do that differently. We make the slot machines available only in casinos. I think there is a great benefit there in terms of minimizing the evidence of problem gaming.

G. Gentner: Well, the question was: why do we have to reach the Canadian average? Just for the information of the minister, Newfoundland has a Canadian average, and I don't think they have any casinos.

I want to touch on charities basically. I've spent a lot of time on this one — on the application, etc. Close to half a billion dollars that went to health and education, distribution of government grants to schools…. My question is: how much went to public schools, and how much of the funding went to private schools?

Hon. J. Les: We don't have the exact breakdown by dollars, but I can get the member that information in the next several days — a complete breakdown by school, if he wishes, and how long it will take to do that. The principle is simply this: in terms of schools, all parent advisory committees are eligible to apply for this money. Those are parent advisory committees in respect of public sector as well as private schools. They're all eligible under the same criteria. So I suspect, given that private schools include about 10 percent of the students from K-to-12 in British Columbia, they could be eligible for up to 10 percent of this funding. Whether in fact that is the case, as I said, I'm not able to bring that information forward this evening, but I'll get that to the member as soon as I can.

I do have, I think, a simple request for the minister, and it relates to gaming funds for inner-city schools. The gaming funds for the PACs, as the minister knows, are distributed fairly evenly now, which is a good thing, but I will say this. For the inner-city schools, oftentimes the PACs, because of various challenges in their lives, may not be able to be as active participants as perhaps some other PACs in other schools. Some of the inner-city schools may not even have functioning PACs, because of various circumstances.

So I would like the minister's response to this request from the inner-city parents group from Vancouver, which is asking that the gaming funds be deposited directly to schools, with the provision that spending must be directed by parents and used for eligible criteria within the current guidelines. That way, it would be less intimidating for parents who are struggling and for PACs that are struggling. It would also, I think, allow for an overall simplifying of the process, administratively.

I'll just use one example. Many inner-city school parents are not even comfortable with the process of having to open a bank account so that they could actually get those moneys into the account, because of the level of responsibility that comes with the spending of those dollars. Let me just stop there and ask the minister's opinion on that and whether that's something he will consider doing for school systems and for the parents more particularly.

Hon. J. Les: I certainly appreciate the member bringing forward what I gather is a real concern in some cases. Staff point out to me that over 95 percent of the schools and the associated PACs around the prov-

ince are applying for and getting the money and that the money is being put directly into bank accounts with no problems at all. I am not able, here this afternoon, to commit to a specific problem or a specific school in, for example, some of the areas of the city of Vancouver, but I will undertake this to the member: where there are problems our staff will work with those PACs, with those school administrations, to ensure that they get the money to which they are entitled.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that very much. I'll certainly talk to my PACs in my constituency and perhaps others that might be running into problems. We'll make sure that the individuals are connected up and will try to resolve the matter.

I want to raise another issue related to gaming funding along these lines. As we know, the funding formula is such now that PACs are evenly distributed. Of course, we also recognize that for inner-city schools, the students and families in the inner-city areas face tremendous challenges in terms of their everyday sort of living and, therefore, the opportunities for the children to maximize their potential.

I would like to ask the minister whether that's something that he would consider as well. I'd be happy to have the PACs engage in the discussion with the minister or his designate around this, and that is to increase the funds for students in the inner-city school areas from $20 to $40, just recognizing the tremendous difficulties that they're in, in those schools. Oftentimes those children are very disadvantaged in a variety of ways.

The parents have a really tough time fundraising in their capacity. I know that the moneys they get from gaming will serve to some extent, but they don't nearly have the same capacity as some other schools.

I'll give you one example. I was at a PAC meeting, and I nearly fell off my chair. In two different areas in my own community the fundraising sort of goes along the lines of bake sales and what have you. Through many, many bake sales and little events like that, we can raise, you know, a few hundred dollars, and that's on a good day.

We go to the west side of the city — and not just to create a discord among neighbourhoods, but this is just by way of example — to another PAC meeting, and they needed to raise some computer costs to buy new computers and so on. By the end of that meeting they got $10,000 in cheques from a variety of people. It takes our PACs more than ten years to get there, and that's just by way of comparison.

So I wonder if that's something that the minister would consider. I would very much appreciate it if the minister would actually engage in the discussion with the inner-city school PACs around that to see how perhaps more support could be provided to the students who are extremely disadvantaged.

Hon. J. Les: I certainly understand and appreciate the concern that the member talks about in terms of the funding challenges that are the experience of inner-city schools. I have some sympathy in terms of providing more funding.

However, I want to underline very carefully that I'm not going to make up government policy on the fly and certainly not in estimates. I would need to consult not only with my staff but also with other ministries, particularly the Ministry of Education. As I'm sure all members would understand — and this is typical, I think, of a lot of these programs — people very quickly think of a number of different categories that should receive a particular kind of consideration. We've had the same kind of request considered for small schools. We have one PAC that is associated with a school where there are 20 children. We have the same kind of request that comes forward for rural schools and in this case for inner-city schools. Again, not to denigrate any of those suggestions, because I do not denigrate them — I think they are all worthy of consideration in their own way — but we have to have an integrated way of looking at these.

Keep in mind, as well, that what we're talking about here, in terms of lottery funding going to schools, is not a huge amount of money. It's $20 per student today. The member suggests, in the case of those inner-city schools, that we double that to $40 per student. These are not large dollars. It's certainly helpful. There's no question about that. But in and of themselves, these funds are not going to erase a lot of the issues that these inner-city schools have to deal with. I think it's an interesting proposal that the member presents, but we would need to think about that in a more integrated way than I'm able to do here this evening.

J. Kwan: Certainly, I appreciate that the minister doesn't want to make policy on the fly here. What I was hoping for, though, was a commitment from the minister, as much as he's committing to talk with his colleagues around this issue, to meet with the inner-city school parents so that he gains the insight around the difficulties and challenges that the children in the inner-city schools have. Fair enough, because I'm going to raise the same question with the Minister of Education as well, along with other education issues related to the inner-city school area.

If I could get that commitment from the minister, I would appreciate that. I can certainly help to facilitate those meetings as well, because I think it would be beneficial, in the spirit of cooperation, to try and advance policy that will actually benefit the children. Really, at the end of the day, they're the ones that matter.

Hon. J. Les: Certainly, I'm happy to engage in that discussion and consultation. Hopefully, we can find a way forward so that we can advance the cause of these inner-city schools. Obviously, they have special needs and special circumstances that deserve consideration.

G. Gentner: Just two quick questions before we wrap it all up for good until the spring — if I may. I'm

interested in the expenditures the Lottery Corp. had relative to performance bonuses.

Hon. J. Les: For some reason we don't have that number here, but I will get that for the member's information.

The B.C. Lottery Corp.'s consolidated reserve fund — what kind of surplus does it carry from last year?

Hon. J. Les: Because of time pressures, I'm not sure if we have that information here. I suspect we might have, but it's going to take us a bit of time to dig it out. If I undertake to get that information for the member, I trust that will be satisfactory.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
EARLY LEARNING AND LITERACY

Hon. S. Bond: I'm pleased to present the 2005-2006 budget estimates for the Ministry of Education. First of all, I would like to introduce my staff who are here, who do a great job every day in the Ministry of Education. They are Emery Dosdall, who is the deputy minister; Ruth Wittenberg, the assistant deputy minister of management services; Keith Miller, the lead director for the funding department; Rick Davis, who is the superintendent liaison from the liaison department; Claudia Roch, lead director in the accountability department; and Pat Brown, who is the manager of financial planning and reporting for the Ministry of Education.

Our government has a vision for education and for British Columbia. The vision we have is a province in which every student has the chance to reach his or her full potential, a province in which every student has the chance to succeed both in school and in life. This vision is reflected in the very first of our great goals: to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent.

To achieve our goal, we are changing the way we look at education. The Ministry of Education has been given a new and broader mandate. It is now responsible for early learning, literacy and libraries. We all know that learning happens everywhere — at home, at work and in communities. The ministry's new mandate will provide new opportunities for lifelong learning in communities in British Columbia.

Our government's first goal focuses on education because it is the best possible investment we can make for the future of our province. That's why our government is committed to increasing education funding. Balanced Budget 2005 provides the largest investment ever in B.C.'s K-to-12 education system — $5.07 billion. Since 2000-2001, B.C.'s education budget has grown by $440 million, an increase of 10.5 percent.

As outlined in the Speech from the Throne, all school districts received funding increases this year, in spite of declining student enrolment. School districts estimate there are 6,700 fewer students this year. Since 2000-2001, enrolment in British Columbia has declined by 30,000 students. Per-pupil funding for 2005-2006 is an estimated $7,097 — an increase of $345 over last year and $881 since 2000-2001. This year's $150 million increase in education funding is the single largest increase in education funding for B.C. schools in more than a decade. With the additional funding, boards have plans for their student populations that include enhancing library services, music and arts programs, and special education.

We've also seen significant investment in safe and healthy schools. Over the next three years school districts will receive $279 million for capital projects, $330 million for general school maintenance projects in all 60 school districts and more than $91 million for seismic upgrades. The seismic funding is in addition to our $1.5 billion plan to make B.C. schools earthquake-safe. The province has budgeted $254 million for improvements to the first 95 schools to be upgraded over the next three years. These capital maintenance and seismic projects will improve learning conditions and create more opportunities for students to reach their full potential.

We are increasing education funding because B.C.'s economy is back on track and because a world-class education system is important not only for our children's future but for the future of British Columbia. We want to make British Columbia the best-educated, most literate place in North America by 2010. We are focusing on literacy because it is an essential skill that children and adults need to succeed in school and in life.

To help us achieve our goal, B.C. public libraries will receive $1.8 million in new provincial funding to support library services and increase child and adult literacy. The funding is part of the province's $12 million investment over three years to implement the public library strategic plan, Libraries Without Walls, which will bring broadband Internet into every branch,

provide a 24-hour virtual reference desk and set up a one-card system to give British Columbians access to books from any library in the province. We are also developing a comprehensive literacy plan that will make sure there are literacy services in every British Columbia community.

Parents and guardians play an important role as a child's first teacher, and that's why we're providing parents of kindergarten and grade-one students a set of booklets to help improve their children's literacy. The booklets will encourage families to make reading, writing and math a natural part of everyday life.

The province will also support literacy through a $5 million innovation grant for school districts, the kindergarten readiness program Ready, Set, Learn, and matching donations for the B.C. Raise-a-Reader campaign. And our $150 million increase in operating funding for school districts will ensure every student has access to libraries and quality learning resources.

Boards have reported that they will spend an estimated $92 million this year on school library staff, services and supplies. We're focusing on literacy because research shows that low literacy skills are tied directly to low income and unemployment, because strong literacy skills open the doors to lifelong learning and achievement.

Our second goal for British Columbians is to lead the way in North America in healthy living and physical fitness. In January we hosted the first-ever healthy schools forum to provide and find the best ways to promote health in British Columbia's schools. We gathered ideas and best practices from our education and health partners, including students and parents, and developed a new framework that will guide school boards, health authorities and communities in creating health-promoting schools.

That framework will be made public shortly along with the new junk food guidelines for schools and new resources for parents who want to help their kids make healthier choices. We've pledged to work with schools to eliminate junk food in their schools within the next four years, and we're expanding the Action Schools program to all kindergarten-through-grade-nine schools by 2010.

We're also working on an Action Schools model for the secondary grades. The healthier and more active our children are, the better they will do in school and throughout their lives. We want to make sure that B.C. students are ready to learn when they head to class each morning.

The province has developed a safe, caring and orderly schools strategy. It is designed to make schools places where students are free from physical harm, where there are clear expectations about acceptable behaviour and where all members of the school feel they belong. The strategy includes provincial standards that schools can follow as they develop codes of conduct to improve student safety and a safe schools guidebook for principals and school planning councils.

This year we will build on the safe schools strategy with new funding and resources for students, parents and educators. We are investing in safe schools because nothing is more important than the safety of our children and because safe schools create an environment in which children can focus on learning and achieving their best. We will continue to work with our education and community partners to ensure our schools are safe and healthy places for our students and our employees.

Our government is working to improve achievement for all students, but we recognize that some students have very unique needs. That's why we provide school districts with additional funding for special education and aboriginal education. This year we are increasing funding for students with special needs by an estimated $28 million, and the province will provide an estimated $1 million to school districts for any additional special needs students who have transferred into a district or who have been identified after the September 30 final enrolment count. We know it is common for special needs students to move from one district to another after the school year has already started. That's why the ministry has introduced a second head count for students with special needs. A second count will ensure that school boards receive funding for every special needs student, no matter when they enrol in a district.

Starting this year, the province will also fully fund students with special needs in independent schools. Independent schools currently receive half of the funding provided to public schools for special needs students. As a result of the funding change, the province will add approximately $8.3 million more for special needs students in independent schools.

We are also committed to improving achievement for special needs students. This year for the first time the ministry will begin tracking demographics and performance results for special needs students in a report entitled How are We Doing? The report will help the province, school planning councils and school boards make plans for improving achievement for special needs students.

Aboriginal students also have unique needs, and we continue to look for ways to improve aboriginal student achievement. A record 47 percent of aboriginal students finished high school in 2003-2004, an increase of 5 percent from 2000-2001 but well below the provincial rate of 79 percent. That's just not good enough, and for the past four years we've been working to close the achievement gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal students. We are making progress, but there is still a lot more to be done.

The province has signed 21 enhancement agreements with school districts and aboriginal communities, and we expect that number to grow. Enhancement agreements establish collaborative partnerships that involve shared decision-making and specific goal-setting to meet the educational needs of our aboriginal students. Fundamental to the agreements is the requirement that school districts provide strong pro-

grams on the culture of local aboriginal peoples on whose traditional territories the districts are located.

We also have a report that measures demographics and performance of aboriginal students in B.C.'s public schools. B.C. is one of the only jurisdictions in Canada that track aboriginal student performance so that we can determine what's working and where we need to make improvements in the delivery of education programs. Helping aboriginal students succeed in school is part of our commitment to ensure a world-class education for all of our students.

Government also wants to lead the world in sustainable environmental management, and school capital projects are part of our plan to reach that goal. School boards are responsible for incorporating green building design guidelines in the planning and construction of additions and new facilities. A green building is a high-performance building, one that uses energy and water efficiently, generates less waste and has a high-quality indoor environment. The new G.W. Graham school in Chilliwack, set to open in the fall of 2006, will be a green building. It will have a geothermal heating system that's good for the environment, and it will be a great example of energy conservation for students, staff and the whole community.

Over the next three years the province will provide $700 million for school capital and maintenance projects. This funding will help us ensure that B.C. students learn in and from their school buildings that were designed with responsible environmental management in mind.

Our other goal is to create more jobs per capita than anywhere else in Canada, and it depends a great deal on our kindergarten-to-grade-12 education system. That's because many of the jobs that are and will be available in British Columbia must be filled by workers who are well-educated, well-trained and highly skilled. We already have a world-class education system in this province, one that prepares students for life after high school, whether they decide to enter the workforce, attend college or university or take trades training. But we want to make our education system even better, and that's why we're getting more young people interested in apprenticeship and trades training.

By increasing access to industry training programs, we are encouraging students to consider a trade as a viable and rewarding career choice and supporting their future career goals. Through school boards and the Industry Training Authority, students have access to secondary school apprenticeships. This is a career program that provides students with the opportunity to begin an apprenticeship while still in secondary school.

Another option is ACE IT. ACE IT gives students the opportunity to earn a post-secondary credit equivalent to the first year of apprenticeship while continuing to earn credits toward high school graduation. Both of these programs are increasing choice for our learners and helping us meet B.C.'s long-term skills training needs.

This year the province will be doing even more to support students who want to pursue a career in the trades after high school. We will be introducing a new trades training program and new resources for parents who have questions about trades training options, and we will continue to partner with industries, school districts and post-secondary institutions to ensure that our students have the skills they need for today's workforce and tomorrow.

Students who do well in elementary and secondary school have more opportunities after graduation. Thanks to the hard work of parents, teachers and students and the fact that government is focusing on student achievement, we are seeing results. B.C. students are doing better in school. The provincial high school completion rate is at a record 79 percent. No one outperforms B.C. students in math or reading, according to the latest international testing of 15-year-olds.

Our government has said all along that an investment in education is the best investment we can make. It benefits our students, our communities and our province. Over the next four years we will continue to put students first, we will continue to focus on improving student achievement, and we will continue to help British Columbians gain the skills they need for life-long learning.

It has been six months now since Election 2005, and I have been the Education critic for about as long as the minister has been the minister. I know it's been a steep curve for me, and perhaps less so for her, with her experience at the school board level. But nonetheless, both of us have been on an interesting ride. I don't think anyone would dispute that, certainly, the past two months have not been ordinary months in the school system.

I'd like to focus my introductory comments on those past two months, if I may, because I believe that…. In my community of Malahat–Juan de Fuca, which includes school districts 62 and 79, parents, educators and trustees have been discussing how they feel about where the system is going. They've talked to me about consultation fatigue. They've talked to me about uncertainty and confusion. They've talked to me about messages and language that didn't come from the minister in her opening remarks.

The challenge I think we have is trying to come to terms with the positive goals and objectives of the ministry, which I support fully with respect to being the best-educated and most literate jurisdiction in North America, as well as healthy living and fitness in our schools. These are laudable goals, goals that I believe are supported by everyone in this chamber and British Columbians right across the piece.

However, what we're finding on the ground is something quite different. Just a few comments on the introductory statement by the minister. She suggested that learning takes place in many different ways and in

many different places, and I fully agree with that. Yet in what was called a consultation following on the end of the teachers dispute, the ministry suggested that field trips should be cancelled. So I'm wondering, then, if the language coming from the minister today doesn't seem to fit with the press release that went out last week. It's those little inconsistencies…. I appreciate that in a $5 billion budget with 600-odd thousand young people involved in the K-to-12 process and with the expanded mandate of the minister, we're talking about a lot of British Columbians, and we're talking about difficult, challenging issues for her, for her staff and for educators on the ground in schools, for individuals and volunteers with respect to public libraries, which are a new component of her ministry, and with school trustees who are now facing election and re-election in communities right across this province.

This is not easy work, Mr. Chair. It's a challenging portfolio. I'm confident the minister is working at her best to get on top of these issues. But in terms of communicating those issues with the public outside of this place, I'm hopeful that over the next couple of days during this estimates process we'll be able to get down to some of these issues in a more tangible way that seems real to people in communities right across the province.

I listened very carefully to what the minister had to say. I think it was a very good speech. I think her high points were high points, and there were no low points mentioned. I guess the job of the opposition is to perhaps find one or two of the lumps on the road to the best-educated and most literate society in North America.

So with those comments, I'd like to start with the first vote and ask the minister if she could explain to me where innovation grants come from, what line, and how they are accessed by the public.

Hon. S. Bond: The dollars come from the public school subvote. The literacy grants were first announced last year. This is the second year. Every school district in the province last year had the opportunity to apply. In fact, they received grants ranging from $24,000 to $207,000 to support innovative approaches to improving student literacy.

J. Horgan: Everyone was able to apply. How many did apply? What percentage of the total?

Hon. S. Bond: Every school district in the province last year received a grant, and it ranged from, as I said, $24,000 to $207,000. Every school district received some dollars. We are currently in the process of looking at how those dollars will be allocated. The proposals were vetted by a group of professionals — teachers, in fact — to look at what impact those might have on student learning.

Hon. S. Bond: They would have received their regular salary. In essence, we borrowed them, or they were lent to us by school districts, and their expenses would have been paid as part of the process to have them be part of this process.

J. Horgan: With respect to the literacy grants, does the minister have at her disposal, or could she provide to me, a complete list of all the grants that were issued and to what districts?

Hon. S. Bond: We'd be happy to provide the member with a list of recipients last year — what the districts each received as a result of the proposals.

J. Horgan: Of those that were successful, minister…. Could you give me an indication of how many applications were unsuccessful?

Hon. S. Bond: We'd be happy to provide a summary. The information that we know is that every district did receive grants, but there may have been some specific school proposals that were not funded. So a district may have sent in more than one. But we'd be happy to provide a summary both of the number requested and the number that were actually granted.

J. Horgan: Perhaps, minister, in the interest of those who are watching — and staggering as it may seem to you, and it certainly was to me, a lot of people do watch what we're doing here….

Could you, perhaps, with your staff, select an example of a grant and how it's working in a community?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll be happy to provide that as soon as we can actually get you the details. It's binders full of information. But we could bring you back some great ideas, and we certainly have some from the rural literacy funding. I will make sure that's it the appropriate program and bring you some of the descriptions.

J. Horgan: I wasn't looking for more than I asked for. It was only a sense, a flavour, of what the grants are achieving in communities. But just to clarify the minister's response: every district in the province — 60 districts — received at least one grant?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of literacy innovation grants, every school district in the province received a grant, and they ranged from $24,000 to $207,000. The criteria were to support innovative approaches to improving student literacy.

J. Horgan: That's what I thought you said. I'm now, certainly, completely comfortable with that answer.

I'd like to now go to any potential grants to the B.C. School Trustees Association. How many dollars were expended on grants to the BCSTA?

Hon. S. Bond: We will get the exact total. We believe it was between $144,000 and $150,000. There was some adjustment made near the end of the fiscal year, so we'll get that clarified shortly for you. I believe it is $144,000 to $150,000.

Hon. S. Bond: It was used for trustee development and focused particularly on issues to do with student achievement, including topics such as assessment.

J. Horgan: Was that money audited or monitored in terms of its use by the ministry? Who used it, and for what development?

Hon. S. Bond: There was no specific audit, but we are certainly confident that the dollars were utilized in an appropriate way. In fact, a number of our ministry staff participated in those events.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the '04-05 information in the building. We will get that for you and provide you with an updated table first thing in the morning when we come back, if that would be appropriate.

J. Horgan: That's fine with me. But could the minister provide me with the number for '05-06, or is that the same situation?

Hon. S. Bond: The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils in this budget year will receive $483,000.

J. Horgan: Is the minister able to provide me with the rate of increase from 2001-2002?

Hon. S. Bond: We will provide the rate of increase once we have the updated chart from '04-05. We'd be happy to compare those and provide the rate of increase.

J. Horgan: Thank you to the minister and her staff. I have to say, it reminds me of my time in government. Although some of your staff aren't smiling at me, I know that they're not going to be thanking me too much two days from now. But it's all in the interest of accountability, so we'll press on.

With respect to these types of grants, whether they be innovation grants, grants to other groups…. In a document that was provided by the deputy following a short briefing I had some weeks ago, there's a reference on the document, and it's called…. All I've got is: "Update November 7, 2005." I'd like to go through some of the numbers on that document, if I could. Staff are just looking for it. In particular, there's a reference to partner groups a third of the way down the page: "…a significant increase this year over last." I'm wondering if you could explain to me who those partner groups are and why the significant increase?

Hon. S. Bond: My staff will be working a lot of hours this evening to bring the member opposite the breakdown of that increase, and we will add that to the list of overnight homework for the ministry.

J. Horgan: Again, my apologies to staff who are watching back in the ministry. It's in the interests of accountability. The public will thank you for this if your family members won't.

Is there a chance to get a sense of who the partner groups are? Is that part of the homework, or is that something that you have at your disposal?

Hon. S. Bond: The significant partners are fairly obvious. There are the B.C. principals and vice-principals, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the B.C. School District Secretary-Treasurers Association, the Association of B.C. School Superintendents. We also have additional funding that goes to Student Voice. Those are the significant partner groups.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for her answer, but I noted that within the significant partner groups, the B.C. Teachers Federation wasn't included. CUPE, which I believe has some 30,000 employees, which I think is significantly more than the Principals and Vice-Principals Association…. Is there any reason why they wouldn't have been included as partner groups in that grant?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite is correct. There are no specific grants to the B.C. Teachers Federation or CUPE. The ministry has made it clear that there have not been formal requests for that type of funding, but certainly at this point there are not grants given to the Teachers Federation or to CUPE.

Well, I'm curious that there would be that significant an increase, and I know the work is going to be done, but maybe staff can assist us here. Was there a request for an increase of that magnitude, and who made the request?

Hon. S. Bond: We will be able to provide that detailed information to the member in the morning.

J. Horgan: Well, let's go back to the list, then, and we'll start at the top. I think we might have some interesting ground here. There is a grant under the special grants category — seismic upgrade — and it was reduced. I'm wondering if you could explain that.

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite is looking at the document, there are two categories under the special grants. Number one is school renewal funding; the second category is seismic upgrades. In fact, what we've done is taken the additional $5 million and rolled it into the school renewal funding. They are both funds that deal with the capital projects and the building envelope. It was to give school districts more flexibility in those projects but certainly not an intent to move away from the seismic program.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. My colleagues have numerous questions on the seismic program, so we'll get to that over the…. Certainly not this evening. But I think it might be useful if I just ran through this. If I could get some clarity as quickly as I did on that issue, I'd be quite content. If we've got the list in front of us, maybe we can just proceed down the program.

Community LINK is one that I wanted to ask a series of questions on. Perhaps I'll just ask the minister if she could articulate for me and my colleagues what the Community LINK program is, and how that money is expended?

Hon. S. Bond: Community LINK funding helps districts to provide services such as breakfast and lunch programs, inner-city school programs, after-school care, school-based support workers, community school programs and counselling for at-risk children and youth.

J. Horgan: In terms of the distribution of that funding, is it by….? It's not a per-pupil distribution? Is it focused in the lower mainland? Is it provincewide?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, all school districts take advantage of the Community LINK program. It is up to school boards to determine the priorities and allocate funding to schools and programs to improve educational performance of vulnerable children and youth. There is a complete listing of the dollars across districts and which categories, in fact, school districts have chosen to allocate the dollars.

Hon. S. Bond: We'd be happy to provide a copy of the chart to the member opposite. It is actually very well done. The categories across I should just provide, as the member opposite suggests, to the listening audience. It includes topics such as nutrition programs, youth and family mental health workers, inner city, community schools, healthy schools and literacy. Districts have chosen how to allocate funding across those categories, and we can provide you with the detailed breakdown for each school district.

J. Horgan: Again, Community LINK: Learning Includes Nutrition and Knowledge, which is catchy. As acronyms go, I think that's one of the better ones I've seen. For those in government, you see a dozen acronyms before coffee at ten. But on the Community LINK program, is there any thought to linking — if I can use that word? — or connecting this program with the healthy living and physical fitness program, or is it specifically targeted to the purpose that is laid out?

Hon. S. Bond: That's actually a really good question. The Community LINK program was really designed, as I know the member is aware, for vulnerable children. It has additional resources for communities to use with vulnerable children. Certainly, our goal is to make sure that schools are healthy places and that we have active programs for all our children.

I think it would follow very naturally that as our program around healthy schools and fitness evolves, it would be really good to look at how this connects, but certainly, the primary focus of this program is to address the needs of vulnerable students. We know that entire schools do better if our vulnerable children have their needs taken care of, but as this program evolves with our other healthy schools initiative, I can certainly see there would be a place for an appropriate connection there.

J. Horgan: Now we're getting into a bit of a groove. I'm thinking, as we go down, these are lots of grant applications. It's almost a cottage industry. I know consultants do very well in this regard. I'm wondering if school districts are applying for this range of grants. Is there an annual call? Is it quarterly? How does that work?

Hon. S. Bond: Just a little bit around the history of this program. Community LINK was actually transferred from the Ministry for Children and Families to our ministry in May of 2004. One of the things that we wanted to do was create a process where we didn't have the application process, so a funding formula was developed. In order to make sure that…. As we were developing that formula, we added an additional $10.3 million to make sure that no school board experienced a negative impact of looking for a more equitable formula.

The formula that we use now recognizes historical funding levels but also a number of other vulnerability factors, as they're called. In essence, school districts now receive the money automatically, but we do ask for a yearly report to look at how it's been spent and how it's benefiting students. So no application process is in place. In fact, it's an automatic grant that is made on a number of factors, and again, we provided an ad-

ditional amount of dollars. We restored those funds so that no school board experienced a negative impact.

J. Horgan: That, certainly, would be an appropriate course. That's, then, not part of the block. It's targeted grant money that's constant. Districts can count on it year after year, based on need.

Hon. S. Bond: It is ongoing funding. That will not change. In fact, it is based on a series of criteria. In fact, the funding level currently is at $45.4 million, and that is the highest that that program actually has ever had — again, based on the principle of historical funding and some criteria around the degree of need of the student.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister and her staff for that. If I could just carry on down the memorandum from the minister's staff, the pay equity line…. That's a healthy increase, and I'm happy to see that. I'm wondering if you could again explain to me where exactly this money will be going.

Hon. S. Bond: The pay equity funding is actually a result of our commitment to fully fund an agreement that was reached with CUPE. It provides the funding that will actually pay for the achievement of the targeted pay equity wage rates for the K-to-12 support staff, CUPE. That was outlined in pay equity plans that have also been approved by the Public Sector Employers Council or, as we fondly know it, PSEC.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. I'm always pleased to hear that the ministry is fully funding increases, particularly if they're pay equity increases. As time goes by, I will take a look at some of the increases that were not funded, but we'll leave that for now. Since we seem to be on a bit of a groove and we've got the same paper in front of us, I'd like to just proceed.

I'm going to skip long-term disability because I think there are some linkages there to the Ready report that may change that number. Maybe I'll just throw that out while we're on it. Again, I wanted to do Ready separately, in the interests of compressing this information for staff. But will that long-term disability line change as a result of Mr. Ready's efforts?

Hon. S. Bond: Because it's a one-time funding payment to the long-term disability, it would not become a budget line. It's a one-time opportunity. Obviously, Mr. Ready in his recommendations made note that he would be doing further work discussing long-term disability. It is a one-time payment of $40 million, so the budget line will in fact not change.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the one-time funding and the discussions that will proceed with the IIC. But in this document the number is not $40 million; it's $11.8 million. That's why I raised it. I'm curious as to what this number would be for.

Hon. S. Bond: The long-term disability amount in the document, which the member opposite has, is actually a CUPE support staff issue. The long-term disability through Vince Ready, Mr. Ready, is for the teachers, of course.

J. Horgan: I think we'll speed things up if we're all answering at the same time. That's good news. I'll just move down to another couple of items here. The BCPSEA line — I'm wondering if that's good value for money based on the track record of that organization.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, Mr. Ready will be looking at the whole bargaining structure. Certainly, we are hopeful that we will have better results moving forward after the IIC completes his recommendations.

J. Horgan: I won't put words in the minister's mouth on that, but I'll just let the question hang. Her answer is sufficient for my purposes at this point in time.

Moving down the document, we have a school protection program and an acronym in brackets, RMB. Could the minister explain what that is?

Hon. S. Bond: In a word, it's a self-insurance program, but allow me to give the actual full answer. It is an agreement between the Ministry of Education and the risk management branch, known as RMB, for the purpose of providing for losses to assets owned by the individual school districts and in use within the K-to-12 public education system. The Ministry of Education funds an annual deposit premium to RMB on behalf of the individual school districts. In return, RMB manages, pays and makes recoveries for all property losses less than $100,000, which are covered by the self-insured property coverage of the school's protection program.

J. Horgan: It's always nice when a note…. Whoever wrote that is very pleased now.

Moving down the list. MOH — which I know to be Ministry of Health — interministry special needs strategy. This is a new item, and I'm wondering if you could give an explanation as to what that is.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the Ministry of Education is working with two other ministries, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Families, to look at how we can use a more integrated approach to dealing with special needs youth and children. As we look at work being done across the country, that's very much the way that it's being done — in a more integrated approach.

In our ministry, the Ministry of Education, we've budgeted $730,000 to look at possible contracts or services that may be necessary as we move the program forward. But again, we're in the developmental stages of that interministry approach to looking at how we

help special needs children receive the kinds of services they need and deserve.

J. Horgan: Would this be part of the How Are We Doing? program, or are they separate? If so, why are we looking at another strategy?

Hon. S. Bond: They are linked but not the same, so it isn't duplication. In my opening comments — and I want to just think about that — I think I said we may have been the only provincial that does it. We think that's true, or we could have been one of the only…. How Are We Doing? is, in fact, the statistical data that help inform strategies, so we do need to do both. Really what How Are We Doing? allows us to do…. It started with aboriginal children first, and now we're going to do a How Are We Doing? for special needs children. It's really the database that will inform a strategy that will see us look at new techniques, new ways of helping to improve service to special needs children.

That will also be highlighted by an integrated approach. For many years it has been very segmented across three ministries. We want to look at a way to serve parents and their children in a more integrated way.

J. Horgan: I certainly would agree with the minister. I know from my time in government that whenever one can find ways to merge programs in different ministries, you want to go that way certainly as long as there is no negative impact on the client groups. So I'm pleased to hear that.

But I'm curious. The How Are We Doing? program — I'm just looking at the budget summary here…. Would that come from management services or executive and support services? And what would be the total budget for How Are We Doing?

Hon. S. Bond: How Are We Doing? is a report that's compiled internally using existing staff members, and therefore it would be taken out of the ministry operations budget.

J. Horgan: Taken from the budget. Is it just daily activities of a group of staff? If so, how many? Are they dedicated to this? Do they change over time? Is there a secretariat-like core group?

Hon. S. Bond: We do not use dedicated staff for long periods of time. It is an ongoing process, part of the work that our internal staff does. The two areas of staffing that we utilize in this project are information services staff and special education staff. We use part of the time of two individuals in each of those areas — so four people, certainly not full-time. They also do other reporting and statistical work. This is part of the job functions of four employees — certainly not full-time.

J. Horgan: While we're on FTEs, maybe I could just get a quick…. How many are there in the building, and how many are devoted to special needs?

Hon. S. Bond: In total, there are 313 employees. Dedicated to English as a second language and special needs, we have six full-time employees and also one seconded staff person.

Hon. S. Bond: The staff person is a senior administrator from the Mission school district.

J. Horgan: Is this primarily data collection? I get a sense that that's what we're doing here. Is that the function of these six FTEs and the seconded individual? Or is there a range of issues within ESL and special needs?

Hon. S. Bond: The seconded person is focusing on the whole process of integration; that's actually the special work she is doing. In terms of the balance of the staff, the six FTEs, actually, they do have a wide variety of responsibilities. The major issues they deal with are policy development, technical information and in particular ministry queries in terms of dealing with those. They also look after audits and also consultation with school districts on a regular basis.

J. Horgan: I really wanted to try hard to stay on this sheet, but I have to diverge for a moment and talk a little bit about the consultation process, and maybe that's a natural point for me to move on to that.

I mentioned in my opening remarks a sense of consultation fatigue with many parents and teachers that I interact with, in that there's so much change. I appreciate that the mandate has expanded significantly for the minister and her staff, but the public, by and large, as much as we'd like to think they are ripe for yet another round of discussions about how to make better widgets…. And I know I shouldn't be glib about this, because this is important work.

At some point the people that I'm talking to are saying: "Well, why don't we just see how it goes for a bit? Why are we changing at such a rapid rate? We're trying to get our kids through the system, and yet it seems that every time we turn around there is a new challenge, a new consultation and a new opportunity for us to participate, free of charge. So we're not going to the rink. We're not going to the pool. We're not going to the soccer field. We're going to an endless meeting."

Maybe I could ask a question, then, and I appreciate that that was a bit of a preamble. With respect to data collection, with respect to consultation, these six FTEs — how many different consultations are they involved in? I know that's an open-ended question, but can you give me a ballpark about how many different things they're up to?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, in terms of the consultation that we referred to in the case of the special education staff, we don't initiate consultation externally through these staff. We actually provide information to school districts. Their job is to deal with queries from school districts. Often a district will say: "Can you connect me with someone else who may be using a particular program?"

In fact, the dialogue that goes on is between our staff and school districts in particular, and it's really finding how best to implement programs or how to get the advice that you need. Really, they're a conduit for information from our team internally to districts who request that information. It's not imposed at all but is certainly a two-way communication about information.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. I should have stuck with what I was doing, and I'll get back to that later on. I'll leave these six people and the secondee alone and move down the document.

There are just a few more issues on this paper that I would like more information on. One is the Roots of Empathy. Could you elaborate on that program?

Hon. S. Bond: Roots of Empathy is an incredible program that is making a difference in schools. It is an evidence-based classroom program that has directly shown results in terms of reducing levels of aggression and violence amongst school children. It also, at the same time, raises social and emotional competence and, just as the title suggests, increases empathy.

We've agreed to share in the cost of this program with the Ministry of Children and Family Development — an amazing program and really making a difference in schools. It involves bringing babies into classrooms and teaching a real sense of empathy and understanding. It is outcomes-based. We've seen some dramatic evidence that it makes a difference in schools and classrooms.

J. Horgan: How long has the program been in existence? Who are the other partners? What's the total budget, if you could, from your ministry and those other ministries?

Hon. S. Bond: We are actually, as I said, partnering with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They are the lead ministry on this particular initiative, but again, we're looking at cooperating and trying to deliver programs in an integrated way.

In March of 2005 the Ministry of Children and Family Development made the announcement that they would be contributing $1.27 million to support the introduction of the program to pre–school age children and the expansion of the kindergarten program. This is our first year of contributing to that program. Our contribution this year to partner with MCFD will be $923,077. We actually have a plan over the next five years to try to train Roots of Empathy facilitators to deliver the program in every kindergarten class in the province. So it's a program that will increase in terms of the number of classrooms. This is our first year of making a contribution.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for her response. The document that I have has a $1.1 million budget line here. I'm wondering where the other $200,000 goes. Is that for facilitation? Is that for some other purpose?

Hon. S. Bond: The actual budget line number is $1.1 million; the member opposite is correct. There were some initial facilitation costs. The actual program cost for this year to partner will be the $923,000, but there were some initial costs. The member opposite is correct.

J. Horgan: I'm pleased that the minister finds that I'm correct on this one. It may happen a couple more times as we go through this, but….

J. Horgan: I assume that. But I have to ask the questions, as you know, hon. Chair, because if we make assumptions we sometimes leave information on the table.

I just have one or two more on this document, and then we'll proceed with the plan that I had before I received it. That would be two items. One is called Explorations. I'm wondering what Explorations is and why it was reduced.

Hon. S. Bond: The program is an exploration program. It provided a summer experience for students in grades K-to-7 in areas in the arts — so in the areas of dance, drama, music and visual arts, and/or sport and recreation. It was targeted for public schools who demonstrate that their students were unable to receive opportunity and equitable access. In fact, we were able to allocate $2.5 million to those camps last year, because we did that out of year-end funding, and we were able to do that. This year our target expectation is $2 million within the context of the budget we currently have. It was a good experience for children all around the province last year. We want that to continue. Our budget allows us the $2 million this year, and again, we were able to do the $2.5 million out of year-end dollars last year.

J. Horgan: This does sound like an interesting program, and I'm not aware of it. Perhaps the minister, if it's possible, could get her staff to provide me with a note on that subject that would outline what camps were participating and how many students took it up.

Hon. S. Bond: I'd be happy to provide that to the member opposite. I was lucky enough to visit several of the camps around the province this summer, including some in small rural communities like in my own riding. Places like McBride and Valemount were able

to offer very different types of opportunities for students around the province. It was really a great opportunity. We partnered with 2010 LegaciesNow in order to do that. We'd be delighted to provide the member opposite with an outline of where the camps were offered, and hopefully, we'll see that duplicated again this summer.

I just have one or two more here, and then we can move on. I'm assuming that the improvement grants reduced to zero is a result of that going into school renewal funding.

Hon. S. Bond: If the member opposite could just provide clarity…. Is it on the same page? What number would that be?

Hon. S. Bond: This initial funding was related to two programs in particular. There was an initial agreement with some funding attached to it. That program has now turned into the aboriginal enhancement agreement program, and all school districts are being moved towards aboriginal enhancement agreements. These grants actually were at the end of a term based on an agreement that was made with two school districts. We have now moved on. We have 21 aboriginal enhancement agreements, and we intend to have 60 by the end of that program.

Quite often improvement grants…. I just assumed it was something else. I'm pleased to hear that that money has found another home. With respect to the aboriginal enhancement agreements, you say 21 are in place. Would that be in 21 school districts?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. In fact, 21 aboriginal enhancement agreements have been signed. We expect possibly six more in the next number of months, and our goal throughout the process is actually to have an agreement in place in all 60 school districts.

Incredible work is being done by school districts in consultation with aboriginal communities, including the Métis, so the entire spectrum of aboriginal people is involved in that discussion. Unique agreements are in the 21 school districts, each based on the band and the participation of all of the partner groups — so a very successful program. Our goal is to have 60 in place.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I was looking to see if our aboriginal affairs critic was here. I did sit in on the budget estimates for the former minister with interest. It's an area of extreme interest to me.

I'm wondering: are these agreements being negotiated through that body, or are there Ministry of Education staff that are in the front lines on that? Or are they just participating as observers?

Hon. S. Bond: We are really the third partner in how those enhancement agreements are created. We provide guidelines, facilitate discussion and provide advice, but the work is really done by school districts with their aboriginal communities. I was very privileged to participate — very early, actually; I think perhaps just days after I became the minister — in the signing of the agreement in school district 61 in an incredibly moving ceremony.

Another really significant school district is Gold Trail school district, where for the very first time an agreement was reached which included all 19 bands. So it really has been an extraordinary process. The Ministry of Education is a third partner, but districts really do the hard work with their aboriginal communities, thus leading to unique agreements in the school districts around the province.

We've been really pleased with the process — 21, and we think, as I said, about six more that we're on the verge of seeing completed. We will be encouraging and urging the rest of the boards to complete, and we're also providing advice and support to those districts that are just contemplating where they might move in this area.

J. Horgan: Hon. Chair, I thank the minister. I can sense that she is excited about this program, and I share that excitement. Just one last question on this: could we have a list of the 21? If staff know: are districts 62 or 79 on the list currently, or are they in the six possibles?

Hon. S. Bond: We'd be happy to provide this list to the member opposite. In terms of the 21 that have been signed, school district 79, Cowichan Valley, has signed an agreement. It is one of the 21. School district 62, Sooke, is actually in the planning stage. We have a number that have draft agreements received — actually, 11. So we're very pleased, and I'd be happy to provide the member opposite with this list. Also, if we have any specific details about those two districts, I'd be happy to provide those.

The crystal meth school-based initiatives. This is a new program in concert, I assume, with the Ministry of Health and perhaps the Solicitor General — I'm stretching on that one. Maybe the minister could enlighten me on where those monies will be expended and on what the plans are for increasing that budget, perhaps, in the coming year.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, I'm very glad the member opposite asked this question. This is a start. This is the first time that dollars have been set aside in terms of education for the crystal meth school-based initiatives.

It is $1 million. We are working, in particular, with the Ministry of Health, but a committee has been structured to look at how best to create the school-based programming. The focus of the $1 million is going to be on education for parents and young people — how destructive the drug is and how youth fall prey to the drug. It really is about an information and education campaign in terms of talking to those partner groups.

We also want to look at teaching parents, in particular, the signs to watch for that indicate crystal meth use. The most important thing, though, that we're considering at the moment is how we do that in an age-appropriate way — what type of information we could share with particular age groups in schools. In essence, it is the beginning. It is a $1-million targeted initiative and the committee met, I think, as recently as last week or so for a half-day to begin to basically create the structure for this program.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister. Are there any other programs or school-based initiatives for other drugs, or is this the first? I know it's not the first, but is this the only one going on at the present time?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is a wide number of resources and opportunities for students across the province. Typically, though, they are led by school districts locally, and they involve community partners. This is the only program where the ministry is taking the lead in terms of developing and looking at how we might assist in the area of crystal meth in particular, but there are programs all across the province typically led by school districts.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. ActNow B.C. and Action Schools B.C. — what's the difference?

Hon. S. Bond: To describe the difference between the two, ActNow B.C. is actually a governmentwide initiative where we are working across ministries to focus British Columbians on things like healthy living through healthy eating. It includes, for example, through the Transportation Ministry things like bicycle paths, and through the Agriculture Ministry things like how many fruits and vegetables people are eating — really important when you look at the outcomes if people look at the side of prevention and healthy living and eating. ActNow is actually a cross-government initiative that looks at improving people's health through acting now and looking at things like exercise and fruits and vegetables.

Action Schools British Columbia is actually a program. It's been piloted in a number of schools, including some in Richmond and in other parts of the province. Our goal is to see us develop a program currently that's for K-to-7 schools, but we want to look at a program for secondary school students as well. We had a large discussion about this at a conference that we held in January, which was a forum that brought stakeholders to the table to talk about the whole issue of health-promoting schools.

Action Schools is a vigorous physical activity that takes place in classrooms. It is a program, though, that comes with, in essence, a curriculum, so to speak. It comes with tapes and videos — those kinds of things — with really energizing music. Having participated in one, it certainly gets your blood moving. So, in fact, ActNow across government, Action Schools currently in some schools — hoping to expand that.

J. Horgan: When you say some schools, can we narrow that down to a number of districts, and which are the districts?

Hon. S. Bond: Currently it is focused in the lower mainland in particular. The pilots took place there. We will get you a list of which districts that involves, but our goal is certainly to expand the program across the province. The focus currently is on K-to-7 schools, but we intend to also develop a secondary school component, and we are looking at that over the next several years. But I'll be happy to get the specific districts for the member opposite and add that to the package for the morning.

J. Horgan: The school community connections program — could the minister elaborate on that program?

Hon. S. Bond: School community connections is an exciting new opportunity for school districts to work with their communities. It's a program that has a $10 million investment attached to it. Those dollars are being managed, and the program has been designed with the Union of B.C. Municipalities and the B.C. School Trustees Association responsible for looking at school-community connections. It allows schools, in partnership with a community agency, to make applications for dollars to look at things like community use of school space, especially excess space, which we certainly have in some districts.

It's a new program. The criteria have just been created and made available to school districts, but it is an application process. The money was given to the Union of B.C. Municipalities to manage the program in partnership with the B.C. School Trustees Association.

J. Horgan: So the $10 million is a grant to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, and it's a program that can be accessed by districts. Where is the accountability mechanism in that?

Hon. S. Bond: There is a significant process involved in terms of both the application for the dollars and the ongoing monitoring. I should make it clear that ministry staff have been involved in the development of the criteria and will also participate in this process moving forward. There will be a committee comprised

of members from the Union of B.C. Municipalities, the BCSTA and ministry staff that will first of all vet the proposals. There is a three-stage granting process, initially some dollars set aside to explore the option. There are planning dollars, so it's a three-step process. There will be a reporting-out process in terms of outcomes and where the expenditures have been made and what the benefits and outcomes for communities and school districts have been.

J. Horgan: So this is a bit of a pig in a poke, then. In my time in government there was significant discussion about how to use underutilized space, and that's a laudable goal. Certainly, in my community of Langford I know that the mayor and council would want to use every available inch of public space for some form of profit, and I'm wondering if profit is a consideration here. Is it all not-for-profit, or is there a blurry line on that?

Hon. S. Bond: The intent is not profit-motivated. We absolutely believe that school buildings, in particular, and other buildings are public assets. The public owns them; communities own them. What we wanted to do was find a creative way to ask school districts and communities to work together to find places and programs that will actually benefit communities and students and families. There is no prohibition from looking at some entrepreneurial activity, but we didn't want to limit the ideas and thinking of communities and school boards. But it is not profit-motivated. The motivation is to utilize space and that taxpayers and people who own those buildings as public assets should have some way of participating in a partnership.

J. Horgan: I agree with the minister that public facilities should be used by the public to the greatest extent possible. I have participated with my children and other children in basketball programs, Scouts, Guides and on and on, using gymnasiums. Right across the province people are doing that all the time.

I guess where I start to be concerned is when we have school closures in communities. I know, certainly, here in Victoria the University of…. I don't know what they're calling it here — Blanshard school, here in Victoria — but Professor Strong, formerly the president of UVic, is starting a private, for-profit university at that facility. He's come to an arrangement with the school board, I think, without any involvement in this undertaking. I'm just wondering: with that in mind, in areas where schools are closing, like Victoria, where that real estate is of some significant value, wouldn't it be better to leave that in the hands of the school boards as assets to be disposed of? Or are we trying to do that as well as using these facilities to the fullest extent possible till they may well be needed again for public education purposes?

Hon. S. Bond: We don't think it is a matter of either-or. We think that we want to look at creative ways to utilize excess space, and we also believe there is a role for the community to play in that. So we felt that by having municipal leaders partnering with the B.C. School Trustees Association, it's really bringing together two great organizations that represent an entire community. So it is looking at partnerships.

When you look at utilization of facilities, certainly the member opposite brings up an example of a private, for-profit university. But in my own community, where there were a number of school closures as well, we've seen two of the buildings become amazing places for families within our community. One of them is now housing an opportunity for an organization called AiMHi, which serves disabled families and their children. They now have an entire school building which is fully utilized by that organization.

I think the important thing is to judge each proposal on its own merit, and there are criteria that drive the partnerships. So there has to be a partnership. It will be vetted by a committee, and it must demonstrate that it would bring benefit to the community. Certainly, school trustees will have a major role to play in that decision-making process.

J. Horgan: I don't dispute the minister's point that certainly most taxpayers would say: "Good on you. Try and find a way to generate revenue through these programs." I assume if individuals or groups are accessing public facilities, there is going to be an exchange of value there. Dollars will be brought back to the district or to the ministry, so I'm not concerned with the concept. I'm just concerned a little bit about governance and how oversight would be monitored. I don't disagree that with the able staff of the minister and school trustees, as well as the UBCM, that should be adequately covered, but could I, perhaps, ask for the criteria to be on the homework list for tomorrow?

We're running short on time, so I just have a couple more questions. One I think we can deal with quickly: the Strong Start committee. Can you give me an indication of what that is and who the members are?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm going to back up for just one minute, because I do want to say to the member opposite that I wasn't implying that he didn't think that looking at utilization of space was a good thing. I certainly understand that to be the case. I do take the note of caution, and I just think that once the criteria have been shared, and also the sense of oversight and the process, there might be a higher degree of comfort there. I think there's huge potential, and I do appreciate the question.

In terms of Strong Start B.C., that is an opportunity again to look at a cross-government initiative. We're looking at how resources are provided to families in particular in this province and how we can do that in a much more integrated way. I think one of the challenges that people often feel when they're dealing with government — and especially families who have challenging situations — is that there are so many points of

entry, it's a very complicated and challenging process. It's really a way of looking at one of our prime goals this year, which is to look at how to work better together as ministries. From that point of view, it's about how we work together to ensure that families have the resources and support they need to provide successful opportunities for all families in British Columbia.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for her initial comments. No offence taken, so worry not about that.

Order-in-council 721, ordered October 5, 2005, exempts Strong Start B.C. from the freedom of information and privacy act, and I'm wondering why that is.

J. Horgan: That certainly explains that. Having worked for cabinet, I understand that completely.

But you didn't say who was on the committee. Can I ask the minister to allow me that indulgence?

Hon. S. Bond: We'll add that to our homework list to ensure that the member gets the appropriate information.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. I thought that I was running…. I was just going to ask one more question before I then maybe give a breakdown to the minister and her staff of our plan for the next day or so, so that you can adjust your lives accordingly. I'd like to ask about the…. Perhaps I'll leave it.

I was going to talk about Ready, Set, Learn. Perhaps we can do that in the context of libraries and literacy, which is where I wanted to go next.

My colleague from Coquitlam-Maillardville would like to discuss early childhood education programs and child care funding.

I'd like to talk about consultations — I've mentioned that earlier — PACs; DPACs; BCCPAC; EACs; school planning councils; the college; the round table, of course; and just possible changes to the School Act resulting from Ready's recommendations; the notion of repurposing; and audits. That is a general sense of where I want to go over the next little while.

Capital projects. That might be facilitated by…. I know well the lists that the ministry produces daily on progress on that front. Perhaps I could put that on the list, and that might accelerate…. If could be done by constituency, it might well be easier. I know that it comes that way. That might assist my colleagues in pointing their questions. I'm not expecting an answer to that.

I'll just, while I'm on my feet, move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and progress on the Ministry of Education 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.