Hansard — Thursday, November 17, 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		1939

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1939
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 17)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1940
	Tara Singh Hayer
	D. Hayer
	Role of Crown in decisions on aboriginal rights
	G. Coons
	Services for gang-involved youth
	J. Nuraney
	Lola Chapman
	M. Sather
	International students in B.C.
	J. Yap
	Role of war veterans
	B. Simpson

Oral Questions		1942
	Responsibility for outstanding child death reviews
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	A. Dix
	Handling of child death review of Austin Martel
	R. Austin
	Hon. J. Les
	L. Krog
	Responsibility for outstanding child death reviews
	L. Krog
	Hon. J. Les
	J. Kwan
	Responsibilities of property owners for private railway crossings
	C. Wyse
	Hon. K. Falcon
	B. Simpson
	Attendance of Environment Minister at meeting on Cathedral Grove park
	S. Fraser
	Hon. B. Penner
	S. Simpson

Petitions		1946
	G. Coons
	D. Chudnovsky

Second Reading of Bills		1947
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 17)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth

Committee of the Whole House		1952
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 17)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		1952
	Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 17)

Committee of Supply		1952
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	D. Cubberley
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1961
	Estimates: Ministry of Finance (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Taylor
	J. Horgan
	R. Chouhan
	G. Gentner
	G. Robertson

C. James: Today I'm very pleased to introduce a group from a wonderful high school in Victoria, a high school that I'm very proud both my children graduated from. I'd like to introduce to the House Mr. Peter Foster. He is a teacher at Victoria High School, and he's here today with 24 grade 12 students. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. P. Bell: We were honoured today to be hosted by a group of gentlemen from B.C. Wood. This is the value-added industry processing association in British Columbia. They represent some 20,000 jobs in our province, with $2.8 billion in exports and about $4.7 billion in products produced among their 800 companies. Their goal is to double their exports by 2010 to $5 billion. I'd ask the House to please make them all very welcome today.

G. Coons: I have a couple of groups to introduce today. I'm pleased to welcome in the gallery some members of the Friends of Wild Salmon. Friends of Wild Salmon represents residents of North Coast and the Skeena watershed who have come together to express their concern about any further expansion of open-net fish farms. Members include sport, commercial and native fishing organizations as well as recreational and community groups and many concerned individuals.

Please join me in welcoming Pat Moss, coordinator of Friends of Wild Salmon; Gerald Amos from the Haisla; Luanne Roth, commercial fisher and president of the Prince Rupert Environmental Society; and Kathy Larson of the North Coast Steelhead Alliance.

G. Coons: We also have in the gallery eight members from the Mill Bay ferry advisory committee. This group of dedicated citizens is once again concerned about the Brentwood–Mill Bay ferry route and are committed to keeping this vital route in public hands. Please join me in welcoming Audrey Glen, Yvonne McLean, Erich Mueller, Kathy Mueller, Ed Nelson, Glen Rider, Velma Rider, Louise Taylor and Caroline Cager, who is at home. She's a shut-in, but she's watching right now. Please welcome them today.

M. Polak: I, too, would like to welcome the representatives from B.C. Wood. I would like to specifically welcome the attendance of Bill Downing, who is the CEO of B.C. Wood, which is located in my riding of Langley. Will the House please make him welcome.

R. Fleming: I would like to recognize one of the 24 grade 12 students who are here from Victoria High School today — to recognize her and single her out for embarrassment. Miss Courtenay Leonard-Zubyk is here, and she was a tireless worker on my campaign. Would the House please make her feel welcome.

A. Horning: Today in the House I have the honour of introducing some students from the Kelowna area. Lindsay Reddeman is a student at Kelowna Secondary School, and Chris Hall is a student at Boucherie Secondary School. These students are the district student council representatives, and they are here in Victoria taking part in the Association of B.C. School Superintendents conference. They are accompanied by Hugh Gloster, director of instruction for school district 23, and John Rever, the district principal for school district 23. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

M. Karagianis: Today in the House I have two members of my constituency. They are very strong advocates on behalf of the rescue of abused children. I'd like the House to make welcome Brian and Wendy DeCorte.

Hon. G. Abbott: In the Legislature today are two representatives from the British Columbia Naturopathic Association: Vice-President Dr. Christoph Kind and Executive Director Glenn Cassie. They are part of a larger group of naturopathic physicians who are here today to conduct a health and wellness day for Members of the Legislative Assembly. We're still trying to find out who tipped them off that there was a problem. We're working on that.

They're here to demonstrate a variety of diagnostic techniques and procedures used in their primary health care clinics across British Columbia, and I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

C. Evans: Up in the gallery there I have a couple of visitors from Nelson, Glenda Miller and Helen Sebelios. I have an interest in at least one of these people thinking this is honest work. I wonder if members could be on their best behaviour while these folks are watching.

D. Hayer: We have from my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead, Ray Manion, vice-president of export from Masonite International Corp., which exports to Asia. He's in the House here. Can the House please make him very welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. M. de Jong: Bill 17 includes amendments to two statutory provisions: the Legislative Assembly Management Committee Act and the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act.

The key elements of the bill that has just been tabled are to establish salary levels for all MLAs. It defines and ties that salary level to a percentage of what federal Members of Parliament are paid, and that would happen effective April 1, 2006.

The second main part of the bill would re-establish a pension plan for MLAs that is tied to years of service and mandatory contributions from MLAs and government. I should say to members that the bill is the result of extensive discussions and work between the caucus officers for both parties, and I and we are obliged for the work that they have done.

Bill 17, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, introduced, read a first time and ordered to proceed to second reading later today.

D. Hayer: It is an honour to speak today about the courage and dedication of those who won our freedom during the past world conflicts and to talk about those who in recent times have also given their lives for the freedom that we so appreciate in this country.

Tomorrow I will remember a strong and dedicated fighter for the freedom of speech, my father Tara Singh Hayer. And equally as loud, he spoke out in his newspaper against terrorism and injustice. Then on November 18, 1998, in our Surrey family garage, terrorists took the life of my father because he stood for democracy and spoke against terrorism that seeks to destroy our freedom.

To recognize the sacrifice made by my father Tara Singh Hayer, there will be a memorial service at the Guru Nanak Sikh Temple in Surrey. Services will be held Friday to Sunday, with the main service on Sunday, November 20 at 11 a.m. I invite all in this House to join me on that date to celebrate his life and the contributions he made to the cause of peace, security and freedom.

While this tragedy struck deeply into the hearts of my family and all Canadians, it also stunned the Indo-Canadian community, the great majority of whom are dedicated to the freedom and equality that Canada holds so precious.

So I'm reminded personally every day that to keep what we hold so precious, we must be vigilant, and we must be willing to take a stand to preserve our Canadian way of life. Terrorists and terrorism have no place in Canada.

G. Coons: This week marks the first-year anniversary of the unprecedented Supreme Court of Canada decision in the cases of the Taku River Tlingit First Nation and the Haida Nation. These decisions have changed aboriginal rights laws by declaring that the Crown has a duty to consult and accommodate in cases where aboriginal title and rights have not been proven in court and have established a strong legal foundation for first nations as stewards of their territory.

Canadian aboriginal people were here 10,000 years prior to contact. Therefore, the honour of the Crown requires governments to negotiate treaties in order to have a just settlement of claims and to reconcile pre-existing aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty. The Crown's duty to act honourably is enshrined in section 35 of the Constitution Act and applies to all government's dealings with aboriginal people.

This past year has been monumental for first nations in British Columbia as the Supreme Court decision, along with the New Relationship document, has spurred great optimism throughout the province. We have recognized that the historical aboriginal-Crown relationship in B.C. has given rise to the present socioeconomic disparity between first nations and other British Columbians. At the one-year anniversary of the Haida-Taku decisions, which is tomorrow, November 18, there is some anticipation that new life will be injected into treaty negotiations. Our agreement in this House to work together in this new relationship will achieve strong governments, will achieve social justice, will achieve economic self-sufficiency for first nations and will benefit all British Columbians.

J. Nuraney: Unfortunately, reports about shoot-outs and drive-by shootings involving our province's youth have been on the increase at an alarming rate. They almost seem to be a daily occurrence, compared to a few years ago when these types of shootings were rare. This then begs the question: what has changed in our social structure that is encouraging this kind of behaviour?

From what we hear in the media, many of these crimes are connected to the drug trade and the gangs that control it. Many reports identify these gangs with a specific ethnic group. While the media is struggling with the proper nomenclature, it is important for us to understand that these criminals are not representative of any community. It is very easy, but wrong, to gener-

alize when we are speaking of visible minorities. After all, there are bad apples in every barrel.

As we witness the increase in drug crimes, we must also ask ourselves a question as to the reason for this trend. Illegal drug use has been on the rise, and unfortunately our youth have been targeted and are most at risk.

It is, therefore, incumbent on us as members of a caring and concerned society to protect our younger generations from taking up this dangerous and often fatal habit. We need to further build on our comprehensive drug strategy to avert our youth from this addiction and, more importantly, to strengthen our justice system to ensure that crimes involving drugs are not handled leniently. With appropriate awareness and a concerted effort we will, hopefully, be able to achieve this and stop this damaging trend.

M. Sather: A well-attended retirement party for Lola Chapman was recently held in Pitt Meadows. In the early '90s Lola was concerned about street crime in our communities and formed a group called Street Cleaners to address the issue. During this time she noticed the numbers of youth hanging around the streets, some of whom were involved in crime. She attended youth court and became aware of alternative justice measures.

In 1994 Lola founded the innovative Ridge Meadows Youth and Justice Advocacy Association with board representation from the police, schools, teachers, probation and the mayor of Maple Ridge. The association sponsors an innovative program to divert youth, first-time offenders, away from the court system and into a system of restorative justice. Youth in the program are assigned a mentor who meets with the young offender to discuss their crime and to ensure that they are held accountable through community work in making amends to their victims.

Lola has taken the work of the Ridge Meadows Youth and Justice Advocacy Association to a number of other cities in British Columbia. In addition to her work in youth diversion, Lola has been an active member of Victim Services, Citizens Patrol and Block Watch. Her work has been recognized in Ottawa where she was awarded the Governor General of Canada's Meritorious Service Medal. It was noted that as a result of Mrs. Chapman's leadership, the organization has become a model for other communities at home and abroad.

Her contribution to helping troubled youth lead productive and respectful lives is of great benefit to Canadian society. The Youth and Justice Advocacy Association has assisted 1,000 youth in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The vast majority of these youth are not reoffending as adults. Lola Chapman is one of those remarkable individuals who see a social problem and use their energy, enthusiasm and talent to become a significant part of the solution.

J. Yap: Today is the fourth day of International Education Week, which is being celebrated in more than 85 countries around the world. In British Columbia and the rest of Canada it showcases the contribution that international education makes in helping Canadians to participate effectively on the world stage.

Whether it's foreign students studying in Canada or Canadians studying and teaching abroad, international education is a win-win situation for British Columbia. It contributes to the social, cultural and economic development of B.C., and hosting students from around the world adds to the framework of improved international relations. In addition to the social benefits, there is a very positive economic impact as well. Direct revenue includes tuition and school books. Visiting students also spend money on such things as housing, food and entertainment.

This sector of our economy continues to grow. In the 2004-2005 academic year, more than 26,000 long-term and short-term international students were enrolled in post-secondary institutions in B.C. — a 21-percent increase year over year. International students are flocking to British Columbia because of the great reputations of our province and our schools. This past week Maclean's magazine gave B.C. post-secondary institutions their highest rankings ever.

We plan on creating 25,000 new spaces in post-secondary schools by 2010. This government is committed to making B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent, and students from all around the world are clearly recognizing that we have an excellent education system.

B. Simpson: On April 1, 1975, I was a signalman on board the HMCS Mackenzie, which was a destroyer escort and part of a convoy of Canadian warships steaming towards Japan. We had just crossed the international date line and were celebrating our second April 1st day. As I recall, we were in the middle of a potato cannon fight with a destroyer when I happened to receive a communication which I decoded and presented to the captain. The message instructed us to change course and make haste for Vietnam to assist with the evacuation of Canadian citizens and other civilians. The captain thought it was an April Fool's joke and sent a message back to that effect.

However, it was no joke, and we did indeed have to head to Vietnam. The change in the tone on our ship was immediate as fear replaced fun in the hearts and minds of every one of my shipmates. We were eventually rerouted to Japan, but I revisit that day and that feeling every Remembrance Day. It is a personal reminder of what thousands of young men and women must have experienced as they marched off to war and as they endured that long wait for their first, and too often their last, taste of combat.

Remembrance Day is over, and the Year of the Veteran is almost over. But veterans should never be far from our minds as legislators. Young men and women throughout the ages have overcome their fear of death and bodily harm to put their lives on the line for what they believe to be a just cause. For veterans, that just cause was to secure a progressive and democratic society for future generations. We have a special privilege as MLAs to honour and remember our veterans every time we create and pass laws that achieve that vision of a progressive and democratic society.

C. James: Today we learn that there are 713 child death reviews that were abandoned by this government — 713 forgotten children. Now that we know the number, my question is to the Premier. Can he explain why these children and their families were abandoned by this government?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I want to state clearly and categorically: there are no forgotten children. In each of those 713 cases, those files had either been reviewed by the chief coroner in his normal duties as the chief coroner for the province of British Columbia or they had been properly reviewed by a medical professional. What has not been done is that those files have not gone through a second-stage review process as laid out in the child-death review scenario. That had not been done. But for the member opposite to suggest that these are forgotten children is absolutely wrong and, in fact, shameful.

C. James: Well, the government can change definitions all they want. Whether we call them misplaced children or lost children or forgotten children, the fact is that this government ignored these children after they died and didn't do the reviews. Somehow it took this government, at least seven cabinet ministers, three years — three years — to wake up to the fact that child death reviews weren't being done. Today they still don't know why.

My question is to the Premier from his own words: "Ignorance is not a defence; it's negligence." Why did he neglect 713 children?

Hon. J. Les: I want to remind the House that it was during the NDP administration, in fact, when there were nine Ministers of Children and Families.

There were no neglected children. These children's deaths have all been competently and professionally reviewed either by the chief coroner carrying out his appropriate responsibilities as he always does or by medical professionals in the cases where those deaths occurred in an expected and natural way. Those reviews have been done. What has not been done is the child-death review process that we committed to in legislation in 2002, and I have given clear instructions that those are now going to be done expeditiously.

C. James: Once again we see this government pointing fingers everywhere else except looking at their own decisions, their own direction and the impact of those decisions. I heard the minister say that he's going to investigate and get to the bottom of this. But here is the problem. The people of this province don't trust this government. The people of this province don't trust this government's ministers, and they certainly don't trust the Premier to get to the bottom of this scandal. It's time for an independent Children's Commission with automatic investigations, automatic reports and automatic accountability.

Again my question is to the Premier. Will he now reinstate an independent children's commission?

Hon. J. Les: In British Columbia we enjoy the services of a completely professional coroner's service that indeed automatically does many things. Particularly when children pass away in this province, the coroner has completely and clearly laid-out responsibilities.

In addition to that, we have laid out a process in legislation that this House passed in 2002 for child-death review processes to occur. Unfortunately, in 713 of those cases, that did not occur. We have taken steps this week to identify clearly where those files are and what needs to be done. That work is going forward on an urgent basis. I have made a commitment that resources will be made available so that that work can be completed as soon as it's possible to do that.

We have in place a scenario in British Columbia today where child death reviews are in fact occurring as they should. Since January of 2002, 546 child death reviews have been completed and done appropriately and efficiently. The process is working.

A. Dix: Can the Solicitor General confirm that the files of the former children's commissioner are being housed in a Victoria warehouse?

Hon. J. Les: I have not visited any particular location, but I am told that they were in storage in a warehouse in Victoria.

A. Dix: This minister a few minutes ago used the term "shameful." It is shameful to replace a children's commissioner and a Children's Commission — with experts, with committed people, with hard-working people, with people who cared about children — with

a warehouse. It is shameful. That is shameful, and that is the responsibility of this Premier and his ministers in this government.

My question is to the minister. He referred to 549 reviews since January 1, 2003. If they happened, will he come to this House today and table them so we can review them and see his work?

Hon. J. Les: I want to make the point, first of all, that the people who are working in the coroner's service in British Columbia are in fact competent, responsible and professional people and have all of the capabilities required to carry out child death reviews.

Second, the chief coroner of the province has already pointed out that he requires additional resources to compile reports on child death reviews. Those resources will be made available, and those reports, when they are available, will be made available to all members of the public.

R. Austin: I want to talk about one of the 713 forgotten children, one of those temporary files that has been sitting in a warehouse in Victoria for three years. His name is Austin Martel, and he was born in Kitimat. His mother turned to the Children's Commission for help so she could get answers and so future similar deaths could be avoided. However, when this government shut down the commission, the investigation was cancelled.

Is the Premier or the Solicitor General prepared to personally contact the Martel family and explain to them why baby Austin's investigation was abandoned?

Hon. J. Les: I completely empathize with the Martel family and the tragedy that they have been through. They will be contacted in the course of reviewing those files, and they will be given the answers that they seek.

R. Austin: I'm glad to hear that, because my office spoke to her this morning, and she would certainly like a callback.

Austin Martel died only eight days after he was born. He died after a superbug outbreak hit Children's Hospital. His mother wanted to know what happened and if anything could have prevented it. She wanted to know if there were other ways that families could avoid similar tragedies. Can the Premier explain why no one thought it was a good idea to finish that review, get the answers and act on the recommendations?

Hon. J. Les: It would obviously have been a good idea to finish that report, and it still remains a good idea to finish that report. The member is correct. We need to learn from those tragedies so that they can be prevented in the future. That is the entire goal of the child-death review process, and that is why we have taken action this week to make sure that those files become completed and that we carry on with this process so that we can ensure that we can prevent more tragedies like that in the future.

L. Krog: My question, then, is to the Solicitor General. Why is it that this mother, someone for whom one would expect government to have some sympathy…? Why did she not receive a letter explaining this?

Hon. J. Les: I have already outlined that this particular mother and any other parents who were sent letters that these files were going to be closed…. They will all be contacted, and they will be made aware that we are going to deal with these files professionally, appropriately and sensitively.

L. Krog: On June 14 of this year, the child and youth officer sent the NDP a response to an FOI request. In that letter she carefully explained her role in child death investigations between May 1, 2003, and April 18, 2005. She said: "I have not provided advice to the Attorney General's office concerning a child's death or injury, nor have I received a request by the Attorney General for an investigation into a child's death or injury."

We recall the Premier's words: "When a child dies, investigate. When a child dies, pay attention." Can the Attorney General explain why anyone in cabinet, a cabinet with the whole of government to assist and advise it, couldn't possibly notice there were no child death reviews and why the special powers of his office in all that time were never used?

Hon. J. Les: I have already indicated clearly that those matters are actively under investigation. We want to understand exactly why certain things did not happen as they should have happened, and I have also committed to publicly reporting those matters when we have that information.

J. Kwan: Let us be very clear. Ms. Martel received a letter from this government telling her that her child's investigation had been cancelled. It's now three years later, and the minister says, "Oh, don't worry; we're onto it" — three years too late for Ms. Martel.

The coroner's office was not doing the job. The child and youth officer was not doing the job. The Attorney General's office was not even asking people to do the job. No one was completing child death reviews and reporting that to the public. Of the 714 files that have been forgotten, none of them were reviewed by child-death review teams in the province.

No one in cabinet seemed to know about it or care enough to even ask why all these files are sitting in a warehouse. I'd like to know from the Premier: will the Premier answer the question, do the right thing and reinstate the independent children's commissioner so that we could have, once and for all, independent reviews and closure on these files?

Hon. J. Les: I have already outlined for members opposite that the child-death review process in the province of British Columbia since January 2003 has been working well. It has in fact completed 546 different files. There is no need for the Children's Commission to be reinstated, but we are open to advice from the Hughes review that has already been commissioned by this government in terms of any improvements that might be made to the child-death review process.

We are a government that is always willing to learn, willing to evaluate processes and always looking for improvement. Indeed, I look forward to the recommendations that will eventually be made by the Hughes review.

J. Kwan: The minister claims he is willing to take advice. Advice has been given to him, and he's already made his decision that he would not accept the advice that…. His own Premier, when he was in opposition as the leader, called on an independent children's commissioner to review all deaths known to the ministry or as a result of a child dying in the care of the ministry. Well, that was in the past. Today that standard no longer applies.

We know there were 713 forgotten children. We know there are 549 new reviews since 2003, and the government won't release that information. They say that it's coming, but it's not here. Can the Solicitor General tell this House, then, how many of the 1,262 deaths were children known to the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and how many of them were kids like Matthew Vaudreuil, and how many of them were like Kayla John and the Charlie family?

Hon. J. Les: I want to have the members opposite understand one more time, if that's necessary, that we take these responsibilities very seriously. This is about children, and we want to make sure that the tragedies that occur in the province are properly reviewed. We are committed to doing that, and we have done so. The child-death review process since January of 2003 has in fact been very busy doing that and doing that very, very professionally.

To the member's specific question regarding the 713 files that are outstanding, 14 of those were children in the care of the Ministry of Children and Families, and all of those deaths were as a result of natural causes.

C. Wyse: Yesterday the minister mentioned that his staff had spoken to Ms. Tegart, and she told them that she was happy with the recent efforts of the minister on this issue. I was also pleased to hear that my efforts to raise this issue had had some success.

Imagine how surprised I was when I called Ms. Tegart and found that since talking to the minister's staff yesterday at 2:25 p.m., she has withdrawn her letter thanking the minister. After learning of the limited nature of CN's concessions, Ms. Tegart now feels that the minister's staff did not properly explain the situation yesterday.

My question to the minister: will he personally call Ms. Tegart, clearly explain the situation to her and advise her not to sign the contract being imposed by CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, I would be surprised if my staff hadn't made that clear to Ms. Tegart. If they hadn't, we'll make sure we contact her and let her know that. In fact, CN has made it very clear that they can ignore the letter which was sent out and that there is a new letter coming forward. That new letter, as we indicated, will have some very positive benefits. For example, it will waive the annual maintenance fee that was going to be in place till 2007. It will reduce the liability requirements from $10 million to $2 million. It will be in much more friendly, approachable and appropriate language, which I'm sure will make Ms. Tegart and others very happy to receive it.

C. Wyse: As I'm sure my colleagues realize by now, I'm frustrated. The minister has still not been able to prove to my constituents that he understands their concerns. Yesterday when I raised the question about fencing, the minister responded by talking about rail crossings. On November 3 when I raised concerns about private rail crossings, he held up a contract referring to public rail crossings. The minister is clearly confused about the issue here. He doesn't appear to understand the difference between public and private crossings.

I will repeat the question for the sake of the minister, but it is directed to the Premier. Will the Premier stand up and admit that his minister has dropped the ball on yet another file and finally take the leadership that a Premier should and tell residents not to sign the agreement with CN?

Hon. K. Falcon: Here we go again. We canvassed this issue so extensively, and yet these members still yatter on about: "There must be a problem here; there must be a problem there."

I am forced to remind these members of some benefits that they stay very silent about, I notice with interest. For example, $100 million in new investment in the

port of Prince Rupert; the $135 million — now $185 million as a result of the leadership of our Premier — northern development fund for northerners, for the benefit of northerners, to be invested in northern priorities; lower interline shipping rates for shippers; a more efficient railway. It's going to be the catalyst that's going to continue to grow the north so that we will continue to have the best economy in North America.

B. Simpson: I would hope that the Minister of Transportation could stay focused on the issue at hand, which is the needs of individual British Columbians in need of his assistance and his intervention. So let's stay focused.

In September at UBCM a representative of the Canadian transportation authority told me that (1) CN should not be asking for liability insurance at all in their private crossing agreement and (2) I should inform my constituents that they should not sign the agreement without consulting with the CTA.

Four weeks ago I was informed by the CTA that the maintenance fee was not appropriate at all, ever. On November 28, I will be hosting the CTA in my constituency. I would ask the minister to commit today to attend that meeting with private crossing holders and members of the CTA so he could finally inform himself of the facts and the reality of British Columbia citizens that this government has negatively impacted.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm glad that the member opposite is doing that, because maybe he'll actually take the time to finally read the Canada Transportation Act. I've actually been quoting from that act week after week after week. If these members would actually read it, they would understand what it says.

It's always been very clear that anybody that has a private rail crossing that has any issues associated with their dealings with a class one railway — whether it is CN, whether it is CP or whether it is Burlington Northern — has every opportunity through appeal provisions, etc., to deal through the appeal provisions that are laid out in the Canada Transportation Act. I'm glad that member is finally getting up to speed.

B. Simpson: I'll take that as a no, Mr. Speaker. I'll take that as a no, he doesn't want to hear the concerns of real British Columbians. I'll take that as a no, he doesn't want to get his head around the reality of how people are being negatively impacted by this sale all the way up and down the line.

The amendments that this minister takes credit for, which he should not take credit for, are not sufficient. The Canadian transportation authority says there is no excuse for a boilerplate agreement on any private crossing holder. If the minister was going to do his job properly, he would write to every private crossing holder and say: "Do not sign that agreement until you engage the CTA."

Will the minister commit today to take leadership on this issue, engage as a leader on behalf of British Columbia's citizens, write that letter and inform people not to sign the new agreement until they engage the CTA?

Hon. K. Falcon: I must say, Mr. Speaker, I listened to this member natter on and on about this issue, and I'm left wondering whether he actually understands anything of which he speaks. Actually, if that member would do his homework, he would know — and I've said in this House before — that those agreements are negotiable. CN made it very clear they were withdrawing those agreements. A new agreement is coming forward. It's taking away a whole bunch of the issues they've been going on about.

But I will tell this member one thing. One of the things I do hear from the folks up in his neck of the woods in the Cariboo and the interior is that they do understand benefits. They sure understand $185 million, one of the big benefits coming out of the B.C. Rail–CN partnership. They sure understand when $750 million of new property taxes over the 90-year term of that lease are going to pour into communities up and down that corridor. They sure understand that.

They sure understand when they get lower rates for interline shipping that are going to improve the economies of the interior and the north. They sure understand that. This member won't understand, but British Columbians sure understand.

On Tuesday night I attended a meeting in Port Alberni dealing with the two-year standoff in Cathedral Grove. There's a controversial parking lot being proposed there, and there are people in the trees, and they've been there for a long time. The ministry staff explained that the minister could not attend, as previously advertised. I've been receiving inquiries. It is getting confusing, and I am confused.

Was the minister attending? Did he attend that meeting on Tuesday evening in Port Alberni?

Hon. B. Penner: Let me dispel the rumour right now. I was not camped out in the trees in Cathedral Grove, but I was able to get to the public-comment part of the meeting. Unfortunately, due to difficulty getting out of the building — out of previous commitments here — I was not able to get to the presentation part of the meeting, but I was able to take part or at least hear some of the comments that the public had to make. Then I did return here to Victoria.

We are consulting with the public. We have a link on our website. We are accepting more public feedback

and comments and suggestions until December 9. I encourage all people who are monitoring these events to send their ideas to the ministry, and we will consider those and hopefully make a decision in the near future to protect the environmental aspects of that park — but also to protect and enhance public safety.

S. Fraser: I appreciate the minister's comments, and I appreciate the ministry's work on this. Many of my constituents showed up that night. I know I was a big draw as the MLA, but the minister was the star billing there and well advertised. As it turns out, the minister was there for the public portion of the meeting but did not come forward.

On behalf of my constituents, how could the minister not reveal his presence while the questions were being asked of him and while his own staff stood at the front of the room trying to explain his absence?

Hon. B. Penner: It is not often I get accused of not seeking publicity. I certainly appreciate the member's belief that somehow I would have been a big draw. As I told the member — I had a chance to speak to him in person the day before the meeting, I think — I wasn't sure if my schedule would permit me to attend, but I would make every effort. I can tell the member that I did manage to get there — however, not as soon as I would have liked.

This meeting was about revealing the options that the staff have studied over the last 11 or 12 years. Actually, since 1972, public safety hazards have been identified by the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Parks or the Ministry of Environment responsible for parks in that area of British Columbia. The park is beautiful, but at present it does pose, in my view, excessive risk. The member has told me he shares that view and supports the work the ministry is doing in terms of identifying options to try and remediate that risk while protecting environmental attributes in the park.

I think if we get it right, we can do a number of things: improve safety and enhance the qualities of the park for public enjoyment.

S. Simpson: My understanding is that the minister is quite right. He wasn't up in the trees; he was hiding in the back of the room. This isn't good enough. There were 80-odd people there. They're discussing an issue that's very important to them. The minister is in the room. He doesn't let his presence be known to those people, who came there to see him, to talk to him — not to talk to his staff, to talk to him.

S. Simpson: The question I have for the minister is: is the minister saying he drove to Port Alberni and back — a seven-hour-or-so round trip — only to not answer questions, to hide in the back of the room and to have his staff cover up for him? Is that leadership?

Hon. B. Penner: It's true that I didn't want to dominate the meeting with my very dominant personality. This meeting was advertised as a presentation by Ministry of Environment staff, and…

Hon. B. Penner: …I did get a chance to talk to a number of people there at the meeting.

Hon. B. Penner: I also appreciate the comments from the member from Port Alberni–Qualicum that he views that the job the staff did was very good and professional in terms of presenting the options and responding to comments from the public.

We are receiving that input until December 9. I encourage people to visit the website and look at the options that have been laid out. I think the time is coming near when we have to make a decision and move forward so that we can enhance the attributes of that park, including public education, by making it safer and more accessible for members of the public — including school groups and tourists — as well as protecting the environmental attributes in the park that people go there to visit in the first place.

G. Coons: I'd like to table two petitions. The first is from the Mill Bay ferry advisory committee, who I introduced today. There are concerns that turning the operation of the Brentwood-to-Mill Bay ferry route over to a private for-profit concern will lead to a reduction in service levels and increased fares, adversely affecting local commuting traffic, first nations culture, business, tourism and communities in general on both sides of the Saanich Inlet. There are close to 1,400 signatures on the first petition.

The second petition is from the Friends of Wild Salmon who, again, I introduced earlier. The petition of close to 4,000 signatures indicates that they are concerned about the Skeena watershed in the north coast region. They insist that the governments of British Columbia and Canada immediately place a morato-

rium on any further expansion of open-net cage finfish farms on the coast of British Columbia.

D. Chudnovsky: I'd also like to table a petition today. This petition is from residents of the east side of Vancouver who are opposed to the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge and the expansion of Highway 1.

Hon. M. de Jong: Politicians, salaries, benefits, pensions. I can't think of many other issues that for some odd reason are as vexing or as fraught with political quicksand as the ones we are dealing with in Bill 17.

I have been here for some time — not as long as some and longer than others — and I have yet to see a parliament that I have been a part of or ones that I have observed deal with these issues in a way that doesn't strike the casual observer as, at the end of the day, being entirely self-serving. It's hard to argue that, because we're here now debating a bill that provides for direct benefits to each and every person in this chamber.

Whether it is this Legislature or the parliament in Ottawa…. There are many members in this chamber who have sat and done this in perhaps an even more focused way as part of a local town council or as a school trustee. I was reminded by someone just earlier today about the controversy that erupted at their council when they voted themselves a $100 raise to their stipend.

People are watching today for reasons that I will explain. It is in ways that it hasn't been in this chamber, in this parliament, a very public process. That's, of course, how it is in those other bodies that I've talked about — school boards and town councils. They sit around in their chambers, and they have these discussions from time to time. And it's very difficult, for one, for them. It is and has been and will continue to be in the days ahead, I'm sure, a difficult discussion for us — each and every member.

Before I spend a moment talking about the contents of Bill 17, I hope members will permit me to speak about the process by which we arrived at this day and the discussions that have taken place between the caucus officers for the official opposition and for the government caucus. I think that all members will appreciate the work those individuals have done in trying to take the at times disparate views of their colleagues and to engage with individuals who, for other purposes in this place, are political adversaries and try and set that aside and arrive at a response or solution that is reasonable and can be seen as reasonable by people who are perhaps less familiar with the work that members in this chamber do.

That is a challenge, because I have not yet met a member who has not, after some time at work here either as an opposition member or a government member, said — and I said it: "God, I had no idea. I didn't know it was going to be like that." Taking those views and opinions and people's thoughts about what one's obligations are and what the response from the state should be in terms of remuneration — in terms of salaries and benefits and, in this case, a pension — is a very difficult thing.

I want to pay tribute to the work and the leadership of the Opposition House Leader and to the caucus chair for the opposition for the assistance that they have derived and, also, on the government side to the caucus chair and the Whip. This is not easy work, and I know that members themselves, as they have learned of the details of the discussions, agonize at times over the results. But we are all, I would suggest, indebted to the work that these individuals have done and the objectivity they have, in my view, tried to bring to the discussion, which has led to the creation of the document we are now debating. I want to thank all of those individuals for the work they have done.

Members should know that it became apparent to me, as one who has seen various manifestations of this over the past dozen or so years, that there was a steadfast desire to do things differently in this case. Mr. Speaker, I should say that as the head of the committee that is referred to as the legislative accounts management committee, you have played an instrumental role in helping to facilitate those discussions. I think you would agree and compliment, in fact, the members, because very early on in those discussions there was an agreement — a consensus — that in this case all members were going to be involved and that it was time to bring these discussions out from the committee, out from where the results are revealed in minutes of the committee, and say: "No, we want members to have an opportunity to stand up and articulate their opinions."

Now, on a day like today there are perhaps some who are saying, "I'm not so sure I wish you had done that," but I think it's the right thing to do. In fact, I'm convinced it's the right thing to do — to have these deliberations, relying upon the leadership of the people within the caucuses to have the discussions, and then to bring the results of that, both for the benefit of members and for the public that pays the bill so that the public can in an uncomplicated way have answers to questions as basic as: how much do we pay these guys? What do they earn?

Ironically, after more than a dozen years here, Mr. Speaker, when I asked that question — what actually is the authority for what MLAs get paid? — it was, as you might recall, a bit of a complicated answer. "Well, it's such and such an act." "Well, it's not actually in that act." "Well, it's in another statute." "Well, it's not actually in that statute."

As it turns out, it is…. Well, I shouldn't call it an obscure notation, but it is the minutes of some meeting of some committee that happened some time ago. I dare say that members of the public who wanted to verify that would have some difficulty locating those minutes and that material.

We said: "No, let's simplify this. Let's bring that information, enshrine it in a statute, make it clear. And all of those stipends that go with being Premiers or opposition leaders or caucus chairs or Whips or Speakers or cabinet ministers — let's list them all, lay them out there clearly for people to see and be upfront about what the amounts are." If people want to be critical of that, at least they'll have accurate information and a place they can go to criticize accurately.

One of the hallmarks of Bill 17 is the table, which I think members are aware of, that lays out those amounts. The fact that this is now set in law by statute in hopefully a discernible way is a major step forward and, I will say somewhat immodestly, a tribute to the work of the caucus officers and also of the chamber itself, which over the course of the past eight to ten weeks has already distinguished itself as a chamber where the benefits of measured debate have become apparent in a number of different ways.

So what about the bill? What are the guts? What are the specific provisions? Well, it deals firstly with payment and, first and foremost, with the pay we get as MLAs. We are MLAs first and foremost, and that base pay is addressed specifically in this bill. Today MLAs in British Columbia receive a salary of $75,400. In addition to that, the state contributes an amount of just about $6,800 to an RRSP. When we get our T4 slips at the end of the year, we've received just over $82,000, of which $75,000 is considered the base salary.

In this bill the amount is now set at $86,580 as the base salary for MLAs. The question that logically flows from the presence of that figure in a statute — which to my knowledge has not happened in the past, certainly not in living memory — is where the amount came from. Where did the figure come from?

The answer to that lies in the very section in the bill where the amount is contained. We are recommending to the Legislature that the amount we pay our Members of the Legislative Assembly in British Columbia be contained in a formula. That formula ties the amount to what members of the federal parliament are paid. It sets a percentage. It says that if you run and are elected to office here in British Columbia in the Legislature, going forward starting April 1 of next year you will be paid 60 percent of what a Member of Parliament in Ottawa is paid. Today that amount is $144,300. It changes periodically. It is adjusted, and the amount that MLAs are paid would also adjust, so that the need to revisit this difficult, vexing and tough issue is gone, one hopes.

The word that I kept thinking about as we were having these discussions is the reasonableness test: is that reasonable? Obviously, I think it is. I believe the Opposition House Leader thinks it is. The people who bring this recommendation to you, the various caucus officers, believe it is. Others may not. Are the people who work here worth just over half of what we pay federal Members of Parliament? I like to think so, but on matters of this sort it will ultimately be the public who decide whether we're right. I hazard to guess that we will firstly hear from those who disagree with the proposition. We will, I'm sure, hear a fair bit from them.

It is, I hope, a principle that members are comfortable with, in the sense that it says that we do value the work as a society that people do when they come to this chamber, and we want them to know in a very tangible and real way how we value that. That will take their salary from the combined amount of just over $82,000 that they receive today to $86,580 — that being 60 percent of what Members of Parliament are paid in Ottawa.

Members, I think, have had the benefit of reviewing some numbers, via the caucus officers, about where we are placed in comparison — where members of this Legislature are compared to other legislators in Canada today and where this amount would place them. I've already mentioned that the House of Commons pays members there $144,300. Today the other amounts of note would be the province of Quebec, which does include a tax-free allowance and which is calculated at a total amount of just over $98,000; the Northwest Territories, at $87,000; and the province of Ontario, at $86,860.

The raise that this act would provide for members of this chamber would squarely place us third in terms of the order and the comparator with other legislators. Is that reasonable? Well, the presence of this bill here today tells you, again, that I think so. I can assure you that it also is here, in part, because we believe that the opposition caucus officer thinks so as well. But again, the final arbiter of that fact will be the public that pays every one of those dollars, and they'll have to decide whether that 60-percent figure is reasonable.

There is a table in the bill. It's easy to spot because it's kind of a rarity. I'm not sure that it exists anywhere else. It certainly doesn't exist in the statutory history of this place, or at least the one that I'm aware of. Within the bill it lays out the various additional stipends that executive council members, opposition leaders, caucus officers and Third Party officials will receive. They're easy to criticize because they're easy to find. They're right there.

Again, their presence in that form I hope tells you that we think they are reasonable and commend them to you. In some cases they refer to positions that have not existed in this parliament, but that is actually in the case of some of the changes that have been made during this session to additional participation in the Speaker's role. I think that's something we can be proud of. That is a positive step forward, and the table reflects that fact.

Again, you are more likely to hear in the hours, days and weeks ahead from those who disagree pro-

foundly with me and will describe this as another example of the self-serving intentions of politicians. People will themselves make those decisions.

There is another equally important provision in this bill. I can tell members who may not have been here that there are a few of us on both sides of the chamber that were here the last time this discussion came up. It relates to a pension. This bill creates what is termed in the bill as a part 3 pension. For the layperson, it re-creates a form of pension that heretofore…. Well, it re-establishes a form of pension that people often associate with, but which has not existed in, British Columbia with respect to this Legislature.

I have heard from countless members and even former members, and they have told me about the discussions they have had with constituents where the discussion has gone like this: "Look, I'm not actually able to support you this election." Sometimes they say they're able to support you. "I'm not actually able to support you, but don't worry. It'll be okay because you've got that pension." Of course, that has not been the case here, and that was a purposeful decision of a former parliament and was done in response to a set of conditions, perceptions that existed. There will be those who will say that was the correct decision and to alter that now and re-introduce anything even remotely similar to that is a mistake.

Well, people in this chamber will know that their caucus officers adopted a different opinion. At the end of the day, people will decide whether the principles that this pension is built around are, again, reasonable or not. Though these are terribly complicated and complex matters, I will endeavour to summarize the principles upon which this pension is built.

First of all, before a member has any entitlement whatsoever, they must have served six years. That, of course, requires that they be re-elected at least once. Before the pension would vest in its entirety, they will have to have served 12 years. At that point they would be entitled to the full pension, having made the contributions that are required as part of the plan, which under this bill become mandatory on January 1 of the new year — 9 percent of the salary that is referred to earlier in the bill. They'll have to make those contributions. After 12 years — if that is the case, if they are here — they will be entitled to 65 percent of the average of the best three years' salary — their best three earning years as an MLA.

I can look around this chamber, and even beyond it, and know that there are a myriad of different circumstances. So there are transitional measures that go with that, which your caucus officers are aware of and have tried to make provision for dealing with. At the end of the day, though, what we as members of this chamber will need to determine and satisfy ourselves on is that those principles are reasonable and are defensible in the eyes of the public that give us the honour to sit here and that pay every dollar of that pension plan.

I and, I think, the Opposition House Leader will commend to you a comparison of what exists in other pension schemes and suggest to you that it does stand the reasonableness test. But you have to satisfy yourself with that fact, because you are going to meet people who are not satisfied that that is so.

The bill confirms a statutory authority for severance provisions that actually have been acted upon in the past but for which there was some doubt about the specific statutory authority, so the bill includes specific reference to that and removes any doubt that may exist about that.

At the end of the day — I will say this to members, and I'll end where I began — these are horribly difficult discussions for politicians to have. They are by their very definition self-serving. In fact, it's the one exception within the Constitution Act of the province and, I think, the Members' Conflict of Interest Act — but I'm not sure — where the law says you are entitled and obliged to deal with these matters, and it is always difficult. It is always very difficult, and yet I am convinced and I am proud to say that as caucus officers, our colleagues on the opposition side agreed to say that this is the place where this should happen. It is in the statute and it is in this chamber where members should say, "This is what I believe the remuneration should be, and this is what I believe the benefits should be," and for everyone to stand and be counted when it comes time to decide that matter.

I again thank all of the members and the individuals who helped work through this, and I commend the provisions of this act to you. It is here. It is a product of intensive efforts. At the end of the day, it is, I believe, a reasonable approach to this issue. It is novel, and for us to be here in this chamber having this discussion is unprecedented.

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I rise to follow the Minister of Labour, the Government House Leader, and speak on Bill 17 and the issues that it pertains to. I want to thank him for his comments. Some of them I will touch on; some of them I will expand upon. One I want to address right away, and that is that this is probably the most or one of the most difficult issues that we face as legislators.

I have served in this House for two full terms. This is my third term. Many of you have served for that same length of time, interrupted in some cases but nonetheless a considerable amount of time. Many of you are new, and this is your first experience in dealing with this issue. I can assure you that it doesn't matter whether you have been here 17 years or one year.

The uncomfortableness and the issues and the angst that you feel, we all feel. Because nowhere in any other segment of society is the process of setting your pay and benefits done the way it is with us. At the end of the day, we are the ones who vote on that. It is the role of this assembly to do that, and it is a very uncomfortable thing for most people. As the member said, it can be seen as self-serving, and many people will see it as self-serving. But it's also important, and it's also something that we have to do.

Bill 17, I think, does a number of things besides salary, besides pensions. It also deals with constituency services, and those are an incredible part of the work that we do. Many people see us here in this chamber and think that this is basically the majority part of our work as legislators. It's not. A great deal of our work as legislators is outside this chamber, in our communities — our home communities and our distant communities — relating to responsibilities as ministers, relating to responsibilities as critics. That takes us to all parts of this province and is a significant part of the work that we do as legislators.

The issues that people face every day in terms of how the provincial government touches them, whether it's health care, social assistance, education, environment — all the things that the province delivers…. If there are issues and problems, they come through our doors. That is a significant part of the work we do as legislators, and Bill 17 deals with a lot of that.

I'm going to touch on that, but I want to go back and talk a little bit about process, because it is important that we recognize, as I said, that we're in a unique situation, not just in terms of how the public perceives us but in terms of how we operate here in this House. We operate in an adversarial system, with a government and an opposition. We conduct ourselves on that basis most of the time we're in here, and we give and take as good as we can get. It gets heated in here. There are profound issues that we deal with and strong opinions and feeling on that.

That makes it difficult sometimes to put aside the partisan side of us, to be able to sit down and talk about issues of commonality to us and issues that concern us all, such as constituency resources, pay and benefits, pensions. That's why we have in this Legislature, chaired by the Speaker, LAMC, the Legislative Assembly Management Committee, which deals with these issues, big and small. Sometimes that committee works and things get accomplished, and sometimes that committee doesn't work, as has happened in the past. It's not a perfect process. I don't think there's any process that's a perfect process when it's dealing with issues like this.

I think what's important and what the public and all of us in this House need to know is that the LAMC committee worked long and hard and agonized over many of these issues and looked at them in the terms of what they mean for members today, what they mean for members' constituencies and also what they mean for members yet to come. It's not just each and every one of us here today. It's also the institution and those who will sit in this place in parliaments to come. That's important, and it's something we need to realize. It's something we must recognize.

In our discussions we tried to come to some principles that we could agree on as legislators that would guide us in our deliberations. Those principles were that we should be in line with other provinces, that we should recognize the work and the service that legislators do, that their compensation should be fair in regard to what's paid in other provinces, that we ought to recognize the work that's done in the constituency and that those need to form, to found, a basis for our discussions.

We also recognized that at the end of whatever package we came up with, it needed to be voted on in this Legislature by every member of this House — and that the public sees that vote taking place. The Government House Leader said that for the first time in legislation all the payments and the salaries and benefits of MLAs will be made public, and the same for constituency relations. That is now the case.

We wanted to ensure that we did not have to do this time and time again, and that's why we came up with the formula of tying it to federal parliament. It removes some of the challenge in dealing with these issues. Not always. There will always be an exception, but I think that the committee has succeeded in that. The committee did that by being able to talk frankly and freely and to recognize the importance of the work we were doing and the need for it to be, at the end of the day, voted on in this House. I think that's a significant thing.

We also went and discussed it with our respective caucuses so that each member of caucus could state their feelings, could put their point of view and so that we could come to a consensus. We've been able to do that here in this House. It is a difficult thing. For many members, it is not an easy decision to come to, but come to it we have. Bill 17 is a body of legislation that I hope will serve us not just today but into the years and parliaments to come.

I want to talk now about the main provisions of the legislation. The Minister of Labour, the Government House Leader, has already outlined them. I made some comments a moment ago about constituency services and the ability to service constituents. That is more important today than it has been. It becomes more important with each passing year in this province that we are able to serve our constituents because government, not by design, becomes more complicated. Issues become more complicated.

There are — environmental, health care, education, social service — a whole gamut of issues that we deal with on a daily basis. It is that work and our ability to work on behalf of our constituents which is important. It's not the same for every member. We have a large area of this province where members serve large rural ridings with small communities, medium-sized communities, separated by hundreds of miles. The issues affecting those people need to be addressed. Without the resources to do it, it makes the job very difficult, and the public in those ridings and those communities don't get the full value that they could with an MLA who has the ability to deal with the complexities and the vastness of rural British Columbia.

We have members whose ridings run the entire length of the Rockies, who go through mountain passes, who go through rivers and valleys, and in some cases prairies, in winter that most people in the lower

mainland don't see or maybe see once a year. Those members, when they're not here in this House, are there every single day doing the work that they were sent to do by the public. We need to recognize that, and the resources that this bill will give to those members allow that to take place.

In the lower mainland we have a different challenge. We live in a province that is changing more year by year than it has done in decades, a demographic that is unique in many parts of the world. As MLAs we now deal with people who speak a multitude of different languages. They require help in accessing services, often in languages that are other than English or in very limited English. Most MLAs in the lower mainland did not have that problem ten years ago, 15 years ago. Some did. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has always had in her riding a large Asian community, for example.

I can tell you that in 1991, when I was elected in my community of Port Coquitlam, for example, it was very much a middle-class industrial community served by a railway. At that time if you looked at the local census, the Asian community was 2 percent. In 1996 it was 15 percent.

We as legislators need to be able to help people, to have the resources that allow us…. If we need to communicate with people in another language, we can do that. That's crucial. That's very, very important, and we need to recognize that. This bill does that.

The constituency resources piece may not seem important to many people, but for those of us who do this work, it is important. It doesn't come to us. It doesn't go into our pocket. It goes to serve, to provide services to our constituents. That is our primary job, and we need to recognize that.

The other two pieces are perhaps, as the Government House Leader has indicated, the areas, the ones where people will judge us and hold strong opinions. But again, I say that we need to look at those sections in the context of where we stand in relation to other provinces and in terms of the principle which the committee dealt with in ensuring that people are compensated fairly.

The base pay, the pay increase, as has been pointed out and is set out in the schedule, takes us to the third position in Canada, which is what we were in 1997. Over the last few years we were, I believe, number four or number five. It takes us to number three, which is our size as a province in terms of population and also the size in terms of our constituencies, and the committee felt it was a fair place to settle. By tying it to a rate of 60 percent of the federal, we ensured that would be the case.

The issue of pension is one that many members in this House struggle with. It's often one…. As the Government House Leader quite rightly pointed out: "Don't worry; you have a pension." I learned that firsthand in 2001. And no, I didn't have a pension. I found other work.

I think one of the things we need to recognize — and it is something that you only learn by serving in this House, or any other House or Legislature for that matter, is that most of us come here for the first time enthusiastic, full of idealism and recognizing that we're not here for a long time but to do a job and get on with things. They don't think they'll be here for a second term or possibly a third term, but people do stay here for two terms and sometimes three terms, if the voters return them.

The one thing they find, which most people don't recognize, is that they cannot go back to what they left behind. Their skills change. Their law practice, they can't go back to. Their medical profession, they can't go back to. After their first term they have to make a choice, and it's often a very difficult choice. So we need to ensure that those things such as pensions for all people, which we believe strongly in, are also here for legislators.

We also know the complaint about pensions that's made by the public. One of the things that the committee did and that this bill does is make sure that this pension is significantly different than the old pension. Under the old pension, years of age plus service could get you 80 percent of your best three years' salary, and you could conceivably collect it at 42, 43. For many people, that was…. They did not agree with that.

We dealt with and recognized those issues in putting together this package in this legislation — that there are age limits, that the pension is available at 60 and at 55 only with a maximum of 12 years of service and that the amount you could collect would not be 80 percent. It would not be 70 percent, as is the public service plan in British Columbia, but it would be 65 percent.

We tried to recognize the concerns that have been made by people, and we tried to anticipate some of those concerns. So we took it and we felt, okay, this is a fair and reasonable package that people can feel, members can feel, comfortable with. As was already stated, that will be judged in the public realm, the public domain, and there may well be those who have criticism about it. But I think it's important to remember that the principles that guided us in this were to ensure that we are able to better serve our constituents and that the compensation that we pay to ourselves keeps us in line with other provinces — and this does that.

With that, hon. Speaker, I would like to close my remarks, thank the Government House Leader, you and the other members of the LAMC committee, and take my place.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, Government House Leader closes debate.

Second reading of Bill 17 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. M. de Jong: I move, by leave, that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House forthwith.

Bill 17, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 17; S. Hawkins in the chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 17, Legislative Assembly Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in both chambers Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber, Committee B, continued estimates for the Ministry of Health, and in Committee A, continued estimates debate for the Ministry of Finance.

D. Cubberley: For the next section of estimates, we're going to go into some discussion of mental health issues. I'm going to defer to my colleague the member for Cariboo South.

C. Wyse: Recognizing the brevity of time, if I have questions, hon. minister, and answers aren't readily available, I would be very amenable to having your staff simply research the question and provide answers to me in writing. If it assists you, my first three questions are going to be in the broad area under Pharmacare, and one of them deals with a specific request for a review that is in front of your staff to the acting executive director of Pharmacare.

Because of the shortness of time, I have prioritized questions and am doing some triaging here. Will your ministry consider a review for Botox treatment of a dystonia occurring below the neck as a result of anti-psychotic drugs? While this is under consideration, would the review of a request that has been with your ministry staff since October 19 be dealt with on an individual basis as soon as possible? If it assists your staff, it was sent to the acting executive director of Pharmacare on October 19, 2005, and it is signed by five consulting physicians.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. Botox remains under review. There is no decision yet with respect to whether it will be added to the Pharmacare formulary, but we do expect a decision soon. In the case of the individual who has advanced the request, we hope that she will hear very soon, because we're dealing with that in an expedited manner to give her a determination.

C. Wyse: Thank you for that response. The second question once more deals with medication, with mental illness. The drug is Strattera — S-t-r-a-t-t-e-r-a. A request had been sent. The cost on a monthly basis is about $300 for this particular drug. It is not presently covered for schizophrenia. The question I'm asking is: is there consideration for this drug to be added to the list of Pharmacare prescriptions for schizophrenia?

Hon. G. Abbott: The drug in question, Strattera, has been submitted for review by the ministry. The submission is made by the manufacturer to the ministry for our review. Interestingly, or perhaps curiously, though, it has been submitted for review for the treatment of ADHD rather than schizophrenia. I'm not sure if there might be some confusion around the name of the drug, or perhaps there may be more than one application of the drug that it's being considered for or could be considered for.

C. Wyse: The information I have, in this case, is that it's been prescribed for schizophrenia. I leave that information with the ministry.

The next two questions are going to be connected with Pharmacare again — Alzheimer's medications. There are three Alzheimer's medications which have been approved by Health Canada as being safe and efficacious and which are listed in the provincial drug formularies of all provinces but Newfoundland and B.C. My questions are: what is your ministry doing, and what are the time frames for possible inclusion of these three drugs on the Pharmacare listing?

Hon. G. Abbott: The question the member raises is a very important and a very difficult one, particularly for those who have had family members afflicted with Alzheimer's disorders. The challenge is that there is a growing body of evidence internationally and nationally that the drugs in question are not effective in terms of the management of Alzheimer's. That growing body of international evidence reinforced the results of reviews that were conducted in this province, as well, when those three drugs were being reviewed.

Part of the challenge is that I certainly hear from clinicians that in specific cases there appears to be at least anecdotal evidence that the condition of some Alzheimer's patients may improve when treated with these drugs. That is the very difficult challenge in weighing off anecdotal evidence of assistance for some versus a much larger body of evidence suggesting that the efficacy of those three drugs is much in question.

What we have been doing to try to resolve this very difficult situation is to work with the Alzheimer Society and others to try to craft a research proposal that would give us a better understanding of the interaction of these drugs with individual patients. My staff has been working very hard on this. We have made some progress in moving towards a resolution of this with the Alzheimer Society.

We will be considering some innovative proposals to try to deal with this, but we are still at least a short distance away from being able to make any public pronouncement on it.

C. Wyse: Thank you again for the answer. Two-part questions are often difficult to track. Firm time lines on this particular proposal?

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe that by the end of the calendar year, we should have a pretty good idea about how this will be managed.

C. Wyse: I may have unintentionally misled you. I believe I told you I had another question on Pharmacare. It actually isn't. It's in the area of dementia, and it's more with a program rather than with specific meds. With that correction, what is B.C.'s dementia strategy as it currently exists?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question on dementia. It's a challenge that seems almost inevitably to face most families at some point, so it's a very important challenge, from our perspective, in health.

We have a B.C. dementia working group, with the participation of the B.C. Medical Association, the Alzheimer Society of B.C., the regional health authorities and the Ministry of Health. They are all working on building a chronic disease model of dementia care. Importantly, a dementia policy conference was held in 2004, entitled Transforming Dementia Care in B.C., addressing gaps and improving care.

Out of that comes a three-pronged approach to managing dementias. One is our work in partnership with the B.C. Medical Association — their physicians along with nurses, the Ministry of Health, the health authorities and allied support organizations — in building a collaborative so that there is primary care counselling and support around the issue of dementia.

Secondly, in the area of specialty care and, in particular, residential care, including assisted living and residential care, we're looking at what models will work most successfully in terms of the management of dementia. I know that in a number of locations in B.C. now, we have a model within the realm of both assisted living and residential care called dementia cottages. Those may well prove to be part of a kind of best-practices approach to how to manage the disorder.

In some cases, we're able to accommodate both couples and individuals within the assisted-living realm when one of the partners is affected by dementia. We're also continuing with home care, looking at respite programs to assist the primary care giver to have an opportunity to get a break, because that's frequently a major challenge as well.

The third area or approach is around Pharmacare and, potentially, the pharmaceuticals or drugs that might support individuals who have been afflicted by dementia. We are establishing best-practice clinical guidelines for physicians in this province — that's working through the Medical Services Commission — and we are working with the individual health authorities to build strategies that will work to meet the circumstances they face in their geographic areas.

C. Wyse: My follow-up question to that, to give you a heads-up, is a relatively complicated question and has several components contained within it.

Will the minister confirm that, having included dementia in the chronic disease management program, the Ministry of Health will, in the next budget period, commit to developing and implementing a service framework for dementia provincewide, ensuring that each health authority has responsibility to implement a collaborative and coordinated, evidence-based approach to high-quality service development and delivery, dementia education, the building of dementia care programs and the support and treatment of people affected by dementia, from diagnosis through to end-of-life care?

Hon. G. Abbott: I am pleased to advise the member that I think most of, if not all, the suggestions contained in his question are already under construction across B.C. We are trying to build those supportive models in each of the health authorities to ensure, for what is certainly a prominent mental health issue today and, as we age as a society, likely an even greater challenge tomorrow, we have an opportunity to meet that.

We are convinced that the collaborative primary care model is the way to go, and that this is not really something one legislates into existence. These collaboratives are built on a bottom-up basis rather than a top-down basis. All the health authorities are in the process of developing strategies in relation to dementia. Staff reckon that the Interior Health Authority and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority are the most advanced of the health authorities in respect of the development of those strategies, but I think all are moving forward with strategies in that area.

A final point I'd make in respect of dementia is that for many people, one of the very best guides that one can secure, not only on a very broad range of health and medical issues but in relation to issues very much like dementia, is the B.C. HealthGuide. There is this year in the latest edition a much expanded section related to dementia.

If one of one's loved ones were to be diagnosed with the disorder — or even if one suspected — or if a caregiver felt they needed advice on an issue, the B.C. HealthGuide is a great place to start. There they can secure advice and quite possibly direction on where to go if they still need additional assistance or additional answers to questions they may have.

C. Wyse: I once more thank him for the response. Dealing with the funding component commitment for the next budget year for this being funded across the province…. I may have missed the response for that part of the question.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's important to note that in terms of the budget we provide to the health authorities, we aren't terribly prescriptive in terms of going through the 57 different areas we feel are important and saying they have to spend so much here or so much there. They get a block or universal budget, and from that, they will have their own much more detailed budgets in terms of how they manage the dollars.

We do, however, have a performance agreement that would set out how we expect them to meet the needs of the population. Very important among those issues in the performance agreement and those population needs is developing a continuum of care, and it's not only for the elderly, because occasionally some of these disorders can strike earlier than age 65-plus. There is an expectation in the performance agreement that they'll develop a continuum of care, and a very important part of that continuum of care is geriatric mental health services.

C. Wyse: Would Cariboo South work for the Chair? It would be easier for me to be from Cariboo South.

C. Wyse: No apologies required. I would like to go back to a role I have a chance to fulfil.

Because of our time frames, I'm going to leave that issue and move on. I now have a series of questions in the general area of detox, so that your staff have somewhat of a heads-up. Can the minister tell me how much funding in the mental health and addictions budget is dedicated to addiction services?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a major challenge in breaking down the overall figure for mental health and addictions because, as the member well knows — he has dealt in some depth in these issues — there is frequently a correlation between mental health challenges and addiction challenges. Sometimes that can run as much as a 30 percent correlation or overlap on those two. When an individual enters into the system, they are often actually dealing with a couple of issues — sometimes a mental health challenge in combination with an addiction challenge — so it's difficult to do a precise breakdown.

In terms of the mental health and addictions budget, because these have been linked since 2000-2001, the…. Back in 2000-2001 the budget was $851.411 million. It has risen every year: to $917 million the following year, to just over a billion dollars in 2002-2003 and now about $1.1 billion in the current fiscal year. It's an area where we keep adding resources and, as well, keep trying to find ways we can expend those resources in the most effective fashion.

We certainly welcome the member's comments and suggestions, if he's got some thoughts around that. I don't think any of us would ever claim we have perfected this system. There's a lot of need out there, and sometimes we're responding to issues like crystal meth that seem to pop up. It's a challenging area of public policy. A lot of great work is being done, but we're always looking for ways to improve it as well. I welcome the member's further questions or comments.

C. Wyse: I thank the minister. My questioning — again, so the Chair has some idea where I'm coming from…. I'm trying to find the cohesiveness for the universality and the accessibility across five health regions. Frankly, I'm having trouble finding it. I've tried to develop questions along the way to see whether I've simply missed that particular item.

When you get a book of this nature, where in essence you have a very large sum of money that has been turned over to the health authorities and they are

now dealing with the issues, it's very difficult to determine an overall provincial scope and approach to the delivery of both mental health as well as addiction, never mind the duality of the diagnoses. That information, I'm hoping, will assist the minister to have some understanding of the basis behind my questions.

On the breakdown of the funds for addictions, how are they divided up to the various health authorities? We can concentrate just upon last year's figures and the rationale behind the assignment of that sum to each health authority.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm always impressed by how sort of multi-textured and multi-levelled these questions can become in a hurry. The member asked how dollars are distributed among the health authorities. It is a population needs–based formula. Obviously, the size of the health authority from a population perspective is going to enter into it, but in an expansive geography, that would be a factor as well.

The average age of the citizens. Would there be an expectation that because there are more elderly, there should be some recognition of that? There is in this formula. The size of the aboriginal population. They have some health care needs that can, on occasion, be challenging. The overall health of the population within the health authority. There may be some special issues. For example, there are clearly some special challenges on the downtown east side of Vancouver that one would recognize. One might also find some of those challenges in downtown Prince George. These kinds of things can be taken into account as well.

In terms of the approach that is undertaken here, ten years ago or seven years ago, the ministry was attempting to do the rowing and steering of these programs out of Victoria. I understand that was quite unsatisfactory in terms of achieving any sort of coherence or results. Those programs have been devolved to the health authorities along with the dollars that are required to manage those programs.

Every health authority has been asked to produce this continuum of care in the area of mental health and addictions, which will help to meet our needs. In terms of some of the undertakings, best practices are a big element in mental health, as they are in other facets of health care.

In the key best practices project in 2004-2005, among the documents produced by the ministry were: physician's guides for depression, anxiety disorders, early psychosis, and substance use disorders; Guide to the Mental Health Act; and a report to support care of mentally disordered offenders.

In '05-06 the ministry produced a postpartum depression strategy, a best-practice Guide for Clinicians Working with Suicidal Adults, and planning guidelines for health authorities to support people with developmental disabilities and mental illness. A final publication was Development of Core Information on Cognitive Behaviour Therapy.

The ministry really has moved from a rowing function to a steering function, where we're certainly supporting at a high level the efforts of the health authorities, but the actual delivery, the on-the-ground delivery, comes from the health authorities.

The strategic priorities we've asked the authorities to develop include strengthening community services; development of regional tertiary services; the Riverview development, which I think the member is quite familiar with; and improved quality of care — again, implementing best practices from across the continuum. We've also added integration of mental health and addiction services and the addition of severe mental illness to address diseases that have the greatest burden, such as depression and anxiety disorders.

Finally, in terms of the continuum that each health authority is to work toward, the focus on improving the mental health and addictions continuum of care includes: health promotion and harm reduction; prevention and early intervention; crisis response services; and treatment, whether it be primary care services, community services, acute care or specialized services.

It's a very broad undertaking, but I do think there are a lot of successes out there. We need to keep building on those best practices to ensure best outcomes for people who face these mental health or addiction challenges.

C. Wyse: I appreciate that information, but I'd like to return to the question I asked, which was: how much money for addictions is provided to each one of the health authorities for providing that range of services you read back to me?

Hon. G. Abbott: Perhaps the member missed my earlier answer, which was that we don't break out the health authority funding by envelope. There is not a separate envelope, for example, in the Interior Health Authority, or indeed any other health authority, for mental health. It's not broken out that way. Each authority gets a budget for the year, and from that budget they are to achieve the objectives which are set out for them in their performance plans and elsewhere, including, obviously, mental health and addictions. We know from their reporting of their spending what they are spending on an annualized basis in mental health and addictions, but we don't prescribe that. We prescribe the outcomes that we are looking for.

C. Wyse: I once more appreciate the answer, but it very much reflects the frustration of trying to get a handle around this particular issue. Let me try it in this fashion: How many detox beds are there available in British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have a detailed table in terms of the breakdown by health authority of treatment, supportive recovery beds, adult detox beds and total adult

beds. Then in the youth area: treatment, supportive recovery beds, residential treatment beds, youth detox beds and then total youth beds. I won't go through all the numbers, but I'm glad to share this table with the hon. member.

I'll just briefly sum it up. The total youth beds from those areas of treatment — supportive recovery, residential treatment and youth detox — are 108 across the five regional health authorities.

In the adult treatment addiction beds, the treatment supportive recovery total across the five — actually, including PHSA, six — regions is 735, and adult detox is 159, for a total of 894 adult treatment and recovery beds. So that's a total across the six health authorities of 1,002 treatment beds. That number is probably a little larger when it would be adjusted today, because there has been some recent incremental investment in this area reflecting the crystal meth challenge and some other issues.

C. Wyse: Once more to the minister: if we could agree with information that is in this form, whatever you wish to verbalize, I'm very comfortable to listen to that. As I mentioned earlier, with tables and things of that nature, can we just assume that you would forward them on to me, or your staff would have them forwarded on to me, and I would be able to look at them in that form? That's, again, what my understanding was. Thank you, minister.

Then my question is: in this area what is the waiting period of time for a detox bed according to the various categories?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's difficult to give a simple answer to this. We're going to have to engage the provincial health officer in trying to get you a rather more robust answer to the very good question you asked than we're able to offer right now. While there's a reasonable distribution across the five geographic health authorities and across the PHSA, much of the challenge is that the demand varies at any moment in time within and among those five health authorities.

I think Vancouver Coastal — in large measure because they've been at it for a while, and they've had this severe challenge in the downtown east side for some time — are probably, institutionally or culturally, more old hands in terms of how to manage some of these things. I gather that some of the better times are found in Vancouver Coastal, but that is just sort of anecdotal on my part. What we'll want to do is to try to engage the health authorities and the provincial health officers to see if we can come up with a better answer to that, because there is going to be considerable variation.

With respect to the question, clearly, the goal from my perspective is that when a drug addict decides that they'd like to turn their life around, I'd like to see them being able to access treatment in a timely way. One of the challenges that people tell me about, when people are addicted to a substance and they've resolved that they want to turn that around, is that there may be a very key interval in their lives where you have an opportunity to get them out of the environment they're in, to try to reshape some of the behaviours that have led to the addiction. So it is important that we have timely services. It's probably going to be a challenge to reach perfection, with respect to those being immediately available at all times. It is a challenge.

While I've been talking, staff, as they are wont to do, have come up with some excellent information, which is perhaps useful in understanding this.

We are talking here of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, adult detox for September 2005. Some 62 percent of adults seeking detox got admitted within four days; that's very good. And 10 percent were admitted immediately.

In youth detox, D-Talks. This is a phone line — again, one of the innovative things that Vancouver Coastal has done. This is D-hyphen-T-a-l-k-s, so we don't have any confusion. In September 2005 D-Talks received 300 calls from 86 individual youth, even though the line had not yet been advertised, and this resulted in 60 youth, or 70 percent of the calls, being booked into detox. I think that's an indication of the kind of success that we could enjoy.

I'm agreeing with the member's sentiment around timeliness. That's very important. We need to keep building facilities and programs so that we can try to manage those addictions as quickly as possible.

C. Wyse: Once more, I believe I understood you to say that your staff was going to work and compile this kind of information. It would be across the health authorities. I eagerly wait for that.

You also had asked for suggestions that I may have along the way. I indicated with my questioning what I was attempting to do. Maybe as the data is put together, it will also be able to streamline where improvements can be made to achieve the goals that are being referred to across the area.

With that preamble having been done, I'm going to move on to my third area. I have a question that's going to be around dual diagnosis. I'm triaging here, given our time frame. I would once more like to remind us in this dual role here that we're showing we concede that's what we're doing here. If we could concentrate and focus in and do the best we can with the brevity of our answers so that we could maybe cover as much of this as we could, I would appreciate it.

With dual diagnosis, I will give you a sentence so that you understand where I'm coming from. I have heard of difficulties with people with addictions seeking treatment being denied because of mental health issues. That is leading to the question: how is the system dealing with people who simultaneously have addiction and mental health issues?

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of how we work together into the future, I'm appreciative of the member's very

thoughtful comments, and I'm also appreciative of his interest and support in this area. I'd be very pleased, as the member feels appropriate, to offer him six-month briefings — technical briefings every six months or thereabouts — if he would find that useful. I think we would find it very useful to hear his views and the views of his colleagues in respect of some of these very challenging issues.

In terms of dual diagnosis, there is some very important work being undertaken in this area. I don't want to say "much," because that may be unfair. There is very considerable work being undertaken in the area of child and youth mental health and addiction dual diagnosis. The occurrence of that dual diagnosis, I gather, is typically most common in youth. It obviously occurs at all ages, but it's common in youth. So we are working with the Ministry of Children and Family Development. They have hired over 100 mental health workers incremental to what they already had. Those 100 mental health workers are getting training in the management of dual diagnosis.

We have the addictions responsibility for child and youth. They have the mental health responsibilities. So it's incumbent upon our two ministries to work together along with the health authorities to build this model of best practices for managing dual diagnosis among children and youth. The Fraser Health Authority is probably where that work is most advanced in British Columbia right now, but it is occurring in all health authorities.

In the area of adult mental health and addictions where we have the full responsibility in the Ministry of Health, we are also working to integrate those two systems — the mental health and the addictions. Having those two challenges stovepiped as we have in the past is — I think the member and I would agree on this — inappropriate. So we're working very hard with all of the health care providers in this area, including physicians and counsellors and street nurses and all of those who tend to encounter the challenge of dual diagnosis, to build the knowledge base and to build the ability to better manage those challenges.

A final point on this is that the Interior Health Authority is developing access strategies for clients with concurrent disorders and is reviewing screening tools to ensure they provide a dual diagnosis–capable service. This is excellent work that's being undertaken by the Interior Health Authority. One of the things that we work very hard at in the ministry is ensuring through the leadership council and other mechanisms that as health authorities develop those best practices models, we share them among the authorities so that we can all benefit from the excellent work that's being undertaken in the regions.

C. Wyse: I wish to acknowledge the very generous offer of the minister for a six-month briefing, and I do wish to take you up on that offer. It's very generous.

Minister, I'm going to leave that and now move more directly into the area of mental health. I'm looking for performance contracts that presently exist between the Ministry of Health and each health authority for delivering mental health services.

Just before I turn that question over to you, part of what I'm attempting to determine is how universality and accessibility for access to the mental health and addiction services is found throughout the province when programs that are offered in one health authority area do not exist in an adjacent health authority area. Therefore, with the mobility of our population here in British Columbia, I am trying to determine how those two aspects of the objectives found here in one of your books is achieved in these two areas.

Through my questioning, minister, I am attempting to give you an advance warning of what I'm looking for. Because I spoke so much here, I'm going to give you the question back that I'd asked. Performance contracts exist between the Ministry of Health and each health authority for delivering mental health services.

Hon. G. Abbott: Looking at the issue of addictions management from a kind of historical perspective, if we go back one, two, perhaps three decades in terms of how addictions services have been managed, I'm advised that over the course of that period, while there was always an addictions budget, it moved from Health to other ministries and pretty much all around government, which is typically not a healthy thing to do. The consequence of it was that a proper continuum of services across the province was never developed and has never existed. That is being built now, and I think we've made good progress, but in some respects, these things are still a work in progress.

We provide the health authorities with budgets. We make very clear, through performance plans and elsewhere, that there is a continuum of services for mental health and addictions that we expect them to build and to provide. Again, sharing best practices and an understanding of programs are an important part of that.

But what one finds is that British Columbia is a big and diverse place. We have different circumstances, sometimes unique or special, in different health authorities, and they have responded in sort of made-at-home or individual models that have assisted them.

One that I should have mentioned to the member in my previous answer is that the Northern Health Authority is expanding the shared care model where management of people with mental illness and addictions issues is shared by general practitioners in communities, supported through an interdisciplinary psychiatry services team. The team works with the GPs who require assistance, consultation and management of their patients. Seventeen GPs are participating in shared care services for psychiatry in the communities of Prince George, Dawson Creek, Terrace, Prince Rupert, Smithers, Quesnel, Burns Lake, Vanderhoof and Fort St. John.

That's an example of a health authority that had a challenge around the number of psychiatrists. Rather than seeing communities not enjoy that, they have built

these kinds of collaborative teams on the shared care model so that we have general practitioners engaged much more intensively on mental health issues than has traditionally been the case among physicians in this province.

If you ever listened to the Rafe Mair program, he used to rant quite regularly about this point that by and large, physicians were not well equipped or particularly interested, given the fee-for-service model, in the challenge of trying to give guidance around mental health challenges like depression. I didn't always agree with Rafe Mair, but on that point, I think he was an effective advocate that we needed to find ways to take account of that.

We are, I think, in different corners of the province moving forward with different aspects of this. A good example of how, on a provincial basis, we're seeing services devolve to the regions to provide the opportunity for mental health and addictions within those regions is the Riverview devolution, where we are in the process of regionalization of at least the great majority of the facilities that existed at Riverview. Now young, old or middle-aged people facing severe mental health challenges can access those programs regionally, as opposed to always being shipped away from family to the lower mainland.

C. Wyse: Once more I thank the minister for the information, but my question was for performance contracts, not a description of programs. So my question, once more to the minister, is on performance contracts. I do read diligently, so — again, given what is happening with the time — I would appreciate if we could narrow in on the information.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question around performance contracts, performance agreements. Just to be clear, that is an important part, but not the only part in terms of how we work with the health authorities to build the continuum. There are also letters of instruction in terms of the redesign plans that we formulate annually with the health authorities. We have regular meetings at all levels from the leadership council, which is CEOs and board chairs on down to, obviously, financial officers and program managers and so on. There is that sharing of best practices at all levels.

There are a number of indicators that are contained in the performance agreement or performance contracts. Again, there are a couple of places that the member can go once the service plan update…. Or even more exciting and sexy is the health authority monitoring tool for 2004-2005 performance agreements schedule B measures, dated October 20, 2005. So an example of what we would expect would be — and here's an example — improved continuity of care measured by the proportion of persons, aged 15 to 64, hospitalized for a mental health diagnosis who received community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge.

That's the kind of thing we are measuring because that tells us how well, in some measure, the system is working. Obviously, there are a number of these kinds of things that we look at to get a sense of whether the health authorities are performing as they should in terms of meeting the expectation from the province that they will have that continuum of service.

C. Wyse: Thank you, minister. I appreciate the minister referring to those. Would I be provided with the actual results, as you've referred to? I'm aware of the items that you referred to and the sub-aspects on it. I'm looking for the compilation that gives me that information across the various health authorities, so I have the responses to those.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are annual reports on both the service plan and the performance agreements, and both are public. I suspect both can be found on the Ministry of Health website, so they would be available for download there, if you wish. It's masses of information but in the right hands, I'm sure, would be a remarkably interesting thing to read.

Once more, on Riverview, recognizing that it is a redeployment of tertiary services throughout the province, as compared to community primary and secondary services for support of the mentally ill…. Having established the distinction there, that it's a redeployment of an existing institutionalization, does the minister expect the Riverview deployment to be completed in 2007?

C. Wyse: In what year is the Riverview deployment estimated to be completed? I do recognize it's in segments and components.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question in respect to the devolution of Riverview. The figures here for patients — they're referred to as beds, but we're really talking patients — that have now been moved from Riverview to regionally based facilities, South Hills and a number of the other facilities around the province that have been created…. I've actually got a list of them here somewhere as well, but I won't do that now. So, 337 across the authorities. South Hills, Seven Sisters and Iris House would be among the facilities that are the regionally based psychiatric facilities that succeeded Riverview. IHA — 71; Northern Health Authority — three; VIHA — six; Fraser Health — 24.

Actually, sorry. I'm missing the point there. It's actually 337. Okay, remaining? About 400. Of those, about 300 will be those who will be regionalized either at that site or elsewhere by Fraser Health and Vancouver Coastal. The remainder would be some of the most

challenging patients in terms of diagnoses. So I think there's still some planning work being undertaken around how they might be managed. It may not be appropriate to try to regionalize some of those 100. That is an issue that I remain thinking about and our very capable staff remain thinking about.

C. Wyse: Once more, thank you for the information. My recollection was that I asked what year you were estimating the deployment would be completed. So if I didn't ask that very clearly, could I give it again: for the completion of the deployment from Riverview, what year is now anticipated that the project will be completed? It's not 2007. What year?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to the question is that we expect that we are at least three years away from the completion of the Riverview devolution project, which I guess would take us out to probably 2009, 2010, in that area. We try not to put political or artificial time lines out there.

One of the challenges we have as devolution proceeds is that some of the patients get very, very upset when they think that they're going to have a substantial change in their life in terms of relocation and that sort of thing. This is a kind of organic process that works very slowly with the patients and their families and so on as we build confidence and trust in making moves.

Among the other challenges, though, I should note…. I should also note that when I was at Riverview — as I know the hon. member was, Madam Chair — Connolly Lodge is actually an example of a facility on the Riverview site that is very modern and just excellent in terms of how they are managing the mental health challenges for some of Fraser Health's mentally ill. Connolly Lodge is an example, obviously, of a facility that's going to remain on the Riverview site. It has only been built in the last two or three years and is doing excellent work.

One of the challenges in moving some of the aged and inadequate and sometimes decrepit mental health facilities that exist at Riverview is a very real challenge in the Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health areas in getting zoning approvals for facilities that are permitted by the local governments to operate there. There have been some very, very substantial zoning and rezoning delays; in fact, some have not been successful, for that matter. That's a challenge in the urban areas, and it really goes back to the problem of stigma around mental health.

I think we saw an instance not too far before the last provincial election, unrelated to the provincial election, where a community kind of recoiled at the thought that there might be a mental health facility there. That's in the range of challenges here.

These things have to proceed at their own pace. It's not that we don't want it to happen. There's nothing against the Riverview site. It's a beautiful site, and it may have potential for modern psychiatric facilities. Our concern is with those aged and really unacceptable facilities that we need to move beyond, hopefully, over the next three years.

C. Wyse: Minister, thank you. I hope I understand some of the complexity that is around the issues we're talking about.

I would like to once more advise the minister that I am aware of shortfalls in funding that exist for the support services for people with mental illness that have been relocated from Riverview to other communities — Trail, for example. I simply wish to advise the minister that I'm in the process of writing to the appropriate health authorities and raising those issues. The point that I'm making is that when we concentrate upon the redeployment of a tertiary service without taking into account the necessary support services around homelessness, addiction and other issues with mental illness that contribute to that word called "stigma" around this area, the problem becomes broad.

I'm sort of watching the time, so I'm going to triage, but I would like to give you an opportunity to respond to a non-question that's contained in my statement.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll be quick with this one. I'm advised by staff that that apprehension simply isn't true. When any mental health patient is discharged from a provincial facility, there is a formula-based funding that goes with them for doctors or nurses or whatever range of supports they need to manage their condition in the community, so there are no discharges without support.

Again, I don't want to be unfair, but I don't know if that's always been the case. Certainly, that has been the current model. Devolution versus discharge. We support mental health patients whether they're in facilities or out of facilities.

C. Wyse: I would apologize, and do apologize, to the minister. My statement wasn't meant to leave him in a position of explaining something that he hasn't been advised of yet. I'm not referring to the transfer of the tertiary support costs that would go along with the redeployment of the patient. However, with those patients having gone into these communities, they have one of these advantages now of being able to be out more in their own communities. In doing such, they are putting demands upon the other existing support services there for mental services, and they don't have the funding for these additional pressures that are being put on them.

I give you that here openly. I am pursuing it through the appropriate health authorities. With other mechanics that you have mentioned, I'm hoping with improvements, with answers to these questions, that some best practices will be developed that will apply. Again, I apologize for having left you in a position of defending something that I didn't mean to.

What measures of disability and resiliency are incorporated in the service plan for each health authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: I wonder if we could ask the member to repeat. Did he say discipline and resiliency?

C. Wyse: What measures of disability and resiliency are incorporated in the service plan for each health authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're going to have to ask the member to translate. We're not sure what he means by "what provisions for disability and resiliency are contained…."

D. Cubberley: My understanding is that we'll probably go until about 5:40. Madam Chair just gave me a positive sign there. What I thought I might do is ask one question of a relatively general nature in the Pharmacare area, and then we'll just clarify our understanding about where we go next after tonight — okay? Good.

I just want to ask a question in the Pharmacare area about whether the ministry is actively involved in investigating whether overprescription of certain categories of drugs is occurring, whether it has targeted any high-use and rising-use drugs for prescription pattern analysis — drugs like, say, neuroleptics or statins — in low-risk populations, and whether the ministry is considering involving itself in trying to correct practices where they see overprescription. It's pretty broad but….

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you to the member for asking this very important question. This is a very big challenge and, we think, an area where some reform within Pharmacare will be appropriate as we can find our way forward in respect of that matter. We gather provincial data through the PharmaNet program. It's now possible under PharmaNet to get a better understanding of whether overprescription, in some instances, can be a problem and can be having adverse health outcomes rather than strengthening health outcomes.

In the last BCMA agreement there was a section that invited the province and its physicians to work together on this area. There has been less progress in that area than we would like, but we do hope it will continue to be a part of our agreement with BCMA and that there will be more achievements out of that in the next round, because this is an important step in arriving at a more efficacious pharmaceutical program for the future for us.

Also, this issue of overprescription is an important part of the national pharmaceuticals strategy which, of course, the Premier has been working on very actively at the first-ministers level in Canada. Through the NPS we are building more comprehensive data from across the country so we can assess how British Columbia is doing in relation to Ontario, Nova Scotia and all of the other jurisdictions. It will be very important in helping collaboratively with the other provinces to build more rigorous best practices around this area.

Two final points. The electronic health record, as it comes on line, will be an initiative that will provide us with even better data with respect to the management of pharmaceuticals.

The final point. My deputy absolutely insisted that I get this one in, because it is such a vital point. Because we think this is so important, we are currently recruiting a new ADM who is going to be focused on the pharmaceutical area. Certainly, one of the very important initiatives that this new ADM will be seized of will be this issue of overprescription.

D. Cubberley: I appreciate that. That's helpful to know. I'm pleased to know that the profile of that issue is relatively high, because I suspect that in order to continue to keep it cost-effective to supply the drugs we need to, we're going to have to involve ourselves in shaping the patterns of prescription.

I'm the more convinced when, in the few moments of spare time I have, I switch on the television in an evening and see lifestyle drug advertising on American channels routinely appealing to people to see their doctor if they would like to have such-and-such a set of lifestyle effects. There obviously are some other controls on some of those kinds of things, but there are obviously some very powerful inducements in the field to motivate consumers to ask physicians to give them specific things and then, within physicians' offices, powerful forces encouraging physicians to give those things more routinely to people.

I'm hopeful that we are going to begin to find our way to work into modifying that where it's appropriate. I'm sure it's a difficult thing to think about the instruments that can be used.

Just one last quick question. Are we at a point where we would identify priority drugs for an initiative of that kind? Has the work reached a point where we would be able to say: "Here are two or three that are at the top of the list where we do have a concern that overprescription may be occurring"?

Hon. G. Abbott: I understand that the House Leaders have arrived at an agreement that this will continue at least for one hour next week to make up for this time, so we don't need to do our concluding remarks now or anything. I'll just answer this question — a very

good question, actually, that you've posed — and then, if it's fine with the critic, I'll move that the House rise.

Priorities. The anti-hypertensives, a.k.a. blood pressure drugs, would be one of the early priorities in terms of the overprescription issue. A second would be sleeping pills. There's some concern about that. And statins. That's not an exclusive list but an idea of where we might be going early on.

The other area where I think there is much that needs to be done is in the area of prevention. We need, through ActNow B.C. and other programs of that character, to start rebuilding a culture where people start looking to things like exercise, body-weight management and managing stress in healthy, productive ways, as opposed to always looking to the pill bottle for resolution of their health concerns.

I share with the member this profound concern about watching every second commercial, particularly on American-based television networks, that invites us to find a resolution to all of our either real or perceived health concerns by very expensive pharmaceuticals. So I'm in agreement there with the member.

D. Cubberley: I'll be very brief, Madam Chair, but I did want to say this. I think for my first week it's been a very good week in estimates. I've enjoyed the process. I've appreciated how forthcoming the minister has been. I know that with such a large amount of spending in front of him, there's a considerable weight on his shoulders, and I'm actually very surprised that his shoulders aren't well-rounded at this point, given the weight that would be imposed by that.

So it has been a rather special week for me, and I hope it has been special for the minister as well. But I understand this is a special day for the minister, and I just wanted to offer from this side — I hope I'm not incorrect; I believe that you're 48 today, minister? — many happy returns. You're a very young-looking 48.

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you, hon. Chair. I do want to thank the member for his generous comments. I've enjoyed the week as well. This is just an acknowledgment, and I won't say in which direction, but that 48 years must be seasonally adjusted, as they say.

With that note, we'll look forward to this next week. Hon. Chair, I move we 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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.

J. Kwan: I do, first of all, apologize to the minister because the estimates process was disrupted somewhat because I had to attend to other duties. As a result, my colleague the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca had asked questions of the minister around the public affairs bureau. I must admit that I have not yet had time to review Hansard to see exactly what's been canvassed. I have a sense of it. I do apologize if there is duplication, but I will try not to do that.

My understanding is that there have been issues around the organizational charts and so on, and that has been taken care of. I'm just going to focus in on some of these more specific questions around the public affairs bureau, and then we'll see where we go from there.

My understanding is that there's the public affairs bureau, which provides for communications support to ministries, if you will, and all matters related to communications. It is my understanding that other ministries have their own communications budgets. Could the minister please explain why that is the case. Does she not see that there is duplication with respect to that?

Hon. C. Taylor: Could I ask the member opposite to clarify: are you referring to the communications di-

rectors who do come out of the public affairs budget, who work in the ministries?

J. Kwan: Well, maybe the minister can tell me how that is broken down. My understanding is that ministries do have their own communications officers in their own ministry, and then their communications plan and strategies and so on are dealt with through each ministry, and sometimes they contract out to get additional support. At the same time, we have this body called the public affairs bureau, and that's supposed to provide for communications support of all sorts to government as a whole.

It appears to me, then, that there's duplication. If that's the case, why is that duplication necessary? If that's not the case, then maybe the minister can clarify for me: how is it functioning differently?

Hon. C. Taylor: The communications directors who do sit in each ministry are, in fact, part of the public affairs bureau, and they come out of our budget. They do sit in the ministries to give support to all of the ministers there with their communications issues, but they are public affairs staff.

J. Kwan: Just to clarify for me, then. With the other ministries, does that mean that no communications costs associated to the ministry are being paid out of the separate ministries' budgets — that all of it comes under the public affairs bureau?

Hon. C. Taylor: Yes, I want to make sure that everyone does understand this. Every ministry has the option of putting dollars into communications or educational programs or brochures or statutory advertising. They have that opportunity. In fact, sometimes federal funds come to specific ministries with the expectation that they will do some promotion or explanation or education with some of those dollars. They do have some dollars, but the communications director who is there and coordinating with the ministry and with public affairs to make sure everyone is on the same page…. They come out of public affairs.

J. Kwan: So that includes ad placements? For example, if an ad from a particular ministry is being placed in newspapers, is that charged through the public affairs bureau?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, it's just the opposite. They do have the opportunity to make decisions themselves from their budget or with dollars that they get from elsewhere to make some spending decisions. For instance, I know of one instance where dollars were given as a grant to an outside organization by a ministry, but it was to promote some health issues that they felt were important. That came directly out of the Health Ministry's budget. The public affairs bureau is the main coordinator of everything that's going on.

J. Kwan: Maybe the minister will say that I need to go through each ministry's estimates separately to find out that figure. But then, what is the amount of dollars? How much is being spent from each ministry, then, to the area of communications? If they're free to do their own communications and pay for their own communications out of their own communications budget…. Yet there is this thing called the public affairs bureau whose job is to coordinate and centralize these functions. At the end of the day, then, what I'm interested in is: how much really is being spent on communications throughout government entirely?

Hon. C. Taylor: We do not keep track in public affairs of what every ministry is doing in terms of ads, promotions and dollars. What we are assigned to do is make sure we coordinate so that we are all understanding the messages we're trying to make sure the public knows, about government programs.

What I am responsible for, as Minister of Finance, is the budget of the public affairs bureau. That's my responsibility, and that's my budget that I have to make sure we are watching closely.

J. Kwan: So then, I guess, at the end of the day the budget that's reflected under the public affairs bureau is not actually a true reflection of how much government as a whole spends on communications, whether it be for advertising or strategies or what have you. The number is actually bigger than that, and that number will depend on how much individual ministries are spending in that regard. Is that something that the minister can gather, though, and provide this House with the information?

What I'm interested in…. As the Minister of Finance, when we talk about the communications function, one is led to believe that under the public affairs bureau these are the dollars that government as a whole is spending on this communications function. But it isn't. That's not the reality of it. Is there some way for the public affairs bureau to centralize and coordinate the information from the other ministries so that members of the public will know what the true figure is?

Hon. C. Taylor: This morning we did go over some of this as well. What I tried to explain was that when I did public accounts in June, and we showed the chargebacks to certain ministries for specific advertising programs that they had initiated or wanted…. We explained at that time that that was not an unusual thing. There are times when ministries make the decisions that they need to do some education — communication from their point of view and from their ministry. That has been happening in the past, and in fact, that is the current situation.

J. Horgan: I will just follow on from my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. In our discussion this morning with the minister, we tried to get to this nut, and I have got a list that's not the org chart I'm

anticipating with compensation and résumés. But I do have a list here, for example, from the government telephone book that says the Ministry of Children and Families communications office has a number of individuals within that office. Do the salary and benefits packages for those individuals come under your ministry?

J. Horgan: Do the activities and functions of those individuals fall under the responsibility of the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau?

J. Horgan: Why is it, then, that the minister can't tell us what the cost of those functions are cross-government? If all of the individuals responsible for communications activities with the government of British Columbia are all responsible to the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau, why can't we have a corporate global number for all communications activity in government?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said, they are in our budget. All of those staffing positions are in our budget. The question that I was asked by the other hon. member was about whether there are communications campaigns, brochures or other dollars spent in that communications process that come from the ministry's budget.

J. Horgan: What I was trying to get at this morning and what my colleague is trying to get at now is that it is very difficult for the public to understand the total cost to government for communications and public affairs activity. All of the individuals responsible for that activity are housed under the responsibility of the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau. Their activities are directed, one assumes, by the deputy minister of the public affairs bureau, yet when we ask the minister responsible for the public affairs bureau, we can't get a global number on the total dollars expended on communications activity.

So that is what we're trying to do, and it is curious that we can't find that out. I understand where the minister says that there are a few dollars here, that a federal program is initiated, that the ministry responsible wants to put out some leaflets or some pamphlets. But why isn't that expenditure housed in a way that we can easily access it during the estimates process?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is certainly accessible during the estimates process. You just have to ask the ministers.

J. Kwan: Let me try it a different way. Really what I'm interested in is to — through the process in which the government likes to say they're transparent — ensure that philosophy is being followed here, relative to communications dollars that are spent within government on the whole.

We understand that the public affairs bureau in its role to coordinate and oftentimes in preparing the communications plan, the strategies in ad placements and so on…. That work is being done on behalf of government through the public affairs bureau. What we also know and what we have determined from the minister is that ministries, separate and apart from the public affairs bureau, also from time to time would place their own campaigns, produce their own brochures, ads and so on, and what have you. But that is done separately and apart from the public affairs bureau and paid for by the ministry.

So what I'm trying to get at is…. From each of the respective ministries, how much has been spent for those separate dollars in the areas of communications within those ministries — separate and apart from the public affairs bureau? That's what I'm trying to get at.

I'm not trying to get at the details of what the ministries are doing or the campaigns specifically. I fully understand that the minister will then tell me: "Go and talk to their own ministers about their own plans." I can appreciate that. What I'm trying to get at, though, is the global figure. Altogether around communications — what is being spent by government for this function?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will go back to my point about the public affairs bureau and their budget, which I am responsible for. That is where the bulk of the communication, coordination and initiation come from. As you know from estimates for '05-06, it's $34.5 million, so that is the bulk of it.

There are, from time to time, opportunities for ministries to initiate themselves. So all of the initiation…. It's not the control model that another member spoke about this morning. Not all of the initiatives come from public affairs. Sometimes the ministries see either a strategic opportunity or necessity to start some communication on their own. Sometimes we share it.

For instance, we're in the middle of one now called ActNow, which we will be coming forward with, where we are working hand in hand with the Ministry of Health to try to focus some information and education on young girls and try to get them to stop smoking. In that case we are both putting in dollars, but it is coordinated through public affairs. I gave the other example where the ministry decided to give a grant to an outside organization — it was a dental organization — because they wanted to do some advertising and education that they felt was important to the community.

It is broken up in a way that I can see is difficult for you to put the pieces together, but you can. It is in Public Accounts. You can see it from last year's Public Accounts. You will see it again in June's Public Accounts. You can talk to each minister about it, but these are

exceptions. The bulk of the dollars are in public affairs. But I want to be very clear, as I was with public accounts, that from time to time ministries do decide, whether it is statutory or non-statutory advertising, to do some work themselves.

J. Kwan: For the ministries to do that, do they have to have authorization from the public affairs bureau?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's back to the coordinating function. They do come to us and consult with us so that we are all coordinating the work.

J. Kwan: Then the minister does know what work is undertaken by what ministry because that coordination function is done through an area called the public affairs bureau, for which the minister is responsible. So that's good.

From that point of view, then, the minister would also, I would imagine — through the public affairs bureau — have a sense of how much these extra campaigns or additional campaigns or separate brochures are costing the treasury, because it is approved through the coordination approach under the public affairs bureau. Could the minister, then, please advise this House what that figure is, ministry by ministry?

I can fully understand, once again, that the minister may not have those numbers with her at hand, and I'm more than prepared to receive that from the minister at a later time — ministry by ministry and the breakdown of that in terms of how much…. What I'm trying to drive at with the line of questions here is to understand fully, in the spirit of transparency and accountability — for the public to really know — how much money is being spent for communications functions with the government.

I would also like to receive the information from each of the ministries so that that is actually broken down — if it's for ad placements, for example, so that we actually know it is for ad placements. If it is being used for brochure development, then we actually know it is for brochure development. If it is being used for whatever activities, it would be helpful and useful for the public to access that information, because right now in the budget books with each of the ministries it doesn't even tell you how many dollars are being spent for communications purposes. It's difficult to try and sort through all of that and for an average member of the public to figure it out. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, would the minister please commit to providing the opposition with that information?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said before, the coordination that public affairs does is in terms of the ideas and the style and the presence of it, and if they need contacts and need to understand how to do things, public affairs offers advice. That doesn't mean that they are approving the dollars of what the ministry is doing. I understand what you are saying, and certainly, I'm always looking at ways to make sure that our budgeting process is a good one and a transparent one.

The Public Accounts books have a lot of this information, and they're out there from last year; you could go through it by the ministries. What I am trying to say is that I understand the issue that you're presenting and that I'm looking at all ways of making budgeting clear and transparent, and certainly, we'll think about that.

J. Kwan: Okay, so the minister says she will think about that, and that is how to make this process more transparent, more open, more accountable to the public, which the government claims is the objective they want to achieve. There's a way to do it: have clear information provided to the public that sets out exactly what the government does around advertising. I don't think it serves British Columbians well to not have the information. I think that yes, one could ask a whole bunch of different questions to different ministers at different places, look through different reports at different times to try and cobble it together. That's the reality now, and that's the situation now.

There is an opportunity here for the minister to match her actions with her words, at least the intent of the words that the government has been espousing for the last four, four and a half, almost five years. Time is moving fast.

There's a way to do it. Of course, from this side of the House, I think oftentimes the belief is that the amount of dollars that the government is spending around communications all comes from PAB, but we now know that that's not the case. In my view, there is an element of duplication here. The government talks about efficiency, management and so on. Yet there's a function to which they're more than willing to allow for duplication to take place. So I do question that.

I also question it from this point of view: the ministry's budgets do not show a separate line item for communications, so one really has no idea what is being done within the global budget of a particular ministry. Does that not trouble the minister herself? Would the minister not want to, perhaps, change the practice? That's another way to get at it: to have the minister actually put that out in the budget books for each ministry in the line item of how much ministries are allowed to spend for communications.

In my days in Treasury Board, the dollars that come are very specific and attached to programs and the authority to spend. It would be useful in this area if there were more measures of accountability and transparency around it.

I didn't hear an answer from the minister on whether or not she would be prepared to provide a centralized list of dollars that are being spent for communications across government, across ministries, in PAB as well as within ministries. Maybe I heard the minister wrong. I would ask for clarification on that. If the minister is prepared to provide that information, I would appreciate it. If not.... Well, let's just leave it at

that. Let's see if the minister is prepared to provide that information in the spirit of cooperation, transparency and accountability.

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said before, and I think you also said, the information is there. It is in Public Accounts, and the information is there through individual ministries. The complaint, as I'm hearing it, is that it's difficult to pull it together. But the information is there, and we want to make sure the public understands that.

The second thing is that it's really important for us to realize this isn't about duplication. I have not any example of duplication. If you have, I'd like to see it. When we're trying to coordinate, what we are trying to do is, first of all, recognize that ministries know their ministries the best and that there are urgent issues that come along, whether West Nile virus or whatever it is. They should and do have the freedom to make a judgment for their ministry that they must do some educational materials, brochures or processes. It's just very important to realize the information is there. It's in the Public Accounts. It's in all of the ministries. Certainly, during estimates you can ask every minister about it.

J. Kwan: Well, I'm sorry to say that wasn't helpful. The reality is, if you're looking at it from the average British Columbian's point of view, people are busy with kids, busy with work and volunteer work, so on and so forth. It is difficult for the public to try and pick up this information and try and find it through the Public Accounts report to see what ministry spent where. Even then, it's not that clear exactly what the dollars are spent on, what ad campaign and so on. I've seen those reports as well. Imagine that for an average British Columbian who is trying to sort it out.

The minister, though, is not willing to provide for information that's easily accessible for members of the public. Quite frankly, that is contrary to the notion of transparency and accountability. I suspect that if I keep on this line of questioning, I'm not going to get anywhere with the minister. It's 4:25, and time is of the essence in many ways with the work we get to do here.

Let me then ask other questions related to the public affairs bureau. The government has access, I believe, to a service, and that's media monitoring. What does the public affairs bureau provide cabinet and government caucus in the way of media monitoring?

Hon. C. Taylor: They do provide an on-line service that's available for everyone to look at information and do, as well, provide some information to ministries in the form of emerging issues.

J. Kwan: When the minister mentions the on-line service, is she referring to Today's News Online, the document that we get, I know, oftentimes in print form but that also shows up in Web form as well?

J. Kwan: That's what the minister is referring to when she says on-line service. Is there another service that I'm unaware of?

J. Kwan: Could the minister please elaborate on that? Is she talking about, essentially, Today's News Online, where you can get, through the computer, electronically…? You can go back in date and look — I don't know — at a story that was reported out, let's say, a month ago, three years ago? Is that the service? Or are we talking about some other service that I'm unaware of?

J. Kwan: On the aspect of emerging issues, could the minister please elaborate on how that service is being provided? Is there a name attached to these emerging issues which cabinet and caucus members are provided information about?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is to a great extent a clipping service, so it allows ministers to know what is being said that they should be aware of in terms of whether it's radio or the press — the information that is out there. The communications officers try to provide that for their ministers.

Hon. C. Taylor: No, this is not for caucus. This is for ministers to be aware of the issues from their area of responsibility that are being discussed in the press.

J. Kwan: Does the public affairs bureau provide members of cabinet and government caucus members with transcripts, then — for example, of radio shows, e-mails, breakdowns of news stories and that kind of stuff?

Hon. C. Taylor: We provide for ministers, as I said before, all kinds of information about what is being said on radio and television, and clippings.

J. Kwan: So no services from the public affairs bureau are provided to caucus members?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said before and as you probably know, the GCCs have a number of cabinet minis-

ters sitting on them, so to the extent that those cabinet ministers would receive reports, they certainly receive the reports. But it's not sent to the committees.

J. Kwan: Okay. Could the minister please advise…? I think this might have been canvassed just a little bit by my colleague, but like I said, I haven't had a chance to fully review Hansard. Does the minister or does PAB have the information around what the cost per ad is in the different papers throughout the province — the local papers, the provincial papers and so on? What is the cost per ad?

Hon. C. Taylor: That would be absolutely impossible to say, because it changes by where it is located in the paper, which paper, the size of the paper, the day of the paper. We also sometimes get different rates depending on how many ads we're putting in. So it's impossible to answer that question.

J. Kwan: What is the range for the provincial papers — the Vancouver Sun, the Province?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm advised that a full-page ad in the Vancouver Sun can run anywhere from $12,000 to $25,000.

J. Kwan: How quickly does the minister, through PAB, when ads were placed in these provincial papers….? How quickly do they have to get the ad to the papers? Is it a day turnaround? Is it a week turnaround? And how does the minister, through the public affairs bureau, go about doing their ad campaigns? Do they book one week in advance to reserve a spot? How does that work?

Hon. C. Taylor: It really does depend on the circumstances. We've had circumstances where if it's an important, emerging issue that needs to be addressed quickly, we can do it as quickly as overnight. Sometimes we're planning well ahead, so we have that kind of expectation and planning in place. There are a range of issues that sometimes come and need to be dealt with quickly and some that really can be planned out in advance.

J. Kwan: I can understand the part about needing to plan in advance. You want to place an ad, and I've done it as an MLA , you know, to celebrate — well, Remembrance Day; we just had that celebration. You'd like to place an ad in the local paper. You tell them the size and the text and do all the design work and get it in, and there is a time line. They're on to you about the time line. I certainly can't do it when I feel like it and say: "Help. You know, I forgot last week or a month ago to book that space." All of a sudden, a day before Remembrance Day, I want to get an ad in. People would look at me, like: "Well, sorry. It's not on." I can understand the planning-ahead part of things.

I have a little bit more difficulty, though, in understanding the more emergent nature of things, where the minister refers to needing to place an ad, and sometimes the public affairs bureau is able to do so in one day's turnaround. How does that happen?

Hon. C. Taylor: That's exactly why we have a placement agency that we have chosen after a competitive process: because they do have relationships with all of the media and do understand how to move quickly and in some instances can help us to place an ad very quickly.

J. Kwan: There are special provisions, then, for the government through the public affairs bureau and through this placement agency. I guess that's a short answer.

The minister, though, says that the placement agency which the government uses for these ads was through a public tendering process. Could the minister please advise: all the work that is done by the public affairs bureau related to ad campaigns, design work — all the pieces associated with it…? Could the minister please advise this House whether or not all of those contracts have gone through the proper process and guidelines of being tendered publicly?

Hon. C. Taylor: If you are talking about the agencies of record, yes. They have all gone through the public process.

J. Kwan: I'm talking about every aspect of the contracts that are signed by the public affairs bureau and that are related to the work of government in its functions for communications activities.

Hon. C. Taylor: All of our contracts follow our procurement policy in government.

Hon. C. Taylor: I do not know of any. Staff do not know of any. If you do, we would appreciate hearing about it.

J. Kwan: Well, as far as I could tell, there are some that have come to light where there have been violations of the procurement practices. I do note, though, that under procurement practices, which is one item I have listed that I would like to explore with the minister…. Perhaps I will do that under that section and just sort of go back to the public affairs bureau — broad questions first, and then we will get to that section.

Does the minister have a breakdown, through the public affairs bureau's budget, of the different aspects of the work being done through that entity? What is the breakdown for that entity in terms of budgeting? For example, staffing costs, which I see is in the document. But other things like ads…. How much is put in through the public affairs bureau budget, targeted towards ads? How much is being spent on design work, for example, in getting the materials ready for place-

ment? How much is being put towards placement agencies, for example? A whole list and detailed breakdown of that $34.5 million budget.

Hon. C. Taylor: In the supplement to the estimates, which I believe you have, pages 44 and 45 take the public affairs budget and break it down right across in terms of all of the different STOBs and all of the expenses and what they're for.

J. Kwan: That's the one document I didn't bring with me. Could the minister please just run through that quickly for the benefit of this House?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm not sure what you're asking. I can run through, again, the fact that the supplement to the estimates on pages 44 and 45 takes the public affairs bureau right across the bottom and breaks it out by each STOB and, therefore, identifies the area of expenditure.

J. Kwan: Thank you to the Clerk for providing me with the document so I don't have to run downstairs to get it. I'm going to take a minute to look at this stuff, but I'll ask the minister some other questions while we're at it.

I just want to go back for a minute to when the minister talked about placing ads through placement agencies because the minister or the government might need to place an ad with an overnight-turnaround kind of scenario. The minister advised this House, for example, that when we're talking about a provincial paper like the Province or the Sun, the ad placement could cost somewhere up to $25,000 per ad. When you have to go through a one-day turnaround as such, how much does the cost go up by in that instance?

Hon. C. Taylor: We are not aware of an instance where an extra price has been charged because of a placement that was later.

J. Kwan: Is the cost absorbed by the placement agency, then? Or is the minister telling me that if the minister or the government may, from time to time, need to place an ad the day before, with a one-day turnaround, there are no additional costs related to that? It's the same as when you plan this thing ahead, where you want to place an ad a month ago?

Hon. C. Taylor: There are many different circumstances that happen, of course. Sometimes you can have booked a space for one ad, and if you decide at the last minute to change it, you are allowed to change it. There is certainly a cancellation cost if you decide not to go ahead. But I have been advised that my staff are not aware of our having been charged extra for a last-minute ad.

I've had a chance to look at this document where it itemizes Vote 30 — the public affairs bureau STOBs. It doesn't actually break it down into the kind of detail that I was hoping it would, so I'm going to probe around that and try to get some answers from the minister.

Take, for example, placement agencies — right? — which the public affairs bureau uses. Where does that fall under? Which STOB does it fall under, under the Vote 30 public affairs bureau? Is it professional services?

J. Kwan: Okay, 67 and 68 say: advertising, publications and statutory advertising and publications. So it doesn't tell me, with that — right? — how much is being spent for ad placements, how much is being spent for brochure production or publications. It doesn't tell me how much it costs for a placement agency that the government uses.

That's the level of detail I'm looking for, not just the sort of global headline that says, you know…. It all fits under these broad headlines, but I'm interested in understanding from government and getting the information from the minister the level of detail that actually breaks those subheadings down to what categories fall under those subheadings, how much is attached, how much is being spent and how much, I guess, for future budgets the government is projecting to spend in those areas.

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, the practice hadn't been to break it down, as you probably know. I made a decision at public accounts this year to do the full public breakout of that, and I released it with all of the contracts and all of the ad campaigns and all of those issues. It is my intent to do that again this year.

J. Kwan: That was in an instance where the government had overspent $7 million through the public affairs bureau in the pre-election period, where the media pressed the government, and the government, the minister, then produced a five-page document that outlines that. Is that the instance where the government, or the minister, broke practice from before? And is it her intention, then, to incorporate such a document in every public accounts document from here on in so that information is accessible and available to the public?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is my intent, as I said at the time. At the time that I release public accounts, I will also release the detailed listing.

J. Kwan: The one time where this began was centred around where the government had overspent the public affairs bureau budget by $7 million in the pre-election campaign period. Just for my own benefit, to recollect correctly, is that where it began in terms of the government's change in practice?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I explained to your colleague this morning, the budget was not overspent. In fact, there were chargebacks to ministries which were di-

rectly responsible — for instance, the West Nile virus; the ads on forest fires — so the budget was not overspent. It was at the last public accounts that I did make the commitment to release the detailed document every single year.

J. Kwan: I know the minister would like to say that the money wasn't overspent because she always has the option to charge it back to the ministries and the ministries can always find some money within their budgets to do so, even though the minister will not tell the public exactly how much each of the ministries is putting aside — dollars for communication purposes, for advertising purposes.

I suppose the minister will, and can, always fall back to that — to refer ads that have been done through the public affairs bureau back to the ministry and say: "Over to you. You pay for it so that I can say I didn't actually go over budget." You know, the minister can call it what she will. You can call it potato or potato. At the end of the day it is the same thing, and people understand that. The public understands that. It would be good for the government just to admit it as well.

Let me ask the minister this question, because I'll say this. The $7 million cost overrun that was announced last July was not accounted for in the Premier's office, and that's where the public affairs bureau was located prior to the change. It changed midway. If that was the case…. If one could not transfer budgets back to ministries and say, "Over to you," the reality is that the Premier's budget then would have been over budget. The Premier would have violated his own policy around staying on budget. Isn't that the truth?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will repeat once again: the budget was not overspent. The Auditor General signed off on the books.

I would ask the Chair to remind the hon. member that in fact, we're not talking about last year's budget. This is supposed to be about the budget we have presented in the House this year.

The Chair: Other way around. I need to remind you that you should confine yourself to questions related to the vote at hand, which is for this fiscal year.

J. Kwan: Let me, then, just close with this. The reality is that the government overspent their budget in the public affairs bureau. The government….

The Chair: Member, this is to deal with Vote 30. We are discussing public affairs, which is Vote 30, but that's for this fiscal year, so we need to confine our comments to this fiscal year.

Let me just say this, then. The government, of course, through the public affairs bureau, through the course of the last — what? — hour or so in estimates debate…. One is actually not able to identify specifically how much money the government is spending in advertising and communications activities across government. The minister would not provide this House or the public, for that matter, as we're engaging in this debate, how much the ministries are setting aside for communications purposes.

The Chair: Member, we are dealing with Vote 30, which relates to a sum of $34,358,000 from the public affairs bureau. The minister has made it clear that the $34,358,000 does not reflect amounts that are charged by those ministries, and therefore, they are not relevant to this debate as well.

J. Kwan: Yes, thank you for your helpfulness, Madam Chair. I appreciate your guidance in this matter.

But let me just say very clearly that the minister advised this House that the public affairs bureau is responsible for coordinating all of the efforts of communication activities across government. The minister says she does not know how much is being spent, and I'm not asking for the dollar figure about that. I'm not talking about past practices. I'm talking about current practices, and I'm talking about this current budget. How much is the government planning to spend?

I will say this. It is always very convenient for the government to say they didn't overspend, because they have the option to just simply transfer overspending dollars to another ministry. It is very convenient. Maybe I was wrong when I first said that perhaps it's duplication issues we're referring to that are at hand. But it is not duplication. It is a matter of convenience for the government so that they can transfer budgets across the different ministries, so they can get away from saying they overspent.

Perhaps that's the real truth behind it, and perhaps that's the real objective of why the government has set up the shop the way in which they have. It is very convenient — isn't it? If we cite an example in the past where there was overspending, the convenience…. The government on record and the minister on record would simply say: "Well, the Premier's office didn't overspend. We transferred those funds back to the ministry that had those ads or had those ads related to them. Therefore, there was no overspending."

That's the reality of how this government is doing business. So much for transparency, and so much for true accountability. The essence of accountability in the process of budgeting is to let the public know what your intentions are, where those dollars are going to be spent — how it is going to be spent — and to be up front with it, not turn around just before an election year when you have overspent and say you are doing it so that you can say you didn't actually overspend, just transferred to somebody else and therefore it is their responsibility.

How convenient. Hasn't that been the practice of this government? We've seen them do exactly that kind of thing in other ministries. In fact, today we talked

about it in the Ministry of Children and Family Development, where the deaths of children are accounted for in different ways, and reviews are done in different ways and passed off to different ministries at different times — and they conveniently say the government is not then responsible.

We see that practice here. That's the point, Madam Chair, and I find that troubling. I do. I find it troubling when a government claims they want to be open and accountable and, in reality, the work they're doing in that regard is actually the opposite.

The minister says…. I suspect we'll get the same answer, but I'm going to give it a go anyway. This is for the '05-06 budget. Advertising plans. We canvassed these questions during question period around the teachers' ads, and the minister wouldn't come forth with how much was actually spent for the ads, the design work that was done for those ads and so on.

I'm going to ask the minister to see whether or not she's prepared now to give the answer to the public, or is she just going to fall back on the notion that at a later date, when it's convenient for the government, a report will come out and those numbers would then be itemized and by then, hopefully, people will have forgotten about the incident?

Hon. C. Taylor: I think it's very important for taxpayers to know how their dollars are being spent. I think it's absolutely essential, and that's why I am so pleased that for the first time in many, many years the Auditor General has given our public accounts a clean bill of health and a clean record. Therefore, I am pleased to say that I will release all of these contracts under the advertising STOB that public affairs has been responsible for this year — and the Auditor General will have a chance to check them and sign off on them — and I will do it by the end of June.

J. Kwan: I expected that same answer from the minister — the evasive answer that the minister doesn't actually want to provide the information until a much later date. I expected that, but I thought I'd give it another shot to see whether or not the government or the minister might be forthcoming with the information for the public, which I think the public, rightfully, has the right to know. They should know, and the minister should provide that information, but she's chosen not to do so.

I'm noting the time as well. My good colleagues have been waiting patiently to ask questions of the minister. I'm going to actually defer the floor first to my colleague the member for Burnaby-Edmonds to ask some quick questions around federal transfer dollars, and then I'm going to defer the floor to my good colleague from Delta North — I got my directions correct — who will ask some questions around Partnerships B.C., and then I'm going to check about the rest of the estimates process.

I know there was original discussion and agreement that we would end today by six o'clock, but given that we were interrupted with other matters, I'm wondering whether or not that has changed, and I'm going to go and check that. In the meantime, I'm going to yield the floor to my good colleague from Burnaby-Edmonds.

R. Chouhan: Actually, I have only one question. Depending on your answer, there may be two questions after that. We heard yesterday that the federal government has now promised to give an additional $300 million over the next five years to be spent for immigrant settlement services. My question to the minister is: could the minister assure us that all of that money we will receive — that $300 million — will be used for the immigrant settlement services and not be put in the general revenue to balance the budget?

R. Chouhan: I'm not clear. Could you please clarify the intentions — what the intentions are that you meant by that?

Hon. C. Taylor: In response to your question about whether the money that comes from the federal government that is for immigration and immigration services will be spent on immigration and immigration services, my answer is yes.

R. Chouhan: One last question, then. In the past what we have seen was that 47 percent of the money received from the federal government and earmarked for immigrant settlement services, about $37 million every year, was used. It was taken out of those services and was put in general revenue. That's why I just wanted to confirm that, and that we will not use the past practice. I agree, and I appreciate your answer, actually.

G. Gentner: Relative to questions on Partnerships B.C. — which comes under your purview, if I may — recently, through the process of Surrey Memorial Hospital, there's been a review with the minister with recommendations for the expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital and the possible construction of a secondary hospital within the area. The Minister of Health yesterday stated that "in the case of Fraser Health and their current consideration of Surrey Memorial and potential additions to it, Partnerships B.C. have been engaged in terms of consideration of the project alternatives there." When did the health authority approach Partnerships B.C. to begin a review of the alternatives for Surrey Memorial Hospital?

Hon. C. Taylor: Partnerships B.C. has had some discussions on this issue, and it started about a month ago.

G. Gentner: Therefore, if I have it correct, there was a request from the Ministry of Health or the authority

that asked Partnerships B.C. to get involved before the said report that was supposed to be announced a month ago. That's a very interesting revelation, hon. Chair. So when will this business case be completed?

Hon. C. Taylor: These have been preliminary discussions. As I've been saying, actually since about the middle of August, the government made a commitment to look at the issues of health in Surrey, recognizing that if it's not the fastest-growing community, it's certainly one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. We have been waiting for the report to come from Fraser Health, and when that comes, we do want to be ready.

These are preliminary discussions at this point, but I have been saying quite publicly that I hope Fraser Health has its report ready before the end of the year, because I am quite prepared to look at that as I do my budget for February, and so conversations with Partnerships B.C. are a very natural evolution of what we're trying to do in terms of our readiness. Partnerships B.C. has been able to save taxpayer dollars, millions of dollars in various projects, so whenever possible we do try to encourage these discussions.

G. Gentner: Hon. minister, therefore, it's the mandate given from the authority to Partnerships B.C. Does it include provision for, or looking into, a private health care provider?

Hon. C. Taylor: These have been preliminary discussions — no mandate at this point — but I would encourage you to speak to Fraser Health or the Health Ministry about the details from their side.

G. Gentner: With that one, hon. Chair, the Minister of Health said yesterday that Partnerships B.C. have offered their expertise to Fraser Health in terms of any project that emerges in and around Surrey Memorial. I quote the minister: in terms of the timing of those discussions, I, the member, should go ask the Minister of Finance. So that's why I'm here, and perhaps we can try again.

I'm trying to ascertain the mandate, the purpose, the mechanism, the process which is driving this view that we should go to a possible P3 at Surrey Memorial Hospital and/or to a second hospital. Again, I'm trying to understand what mandate or purpose has been given to Partnerships B.C. from the authority.

Hon. C. Taylor: We do encourage various ministries to think about Partnerships B.C. in all major projects. Abbotsford hospital, which is a very good example for everyone to think about, is coming in on budget, on time, despite the fact that out there in the world there are lots of construction project that are way over budget and delayed. We are proud of Partnerships B.C. and the service they bring to the community.

We always do value-for-money assessments. On Abbotsford hospital the assessment is that it saved taxpayer dollars — $40 million.

I think it's important that if there is going to be a new facility — and we're hoping there'll be some new addition of health care to Surrey — that Partnerships B.C. will be thought about. No one is ever — I must say this; it's a policy of government — forced to use Partnerships B.C., but we do encourage people to think about Partnerships B.C., because we know it saves taxpayer dollars.

G. Gentner: Yes, I know it saves some dollars or may save some dollars. It also makes some private operators money.

Since the minister is talking about Abbotsford hospital, let me quickly segue into that one. The cost of the hospital at Abbotsford began in 2001 with an anticipated $211 million, and now it's been mushroomed to $335 million. The Minister of Health again stated that there was no overrun and that the new costs were due to the larger project or the expanded project.

However, in the Partnerships B.C. document of this year, Project Report: Achieving Value for Money, Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre Project, it states on page 12 that the revised estimate from the original $211 million to $355 million…. The costs were due to the size or the scope. That cost was $46 million. Yet when we look at the document from Partnerships B.C., it says here that the total inflation costs account for $63 million. That is a heck of a lot of inflation in just five years. It's quite remarkable, frankly — $63 million for procurement.

Hon. C. Taylor: This project is an important project for us and for the community. It has been enlarged because we were able to do it and do it in a cost-effective way. So it is the scope increase primarily.

The inflation you've referred to. When the project was first thought about, it was in the '90s, so there has been some change in those numbers. But I want to give everyone comfort, because the Auditor General, who I assure you takes his assignments seriously, has signed off on all of these numbers and, in fact, has signed off on the value for money at $40 million.

G. Gentner: Since the minister is now quoting the Auditor General, my next question will be: when will we receive a full audit of the Auditor General?

The Auditor General did not do a full audit. I have his letter here. He had a review. "A review, which provides a moderate level of assurance, is not an audit, which provides a higher level of assurance." I go further: "The report contains significant future-oriented information which, by its nature, requires assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action." Would the minister please comment?

Hon. C. Taylor: I would never tell the Auditor General how to do his job. We are satisfied that when

he signs off on our value-for-money reports, he is satisfied with the numbers and the numbers are accurate. On Abbottsford we saved taxpayers $40 million.

G. Gentner: According to this letter by the Auditor General, he admits that this is not a full audit and that these are numbers that are based on assumptions. These are his words.

I would also like to know some of the costs that have now been incurred, the inflated costs or the increased costs: $49 million for risk valuation, better estimates and other. What does that mean?

Hon. C. Taylor: Those numbers are the dollar value of the risk that is transferred to the private sector that the province does not have to pay.

G. Gentner: I was anticipating that answer, but I'm now going to ask: how are you able to derive…?

G. Gentner: Hon. Chair, to the minister: how is Partnerships B.C. able to derive those numbers? Is it just according to the auditor, who said here that these are assumptions? How do we arrive at these numbers, the difference between the capital cost estimate for a publicly procured project versus those of the actual capital costs of a private project?

Hon. C. Taylor: We are following an international standard of risk analysis and assessment, and we do it very conservatively, as a matter of fact.

G. Gentner: I'll accept those words. I'm going to have to write letters or find what that all really means. It seems a little ambivalent to me.

Sticking with the Abbottsford situation. Now, the partnership of the Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Care Inc. has a board of directors. Which code of ethics do they follow — that of the Health Ministry or that of the private provider?

Hon. C. Taylor: This facility is owned by the Fraser Health Authority, and they are required to meet the standards of the health authority there for the province.

G. Gentner: I gather, therefore, there is no code of ethics. I know many Crown corporations have it. They have a purpose, and they follow it. Is there not a corporate code of ethics that's followed by Partnerships B.C. and is passed on through the ministry or the provider? My question again is: are there two separate codes of ethics — one that's going to be followed by the private provider over 30 years or one by the ministry?

Hon. C. Taylor: As soon as the project's finished, the keys are handed over to the Fraser Health Authority, and all of the standards and requirements would be the same as every other facility within the Health Ministry and of the provincial government.

G. Gentner: Okay. Well, so be it. We put this whole corporate structure together, this new P3 project. When it's all said and done, there are probably going to be a few bumps along the way. We don't know exactly what that structure is going to mean. We're just going to hand the keys over to the ministry, and I hope there's going to be some coordination here between Partnerships B.C. and what type of ethics are going to be practiced in the hospital.

To the minister: what penalty structures are now in place or will be — again, according to the corporate plan — if their service provider does not perform service?

Hon. C. Taylor: The performance standards are written into the contract. The contract is public information that you can look at any time. That's why this is not privatization, because the government stays involved for all those years to ensure that those performance standards are met.

G. Gentner: Thank you to the minister, and thank you for your vote of confidence relative to transparency. However, we still don't know what penalties Maximus is paying to the provincial authority.

Once open, the private service providers expected to receive an annual service payment of about $40 million. Are these costs written in stone with no change in the costs, and for how long? Is this what we're going to have for 30 straight years?

Hon. C. Taylor: That is a maximum payment you're referring to. There are provisions in five years to review the situation and ensure that the government is satisfied with all the arrangements.

G. Gentner: Yes, the maximum payment will be under this payment review. Who will make that decision of review? Will the private provider be part of that decision-making process?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is a commercial contract. The terms are clear and written into the contract, and there's also an arbitration process built in so that if there is some disagreement, it will be resolved.

G. Gentner: The 30-year contract is for $424 million, and it's projected to be $39 million less than the public sector comparable. That's not much of a contingency to work on. What bonuses will be paid to the partnership during that period?

Hon. C. Taylor: If you're talking about bonuses compared to the annual performance of the company, none.

St. Paul's, very quickly. When will Partnerships B.C. finish its business case for the alternate options surrounding St. Paul's Hospital?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is not a Partnerships B.C. project. This is a Vancouver Coastal Health Authority project. Partnerships B.C. has been involved to assess different business options, and if you would like to know the status of the St. Paul's situation, certainly, that's the Health Minister.

G. Gentner: I believe there's a $1 million grant that was provided for…. Partnerships B.C. was involved — up to $1 million towards providing a business case.

Hon. C. Taylor: There was a project team put together, and it involved the Health Ministry, Vancouver Coastal, as well as Providence. The team was assigned the task of looking not only at the business case but also at the health case, and that's where Partnerships B.C. was involved — as part of that team.

G. Gentner: There has been a review which Partnerships B.C. has been involved in, and this review has been completed, if I have it correct. This review has been completed with some influence driven by Partnerships B.C.?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's common knowledge, public knowledge, that property was in fact purchased by a foundation, but it has nothing to do with the province.

Quickly, to the service plan for '05-06: "Partnerships B.C. is committed to ensuring it is a commercially viable organization by '05-06 fiscal year." Why isn't it viable now?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, Partnerships B.C. has been tracking better than we had hoped and was profitable this year. We're not through this year, but we are hoping it will be profitable and meet its commitment to commercial viability this year as well.

G. Gentner: The minister's response is telling me that revenues are therefore exceeding expenses.

Partnerships B.C. will "create subsidiary corporations" as an arrangement "between public sector clients and private investors." What type of subsidiary corporations are you to create, and what type of arrangements will they be?

Hon. C. Taylor: These subsidiaries are developed in relationship with the project. They're time-limited to the time of the project, and they are done so that we can have certainty that there's good governance involved with that organization.

G. Gentner: Part of the question, I think, was on how many subsidiaries we have created to date. Any?

G. Gentner: I'm going to finish up here with Britannia mine water treatment plant. To many, it appears on the surface to be a reasonably good P3. There are good P3s. There could very well be one in the works, though there are some issues relative to the removal of sludge and environmental concerns. We'll see how it all comes together.

Quickly, I'm more interested in the small hydro generation plant on site. Will it have a capacity to sell surplus electricity to the grid?

G. Gentner: According to the intent of the project, it was. I'm of the opinion that it's still a possibility. Where I was going with that: I wanted to know what type of royalty was going to come to the province and what the option was to expand the plant further.

Seeing the time and knowing that the hon. Minister of Energy and Mines is going be here on Tuesday, I suppose I will segue that or throw a slow pitch at him. I'd like to thank the minister for her time. There are other hon. members here who wish to come forward.

G. Robertson: My greetings to the minister and staff. I have a couple of questions that...

The Chair: If I could just make one statement. The agreement between the party leaders is that it will be 5:35 tonight when we'll be calling the question.

A quick question related to the Post-Secondary Employers Association, as referred to by the Minister of Advanced Education. To direct my questions to the Finance Minister: as it is Ministry of Finance legislation that established the Post-Secondary Employers Association, I believe…. I have not gotten clarity on this. I am seeking clarity on it now. I'm curious whether the Finance Ministry can answer questions about the Post-Secondary Employers Association and the terms under which they have been negotiating with the institutions — the colleges, university colleges and institutes.

Hon. C. Taylor: Finance Ministry is responsible for PSAC, which is the overall coming together of all the employers' organizations, but we are not directly involved with the employers council themselves.

G. Robertson: Let me be more specific. In terms of the bargaining table challenges that have occurred, my understanding from the Minister of Advanced Education was that it would be the Finance Ministry that would be able to clarify whether Vince Ready had been involved in trying to resolve breakdowns in talks between the employers on behalf of the government.

Hon. C. Taylor: It's my understanding that Vince Ready has worked along with Peter Cameron, which is the employer's organization you were talking about.

J. Kwan: Just to update the minister, I was able to contact various people to confirm that we may have to — in fact, we will have to — table the rest of the estimates till next week, to make up for some lost time as a result of today. The exact schedule of how that will work is yet to be sorted out. We'll know in due course.

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

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