Hansard — Tuesday, November 22, 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		2095

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		2096
	HANDS Together program in Langley
	M. Polak
	Exposure of children to toxic substances
	G. Robertson
	Cancer care in northern B.C.
	J. Rustad
	Saanich centennial trails project
	D. Cubberley
	Port Mann Bridge expansion
	D. Hayer
	Burgess Shale fossil site
	N. Macdonald

Oral Questions		2098
	Responsibility for outstanding child death reviews
	C. James
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Hon. J. Les
	Handling of child death review of Brandon James Seymour
	C. James
	Hon. J. Les
	R. Austin
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Coroner's inquest into death of Savannah Hall
	A. Dix
	Hon. J. Les
	Handling of child death reviews
	G. Gentner
	Hon. J. Les
	Communication with families in child death review process
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. S. Hagen
	J. Kwan
	Cleanliness standards in Victoria health care facilities
	D. Cubberley
	Hon. G. Abbott
	M. Karagianis

Tabling Documents		2103
	Office of the Auditor General, report, Strategic Direction and Funding Proposal for the Fiscal Year 2006-07

Motions without Notice		2103
	Appointment of Special Committee on Sustainable Aquaculture
	Hon. M. de Jong

Committee of Supply		2104
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	L. Mayencourt
	Hon. G. Abbott
	B. Ralston
	C. Wyse
	D. Cubberley
	Estimates: Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services
	Hon. M. de Jong
	C. Puchmayr

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		2120
	Estimates: Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	B. Simpson
	Hon. B. Bennett
	M. Sather
	G. Robertson
	S. Simpson
	G. Coons
	N. Simons
	G. Gentner

Hon. L. Reid: I have the absolute pleasure to introduce family who come to visit us in this place. I'm delighted to welcome my husband's sister Cheryl Ferguson. She's joined by her husband Brett, their son Trevor Ferguson and his wife Jeanette, and the finest little two-year-old named Orlando. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: The tourism industry is in Victoria today promoting British Columbia. There are a couple of people from my riding and area that I would like to introduce: Al Ordge, who's the economic development manager for the city of Coquitlam, and Dave Donaldson, who's the dean of the school of hospitality and business and the school of music at Vancouver Community College.

J. Horgan: I know this will come as a surprise to many members, but I was an auction item in a fundraiser, and I've had the good fortune of having some lunch today….

Joining us today in the gallery are the church ladies of Pilgrim United Church, and they are Irene Moore, Marilyn French, Ruth Scott and Pat Ridgers. Would you all please make them welcome.

Hon. O. Ilich: A large contingent of tourism representatives from all across B.C. has been in Victoria today to discuss their vision for tourism, as my colleague just said. We've been sharing some success stories like Rocky Mountaineer Vacations's recent world travel award for the world's leading travel experience by train and Vancouver being recognized by the Economist magazine as the top destination in the world for business travel. By sharing our successes as an industry, we can continue to help ensure that B.C. remains in the spotlight as a world-class tourism destination.

The Council of Tourism Associations has been the lead organizer of today's meetings, and I would like to introduce a number of the COTA executive and staff who are here today. They are Michael Campbell, COTA president; Mary Mahon Jones, COTA CEO; Jim Storie, COTA first vice-president; Petrus Rykes, COTA vice-president; Allan Baydala, another COTA vice-president; and Deane Strongitharm, David Littlejohn, Don Monsour and Will Harding, the policy and planning analyst.

Also taking part in today's events are two people from my hometown, Tracy Lakeman and Lorenzo Lepore from Tourism Richmond. I would like to thank all of the tourism operators and representatives who travelled here today for sharing their views with us. I hope the House will make them feel welcome. I would like to welcome everybody who has travelled with them to Victoria.

M. Sather: Here in the gallery today is one of my constituents, Janice Elkerton, who is a longtime councillor from the municipality of Pitt Meadows. I'm pleased to report that she was successful again last Saturday evening. Janice is also chair of the Municipal Insurance Association and is here on MIA business. Will all members please make her welcome.

V. Roddick: In the gallery today is the treasurer of the Council of Tourism Associations, also responsible for COTA's air transportation portfolio. Allan Baydala, a longtime constituent of the gateway community of Delta South, was president and owner of West Coast Air Ltd. and an executive of Canadian Airlines and Air B.C. Currently, he is the president of the North Fraser Port Authority. Will the House please give him a warm B.C. tourism welcome.

D. Routley: In the gallery joining us today are Leanne Baird and Glynnis Yves, two constituents from Cowichan-Ladysmith and members of the Vancouver Island loggers safety support group. This is a group made up mainly of family members of loggers and logging truck drivers who are rallying in order to bring attention to the many deaths that have been experienced in B.C. forests in the past year — that unfortunate and tragic total now at 38. They're trying to bring attention to a rally on Thursday, November 24, at 1 p.m. and 2:15 p.m. at Leroy Trucking in Chemainus. I'd like the House to make them welcome, please.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Dr. Lenaya Betel. She manages Hatem, which is an internationally known aboriginal tourism destination site in Mission, B.C. Could the House please make Lenaya very welcome.

C. Trevena: As we all know, there are many representatives of the tourism industry here, and tourism is vital for the B.C. economy. I would like the House to make welcome two constituents of mine. One is Brian Gunn, president of the Wilderness Tourism Association, who is promoting our wonderful wilderness in B.C. The other is Craig Murray, who owns and runs Nimmo Bay Resort, an internationally renowned resort which attracts many international visitors. I hope the House will make them very welcome.

R. Sultan: In the galleries today is Mr. Rick Baxter, a constituent who also owns and operates West Coast Airlines. Along with his rival, Greg McDougall at Harbour Air, these two gentlemen run the harbour-to-

harbour air service that gets many MLAs to work safely and on time — except when it's foggy.

J. McIntyre: I'd like to welcome some guests in the gallery today too, who are with the COTA group on tourism. They're from the Whistler area, and I would like to introduce Derek Gagner, Ian Dunn and Michele Comeau-Thompson from Tourism Whistler along with Christina Moore from Whistler-Blackcomb.

Mr. Speaker, I'd like to share with you that Whistler has just received another two awards recently, naming them as a number-one ski destination. So I'm very proud, and I hope the House will make them feel welcome today.

A. Dix: Many members of the House had an opportunity today to meet with representatives of the We Survived Woodlands group, who have brought stories of courage and perseverance to us. The Minister of Children and Families and I will have an opportunity to discuss their issues later in the week. I wish to welcome to the galleries Gregg Schiller, Arlene Schouten, Richard McDonald, Ken Milne, Gary Hill, Len Zimmer, Bill MacArthur, Debbie Yaschuk, Shelley Starr, Paul Irwin and Roxanne Gregory. I ask everyone in the House to wish them a fond welcome.

V. Roddick: Also in the gallery today is a great collection of grades 11 and 12 students from Tsawwassen Southpointe Academy. They're accompanied by teacher David Scholefield and school counsellor Wendy Diomis. Their tour of the Legislature emphasized government, parliamentary tradition, some history and other applicable topics through our education and outreach branch. Will the House please give these possible future MLAs an enthusiastic welcome.

N. Simons: I would also like to add my welcome to the folks from COTA who hosted us for breakfast this morning. I managed to have some breakfast, which is good. I'm glad they're here, because they remind us about the important work we have to do as MLAs. I thank them for their hospitality and for treating me nicely. And I won't go further, but make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Today in the gallery I have a constituent from Vancouver-Burrard. Her name is Laurie Moffat, and she's joined by her son Mitch Miller, who is from northern Ontario.

Yesterday I spoke about the constituency assistants I have that are beyond compare. They're just wonderful people. A former constituency assistant of mine is here with the Council of Tourism Associations — Ashley Haslett. I would invite the House to join me in welcoming them to the Legislature.

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, would like to add my welcome to a member of the COTA board. Lana Denoni, who I see in the gallery just behind the Hansard booth, is a hard-working individual who used to be a chamber of commerce president here. She is very involved in tourism and works for a very important tourism business in my riding, the Oak Bay Marine Group, which also operates Painter's Lodge and April Point Lodge. She is here in the gallery, and I ask the House to please make her welcome.

D. Hayer: Since we have tourism as the theme, I will add my two words. Today we have in the House from go2 — the resource for people in tourism — Arlene Keis, the chief executive officer, and John Leschyson, the director of industry human resource development from the riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Would the House please make them very welcome.

M. Polak: On November 18 it was my privilege to attend the official launch of the Langley HANDS Together project. The acronym HANDS stands for health, activities, nutrition, development and safety, with "together" referring to the parent-child relationship. The HANDS Together project will provide parents and caregivers with information about child development, while at the same time providing tools that will aid them in promoting literacy, good health and nutrition habits, and physical activity as their children grow and mature.

The first part of the project uses developmental wheels. The wheels are funded through a grant from the Fraser Health Authority, and they offer practical information about child development from birth to school entry in an easy-to-read format. The wheels, along with other helpful information, are provided to a family when a public health nurse visits their home after the birth of their new baby. Subsequent wheels will be distributed to families as they bring their children in to be immunized at public health clinics in the community.

The second part of the project provides information kits that are funded through the Make Children First initiative. Each kit focuses on a different developmental milestone and contains children's books, a music tape, a felt board story, a puppet and a video, as well as a book for parents and a list of other resources.

This exciting project is the result of a community working together to promote healthy child development. The working group included Aldergrove Neighbourhood Services, Langley Child Development Centre, Langley Family Services, Langley public health, Langley City Library and Langley child and youth mental health. Together these organizations and the parents of Langley are bringing B.C. ever closer to reaching our goals in education, literacy and healthy living.

G. Robertson: The people of this province who are most vulnerable to toxins are children. After accidents, childhood cancers are now the leading cause of death in Canadian children. There have been frightening increases in asthma rates, chemical sensitization, learning disorders and early onset of puberty. Our schools and day cares are ground zero for exposure of our kids to toxins. From building materials to industrial cleaners, contaminants are a very significant health concern.

Some outstanding organizations are tackling this head on, though. Kitsilano Area Child Care Society, which operates a day care in the Premier's riding, has researched environmental design and non-toxic materials for a new day care portable which would be a showcase for truly healthy child care. They're also willing to fund half of the additional cost for the healthy building. To date, though, this government has declined to invest matching funds in this worthy pilot project.

The Labour Environmental Alliance Society recently launched an initiative on the students' environmental bill of rights to affirm the right of students and their parents to know what toxic substances they could be exposed to in the school environment. It would also give them the right to avoid exposure if a substance could cause harm.

The key focus here is making our schools healthy places. Many hazardous ingredients are found in the cleaning products used. Non-toxic products are readily available and should be mandatory. The provincial building code for day cares and schools fails to address known toxins and changes needed to improve the standards for air quality in particular.

The work these two organizations are doing advances the goals of this government for both world-class education and environmental standards, and they should be commended and supported by this House.

J. Rustad: Dealing with cancer is a frightening and exhausting process for anyone. It can be doubly difficult if you live in a northern community like those in my riding, and your treatment requires you to travel hundreds of kilometres.

Make no mistake, Mr. Speaker. A wide range of cancer treatments are available in northern communities like Prince George, Prince Rupert, Fort St. John, Terrace, Smithers and Quesnel. But some cases still require hours of travel and days or weeks at a facility in the lower mainland away from family and friends, particularly for radiation therapy. That's why I, like my fellow Prince George MLAs, am committed to being an advocate for my constituents as we work to build on the existing level of cancer care in northern B.C.

I'm pleased to state today that there is progress on this important northern issue. Cooperation between this government, the Northern Health Authority, northern doctors, the University of Northern B.C. and the B.C. Cancer Agency is producing results. A provincially funded public consultation process is underway to examine cancer care throughout the north, and a recent Northern Health Authority report lays out the stepping stones to achieve a northern radiation clinic.

There are challenges to address at the community level, such as recruitment of cancer specialists and changing physician referral patterns, but we are making progress. I truly believe there will be a full-service cancer program in northern B.C. that includes radiation treatment. It's just a matter of time and continued support from government and our health care professionals. My constituents can be certain that I will continue to advocate for whatever provincial support is needed to make the dream of a full-service cancer care facility in the north a reality.

D. Cubberley: It's my pleasure today to share an initiative in my home community of Saanich in celebration of its 100th anniversary in 2006. I'm referring to the Centennial Trails project, whose goal is to extend access to multi-use trails to every corner of the municipality. The idea is to enable more residents to make the healthy choice to get around without their cars by linking city to country and people to nature using trail networks.

This idea builds on past experience. Since the mid-'90s Saanich has inspired regional interest in trail-building with notable successes like the Galloping Goose and Lochside regional trails. Many thousands of people use these trails daily, prompting a sense of ownership and public appetite for more that is clearly reflected in the Centennial Trails project. Some Centennial Trails will preserve historic rail corridors like the Interurban Rail Trail, which is built on remnants of an old electric railway, the Interurban, which served the Saanich Peninsula. This spring the member for Saanich North and the Islands and I had the pleasure of attending the official opening of part of the trail.

Others like the Blenkinsop Connector, which provides access across the Blenkinsop Valley, link communities like Gordon Head that are isolated by busy roads from the main trail network. Bringing trails closer to where people live and connecting them directly to major destinations creates new opportunities for active living.

In Saanich multi-use trails have become a way of linking parks, open space and destinations into linear networks accessible to all. Opening many new trails and connectors during 2006 will serve as a rolling celebration of 100 years of growth, prosperity and community. The outcome, a city integrated by trails supporting physical exercise and pleasant surroundings, will serve as a model for the changes needed to spark participation across B.C. as we strive to become the healthiest, most physically active province in Canada.

D. Hayer: We have just gone through a civic election, and while I commend those who sought office, some Vancouver-area politicians angered me with a lack of understanding regarding transportation. They just don't understand transportation issues outside their own narrow communities. An example last week was a Vancouver NDP MLA presenting to this House a petition against the twinning of the Port Mann Bridge.

B.C. is one of North America's most significant gateways to trade, and Vancouver is the keeper of that gate. Yet many just don't seem to grasp the notion that people and products must be able to move through it. Vancouver has a great port, tens of thousands of offices, many corporations' headquarters, industry and vibrant construction. But most people working there live too far from their jobs to walk, cycle or ride on transit. Many live in Surrey or points east. Every day they commute, and they do their part to make British Columbia's economy strong and vibrant.

But they pay a huge price in lost time stuck in gridlock and adding to the smog pollution at the Port Mann Bridge. The loss to the economy is estimated at $1.5 billion a year, and the loss of quality family time wasted in traffic is even greater than that.

I have spoken many, many times in this House about the need to twin the Port Mann Bridge and widen Highway 1 — this is almost unanimously supported by my Surrey-Tynehead constituents — and to see this bridge designed to carry some sort of future ALRT or SkyTrain system. That is a long-term vision, and that is necessary. The sooner local politicians in the Vancouver area realize that, the better it is for everyone.

N. Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Council of Tourism Associations has members here in the House, and what I'm going to talk about today will, I think, interest not only the members but also you.

What I'm talking about is the potential of melding educational and tourist activities together around the world-famous Burgess Shale. As you know, Mr. Speaker, and I'm sure others in the House know, the Burgess Shale is a fossil site first discovered in 1909. It is a UNESCO heritage site. It sits above Field, in the eastern part of my riding. This is perhaps the world's most significant fossil discovery, and it is here in B.C.

There are three things that make it exceptional. The first is its age. It is over half a billion years old. It came during an explosion of new life forms that appeared during the Cambrian period. This is at a time when all life existed only in the sea. It's significant for that reason. Second, the information it provides related to the study of evolution is important. Stephen J. Gould talked about it. Third is the detail of the fossils. The fact is that these are soft-tissue fossils, and they're really rare. There are gills, stomachs and sometimes even stomach contents visible. This is one of the pre-eminent fossil sites in the world.

I'm sure the Premier is interested in knowing more about it. The offer I have is, of course, that when you're there — excuse me, through the Speaker — in the spring to open the B.C. tourist site, there's a wonderful opportunity to show you exactly where that facility is going to go. Thank you very much for the opportunity.

C. James: Since 2001 the child mortality rate for the general population has remained the same year over year. However, the child death rate among children known to the ministry and those in care has increased every year since 2001. It's an alarming statistic, and it's something the government needs to understand.

My question is to the Premier. "When a child dies, pay attention." Those were his words. Can he explain to this House why the child mortality rate for children in care and those known to the ministry has risen so sharply since his government took power?

Hon. S. Hagen: Every child is important, especially the children in care, to the ministry. We pay very close attention to that. We have an excellent foster care system. We have 5,000 children in care in 3,000 foster homes. The other thing that foster parents provide is one-third of all adoptions. One-third of the 350 adoptions last year came out of foster homes.

We do care about children. We want to make sure that they're safe. That's why we have the Hon. Ted Hughes looking at the system on how we protect children in care. We will pay close attention to what he comes back to us with and will certainly consider all of his recommendations.

C. James: We certainly see this government looking at a number of indicators when it comes to issues. One of the indicators, Mr. Speaker, that you would think a government would pay attention to would be a child mortality rate for children known to the ministry and children in care.

The simple fact is that the government doesn't know the answer to the question, and the reason is simple: the government took away its ability to learn from child deaths. The government shut down the Children's Commission and abandoned 713 cases. In addition, since 2003 the government has neglected another 546 cases.

So a simple question to the Solicitor General, one that we haven't had an answer to yet: how many secondary child death reviews has the coroner's office completed since 2003, and when will those be released to the public?

Hon. J. Les: I want to say yet again, one more time, that no children in British Columbia are abandoned by this government — not one. When there is the unfortunate event of a child death in British Columbia, that is always thoroughly reviewed. That is reviewed by medical personnel where that is appropriate. That can be reviewed by the coroner either at a full public inquest or an inquiry where a judgment of inquiry results, which is released publicly. It is reviewed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It is reviewed by the child and youth officer. It can be reviewed in the context of a police investigation and, ultimately, then by Crown counsel as well. So there are a variety of people that review child deaths in British Columbia.

C. James: To the Solicitor General: we've heard about the reviews — the initial review that is done. The key here is that those reviews have not been made public. In fact, they have not been made public to many of the families of these children, who not only want to know but deserve to know what occurred in the death of their child.

I want to talk just for a moment about one of those children, Brandon Seymour. He died only three weeks after the Ministry of Children and Families placed him in foster care. He was left unattended in a wheelchair that was too big for him. When his caregivers found him, the wheelchair straps were across his neck. The only review to date has been a coroner's report that offered no recommendations.

The Solicitor General has had 24 hours to get some information. So my question is to the Solicitor General: can he confirm if a child death review was completed or if one has even been started?

Hon. J. Les: The member opposite is absolutely right. A review was undertaken of the death of Brandon Seymour. Of course, as in all of these cases, our hearts go out to the family involved, and we want to work very diligently to ensure that these kinds of events don't happen again.

There was a coroner's review that was done of the death, and the coroner's results were that there could be no recommendation based on the fact that the cause of death was undetermined. That is a professional determination. That is not something that we are going to politically second-guess.

The secondary review in terms of that fatality will occur, and that will occur at the discretion of the chief coroner of the province in the context of the child death review unit. We look forward to that reporting out at the appropriate time.

R. Austin: I'm glad to hear that there's going to be a second review. Brandon's mother Dayna Humphrey will be happy to hear that. Once she heard about the 546 neglected cases, she knew that her son was among them. She needed help with her son and felt she couldn't properly manage his special needs. She wants to know why her son died only three weeks after the ministry placed him in a foster home. She hasn't been given a single answer. She tried to follow up with the ministry but got the runaround. The ministry's investigations unit told her that when they finished their review of Brandon's death, they would contact her. Dayna Humphrey never heard back from the ministry.

Dayna Humphrey spoke with our office today, and she wants to hear from the Minister of Children and Family Development. Can he explain why her son only survived for three weeks in a foster home when she was told that it would be a safer place for him?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can report to the House and to the member that a deputy director review is in progress.

R. Austin: Dayna Humphrey had nowhere to turn. The ministry would not help her. There was no independent Children's Commission or advocate to turn to. No one was willing to help her find out what happened to her son, and today the government still cannot explain why Brandon's case, like so many others, was abandoned or neglected. Can the Minister of Children and Family Development explain why his ministry told her they would get back to her but then never returned her call?

Hon. S. Hagen: The member is incorrect. There is no abandonment here. As I have told the House, there is a deputy director review in progress.

A. Dix: Just to say to the Solicitor General that in fact we were told…. He gave a press conference last week and said that 546 child death reviews have been completed. This one hasn't even been started. I think, when you talk about an original coroner's review that has no recommendations and is indeterminate about the cause of death, that is completely unacceptable. Brandon Seymour was one of 546 cases that the government has neglected since 2003.

Savannah Hall was one of 713 cases the government has forgotten. From e-mails released to the official opposition, it is clear that the Ministry of Children

and Family Development knew about the harness that Savannah Hall's foster family was using to restrain her and that the ministry had given its approval for the use of this restraint. After Savannah died, the ministry told the coroner they did not know about the harness and that they would not have approved its use.

Will the Solicitor General admit that a coroner can't be expected to do his or her work when other ministries do not provide accurate information? And will he order an inquest today so that we can all find out what happened to Savannah Hall?

Hon. J. Les: I guess the member opposite didn't hear the first time, so I will repeat. Every child's death in British Columbia is reviewed — every one, without question and without exception. I wish that the members opposite would quit propagating the myth that somehow that does not occur.

With respect to the 713 files we've talked about, each of those cases has been reviewed, as I outlined earlier, by a variety of professional people who work for us every day on our behalf in British Columbia. Those 713 files all require a secondary review, and that is going to happen. I have made that commitment publicly, and that will happen. The 546 files have had a secondary review, and they will be reported out appropriately. As the member knows, there is….

A. Dix: Well, it's extraordinary that the Solicitor General has not taken the time to inform himself of the views of the Premier, who said very clearly again and again and again in the 1990s that an original coroner's review focused on the cause of death was not enough. In the case of Savannah Hall, the parents want a review. The foster parents want a review. All of the investigators of the coroner's service who were involved in the case want a coroner's inquest announced by the minister.

What is the minister waiting for? When will he get on with it and order a coroner's inquest into this case?

Hon. J. Les: As I started to say in my previous answer, I want to remind the member opposite that the reporting process with respect to the 546 files that have been completed has already produced a report from the child death review unit. The member might want to have a look at it. It focuses on the deaths of children between birth and a year old — focuses on 47 deaths. I think the member might find it somewhat enlightening, and frankly, I would recommend it to him.

With respect to the case he cites, there are ongoing processes that make it inappropriate for me to request any further ministerial intervention at this time.

G. Gentner: We've heard about two tragic cases today: one from the hundreds this government forgot and one from the hundreds this government has neglected since 2003. Savannah Hall's family and Brandon Seymour's family are still waiting for answers. They are not alone. Harvey Charlie and his family are still waiting to hear what really happened to his granddaughter. All of these deaths have one thing in common. They involve children in care or children known to the ministry — the same groups of children that have experienced alarming increases in mortality rates.

The Solicitor General has said that the system has been working fine. If that's the case, can he explain why child death reviews and recommendations have stopped, and why the number of child deaths among children in care and those in the ministry has increased?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, let me underline that the child death review process has not stopped. It is in fact working well. I have informed the House previously — I think as recently as two or three minutes ago — that since 2003, 546 of those files have been looked into and completed on a secondary review basis. That work continues. I am wondering, frankly, what part of that the members opposite don't get.

G. Gentner: The families that have come forward to date all have one thing in common. They want answers, and they would have them if this government did not shut down the Children's Commission. There would have been recommendations to help prevent future deaths, but this government doesn't have them. Will the Premier help the families of these children move on, and reinstate a Children's Commission so the deaths can be properly reviewed and the government can learn from these tragedies and prevent future deaths?

Hon. J. Les: I am sure I speak for all members of this House when I say that we all want all of the possible answers we can possibly find that relate to these tragedies. Every one of us wants all of the possible answers we can develop and all of the possible lessons we can learn from those examples.

However, I need to point out that some of these files actually go back as far as 1997. For a variety of reasons, sometimes it takes a long time before we can conclude one of these files. It's not because of a lack of desire by government or by the officials who we're privileged to have working for government. We want to conclude these files, learn from them what we can and protect children in British Columbia.

As a result of that, working together, I think we can really achieve a lot on behalf of the children of British Columbia so that they can be protected to the maximum extent possible. I'm committed to doing that. All members of this House are. I would encourage members opposite to work with government to help make that happen.

M. Farnworth: The minister says he's committed. Well, I'd like to again ask the Minister of Children and Families the question that the member for Skeena asked. Dayna Humphrey was told she would be contacted by the ministry. She was never contacted. Can the minister tell us why?

I also want to read into the record numbers that pertain to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the fatalities of children and youth in care in British Columbia. The total numbers starting in 1996 are 19; for 1997, 21; for 1998, 14; for 1999, 15; for 2000, ten; for 2001, nine; for 2002, nine; for 2003, 12; and for 2004, 14.

So if the Leader of the Opposition is trying to make a case that a rise from '02 to '04 of nine deaths — 12 deaths, 14 deaths — is an issue, I would say that it isn't. Every child's death is important to us, but to try and stand up in the House as she did and say that there is a trend…. There's actually a trend downward from 1996.

M. Farnworth: There's a trend, and that is of a government that is saying it is committed to doing things. Yet when they give a commitment to individuals who have names, they're not following through. The minister has said that the Dayna Humphrey family will be contacted. Can he tell us how many of the other 712 families have not been contacted?

Hon. S. Hagen: I can tell the member opposite this. I am confident that my staff, who deal with these sorts of issues and very difficult issues every hour of every day, are sensitive to the plight of families and are sensitive to getting back on telephone messages. If some mistake has been made and someone didn't get back, we'll follow that up. But for this member to raise that sort of issue places the entire ministry and the staff of the ministry — every social worker — at question. I don't appreciate that, and I don't think the social workers of the ministry appreciate that either.

J. Kwan: The lack of confidence that the opposition has is about this government and how they have handled these files. The fact is that this government only just found 713 files in a warehouse that they had forgotten in the last three years. The families have been waiting for more than three years for answers from this government about what happened to the children. This government has not responded to date. They say now there are all sorts of reviews going on, and it is only because of the opposition raising the issues in this House and putting pressure on the government. So let us be clear about that.

I'll give this minister another opportunity to explain to the families how it is possible that this government neglected to follow up on what they said they would do — that is, to phone the families whose children have died, which the government knows about — and how it is that to date so far this minister has not actually picked up the phone and phoned those families and apologized.

Hon. S. Hagen: I find it to be totally unacceptable for that member opposite to malign the workers of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. It is unconscionable. I have met many of those workers who give their hearts to their clients. When I ask them, "Why do you do the job that you do?" they say: "Because we love to help people."

Here we get the NDP maligning individual social workers for what they do or what they don't do. I'm very proud of the work that the social workers in my ministry and other ministries do. I think they do their job extremely well. As I've said before, they probably have the most difficult challenges to deal with of any ministry in government.

J. Kwan: My question is to the Premier. The government consciously made the cuts in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The government consciously closed the children's commissioner's office. We now have a situation where parents want to know answers, and they have not been getting them for the last three years. Will the Premier rise in this House and apologize to those families?

Hon. S. Hagen: Our hearts and our sympathies certainly go out to the families that are affected. Having said that, I go back to supporting the social workers in my ministry. I think they do an exceptional job with very, very complex issues. For the members opposite to malign what they do, I find very disturbing.

D. Cubberley: A rodent problem at Vic General Hospital has grown to the point of public concern. Saanich Peninsula Hospital has also registered a growing rodent problem at their facilities. You can't deny that growing infestations of rodents raise concerns about cleanliness.

To the Minister of Health. Cleaning services at many Island facilities have been contracted out to a private company, yet no audits have been undertaken to ensure that the private contractor is meeting high standards of service. Can the minister explain why his ministry is not monitoring cleaning standards since Compass Group has taken over?

Hon. G. Abbott: The members may ask: how do cleaning standards compare to, say, ten years ago when the former government was in office? It would be impossible to answer that question because there were no audits done — ever — under that former government around housekeeping. They never audited housekeeping, which we have now done on a sustainable and consistent basis across health authorities and across the province.

We're going to demand the absolute highest standards, whether those housekeeping services are delivered in-house by the Hospital Employees Union or whether they are driven by contracts. In either case, we are going to drive the very best, very highest standards, both of housekeeping standards and of food standards, across hospitals in British Columbia.

In terms of the rat problem which the member raises — and I do acknowledge….

Hon. G. Abbott: I do acknowledge his expertise here, and I'll perhaps conclude on the supplemental portion of that.

D. Cubberley: You know, the minister may make light of a rodent infestation, but I don't think British Columbians are going to. The public has raised concerns about cleanliness in hospitals, health facilities themselves have raised concerns about cleanliness in hospitals, and recently the capital regional district raised the red flag on the same issue in a letter to the minister.

The opposition has been asking for an independent audit of cleaning standards since May. Now the CRD is also asking for an independent audit of, among other things, cleaning standards under private contracts. Yet the minister continues to make light of it. Why is the minister refusing to take action on an issue that affects the health and safety of patients?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think part of the problem is that the red flag flies all too frequently over the CRD. I hope that's changed modestly with the last local elections, but I think that often we do see an unfortunate tendency on the part of CRD and others to be overly critical of and unfair to the Vancouver Island Health Authority.

The fact of the matter is that in terms of the rodent problem at the hospital, the only one I'm aware of is Vic General, where there has been some acknowledged concern. That is a periodic problem that occurs around large institutions. In the case of that one, VIHA is well aware of it. It is related to a construction project that is underway, and VIHA is taking all the appropriate steps to ensure that that problem is appropriately managed. This is not a major health concern, notwithstanding the opponents of outsourcing who — quite irresponsibly, I think — are trying to make a case that it's related to outsourcing. It simply is not.

M. Karagianis: This government's experiment with privatized cleaning contracts is a disaster, and the complaints continue to mount. The fact that the minister is now basically disregarding the CRD…. I would hope this is not the kind of relationship-building that we can expect to see in the future with the municipal governments here in the region.

Frankly, we have rodents running loose at Victoria General. There have been reports to the health authority of rodent problems from Saanich Peninsula as well. Sunset Lodge in Esquimalt cancelled their contract with Compass Group because it failed to meet acceptable cleaning standards. A superbug is currently ensconced in the top three floors of the Royal Jubilee Hospital, which they cannot get rid of.

I actually see a connection between the privatized cleaning contracts and all of these health hazards. I would ask: does the minister see the same connection here?

Hon. G. Abbott: What I see is a connection between the desperation of the opposition to try to make a reasonable point around health and what are, I think, completely inappropriate questions. The fact of the matter is that we have a great health care system in British Columbia. We have 120,000 people who work in that health care system. They work tirelessly every day to deliver the best health care they possibly can to the people who, for a time, are patients in our hospitals.

I think the notion that somehow a contracted cleaning service is inherently superior to an in-house cleaning service is wrong. I know that the members opposite, because of their structural links to organized labour, reflexively recoil at any notion that there could potentially be outsourcing in any system. But the fact of the matter is that for the first time ever, our government rigorously monitors and audits housekeeping and food standards across the province — something that that former government never did during their ten years in office.

M. Karagianis: Well, I would ask the minister: what more does it take to get the minister to pay attention to these health hazards? We have rats running in our hospitals. We have a superbug loose in our hospitals…

M. Karagianis: …and if poor cleanliness is at the heart of this, then I think it is the minister's responsibility to take a very keen interest in this.

M. Karagianis: I think that in fact, it is imperative that the minister take responsibility for these mounting disasters in our health facilities here. High cleaning standards are not negotiable. In fact, the health and safety of our health facilities and the citizens of this province are at the top of the priorities of this side of the House. I would like to see the minister step up and make that a top priority, not disregard…

M. Karagianis: …all of these health problems, saying that it is simply labour or the opposition.

Again I will ask the minister, as I have several times before in the past: will you commit to an independent audit of the health facilities in this region to report out on the standards to the public?

Hon. G. Abbott: If anyone should take responsibility for anything, I think that member opposite ought to take responsibility for absolutely ridiculous and, I think, totally irresponsible comments about rats running in hallways in hospitals. That is absolutely absurd and so totally irresponsible that I can't imagine why anyone would say it.

It's interesting, Mr. Speaker, that when these members call for their independent inquiries on this and that, it somehow is always related to contracted services. Why is that? It is because of the structural links.

Hon. G. Abbott: I understand they're a bit jumpy on this point because they have a party convention this weekend. I think they're considering at this point in time moving from overt ownership by the B.C. Federation of Labour to covert ownership, so I can understand why they are jumpy on this point.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the report of the Auditor General, Strategic Direction and Funding Proposal for the Fiscal Year 2006-07.

Hon. S. Hagen: Today I have the pleasure of introducing 24 students and two teachers from the Comox Valley and Powell River. These students have chosen to learn at home with the assistance of their parents and supportive teachers from the program, Partners in Learning. I would ask the members to please make our guests welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: This is a bit different than normal motions for committees, but not that different.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply — for the information of the members, in this chamber, estimates for the Ministry of Health and in Committee A,

L. Mayencourt: I have a number of questions for the Minister of Health on his estimates, and the first place I'd like to start is with respect to the supervised injection site in downtown Vancouver. I wonder if the minister could articulate why we created the supervised injection site in British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his very important question. The decision to move ahead was a multipartnered decision, including the federal government through Health Canada, the provincial government through Ministry of Health, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the city of Vancouver. All were supportive of implementing and incorporating — under, I guess, the broad umbrella of the five pillars of harm reduction — what appear to be international best practices around the management of heroin addiction.

The potential benefits that can flow from a supervised injection site, as opposed to what has been the case for a long time — kind of ad hoc injection of the drug out on streets and in alleys and so on — are reduction in the occurrence of HIV with the careful management of needles; the reduction of the potential for overdose deaths, as medical personnel are closer at hand; and avoidance of occurrence of other health-related issues like hepatitis but certainly not limited to that.

L. Mayencourt: Yes, I understand that it was a multipartnership agreement. The Ministry of Health, Vancouver Coastal, the city of Vancouver and, of course, the Canadian government supported this. How much money did we spend in creating the supervised injection site, and how much is its operating budget for this year?

Hon. G. Abbott: When the member asks what our contribution is, I assume he is talking of the Ministry of Health and Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. The initial capital cost to the province was $1.2 million to renovate the site, and the annual cost for operation of that site is about $2 million. That's about the level of the provincial contribution. I believe there are some additional contributions from other partners, but that would be our contribution to it.

L. Mayencourt: Do you have any estimate of what the other contributions are? What's the city of Vancouver putting into it? What's the federal government ministry of health putting into it?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. In addition to the $2 million, which is the approximate annual operating contribution from Vancouver Coastal Health Authority via the Ministry of Health, there is $1.5 million from the federal government over three years for the purpose of evaluation of the study. We don't have the information about what the city of Vancouver may contribute, if anything, but we will get the member that information. We just don't have it present with us at the moment.

L. Mayencourt: Assuming that the city of Vancouver…. I'm sure the city's contributing something, but I would imagine that probably the bigger contributors would be the province and the federal government. So roughly, we're looking at about a $3.7 million commitment to create and run for one year the supervised injection site.

Earlier I asked the minister about some of the reasons why the supervised injection site was created. He mentioned the reduction of the spread of HIV, a reduction in the number of overdoses and a reduction in the transmission of hepatitis C. There were a couple of other things that were actually part of it, to my recollection. One was to reduce the impact of the open drug scene in downtown Vancouver or, in other words, to try and make it a little less noticeable, I guess. Another one was to improve access to treatment and improve access to detox. Then the final one was to improve health outcomes for residents of that neighbourhood. That's my recollection of it.

I recently read a report from the centre for excellence talking about the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the downtown east side. I wonder if the minister could please tell me: how is it going with the spread of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C in the downtown east side?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to, first of all, acknowledge that my recollection as a former minister responsible for the Vancouver agreement under the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services…. I think the additional points that he read into the record in terms of why governments were undertaking to do this are correct. There may be additional insights that could be provided by the current minister responsible for the Vancouver agreement that I can't, but I do believe that the member was correct, at least in terms of the broad kind of umbrella of reasons why governments chose to proceed with this.

To clarify: the $1.2 million was to renovate the site. It is not an annualized cost; it is a one-time cost. The

ongoing operating cost would, we suggest, be in the $2 million range. I thank the member for this, because it's important that we have rigorous and robust analysis of what the product is, of the safe injection site.

The year-one evaluation released in September 2004 highlighted a number of positive preliminary results — for example, a high intake of the SIS service by people who inject illicit drugs in Vancouver, with an average of close to 600 injections per day; 107 on-site drug overdose interventions with no fatalities; regular referrals of clients to addiction treatment and counselling services — an average of two to four a day at this time in the year-one evaluation; a noticeable reduction in public-injection drug use, publicly discarded syringes and injection-related litter; and no significant increase in the number of drug dealers in the vicinity of Insite, or the SIS site.

The member asked the important question: are we attempting to move people from this facility to where, notwithstanding its beneficial aspects, we want people to move on and try to turn their lives around and defeat their addictions? There are referrals. I'm sure that the folks that work there work hard to try to encourage people — where there is any interest in turning their addictions around — to do that.

In terms of other issues, the member asked about the issue of new HIV-positive tests by health authorities. This is the best information we have in relation to Vancouver Coastal, which is the green bar in this particular graph, and I'd be glad to provide the member with this graph. It's illustrative of this point: in 2002, 249 new HIV-positive tests by the health authority; in 2003, 233; and in 2004, 224 — so an approximate 10-percent reduction in the number of new reported HIV cases.

The other day, I think in response to questions from the opposition Health critic, we did talk about some of the challenges around having HIV now be a reportable disease. We think there was a jump, initially at least, in the number of HIV cases because reportability was now required. There was probably some — I won't want to call it artificial — jump in response to that.

These numbers are encouraging in terms of Vancouver Coastal. I'm just trying to take a quick look here at some of the others. In the north we have significantly rising new HIV-positive tests, from 12 in 2002 to 21 in 2003 and 26 in 2004. That's certainly one where we would be concerned that the numbers, although smaller, are going in the wrong direction.

In the case of Fraser it's more mixed, moving from 100 down to 84 and then up to 106, and in the case of Vancouver Island moving from 56 down to 50 then up to 76. These are interesting, but given the volume of the numbers at Vancouver Coastal, I suspect that a lot of those new HIV-positive tests might be associated with intravenous drug use. Again, it's difficult to say that with certainty, but those are the numbers, I think, and the best we have currently around that important issue.

L. Mayencourt: Is it safe to say that hepatitis C is a common factor for those people in the downtown east side that are using the supervised injection site? It seems to me that in my community there's a fairly big discussion about the spread of hepatitis C which, although it is not perhaps as deadly as the AIDS virus, has some very debilitating consequences to anyone that is infected with it.

My question is: what about hep C? How does that fit into this particular scenario?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his important question on hepatitis C. I'm advised that hepatitis C is a blood-borne disease that in some instances is transported by injection drug use just as HIV might be. Generally speaking, what limits the spread of HIV in terms of best practices or safe practices will also limit the spread of hepatitis C.

We understand that approximately 55,255 British Columbians have been confirmed as infected with hepatitis C. That is the most recent figure we have. About 25 percent of those infected with hepatitis C are known to spontaneously clear their infection. Therefore, at the present time about 41,000 of the 55,255 of antibody-positive individuals are likely to have a chronic infection with hep C.

Due to shared risk factors an estimated 1,050 to 2,625 British Columbians are infected with both HIV and hepatitis C. There is a range there based on the best estimates from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control. The BCCDC is working with the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS to verify the actual number of people who are co-infected with the two diseases.

L. Mayencourt: I thank the minister for that answer. The next question I have…. The minister had articulated a few of the successes of the supervised injection site. Just a question or so ago he mentioned detox, public injections — injections on the street, I guess — injection materials lying around the street and a number of people who were coming through every day. Could he repeat that for me, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: I won't repeat it in full, because I know there are probably more questions than we have time for me to answer comprehensively here, but it was the overdose interventions with no fatalities; regular referral of clients to addiction and treatment counselling services; noticeable reductions in public injection drug use, publicly discarded syringes and injection-related litter; and no significant increase in the number of drug dealers in the vicinity of Insite.

When we talk of the successes here, I think we're talking in relative terms, because if the member were to argue — and I'm not suggesting he's going to — that all of those issues still exist in some measure on the downtown east side, I wouldn't disagree with him. My most recent car journey through that area would suggest that there are still problems there. I think it has improved, though, in fairness.

Is there lots of improvement yet to be had? No question about it. I think there are still some very compelling social, economic and medical problems to be addressed on that particularly troubled area of the downtown east side. So this is not a cure-all. Is it a step in the right direction? I think our evaluation to date would suggest that it is.

L. Mayencourt: I would agree most certainly with the Minister of Health on the prevalence of the open drug scene. It is pretty evident to anybody that drives through the downtown east side that there's an awful lot of drug activity that occurs on Hastings and Main, through the lanes and what have you. As the minister knows, I've taken a lot of walks through that neighbourhood, and I see a lot of people shooting up in the alleys and smoking crack in the alleys and those sorts of things. So I certainly understand that it's going to be hard for us to change the way that the street looks.

I was interested, really, in the spread of HIV with respect to the new harm reduction models — which were implemented, I think, in about 1996 — and to see how the trend is going. In other words, if I was to go back to 2001 or the year 2000 or the year 1999 when the harm reduction model was in place, what kind of numbers were there at that point?

I thank the minister for letting me know. I guess from his numbers that there's somewhere maybe around 2,000 people that are co-infected, and that's an important thing for me to consider. But I guess what I'd like to know is: if you look at HIV/AIDS and the spread of it within British Columbia — I'd only wanted to do it in the downtown east side, but the minister has pointed out that the north is rising, Fraser is sort of up and down and that VIHA seems to be on the rise, actually — how did it look before we started with all the harm reduction stuff?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member, these are provincial numbers but the most recent ones we have, and it's a table again. I'm happy to share this with the member. Generally, we're making progress in terms of the rate and number of people testing HIV-positive. In 1996 the rate was approximately 20 per 100,000. In absolute numbers, close to 800 people tested positive for HIV in 1996. It has fallen. It continuously fell until 2001. It has pretty much plateaued through the period at a rate of about 12 per 100,000 in terms of a rate and number of people testing HIV-positive.

Again, there may be some influence on reportability around this. I'm not sure. Reportability occurred in 2004. So again, I think we'd say we're not happy with the numbers. On the other hand, I think it's an indication that some of the strategies that have been undertaken — not just the safe injection site but broader than that — have borne some positive results.

L. Mayencourt: The next question I have for the minister…. He mentioned referrals to detox and to treatment, and I wonder if the minister could say again how many people are referred, I think, on a weekly basis. I'd also ask: where are they being referred to?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer was that two to four clients per day are referred. They're not referred out. They can actually get counselling right on site with respect to addiction treatment opportunities. So they get the counselling service on site, and some two to four a day are accessing or utilizing that opportunity for counselling and referral to treatment addiction facilities. Vancouver Coastal is, I think it's fair to say, the leader in this province in terms of addictions management, addictions treatment, and they have developed a very sophisticated continuum of facilities and programs that are aimed at meeting the needs of the clients that they serve.

L. Mayencourt: So it's not two to four referrals to a detox program or a daytox program from there but rather that they're getting some counselling services while they're inside the Insite building?

Hon. G. Abbott: It is two to four a day that are being referred to addiction treatment and to counselling service, so they're getting both.

L. Mayencourt: So that's two to four a day, and we've got about 600 people going through there. So two to four a day get some sort of counselling on site and perhaps some referral to a detox facility. Is that right?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's 600 injections per day. It may, in fact, depending on how frequently the client is injecting, be significantly less than 600, but I don't have that information. And yes, when they are there, they have an opportunity to access the counselling that's immediately there. They have an opportunity, should they decide that now is an opportune time for them to try to shed their addiction. Vancouver Coastal certainly has the opportunity to move them off to addiction treatment centres to help them overcome their addictions.

L. Mayencourt: I guess what I'd like to know is: how many individuals who are clients of the supervised injection site have been referred to a detox program?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that information with us, but we will commit to getting that material from those who know and giving it to the member.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you. I'll look forward to receiving that information. The reason that I ask is that it is, of course, one of the reasons why we opened the supervised injection site — to have people access detox. It's very difficult to measure its success without having that piece of information.

The other reason I ask it…. I'll just put it to the floor right now. The supervised injection site is in, I think,

the 100 block of East Hastings, and one block north of that is the Salvation Army's Harbour Light. Harbour Light is a detox facility. Recently I spoke with individuals that are in the business of managing the detox facility there, and they indicated to me that they don't think they've ever received a referral from the supervised injection site to their detox program.

I did a similar inquiry with Vancouver Detox. Vancouver Detox was a little bit more generous. They said they'd probably had three or four. But that was three or four in the course of however many years. I'm not even sure how many years the supervised injection site has been there. I believe it's three years at $3 million per, so $9 million, and nobody seems to know how many people have been referred to the detox. Does that concern the minister?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member should note my words carefully. We don't have that information here. That's not to say someone doesn't know how many there are. I actually committed to get the member that information, but it's not a piece of information that we have with us. Should it come to us during the course of this debate, I'm glad to provide it to the member. I don't want to let his suggestion go that nobody knows the answer, because I'm sure they do.

In terms of the cost annually, our operating cost is about $2 million a year. I appreciate the member's point that one of the reasons why the federal government has engaged here to do an evaluation around the effectiveness of this program is that we need to find out what the effectiveness of this program is. I think this is an area where every day we are learning more about how to manage people with addictions. This is a terribly serious problem, as the member knows. He has been a leader in respect of a lot of these issues, and I know he feels very passionately about them. I don't think for a moment that we believe we have all the answers here.

The injection site, I'm advised, has been in place now for two years. This does need to have rigorous evaluation so that we can learn what's working and what's not. Based on that, that will guide the future development or future evolution of how these programs are managed.

L. Mayencourt: I would encourage that rigour. Like the minister has said, it's really important that we know what we're getting for our dollars. If we can get some sort of indication of whether people have been referred to Vancouver Detox, Sally Ann's Harbour Light, the daytox program, what have you, that would be helpful to me.

I recently had a meeting with individuals from the RCMP, and we talked a little bit about the supervised injection site. Actually, there was one from the Vancouver police department. I wonder if the minister can tell me how many overdose deaths occurred in the city of Vancouver in the year 2001 and in the year 2004.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll read the member these numbers, and we can provide them in greater detail, should he wish them. Illicit-drug-overdose deaths in Vancouver, 1997 to 2004. It ranges from 140 in 1997. It rose to the highest level in 1998, at 191. It fell to 108 in 1999; 87 in 2000; 90 in 2001; 49 in 2002; 50 in 2003; and 64 in 2004. There is a little bit of a bounce up in 2004, but generally speaking, the number of overdose deaths has been falling as a general pattern.

L. Mayencourt: It is indeed encouraging to see that the number of overdoses has decreased, even if there is a slight increase in 2004. Obviously, we're trying to make sure that nobody overdoses, but we can't control all the factors. That's worth taking a look at — and what have you.

The next question that I have is also on the drug issue, and that's with respect to crystal meth. I know the minister has a crystal meth strategy. I wonder if you could define what that strategy is and how it's working thus far.

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the province and the leadership of the province around this very important and compelling area of public policy and public concern — crystal meth use — in August 2004 the Ministry of Health released a strategy entitled Crystal Meth and Other Amphetamines: An Integrated B.C. Strategy. It involved numerous ministries of government, and it aimed at five priority action areas: informing the public, building safer communities, identifying high-risk populations, increasing skills of service providers and reducing harm to individuals. All of that is available, obviously in much more detail, at www.healthservices.gov.bc.ca/mhd. Actually, that strategy has been adopted as best practice by numerous other Canadian jurisdictions since its publication.

Further, as the member may recall, on September 29 at the UBCM annual conference the Premier announced the creation of a crystal meth secretariat, with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General in the lead, $7 million in additional funding to support community-based anti-meth programs, additional treatment resources and an extensive public awareness and education campaign. That included $2 million to provide $10,000 in seed funding to support community initiatives, $3 million for a major public awareness campaign and $2 million for targeted treatment programs. All of that continues to unfold since the Premier's announcement.

L. Mayencourt: The members on the opposite side have a number of questions, so after this question I'm going to step aside but will come back to ask some questions of the minister later on today, I hope.

I'd just like to finish off the crystal meth questions, if I could. I'm going to try and cram them all together. The first question I have is: how many treatment beds are set aside for crystal meth addicts? How does the minister feel about the province limiting access to precursors, including ephedrine and pseudoephedrine? And how does the minister feel about mandatory treatment of crystal meth addicts?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question in respect of crystal meth and particularly, I guess, the issue of crystal meth use by youth. There is a continuum of youth addiction services that crystal meth is a part of. What we are finding is that frequently those youth who are using crystal meth are also using, sometimes, a multiplicity of other drugs. It is uncommon to see youth using crystal meth only. Frequently there are other drug uses involved.

The continuum ranges from prevention through to outreach and early intervention, often through school programs or community-based programs; withdrawal management through either out-patient home detox or in-patient detox; and then treatment, either through out-patient programs, day programs and through a range of residential programs as well.

As I said to the opposition critic a day or two ago, over all, we spend well in excess of $1 billion a year now on mental health and addictions issues. It is literally impossible to take those pieces apart and say precisely what amount is spent on each of them, because there is at least a 30-percent correlation between mental health issues and addictions issues.

We have added some incremental dollars that I should note: $6 million — I believe it was in the spring budget — for youth addictions. Certainly, crystal meth is a big part of that. That is translated into additional treatment beds but also to more right across the range of the continuum of services. More recently we have added $2 million as part of the crystal meth strategy, which will be aimed at building on some of the residential treatment options around crystal meth.

On precursors. I should note that my colleague the Solicitor General is the lead for the government in terms of speaking on the issue of precursors. I understand his position to be that at this point in time there is no evidence that those who are manufacturing crystal meth obtain their precursors through bubble packs purchased from the local pharmacy, and that there's a great deal of evidence that they are getting it in much more bulk form from other sources. So there isn't the volume of evidence, at least at this point, around making a change that would limit the public's access to the precursor ephedrine, etc., in bubble-pack form.

On mandatory treatment. It is not government's policy, at this juncture at least, to have mandatory treatment, but we would, I guess, be always open to debate with respect to that. I know there's a range of thoughts across the spectrum on this, and I'm glad to hear anybody's view with respect to that.

B. Ralston: My question is to the Minister of Health, and it concerns a facility in Surrey called Zion Park Manor, which is a long-term care facility. Mrs. Beddis, whose husband is a resident there, has asked me to pose this question.

Apparently, the residents there and their families have been informed that the Fraser Health Authority has seen fit to reduce the funding to this particular facility by some $300,000 annually, resulting in the layoff of a number of staff. She values the care of the staff for her husband and the other residents there, and she's expressed a concern to me as to why this might be taking place, given the quality of care that's delivered by these staff to her husband and others at this facility in Surrey.

Hon. G. Abbott: Though I'm advised that this is a complex issue, it's a new issue to me. But this is a complex one, which I gather has been the object of considerable attention from the Fraser Health Authority and, to a lesser extent, the ministry for the last couple of years. The issue, as I understand it, relates to the per diem which applied to the Zion Park Manor at the time the authorities were moved from the 52 dispersed authorities across the province and consolidated into the five regional authorities in 2002.

There has been a continuing issue between Zion Park Manor and Fraser Health around the per diem that would attach to that residential care facility. I understand that Zion was on the higher end of the per-diem range and that this has been a continuing issue between Fraser Health and Zion. But I also understand that the issue has been, as we understand it, resolved or at least reasonably well resolved with the restoration of funding to Zion to the September 2004 level.

Now, the member may have more recent information, and he can ask us those questions, but I think that is about the extent of my ability to answer that question.

C. Wyse: I am appreciative of the additional time that has been found to be back here to follow up with some questions. Again, to assist I will try and give you an idea of the general area where my questions are coming from, and because of time restraints beyond everybody's control, I've tried to cluster the questions together.

My first question is: who is responsible for guidelines and approvals of the health authority plans?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not sure that we have faithfully captured the member's question, but we understand that he's probably asking about the three-year plans that are encompassed in the performance agreements that exist between the Ministry of Health and the six health authorities.

Those are initiated by a letter of instruction from the ministry to each of the authorities. The authorities then prepare them. They must win the approval of their boards before they are submitted to the ministry for the ministry's consideration. The final step in that is the Minister of Health's approval of those plans. A similar process and similar kinds of outcomes relate, also, to the redesigned plans.

C. Wyse: I thank the minister for that information. To assist the minister here, on the message from you in

the book, I will refer…. I know I don't need to refresh you. But it mentions: "When citizens do need health care, we will provide timely access to needed services, treat illnesses according to evidence-based best practice, and integrate services and providers to help make the health system less complicated and stressful for patients."

I have two questions around that information, but more specifically around mental illness — so that you have somewhat of an idea of where I'm coming from. My first question to the minister: what baseline exists for a health authority for provision of timely access to needed services for individuals with a mental illness?

Hon. G. Abbott: We'll start at a fairly high level here. The member can drill down for more detail, which I gather we have — some mind-boggling detail over here.

The question is a very important one. We are trying to build the continuum of mental health services across the province and ensure that each of the health authorities has, in their own right, a comprehensive and well-defensible program for dealing with mental health challenges. The member asked some very good questions the other day around this area — in particular, the challenges of stigma and trying to ensure that local governments are partners with us in terms of ensuring that we can develop facilities where we need them and not be constantly hung up on things like rezonings and so on.

Where this proceeds from is the mental health plan. As the member, I think, knows, there are four distinct parts to the mental health plan. Best practices — again, I can provide some detail around the guidelines that are associated with those best practices. Community-based services are a big part of this — ensuring that whether people are subject to depression or a complex mental disorder, they are able to access the continuum of services. The third area is ensuring that we have the tertiary treatment that we have at Riverview and, in some instances, elsewhere. And education of the public around how to identify and how to support and manage mental health challenges where they appear. So it's prevention, early intervention, care, crisis response, treatment, non-residential and residential supports and specialized care where it's needed.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the description of the four pillars that are there. I guess, possibly in my naïvety, I don't know whether we've dealt with the issue of the baselines — of where timely access and other items of that nature would be judged from.

I will move on to another question, if I may. To the minister: what evidence-based best practice for treatment of mental illness is used by health authorities?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his important question. The issue of developing best practices around mental health challenges is certainly something that health authorities are a part of. But the experts tend to be at least provincial in scope and national in scope as opposed to regional in scope. When we are developing best practices…. I'll mention a couple of those best-practice projects for the member's consideration. In 2004-2005 a family physician guide for depression, anxiety disorders, early psychosis and substance-use disorders was developed, along with a guide to the Mental Health Act and a report to support care of mentally disordered offenders. In 2005-2006 the best practices library expanded with Postpartum Depression Strategy, Best-Practice Guide for Clinicians Working with Suicidal Adults, Planning Guidelines for Health Authorities to Support People with Developmental Disabilities and Mental Illness and finally, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy Core Information.

These tend to be developed on a pan-provincial basis, and certainly health authorities are a part of that. But the research capacity in some considerable measure rests with, for example, the UBC Institute of Mental Health, with its three research chairs, and the mental health evaluation and community consultation unit at UBC. At UVic we have the Centre for Addictions Research of B.C., and UNBC now has a youth research specialization. These tend to be partnerships. Of course, the provincial health officer is a remarkable resource around these issues as well. So they tend to be multipartnered, and then the health authorities enjoy the benefit of all of that melding of expertise that we can bring together in those best practices guides.

C. Wyse: Once more I thank the minister for his considered response here. I will apologize if I did miss some wisdom and information that was being shared with me here. I may have missed where the actual Ministry of Health fits in, then, to provide direction for the coordination across this wide range of items you put in front of me, for which I'm very appreciative.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think there are probably a couple of ways — and I probably won't do justice to either, but I'll do my best — that one might express the role the ministry has in relation to the health authorities and all of the other partners that might be engaged in building best practices. I think stewardship is probably one of the best ways of expressing it. We have a continuing responsibility to ensure that we set standards, that we prescribe outcomes and that we provide necessary and predictable supports to achieve the outcomes that are desired. So stewardship is important.

The other expression that I used the other day, which I think is important as well, is that the ministry has really moved from a rowing function to a steering function. I'm not saying that one's better than the other. It's just that the ministry has restructured itself in that direction. Through performance agreements, through policy, through legislation and regulation — we use all of those and more to try to ensure that we're getting the outcomes we need.

The member may also wish to have a look at the 2005-2006, 2007-2008 service plan update September 2005, which goes into some detail around the ministry overview and core business areas and which sort of clarifies services delivered by partners versus services delivered by the ministry. It also goes into some of the stewardship and corporate management that is provided by the ministry.

The member also asks: how do we ensure those outcomes, or how do we try, through performance agreements, to develop measures and achieve outcomes but evaluate those measures? One of the important measures is the proportion of persons aged 15 to 64 hospitalized for mental health or addictions diagnosis who receive community or physician follow-up within 30 days of discharge. That's the measure. It's an important one, because it tells us when someone is identified with a mental health or addictions diagnosis how quickly they are able to get the professional support they need. The target for 2005-2006 is 76 percent; '06-07, 78 percent; '07-08, 80 percent. We are pushing that up on an annualized basis to try to ensure that people don't have a big lag time between the time they understand the mental health or addictions challenge they have to when they receive professional support.

The second measure which I'll note — I think, again, it's important — is readmission rates for patients admitted to acute care with a mental health or addictions diagnosis. The benchmark we want to achieve is 10 percent. The '05-06 target is 12 percent; '06-07 target, 11 percent; '07-08 target, 10 percent.

The object here, and I think we've had some very constructive discussion between the opposition and our ministry around this point, is that we don't want to see a situation where people who have a mental health or addictions challenge are inappropriately occupying for some period of time an acute care bed, because that's not where they're going to get the care they need. Just as someone who will ultimately need a residential care bed, to have them waiting for a long period of time in an acute care bed, again, is not often the best of scenarios. We're working hard with the health authorities to ensure that people are getting the services they need, and they are getting them in the venue that is going to work best for them.

C. Wyse: Again, thank you for the information. Time permitting, we may come back and look at the three performance measures, too, which follow up to this particular item. But at this moment in time, there's another area that I would like to go to.

I'm going to switch to the general area now, moving away from health authorities and moving over into a broader area involving youth with mental illness. I recognize possible overlap with other ministries here, but given that it's health and that we're talking about the Ministry of Health, I will try and narrow into that area. With that bit of advice, I have a number of questions in this area. I'm very willing to get answers in writing, if they're not readily available.

Children's Hospital youth mental health unit. What is the wait time for a child under 12 years of age referred for psychiatric or psychologist treatment?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have the answer to that at our fingertips, but we believe it will come in the course of our discussion here. If you want to move on to your next question, then we'll get the answer to that one when it's available.

C. Wyse: Sorry, I don't have the procedure down quite right. Sometimes I'm up when I should be down.

I would add a follow-up question to go along with the same area. What is the wait time for a child of 12 to 18 years of age — actually this would now be a youth — referred for a psychiatric or psychologist treatment? So the same idea, only now with the youth category.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, that fabulous instrument that we so affectionately refer to as the BlackBerry is actively in use here. The numbers, I'm sure, will flow in as they are prepared. Again, we'll get the member the answer, but if we could move on to the next question.

C. Wyse: Thank you to the minister. What protocols exist covering the transition from hospital to community between the health authority and the Ministry of Children and Families regarding youth?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is a question with some inherent complexity, as many of the member's questions do involve, and that's entirely appropriate because this is a fairly complex area of public policy.

The efforts of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development are directed in large measure by the child and youth mental health plan. There one finds a lot of these higher-level aims, strategies and so on associated with the child and youth mental health plan. When mental health issues are being delivered in a facility, i.e., a hospital setting, they are the responsibility of Health, typically delivered through the health authorities. Not always, though; it may be through a regional health authority, or it may be through the Provincial Health Services Authority.

When you're talking about community-based mental health services, then, generally speaking, those are delivered by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. When a child is moving between an institutional setting and a community setting, there are protocols around that, which we can find for the member. In some instances, as well — just to make this even more interesting — the health authorities actually deliver services by contract on behalf of the Ministry of Child and Family Development.

There is a particular concern with kids at the transition between hospital or institutional-supported venues and community venues, and there are also protocols, I understand, associated with children as they get older, reach the age of majority and move from respon-

sibility by the Ministry of Children and Family Development to responsibility, generally speaking, back to the Ministry of Health — back to us. That is a kind of general configuration of how it works, but the member may have additional questions around that.

C. Wyse: Once more, thank you for the information. Follow-up questions that I would have at this time around that transfer and responsibility of the MCFD and youth at that point, I think, would be more appropriate for me to pursue with a different minister. I'm going to try and keep my questions more directed here rather than where the integration of services becomes the question.

With that explanation, once more to the minister: what protocols exist covering transition of youths with mental illness to a court situation?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue of youth, and they may be mentally disordered youth, or they may be just youth who are having an intervention with the justice system….. The overall responsibility around that does rest with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, but it is an area where government has worked very hard to overcome what's often referred to as the stovepiping across government of responsibilities.

So we have seen a lot of work undertaken in recent years by the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, the Ministry of Children and Family Development and others to try to pull together a kind of more holistic way of trying to better manage the challenge of youth with mental illnesses, particularly those who may find themselves as regular or routine offenders within our justice system.

There was a street crime working group of the Justice Review Task Force that recently released a report with recommendations on street crime and disorderly behaviour in downtown Vancouver. So I think some of what they are suggesting are things that will be considered and, hopefully, developed in the years ahead. I won't go into the detail on that, given where we are. But there are also some excellent pilots and other program development underway in different corners of the province.

One I'll make note of: Vancouver Coastal has a health pilot involving a centralized youth intake and youth daytox pilot. That's one pilot that we think has potentially great merit in dealing with some of these issues. We think the urgent response unit in Vancouver, which is under development, is, again, an example of how this might be better managed.

I know the Attorney General has talked at times about community courts and how they might be structured in a way that really…. I don't want to be unfair to him. Fortunately, he's talking to the Solicitor General right now, so I don't need to worry about saying something that would be incorrect, because he's not listening.

It is important that we find ways to ensure that youth with mental health challenges in fact get the appropriate attention to those challenges, as opposed to trying to deal with them through, I guess, what I would term traditional, sort of punitive measures associated with the court system. That doesn't often work for young people with mental health challenges.

So there are lots of things to think about in this area. Again, I know the member opposite feels very passionate about these issues, and I'm being entirely sincere when I suggest that any time he wishes to provide me with some thoughts or guidance or observations around these kinds of challenges, I'd be more than pleased to meet with him and consider those.

C. Wyse: I do wish to acknowledge to the minister that it would be my intention to work with the Minister of Health around making improvements in here. I've been up in front of the House, pointing out that when we're dealing with issues around vulnerability and mental illness, it should be bipartisan, and we should be looking at making improvements. I would just refresh that I have made that commitment from this side on this issue, and the questions that I've been proposing have been probing in order for me to obtain an understanding of the existing system so that I would be in a better position to do such. But now I'm being wordy, so I would like to advise the minister that I wish to change here.

My topic now is going to be in the area of diabetes and mental health. The Ministry of Health guidelines and protocols for management of diabetes indicate that coexisting depression and other psychiatric conditions are common in patients with diabetes and that treatment of these conditions may improve diabetes outcomes. They also indicate that schizophrenia is a major risk for type 2 diabetes. However, no screening or treatment guidelines are offered, so I have three questions related to this particular piece of information. Why have annual screening for depression in people with diabetes and recommended treatment not been included in the guidelines and protocols for diabetes?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. The member's question is: given the correlation, on occasion — and it's actually fairly high, as the member suggests — between some chronic diseases — and he mentioned diabetes — and some mental health challenges, would an annual screening be the best approach? I think, in the considered view of the Ministry of Health, that while annual screening can be a very positive and constructive thing to do, we're not convinced at this point that it is the best use of resources in terms of meeting the challenge.

The dispute is not around the challenge. We would agree with the member in respect of that. We have in British Columbia a situation where about 5 percent of those typically afflicted with a chronic disease man-

agement issue like diabetes or congestive heart failure or asthma…. That 5 percent of the users of the health care system consume about 30 percent of the resources of the system.

We would also agree, as the member rightly notes, that there is a relatively high incidence of mental illness, often depression or other issues, associated with those chronic diseases. We believe and hope that the best approach in terms of trying to get better management of the chronic disease challenge, along with the often-associated mental health challenges, is through the collaborative model of primary care, which we've discussed on occasion during Health estimates.

That is, we build teams of physicians, nurses, counsellors and others — depending on what, exactly, the challenge is — using a collaborative approach through a primary care model, where people can be counselled on lifestyle issues, disease self-management, the range of pharmaceutical or other supports that might be appropriate to their condition and how weight management might have an influence on their health outcomes and their health self-management. All of these, I think, are the benefits that can be derived from a collaborative model of primary care. All of these things are interconnected in the most delightful ways.

We need to have as part of our discussion with the BCMA in the months ahead: how do we build a model for physician support in the province that is going to reflect this goal of building a stronger primary care model so that rather than having the sort of typical rapid rollover of fee-for-service kinds of arrangements, people who have chronic disease challenges can get broader guidance about how to appropriately manage their chronic disease?

C. Wyse: I appreciate the discussion around chronic illnesses, but schizophrenia in itself would be a chronic illness. I'm raising questions about somebody who already has a chronic illness and then has a secondary one also to be managed, as in diabetes. Having listened very closely once more to what you said, and given that other bit of information in addition, my second question is: why have costs for screening of people with schizophrenia and diabetes not been provided for on a periodic basis, let's say, every two or three years — rather than annually, as in the first question I asked?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member raising the important question. The issue is: how do we produce the best outcome for the patient who is beset by a chronic disease challenge, perhaps exacerbated by a mental health challenge that may have been produced by that? We're not convinced that even intermittent screening is the answer. Rather, we believe the key is for primary care physicians and family physicians, through additional training, to be very sensitive to changes in the patient's condition — to be able to identify and to evaluate and to assist where a patient is seeing his doctor.

When a person is beset by a chronic disease challenge like diabetes, chances are that they are going to see their physician at least a few times and probably at least several times during the year. This is something we are now doing on a more rigorous basis: trying to ensure that when the chronic disease patient meets with their physician, the physician is very aware of complications that may be ensuing from the original chronic disorder.

For example, from diabetes there may be heart disease challenges. There may be eye disease challenges produced by it. And as the member rightly notes, there may be mental health challenges associated with that condition. Every time the patient visits the physician, there's an opportunity to see what may be complicating factors in the disease addressed in that collaborative way we talked about earlier.

Diabetes, I should note, is addressed in the clinical practice guidelines on depression released by the Ministry of Health in 2004. That's one of the examples we talked about earlier.

We are not trying to disparage screening, because screening is important. But if, for example, we were to have a situation where we built in a screening regime on some kind of prescribed basis, it might have the reverse effect of keeping people from getting the kind of counselling they need on an ongoing basis while they wait for an expensive, or otherwise, screening process to occur. Again, we're not disparaging that. Screening has its place and its purpose, but we do think that the best answer here lies in that more robust, more rigorous primary care model that we are developing in this province.

C. Wyse: Again to the minister: I thank him for his information and his considered response. I'm asking questions, in my mind, with an emphasis upon the mental illness aspect of it, not the reverse, in the question. I think that given that, I'm going to advise the minister. Three questions, I told him. I'm going to omit that third question, and I'm going to move on to this case in the area of housing.

The federal government has allocated $1.6 billion for housing. People with mental illness are more likely to be homeless than any other group and represent roughly a third of all homeless individuals. The Premier's own Task Force on Homelessness has identified that across British Columbia thousands of people with mental illness need access to decent housing. My question to the minister: where is the action plan to address this situation where thousands of British Columbians with serious mental illness have no home?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll begin by acknowledging that there certainly is a relationship between homelessness and mental illness. As a former Minister of Housing for this province, I know that one of the focal points for the development of our housing policies in the early 2000s was the challenge of mental illness and homelessness. We worked with the federal government extensively

on some of the…. It was called the SCPI program at the time. I can't remember what the initials stand for now. It was an attempt to try to address the shelter and housing needs of the homeless, and in particular, mentally ill homeless people.

This is a big challenge. We know that since we became government, when patients from Riverview, for example, have been discharged to community, they have always gone with appropriate levels of support when they went there. If one goes back further in history, governments have not always been so salutary around ensuring that when deinstitutionalization occurred, appropriate supports went with that deinstitutionalization.

As a consequence, we do have some challenges, particularly in the downtown east side, but by no means confined to the downtown east side, where those kinds of problems are seen with considerable force. Often, too, mentally ill people on some occasions, at least, are very suspicious of shelters and that sort of thing, so they present a special challenge.

The Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions is, I think, taking very much the right course in terms of trying to resolve this. The resolution of homelessness issues doesn't involve simply the provision of a home, although that's part of it — ensuring that there is immediate shelter and then second-stage housing and, hopefully, further housing along the way. In every case, the challenge of homelessness, mental illness…. Often there are physical illnesses that need to be addressed. There are certainly education issues that often need to be addressed. There may be employment issues that need to be addressed.

I think the Premier's task force is trying, in partnership with a number of mayors and other local government leaders, to find a more holistic, embracing solution to this. It's not a one-off problem that is quickly and simply going to be resolved.

Just so the member knows, I won't give him the whole breakdown, because I know we're running into a bit of a time issue here, of mental health residential care service beds across the province. In British Columbia today there are approximately 1,530 mental health residential care beds, 3,800 supported-housing beds and 700 B.C. Housing mental health–supported beds, for a total of approximately 6,000 mental health support beds across the province.

The Premier's Task Force on Homelessness has also taken some steps, I think very appropriately, in the right direction to break the cycle of homelessness and mental health challenges to becoming more self-reliant and independent. Under the first phase, initial funding: 168 emergency shelter beds, for a total of 879 emergency shelter beds now available; and an additional 208 cold-wet weather beds, for a total of 391 cold-wet weather beds. There have been very substantial additions in the number of shelter and cold-wet weather beds.

Under the second phase, the provincial government and the federal government are allocating together about $42 million each for a total of $84 million dollars for developments that will provide a continuum of affordable housing and support services for those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness — people with mental illnesses, etc.

Finally, the health authorities have been involved in community consultations within their respective regions to identify the projects and the associated health services that are going to help here. There's, again, a long list of those. It goes back to the partnerships with the non-profits like the Union Gospel Mission and the Salvation Army and so on, who do just a tremendous job, a selfless job, in trying to build these supports for the most troubled people in our communities. We're very proud to be able to partner with them whenever we can.

C. Wyse: Once more, I thank the minister for his information. My question would be: how many beds have been determined to be needed across the province for each one of those categories of housing that he has outlined for me?

Hon. G. Abbott: We suspect that by "benchmarks" the member probably means, for example, how many beds would best practices suggest per 100,000 population, that sort of thing. Those benchmarks do not exist currently in British Columbia, nor to our knowledge do they exist nationally or…. Well, we don't know internationally, but not nationally. We are in the process, though, of developing those benchmarks, because I think that will be an appropriate and useful thing to work towards in the future. Those are being developed within the context of the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions. Hopefully, that will be something that will bear fruit in the future.

C. Wyse: I want to extend my appreciation to you for your frankness and the amount of information you've been willing to share with me. Unfortunately, my time is coming to an end. I do wish we had more. I have one more question for you, Mr. Minister.

In my words, the mental health service system in Vancouver is in crisis. In the past three years there has been a major increase in psychiatric emergency admissions in Vancouver-area hospitals. At St. Paul's, which serves the downtown area, a majority of emergency department admissions are now for psychiatric reasons. The crisis has been caused, at least in part, by the inadequate funding of and cuts to the community mental health services. This is back to the question you asked me about resiliency and disability that we didn't have time for the other day.

In addition, my understanding is that there are no plans to develop and implement evidence-based best practices such as assertive community treatment teams. These practices have demonstrated effectiveness in supporting the seriously mentally ill in the community and significantly reducing hospitalization.

My question to the minister: when will Vancouver Coastal and the other health authorities adequately fund the community mental health and addiction services required by persons with serious and persistent mental illnesses? And when will evidence-based mental health and addiction services be planned and provided to support the seriously mentally ill in the community and significantly reduce psychiatric emergency hospitalization?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the question relates to advocates, obviously, in the area of mental health and addictions who want to see more and who believe things can be done better and so on. I'm sure they're right. They can be.

I want to not only say that we're sympathetic to the challenges people face in their lives when they're beset by mental illness. I think that often when they are facing their challenges in the world, it seems like the supports should be way more extensive than what they're receiving. Again, we want to respond sympathetically to people's ideas about how we can take either existing resources or additional resources and shape them in a way that is going to work most effectively for those beset by mental illness or addiction issues.

That having been said, it's not that there haven't been additional resources added in this area. We talked about this very early in the estimates debate. Today, this year, the support for mental health and addiction issues is well in excess of $1 billion. With that $1 billion, we're not just talking about the quantum of money. We're looking at how those dollars are expended and very much trying to focus on building a continuum of care so that people across a range of challenges and geographic areas have the opportunity to access the services they need in a timely way.

It is a challenge. Sometimes, when the system's not working as well as it should or if there is a spike in certain activities, we will also see a spike in the intersection of emergency rooms and mental health and addiction issues. That does happen, but I want to, also, pay tribute to the health authorities and to my staff in the ministry, who are working very hard on a broad range of issues that are aimed at building that continuum and, in fact, making the programs more effective.

We talked earlier about the supervised injection site in Vancouver, but there's lots of other stuff happening. The community transitional care team provides support and medical care, including IV therapy, to active and recovering injection drug users in a transitional house setting. The Brain Research Centre is a major project area of the VCHA research institute in partnership with UBC created to develop new approaches to treating diseases of the human brain and to understanding brain function. The geriatric shared care project is working with three community care clinics, providing elderly patients who require psychiatric care with the help they need.

Providing better treatment for depression and bipolar disorder through the mood disorder centre of excellence at UBC; expanding the Vancouver community arts studio program to help people with mental illness explore their talents and abilities; the Dr. Peter Centre; Vista house; the Grandview Woodlands Mental Health Centre — all of these are building different aspects of that continuum-of-care model. I think they are improving every day on the range and types of supports that we can offer to people who, unfortunately and sadly, are beset by mental health or addictions issues.

We appreciate that there's always room for improvement. You know, that's why I'm here as a politician: to hear the hon. member's ideas, all of the hon. members' ideas, about how we might better utilize the talents of people across society to produce better outcomes. I'm very pleased to do that and to work with the hon. member to develop more best-practices and better use of programmatic funds.

D. Cubberley: I see a smile on the minister's face. We are, in fact, at that point now. I just want to take a moment to thank the minister and his staff for being responsive in the estimates process and the minister in particular for the tone and the quality of his responses to questions. There has been a wide array of them. I appreciate it's no easy matter.

We did share a little bit of humour along the way about the minister's tendency to go long. I know he himself is able to laugh a little bit about that, but we've also had some very good discussions on some difficult issues, and we are better informed as a result of those discussions. Probably not always as informed as we or the minister, perhaps, might like — and that's probably on different issues — but certainly, we're better informed than we were before.

Going through this for a first time, I learned that the time itself, which seemed long at the outset for Health estimates, rolls by rather quickly. It probably doesn't feel quite as quick over on that side. For a topic as complex as health care, the time was actually inadequate to do full justice to the many issues and subjects.

I'm contenting myself with the thought that we will be back at this in what will also probably seem a rather short time when it happens and that we'll, hopefully, have a bit longer to work through the Health estimates. I hope we'll benefit from the knowledge of having done it once. I hope that that eagerness to get back at the Health estimates won't, in fact, cause your staff to have a less enjoyable Christmas than they otherwise might. I'm sure it won't.

Let me say once again that the opposition critics have benefited from the briefings provided by ministry staff and that we look forward to more of the same in the future. It's a pleasure to get a good briefing from highly professional staff, and I want to thank you and them, through you, for that.

There are, obviously, some issues where our perspectives are going to differ, and sometimes quite sharply. It would be hard to imagine otherwise, especially as we represent parties and constituencies with

different perspectives. There are some issues like care beds where we'll be pursuing our dialogue well into the future, I'm sure.

Having said that, I think we do share a similar sense of conviction that a well-functioning public health care system is the primary purpose of the Ministry of Health, and we would likely agree that a constructive debate about ends and means is a healthy ingredient in decision-making. I hope I'm not being presumptuous in saying that, minister.

In closing, I also want to thank my colleagues for their indulgence in what was at times a somewhat scrambly process. I was impressed with what they were able to do in the short spaces they got — those who actually got a short space. I want to assure those who didn't have time to ask their questions that we will try and fix that in the next go-round. That is all I have to say in this venue for the moment.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, given the unenviable reputation I've built for rather too lengthy answers during this estimates process, I know that some members over there are saying: "No, no. Please. More, more."

Let me conclude with these comments. I said at the outset that I have this perverse affection for estimates, and that still remains. In fact, it's reinforced by the very thoughtful and constructive questions that the members on both sides of the House have asked during these debates. I am much appreciative of that and appreciative also, as the critic noted, of the tone of the debate that we have had. I think it's been a very good one, and I want to thank the Health critic personally for not only the way these have been conducted, but I also appreciate that he and his colleagues bring me issues that affect them at the constituency level. We've been able to resolve some of those in the quiet atmosphere of my office, and so I appreciate the way that's been conducted as well.

I do want to thank the very, very capable staff who are with me here in the chamber, the staff who are outside in the Cedar Room, the staff who are back at our Blanshard Street headquarters, and the staff that are in the health authorities all across the province who have been tuned into this debate and assisting us with the best answers possible over the past days. I am appreciative of all of them. I am every day astounded by the remarkable talents, energy and commitment that everyone in the Ministry of Health and in the health authorities, from the deputy minister on down, brings to this province. We are infinitely richer as a ministry, government and province as a consequence of that energy, thoughtfulness and commitment which our staff bring. So I do want to thank all of those who have been part of supporting these estimates.

I think we have a great health system in British Columbia. Every great system is great not because we say it is, but because of the people who work in it, and 120,000 people are a part of the health care system in British Columbia. They include some 8,000 doctors, 30-some thousand nurses and many more orderlies, but also health care administrators and researchers, front-line workers across the system who every day not only come into work but come into their place of work with the objective of providing the very best care they can to the patients they serve. I want to thank all of those 120,000 people for their daily contribution to making British Columbia's health care system the best it can be.

While it's a great system, there is always room for improvement. We have dedicated ourselves in this ministry to continuous improvement. Every day, somewhere in the system, there will be a mistake made. We'll learn from that mistake. We'll build on it, and we'll build a stronger, better, more sustainable, more durable, more focused health care system from that. So again, I do want to thank the hon. members.

I move, Mr. Chair, that the committee rise and report resolution…. No, you don't want to do that yet. Just sit down and go away?

The Chair: Not go away, minister, but we will call the vote prior to doing that.

The Chair: We will take a brief recess and reconvene in a couple of minutes.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am acutely aware that we are rapidly coming to the conclusion of the scheduled estimates process. It is important, in my view, that members of the House, and in particular members of the opposition critics, have some opportunity to pose the questions they have been preparing.

First, I will say this. To my left is Ms. Annette Wall. To my right, Mr. Rick Connolly. Behind me, Cheryl Wenezenki-Yolland and Terry Bogyo. Where is Terry? Hold the presses. He will be along eventually. In any event, I appreciate the fact that staff are here.

The ministry, of course, now comprises the traditional Ministry of Labour. The change that took place after the election was the inclusion of the Citizens' Services Ministry, which I know we will be canvassing in more detail tomorrow. I look forward to the questions that the hon. member and members of the House may have.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you to the staff, and thank you to the minister. I appreciate the briefing the staff gave. It seems like many months ago now. It certainly was

informative to some degree. I guess I'm here to try, in a short period of time, to get more information to a greater degree.

First of all, I'm appreciative that the minister did receive my message. I gave him the courtesy of explaining the order that I will be proceeding on this, starting with the ministry offices, with the budgets, and then going on to labour employment standards. Then I will be going into workers' compensation. If there's time, even tomorrow, I would like to go into the Labour Relations Board.

I was pleased when I walked across to speak to the minister that I saw he wasn't wearing CCM Tacks. I think the previous estimates minister went to get his sharpened, so hopefully we'll be able to move a little bit quicker as we proceed along here.

I want to make some comments with respect to some of the issues that are happening. I'm aware that the current Labour Minister was not the minister in charge of this portfolio previously. I do sense from some of the conversations that I've had with the minister on the crises in the forests that there seems to be a flicker, maybe a spark, of hope right now. I'm reading some things with respect to the Workers Compensation Board, and I have met with the executive of the Workers Compensation Board. I think we're all aware that there is an incredible crisis in our forest industry at this time that needs some extra-special address and some immediate address, so I appreciate the briefings that I have received from the ministry on that.

One of the things that is troubling from this side is with respect to sort of a vision, and it probably came from a previous ministry, so I won't try to hang anything on this minister. But there seemed to have been an attempt to…. I think the term was to "reduce red tape" in a lot of the different ministries. Maybe the minister can explain that to us as we get to those specific ministries — explain how those different ministries were affected or how the employment standards branch was affected and how the Workers Compensation Board was affected, and if that was part of that vision of streamlining and if, in fact, that has caused some of the problems we're seeing today.

First of all, with the ministry offices…. You've explained the total budget. Maybe what I would like you to explain is what the previous budget was and what the change is in the previous budget and the current budget.

Hon. M. de Jong: If I might just clarify, is the comparison that the member is making the inquiry about the budget that would have existed prior to the election for the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour and the budget of what is, in effect, a new ministry? Is that the comparison that the member is asking me to provide?

C. Puchmayr: The number that I am looking for is the difference between '04-05 and '05-06.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. The numbers I can provide to him — and I'd be obliged to him for assisting me insofar as what portion of the budget…. What the member will know is that for the purposes of the budget that we are debating today and have been through these estimates processes, the numbers for this ministry were recalculated based on a reorganization of the ministry.

Is the member particularly interested in the budget allocations as they relate to the labour component of the ministry? Because if he is, I'm happy to provide him with those numbers, and we can further examine where there are changes.

C. Puchmayr: I'm aware, of course, that this portfolio has changed again. I don't recall which one labour was, but my questions will be specific to the labour component of that budget.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm now comparing the programming numbers for the Ministry of Labour and the labour aspect of what the ministry does. The figure for '04-05 was $15.214 million. The same description and programming area for budget year '05-06 is $15.689 million.

C. Puchmayr: Can you let me know where the extra budget items are going to, specifically? Is it an increase in salaries? Is it an increase in services? Just give me a clarification as to what specifically has changed.

C. Puchmayr: Maybe he would like a clarification. Could the increases in salaries be some work that has been contracted or some consulting? Maybe clarify where that money is being spent.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think I have some specific numbers that I can offer the member. Part of that increase relates to the employment standards division, where there was a 1.6-percent increase — that being the equivalent of $152,000. In the LRB, which is referred to in the budgeting documents as the industrial relations budget, there was a 5.9-percent increase, or $323,000 — for a combined amount of $475,000.

C. Puchmayr: I will move to the employment standards section right now, being cognizant of the time. The employment standards offices — the total funding for '04-05 versus '05-06…. Maybe I'll ask two questions at a time on this one. Were the office closures in the '04-05 budget, or were they in the '05-06 budget? Correct me if they weren't in either.

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, let me relate to the member in the House the particular numbers. For the employment standards branch, the allocated amount for the '04-05 budget year was $9.765 million. The simi-

lar number for '05-06 is $9.917 million. Therein the member will find the increase to which I just referred.

The second part of the member's question relates to some adjustments that took place with regard to offices. I am further advised that those adjustments and the budgetary implications that they would have had all took place prior to '04-05, so we wouldn't see those reflected at all in the comparison we have just done.

C. Puchmayr: I did some research on the offices, and I have a list here. Could you tell this House if there have been any additions or deletions to this specific list? I have the lower mainland region, Vancouver Island region, Victoria field office, northern region, Terrace field office, Dawson Creek field office, Fraser Valley region, interior region and the Nelson field office.

Hon. M. de Jong: I think he mentioned nine field offices, but I'm not sure. I think what I would prefer to do, given that we know we're going to be here tomorrow, is not only confirm the number, which is nine, but — since we are going to be here — just take his list and ensure that I am accurate when I say that it is accurate.

C. Puchmayr: Maybe I will just assist the minister too. I was informed of a Surrey office, and I imagine that could be the Fraser Valley office. I will submit this list to him. Could the minister also please give me a breakdown of the catchment areas of these specific offices?

Hon. M. de Jong: I can obtain that information, the catchment areas for the respective offices, and have that for the member.

C. Puchmayr: My next question is with respect to the employment standards reorganization for the move towards the direct complaints system. First of all, why was this system implemented?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to make sure that I'm providing accurate information, of course, to the member. The term "direct complaints" isn't registering here in the way that I think it has registered with the member. There has been a change to the extent that applicants now are asked to get a self-help kit. If the member is referring to that process whereby the self-help kit encourages applicants to undertake certain alternate dispute options before formalizing a complaint, that may be what we're talking about here. But I wonder if the member could help me a little bit.

C. Puchmayr: Yes, that's it precisely — the complaint resolution and B.C. Employment Standards Act, which is the system and the criteria required prior to anyone contacting the board for assistance. They need to go through the direct complaint, the complaint resolution steps. My question is: what was the reasoning for going to this system?

Hon. M. de Jong: The question is, I think, a valid one. Having embarked upon a different strategy, what was the objective? To put it as directly as I can, it was to provide people with additional information and sufficient information that they would have a better understanding of what their rights are under the Employment Standards Act, some of the procedures involved in pursuing the enforcement of those rights and, to that extent, relieving some of the volumes that result from formal applications being made.

It may, for example, be the case that an individual feels they have been aggrieved by an employer who is not properly abiding by the terms of the Employment Standards Act. The purpose behind the design of the self-help kit is to encourage people to take the time to review the material set out therein so that at the conclusion they can decide, armed with the best information available, whether they have a case. In many cases the review of the self-help kit might reinforce in their minds if they have a complaint, but they would have that additional knowledge and be able to proceed on that basis.

I should say to the member that at first glance — and I say this somewhat guardedly — the self-help kits appear to have been something of a success in terms of the numbers that have been accessed and the number of people that have utilized them. In some cases it is mandatory that they do; in other cases it is not. There are exemptions as it relates to, for example, people who may not have the language abilities necessary to properly interpret what's in the self-help kit. So there are exemptions to the general rule requiring mandatory use of the self-help kit.

The numbers, however, would suggest that as a result of receiving the additional information contained in those self-help kits, the formal processing…. It has had a positive impact on the formal processing of complaints, leaving the employment standards division and its officers additional time and resources necessary to properly process those claims for which there is a genuine and legitimate entitlement.

I don't think you can make that statement across the board. There are others who have suggested that the self-help kit is found by some to be intimidating. That's not my impression. My impression is that it is designed in a way that is very helpful for people and provides them with additional information. We're tracking it. We want to know that what appears to be emerging from the numbers is also verified anecdotally. But that was the general objective: to ensure that people, in pursuing their rights under the Employment Standards Act, had ready access to a summary of what those rights are.

C. Puchmayr: Your comments certainly lead me to my next question. I certainly am going to need some clarification on this. You state that you are tracking this process. I'm puzzled, and maybe you will clarify how you are tracking this process.

I'll give you an idea of what the process entails. First of all, when you get on the webpage, it tells you

that you cannot file a complaint with an officer — except for some rare cases, of course, and I'll give you that — prior to filling out a complaint and proceeding with the complaint. I printed off the complaint forms. They are very intimidating. For instance, for an employee to fill out a form and basically summon their employer…. The questions that are asked in the form are obviously, in my opinion, the same questions that the employee would have already asked the employer, if they're trying to resolve an issue with the employer. I'm puzzled how you can track whether this system is so intimidating that some employees may not proceed to get justice in the workplace.

Hon. M. de Jong: We can certainly have a discussion. To the extent that the member wants to provide specific examples of the inquiries contained in the self-help kit and the documentation, I'm more than happy to have the discussion and learn where he believes improvements need to be made.

Access to the self-help kits can certainly be tracked, and I'll provide some numbers. In '02-03…. I'll just check, but I believe the kits became available partway through that year. Yes, I'm getting confirmation of that fact. So in '02-03, which is a partial year, about 3,300 — actually closer to 3,400 — kits were downloaded from the website. In '03-04 that went up to just under 42,500. In '04-05 it was 35,500. So far in '05-06, just about 15,000. So people are certainly accessing the material and are pursuing it. We believe that's a positive thing.

I'm interested, however — genuinely interested — in what portions of the material the member believes act as an impediment to the pursuit of legitimate claims under the Employment Standards Act. I will say this. Part of the objective is to encourage people to organize themselves for the complaint that they are pursuing, insofar as in order, ultimately, for the complaint to be properly adjudicated, there is going to need to be some basic information surrounding the claim, and at some point an individual who is pursuing it needs to do that. The objectives, in part, behind the self-help kit are to explain to the member what their rights are, how they go about procedurally enforcing those rights, and then, thirdly, the information that will need to be available in order for them to pursue those rights.

C. Puchmayr: The former process was a phone call or going down to the office, and now some of these regional offices are very, very difficult to get to. So for some employees…. I believe the Burnaby one goes all the way up to the Sunshine Coast. So that sort of drop-in in your region is out of the question. I guess you can go to a library if you have one, if you don't have a computer, and access this information.

But my concern is that it is making it more difficult for the employee to actually, for instance, even have a conversation with an officer on this to discuss an issue, rather than go through the technicalities of filling out the form or getting assistance to fill out the form and then basically presenting it to your employer and saying: "Here. Those things I've been telling you about — now it's recorded and registered, and it's going to go to the board."

I'm worried about someone's longevity in that place of employment by virtue of this onerous process of actually having to file and serve an employer without really…. Some employees are fairly young employees. They are intimidated. I'm concerned that maybe some of the statistics you're seeing of fewer people lodging complaints are not related to better working conditions but to the daunting task of filing complaints.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me make this observation. It is undoubtedly a very difficult decision — well, in many cases. I suppose in other cases it's not. But for many individuals, the decision to pursue a claim against an employer is a very difficult one. I agree with the member.

In situations where the employee has left the employ, either voluntarily or otherwise, there's a different dynamic at play, and the tension or hesitancy that might exist won't be there. I think the situation that the member is referring to, where someone remains in the employ of a company or an employer…. It can be, by the nature of what's being pursued, a daunting task to say to that employer: "I actually am pursuing a claim against you." Even under the system that existed previously, in that scenario the employer is getting notice. The employer is going to be put on notice that a claim is being pursued against them and by whom.

In part, the need to obtain information is going to generate or encourage a discussion between the employee and the employer. I'm not an expert in the laws or the Employment Standards Act or in dispute resolution through the employment standards system, but I can tell the member that from my experience — it seems like a hundred years ago now — with the justice system, there are at times real benefits to incorporating into a dispute-resolution process an element of information exchange or dialogue.

Sometimes — the member is right — that can be very difficult for an individual. Yet in any process whereby an individual is pursuing a claim against another, there will come a moment, if that claim is to be formalized, where someone gets a piece of paper that says: "I now have a claim against you." The hope is that we can design — that's why I'm interested in this conversation — a system that is user-friendly, that minimizes the opportunity for abuse or its frivolous use and that, at the same time, can encourage parties who may have nothing more than a difference of perception or opinion to seek resolution so that the employee-employer relationship can be re-established on a positive footing and the parties move forward.

I'm anxious to hear more from the member about the portions of this process that he believes represent an impediment to achieving those goals.

C. Puchmayr: Well, I see a direct impediment in the language barrier, for one thing. Could the minister explain to me how someone speaking a foreign lan-

guage can access through the Internet the information required or needed in order to file a complaint?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize to the member. I neglected to mention, just in response to his previous question, that in addition, there is a help line available that I believe is located in Prince George. That is there and is of assistance.

In the case that the member has just described, though, of an individual who is experiencing linguistic challenges, that's why the specific exemption exists. I was just inquiring of Mr. Connolly and Ms. Wall what the process would be for an individual who doesn't possess the linguistic skills necessary to work through the self-help kit and the forms that are attached to it.

I'm advised that in that scenario, they are relieved of the need to fill it out. To provide the information, they would contact their closest office. They would be provided with the assistance of an officer, an individual who'd be speaking with them. We have a number of officers who are conversant in a variety of different languages. Hopefully, there would be someone available fluent in the language of the individual requiring assistance. They would make a determination about what the best course of action would be and would help the individual involved. If it was thought necessary or prudent to complete some of the documentation, they would. But they would be there to provide some guidance to the individual, and the specific need for that individual to fill out the documentation to provide the information that we've been discussing would specifically be exempted.

C. Puchmayr: I did make a phone call to one of the regional offices. I won't mention the office, but it wasn't in Victoria. I asked the question with respect to the links to this process for someone speaking a different language. I said that I was asking the question, not for myself, but to see if there were issues and concerns with people that speak different languages with accessing this information. I think the minister will be interested in hearing what the response from a manager at a specific office told me on this.

First of all, they linked me to the webpage, which is the home page where it starts with "Welcome to the employment standards branch," which explains the administration. Then on the side column on the margin where it says "B.C. workplace info," I'm supposed to click on "Fact sheets." I said: "Hold it right there now. I'm someone that can't speak the language."

The answer that I was given was that there are two groups — one being SUCCESS, and another one — that provide those services for people, and those are the groups that I should encourage my constituents to contact to assist them in accessing the labour standards branch. Nothing was said about this sort of open process of information. I mean, you would think that it would be the first bit of information that they would give me to assist a constituent. It was to try to link the webpage. Actually, I did. I clicked on the fact sheets, and I did receive another page, all in English again.

Certainly, this doesn't assist anyone that has language barriers. There seems to be no assistance other than community groups — encouraging a person to go to a community group for assistance. I ask the minister: is this something that is happening at all the offices, or is there something that some of the offices are aware of and that other offices are not?

Hon. M. de Jong: So a couple of things. I'm actually grateful to the member for referring me to the scenario and the transaction he was involved in. First of all, it does vary. That's the first thing we should know, depending on….

Hon. M. de Jong: It does vary in terms of which office we're dealing with and what personnel are available at any given time and their linguistic abilities. I am reminded, however, by senior officials here that the fact sheets, to which the member has referred, do exist in a variety of languages, and I do want to provide him by tomorrow with both a listing and some examples of the languages those worksheets do exist in.

My concern, however, in listening to the member describe his access to this, would be this: if the worksheets do exist in other languages — at a minimum French, Chinese, Punjabi, Spanish and Filipino — that people, when they gain access to the main page, can navigate to these worksheets easily. I think it's good and proper that we have the worksheets in these languages, but the member, I think, has suggested that that wasn't apparent to him when he first logged on to the site. That may be something we need to look into, but I'll endeavour to provide him tomorrow with copies of the actual worksheets in the languages that I've mentioned.

C. Puchmayr: Yes, I did link to those, as I mentioned. I did exactly what they said, and that's to click on the fact sheet index. It's very clear, but it's very clear in English that these languages are in there. I'm pleased that the minister is alerted to that fact, and I think there could be a fairly easy resolve, at least, to addressing that issue.

Some workers have limited English skills, but they still have some English skills. They could get on to a computer. I'm not a techno-peasant, but I guess I'll do until one comes along. It is difficult for a lot of people, and I think to have some sort of a link for someone with very basic English skills would be of assistance in getting into these other pages.

The minister doesn't need to present those other translated copies because I'm aware they're in there. My real concern was with the information that I received from the offices. The office that I did call certainly has a large population that would have English as a second language. It is in a region that has a lot of

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

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

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

I understand the member for Nelson-Creston, the official opposition critic, is away for a few days and that others will be taking his place. I'm sure that the official opposition critic advised his colleagues that we had agreed to a list and a rotation of how things were going to take place in the House. Just to remind everybody, what we will do is start off with the mining and minerals division, and those questions will be answered by the minister responsible for mining, who's with me here today.

When we've completed those, we will move on to the oil and gas division. When we've completed those, we will then go to the titles division. When we've completed those, we go to offshore oil and gas. When we've completed those, electricity and alternative energy division. At the completion of those, it's marketing and aboriginal and community relations.

Next we will go to the Crowns — B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transmission, Columbia Power Corp. and the Oil and Gas Commission. That's the agreement we had with the official opposition, and I am holding to that, because that's the way we structured our time in the House.

I'm just going to give you a brief few words, because the minister responsible for mining will be taking the first section. This ministry has a budget of $72 million, made up of some transfers — in fact, a fair amount of transfers — in the ministry. We have about 270 people that work in this ministry that are dedicated, that have been dedicated, that are very well respected in all of their peer groups, regardless of whether it's mining, energy, electricity or whatever.

Actually, before we start I want to thank those people who work in my ministry for the hard work they do. This is a small ministry — 270 people, as I said. It brings in revenue of probably $3 billion a year to British Columbia, which goes to provide health care, education and all those services for all of us that we have all come to depend upon.

This ministry is also responsible for some of the largest Crowns, some of them being B.C. Hydro, BCTC, Columbia Power Corp., the Oil and Gas Commission and some smaller boards. They are all boards and Crowns that have huge responsibilities in delivering services to each and every one of us here in the province. I want to thank those people — and some of them are in the room with us today — from the Crowns and the organizations for the hard work they do on behalf of each and every one of us here in the province.

With those few words, I will turn the debate over to the minister responsible for mines, reminding everyone here that we're dealing with the mining and minerals division and that once it's done, it's done, and they're allowed to leave.

I'll leave the introductions of the staff that he has with him here today to the minister responsible for mines.

The Chair: One moment, minister. I'm going to ask that you repeat the order, just so that we're all in sync.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, I can give the Clerk a copy, and that may be better.

B. Simpson: A point of order. As a new MLA and as someone who has been through estimates in my own critic portfolio, it's my understanding that the opposition determines the order. Is that correct?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This was done by agreement with the critic. It wasn't done arbitrarily by me, and I didn't bring this in arbitrarily. This has been in discussion with the critic responsible, as I understand, for the opposition. That is the list we agreed to, with his input, and he could have actually changed anything he

B. Simpson: Well, unfortunately, we've had a bit of a communications breakdown. As the minister is aware, the hon. member who is the critic is not available. However, in the spirit of cooperation, we will attempt to rejig our questions and our speakers in line with this. However, I do ask both of the ministers for forbearance as we kind of deal with that and try and realign things.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Understanding that there was lack of communication, I guess, from the critic to his colleagues — I appreciate that — we will do our best to respond. But you also have to understand that the reason this agreement was made was because there are two ministers responsible in this ministry: one for mining and one for the balance of the ministry. So it's actually one of the only ways we can move it through. It's not as though it's just one minister. If it was just one minister, I'd think about looking at rearranging the schedule. Right now I can't do that.

The Chair: Would you like us to take a five-minute recess to get yourself organized, or are you ready?

B. Simpson: If we could be given leave for five minutes just to realign our questions and get ourselves organized, I would very much appreciate that.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce our staff, first of all. To my right is Deputy Minister Greg Reimer; Geoff Freer, ADM; and Doug Callbeck, ADM. I have a very brief statement to get started.

My responsibilities within this ministry are with mining and all things associated with mining. Right now in British Columbia the mining industry is prospering and growing and employing more and more people every day. I hope to get an opportunity through the estimates process to talk a little bit about how well things are going in the mining industry, but just let me tell you a few things to get started.

The mining industry in 2001 was languishing somewhat. Metal prices were down, coal prices were down, and there were other external factors that created a pretty nasty situation for the mining industry about the turn of the decade. At this point in 2005 we've come from $29 million of exploration and investment up to, we hope, close to $200 million of annual exploration investment. This year we have increased the staking just from last year by 400 percent over 2004, and we think it's going to be up higher than that by the end of this year. We've opened two new coalmines in the past year. We have another two new coalmines in the northeast that we expect to see opened in the next few months. We are looking for a new metal mine to open in the province.

The number of people employed in the industry has gone way up, and the average salary for someone in the mining industry, if you include the benefits, is about $94,000 a year. These are very, very good jobs. The mining industry has grown into a $5 billion industry. We expect that to increase over the near future, and all of those good things happen on only 0.03 percent of the land base in British Columbia.

A strong industry, a responsible industry. I think they do a good job of earning their social licence. Things are not the way they were in the industry 25 or 30 years ago. Those good jobs and that economic activity that flow out to rural communities, in particular, come out of 0.03 percent of the land base. I believe it's a very good news story. I'm proud to be associated with mining, mineworkers and mining-dependent communities. With that, I'll let the opposition go at it with their questions.

B. Simpson: Again, thank you to both ministers involved for their patience as we figured out what we were doing.

By way of introduction, I actually worked in the mining industry in the 1980s and know how much it went sideways in the 1980s. Through the 1990s it attempted to recover but, of course, market conditions and the situation with both oil and gas and mineral exploration declined on a global scale. We are very fortunate just now to have mineral prices increasing to historic levels. We're very fortunate that in interior communities they're seeing this resurgence in mining activity and in oil and gas exploration activity, because in many ways, those communities are going to need this to offset losses in the traditional sector that employed people, and that's the forest sector as the mountain pine beetle ravages our forests.

We're going to begin with questions around some of the smaller players in the mining industry. I know the minister is well aware of this group, and it's the placer miners. At a forum in Quesnel, I guess a month or so ago now, I had the pleasure of sitting in the room with 70 of the placer miners and hearing their concerns — again, my regards to the ministry for having staff there. It was a very fruitful discussion. In that meeting concerns were raised about the placer-mining review process underway. I would like if I could get an update on the status of that review, a time frame for that review and when we may see a completion of the review process.

Hon. B. Bennett: There have been some productive meetings between staff and the Cariboo placer miners, and there have been the same kinds of constructive discussions taking place with the provincial placer association.

There are two action points in the B.C. mining plan that relate to placer and go to the member's question. Staff have apparently offered to your placer miners in the Cariboo an opportunity to meet again and to discuss their needs. I'm not sure if the member is aware that the ministry has actually made an offer to the Cariboo placer miners to do some training, in particular training on the new claims-staking process that's on line that some of the senior placer miners might struggle with a little bit. That offer has been made, and staff will follow through on it.

B. Simpson: That is indeed good news and will be well received. However, as a follow-up to that, there are some members of that particular association, as your ministry staff have most likely pointed out…. There are some issues there of whether or not even training is sufficient. One of the recommendations coming out of that forum was maybe, on an interim basis, the government agents facility there be provided with additional resources to do the data entry because there are some of the placer miners who may never get over the hump of what a mouse is and what a keyboard is. It's just a particular and special circumstance that needs to be recognized. I'm interested in whether or not the minister has been apprised of that and if it is, in fact, possible to deal with this one particular circumstance.

Hon. B. Bennett: I come from Cranbrook, which is not a lot different than Quesnel. There are placer miners and a lot of prospectors in the area, and I can recall when mineral titles on-line as a concept was first introduced in my area. There was a lot of resistance to it from the traditional prospectors who are pretty hands-on people and not necessarily schooled in the use of computers or technology.

I would say that those prospectors that I actually met with quite recently, within the last month, at Minerals South, a minerals conference in Cranbrook, have mastered the use of the technology, and in fact, they are quite happy with registering their claims on line. Having said that, I think it's incumbent upon us as a ministry to work with the people in the industry if they are having issues around the new technology. The government agents have, in fact, been instructed to take some special care in providing the training to the placer miners in the Cariboo. What I would suggest is that we see that training carried through and see what the result is and then take whatever extra steps we may have to take at that time.

B. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's words, and I guess it's a work in progress, and we'll look at it as such. One of the compounding effects on this, of course, is that Mineral Titles Online is also evolving, and as a consequence, you have an intersection there where someone is learning a system, and the system is evolving itself. So the first time that somebody comes, they may actually have different fields and different data-entry points than the second time that they come. For someone who is not versed in computers, that just adds to the whole frustration of what the heck.

I know from experience, because I did this for a living. I introduced computer systems into the forest industry and introduced training systems into the forest industry. There is a percentage of the population that just won't get there, no matter how many resources you put into it. Again, I hear the minister saying that this is a work in progress, and as the member from that area, I would work with the government agent's office to track this and then get back to the minister if we find there is still a group there that needs further resources. So I'll keep the minister abreast of that.

On the Mineral Titles Online on a more macro level, at that placer mining meeting and from a number of sources, there have been questions about how effective that is. I know that it has garnered awards. I know that it is the wave of the future, and just so I'm not mistaken as a Luddite, I am not opposed to moving in this direction.

However, because of my particular experience with putting computer systems into the forest industry, I know that sometimes you have to step back and actually look to see if you're gaining the intent you desired, if you're gaining the efficiencies that you desired and if the clients themselves are gaining what they want from the system.

Is there a point here at which Mineral Titles Online will be reviewed in a comprehensive fashion, both from a client interface and from a systems perspective, so that people can have their concerns heard about the system as a whole?

Hon. B. Bennett: I may give a longer answer here than what the member wants, but I want to make sure that I provide a full answer, because I think there's obviously some merit in being aware that there are people, especially in the rural areas, who are in the prospecting business, the exploration business, who may be a little slow in getting up to speed on the technology. That being the case, then, they're our clients, and I think the ministry is obligated and happy to work with those folks.

I do want to mention, however, that the mineral titles on-line program, as the member indicated, has won some awards recently, in October 2005 — three separate awards, in fact, for Mineral Titles Online. It was nominated by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, which is constituted by a lot of people in the exploration business, for a GTEC Award at a national event that was held in Ottawa and received the Gold Distinction Award. Those awards are designed to formally recognize and celebrate leadership, innovation and excellence in enabling and managing e-government within the public sector. And a couple of other awards as well.

I understand that sometimes government staff in Victoria don't always know the details of what goes on in some of the outlying communities, so if the mem-

ber's experience is different, I hope that he'll come and talk to me about this in the future. It is my understanding that both the ministry staff and the staff at the government agent offices in the Cariboo are more than willing to work with the prospectors, with the placer folks, to make sure they do get up to speed and learn how to operate the program.

In terms of whether the program is having a beneficial impact, independent of the fact that it has won some awards, you look at the amount of staking that's taken place in British Columbia just in 2005. As I said in my introduction, the amount of staking from 2005 going back to 2004 has gone up by over 400 percent. I would suggest that's a pretty good indication as to how well the program is operating.

B. Simpson: I guess I didn't make my point very clear. Mineral Titles Online is a computer program. If it gets a computer award as a computer program, that's one thing. It's a client interface, and the clients, therefore, have an opportunity to say whether it's working for them or not. In my experience, as computer programmers work on computer programs, it's all cool. They can put fields in here; they can do that there. They can do all kinds of great things. There's an intent to the program in its original design, and I don't think it hurts, ever, to go back and always look at that intent and also to take client input and put that into the evolution of the program.

My question to the minister was quite specific. Is the program being reviewed? Is there a constant review cycle for this? What is the stepback analysis for this that looks at the program from a software perspective, from an intent perspective and from a client interface perspective? Again, from a project management approach, that is a normal, rational project management approach. Is that project management approach being taken with this particular software?

Hon. B. Bennett: The short answer is yes. That's a fair question, and the answer is yes.

The longer answer is…. Well, first of all, the award that was given that I mentioned — one of the three awards — was actually an award that resulted from the nomination by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines. It came from the exploration industry — the people on the ground that actually are responsible for exploration. The award didn't come because some software engineers got together and thought they had done a good thing.

There is an ongoing process involving staff in the ministry that work with the program and people in the mining industry on the ground learning how to use the program and, in most cases, are already using the program. There is a lot of back and forth, and there is feedback that comes into the ministry in regards to changes that can be made. In most cases they are fairly minor changes, but not always. Once the staff hears about these changes and it's decided by the ministry that someone has made a good point and that a constructive change needs to be made, then those changes are made.

B. Simpson: The B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines represents miners in the province, but as the minister is well aware, there's a fundamental difference in the province between the hard-rock, large-claims miners, the large corporations that can afford staff to deal with these issues…. I think the point is taken. I will take the minister at his word that there's a project management approach being taken. I would hope that as the training is done with the placer miners in Quesnel, their concerns are listened to. Many of those concerns are technical and beyond my experience.

I would like to change gears just now and talk briefly about some concerns in the Williams Lake area expressed by the Steelworkers there about mine inspections and the number of inspectors, how mining inspection is being accomplished and the reconciliation between mine inspections and WCB.

Hon. B. Bennett: It was — no criticism implied — a fairly general question, but we can get started talking about this part of the industry or this part of the ministry by saying that WCB is not responsible for health and safety. I think the member knows that. The ministry is responsible for health and safety.

We do have an excellent safety record in mining in British Columbia. We've been one of the safest heavy industries in this province. I think that in seven or eight of the last ten years we've been the safest heavy industry in the province. There are accidents. There was one, in fact, in my riding a few weeks ago — a very tragic accident at Greenhills coal mine. There are accidents, and one is one too many, but generally speaking, it is a safe industry, so I think that speaks well to the inspection that takes place in regards to health and safety by the ministry.

M. Sather: As the minister no doubt is aware, there's a coal deposit in the Mount Klappan area in the upper Stikine–Skeena area held by Fortune Minerals. Does the minister have information on whether or not this is a significant deposit?

Hon. B. Bennett: It is significant deposit. The deposit is actually anthracite. It's the hardest known coal. It's a very, very large deposit and so, I think, in all ways is significant.

M. Sather: As the minister also knows, I'm sure, there's been a dispute over access to that area with regard to the Tahltan First Nation. Some members blockaded the access this summer, and it's my understanding in speaking to them that this dispute is ongoing. Does the minister feel that this dispute could hamper or jeopardize the opportunities for Fortune Minerals to mine this site?

Hon. B. Bennett: I think, first of all, that it's important to state that the dispute the member refers to is a dispute between Tahltan people. It's a dispute that's internal to the Tahltan people. Based on what I have been told and what I have seen and read, the Tahltan people are not categorically opposed to mining. In fact, they are on the record as being supportive of mining opportunities and the jobs that come from mining.

In fact, Eskay Creek employs several dozen Tahltan people, and Eskay Creek is scheduled to close in about a year and a half. The Tahltan people that I have met with, and that would be Chief Asp, who was Chief of the band, and Mr. Rattray, who is the chair of the Tahltan Central Council…. I've met with those two folks a number of times, actually, over the last five months. They have made it very clear to me that they are concerned that there be good mining jobs — those jobs I spoke of in my introduction — for their people who will lose their jobs when the Eskay Creek mine closes.

That's a perspective that sometimes gets lost when we read the newspaper and hear about the blockade of the road that the member refers to. The dispute itself is a dispute within the Tahltan community as to whether or not that particular development — the development the member refers to by Fortune Minerals of the anthracite deposit — should go forward.

Our ministry has actually spent a lot of time and has devoted some considerable resources to trying to bring people together in the northwest. We are not going to insert ourselves internally into the conflict that exists in the Tahltan community, but we are certainly prepared and, in fact, have acted to try and facilitate some good dialogue between the Tahltan people. We facilitated a meeting. We gave them resources to hire a facilitator and facilitated a meeting — I believe it was in Dease Lake — where the Tahltan people came together and had a discussion about who represents, who speaks for, the Tahltan people. It was in relation to the blockade of this particular road. Overwhelmingly, at this large public meeting it was determined by a show of hands that the Tahltan Central Council would speak for the Tahltan people.

We've also encouraged the companies who are operating in the area — and there are a number of companies operating in the area — to work closely with the Tahltan people. It is traditional Tahltan territory. Government respects that fact, so government has encouraged the companies to respect that fact as well. I think the companies have conducted themselves quite well.

The member is probably aware that there was a legal proceeding. The company eventually, after a number of months, had to go to court and apply for a temporary injunction to allow passage through the roads so that they can go in and do the environmental work, the study that they needed to do.

I'm finally getting around to actually answering the member's question, which is yes, there was definitely a delay this summer as a result of the blockade. But the company remains very, very interested in developing that coal deposit and very committed, from my understanding, to working closely with the Tahltan people to do it in a way that is both environmentally responsible and respectful of what the Tahltan people want as a whole.

M. Sather: There is a disagreement, as the minister has referred to, between different members of the Tahltan First Nation. But their dispute really is about what they feel is a lack of consultation preceding use of their traditional territory and particularly with regard to a family. That site is within their family as their traditional territory, and other members certainly have joined them in that dispute.

As we know, Fortune Minerals is the company that has what we understand is the inside track to acquire Ridley Terminals up the coast. It is an understanding that I have, at least, that part of the reason they want to acquire Ridley in Prince Rupert is because they would be able to move their considerable coal deposits to port. The federal government apparently is favouring Fortune's bid. My understanding is that the provincial government has been thinking along the same lines.

My question then is: is it possible…? We know, of course, that there's another coalition of companies, including Teck Cominco and others, that want to have access and would like to be the operators of that facility and feel that they could offer a better price through a non-profit organization.

So I'm just wondering if, with the question mark around the access to that site, as one of the issues…. There are other issues around Fortune's bid, of course. But is it perhaps that the government is backing the wrong horse? Is it possible that this company will not be able to proceed with their bid if they don't, in fact, end up having unfettered access to that coal deposit?

Hon. B. Bennett: First of all, the government of British Columbia is not backing any horses with regard to Ridley Terminals. The federal government had an independent process for selling Ridley Terminals, which they embarked upon all on their own, certainly independently of the B.C. government. We heard about it the same as everyone else did.

Through that process they chose — the federal government, that is…. The ministry of transportation apparently chose the bid that was put in by Fortune Minerals, and I think there is another partner. I'm not sure if I can remember the name of the partner from Ontario. I think it might be White Cement. The federal government chose that bid, qualified that bid and said that this is the group we're going to deal with regard to offloading Ridley Terminals.

The only way that the provincial government has any involvement in Ridley Terminals is that we have an interest in ensuring that the northeast coal sector, as it recovers from its near demise in the 1990s, has an operating model that allows it to be competitive with the rest of the world. We want the northeast coal sector to be successful because these jobs — as I've stated before, and I think it bears repeating — are good jobs. These are $94,000-a-year jobs if you include the bene-

fits, so we want those jobs for communities like Tumbler Ridge and Chetwynd and Dawson Creek.

We want the model for operating in the northeast to be competitive with Australia for the most part, so we're not going to interfere with a process that the federal government has for selling Ridley Terminals. We don't want to interfere with their valid process. They chose a winner, and it's up to them to either finish the deal or not. It's not up to us.

What we have told the mining industry that we will do, and we are doing this, is work with the federal government to ensure that there is the appropriate level of oversight at Ridley Terminals to ensure that this operating model for northeast coal is competitive with Australia. We will work with the federal government to make sure that either they or the province…. Even though it's federal jurisdiction, we've invited the federal government to think about allowing the province to have the jurisdiction over the oversight at Ridley terminal so that we can make sure that rates are fair and that all coal producers have access to the port.

With regard to the whole Ridley file and situation and Fortune Minerals's work on the Klappan coal deposit, I can tell the member that I have no reason to believe, and certainly have not received any information from Fortune Minerals, that they have lost interest in this deposit. I believe it's their intention to go forward and complete their environmental assessment and, if they are approved, to build a mine.

Now I should just mention for the member's benefit that given the geographic location of the Klappan coal deposit, it's quite likely that that coal would not go through Ridley terminal. It's quite likely that it would go through Stewart, given the location next to Highway 37. If rail was somehow added to the picture in the future, they would then perhaps have the option of moving their coal from the Klappan project down to Ridley by rail, but at the present time it would likely go by road, by truck, out to Stewart.

G. Robertson: I have a few questions related to agricultural land. I understand that a delegation of jurisdictions has taken place between the Agricultural Land Commission and the Oil and Gas Commission. Can you explain the process, why it's happened and how it works?

Hon. B. Bennett: For the member's benefit, prior to the member, I think, coming into the chamber, both the opposition and government agreed that we would do mining questions first. Then I'm going to vacate the premises, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources will take my chair and deal with the energy and petroleum issues.

S. Simpson: The minister is correct. We said we'd do that. I have one or two additional mining questions, and then I think we'll be done with that and moving over to oil and gas–related matters.

The question I have relates to getting an update from the minister on the status of things around Duncan Lake with the four first nations in that area. I know there are some issues around tailings. I believe there is a significant amount of tailings that are proposed to be going to the lake from Northgate. I wonder if the minister could talk about that a little bit.

Hon. B. Bennett: I'm trying to get the rhythm here. I apologize that I've jumped ahead a few times. It's just because I'm so excited about the opportunities in mining in British Columbia.

What the member is referring to is an application by Northgate Minerals, who own the Kemess mine, to expand their operation five or six kilometres to the north to develop a deposit that they refer to as Kemess North. I think it's a porphyry copper-gold deposit.

The business case for the company is essentially that they have the people there that are working in the existing mine. That deposit is going to run out again within the next two years, and so they would like to keep those workers working and utilize the infrastructure that they have and move it up the six kilometres to Kemess North.

The specific issue that the member raises is an issue that a panel is dealing with right now. It's a panel that is jointly constituted by provincial government appointees and federal government appointees to assess the company's proposal of dealing with mine tailings at the new location at Kemess North. The company has proposed at this stage that they take the rock that comes out of the ground that does not contain sufficient levels of mineral and put it underwater. What I should say about it is that this is what all mines around the world do when they have this type of rock. They put it underwater. What that does is….. By removing any opportunity for the rock to come in contact with air, you don't have the acid generation.

In this case what the company has apparently proposed is that instead of building a tailings pond…. By building an earthen dam, they are proposing that they put the rock under the water of Duncan Lake. That's the explanation of the project. The member may have to ask me again specifically what it is that he would like to know about it.

S. Simpson: The question I have relates a little bit to the new relationship. Could the minister clarify for me? The comments that we've received suggest that there has not been a substantive government-to-government discussion between the four nations and the government over these issues and the appropriateness of this decision. Could the minister elaborate on exactly what kinds of discussions have gone on between government and the four first nations in question — about the future, about this decision?

Hon. B. Bennett: Well, I can tell the member that there has been substantive discussion between government and the four first nations, and there has also

been, I think, significant discussion between the company and the four first nations. In fact, in July of 2004 the four first nations and Northgate negotiated an MOU to work together and to negotiate a framework for an economic benefits agreement, which is fairly typical. That's what companies and first nations strive for when there is a proposed mine development.

But I want to be fair to the member. He's absolutely right — you know, we've all read in the newspaper — that these first four nations at the present time are not pleased with the way they see the project proceeding. I can't get into any specifics about what the panel is doing because it is a panel that has been set up by our environmental assessment office in British Columbia and the federal office.

It is a process that politicians don't interfere in and don't comment on until it's over. So I won't comment on that process, but I will say to the member that I have, in my brief tenure as Minister of State for Mining, met with many, many first nations groups. I actually enjoy that. I find that first nations folks are asking, in most cases, for pretty reasonable things. In this case they want to know more about the project.

If you go back to the answer that I gave to the first question on what the company is proposing with regard to the rock going into Duncan Lake, if you are not experienced in the mining industry, you're not a chemist and you don't have the scientific background, I think any one of us would probably be cautious about that proposal. So I think they are cautious about the proposal. I think they do want to have more consultation. We are committed to having additional discussions from the government side, and we'll see where it goes from there.

S. Simpson: Just a couple more questions in relation to this, and I realize that there are specifics going on. Maybe what the minister could comment on is: what is the minister's understanding of how the…? We heard the Premier earlier today in his estimates talking about the new relationship and about how some of the ministries are having to go back and think about how they're doing business based on these discussions, and there are some adjustments that are going on throughout government as it feels its way through what the new relationship means in practical and on-the-ground terms.

Maybe what the minister could comment on is: what does he view the new relationship as meaning in substantive terms, in terms of exploration or disposal of tailings or these kinds of matters that the four first nations have raised concern about? Generally, what does the minister believe the obligations of his ministry now are, in order to meet the spirit of the new relationship?

Hon. B. Bennett: Yeah, maybe we can do that sometime in a more social situation, but as concisely as I can, I am very excited about the concept of a new relationship with first nations in British Columbia.

Clearly, the relationship that British Columbia governments have had with first nations in the past has not been all that healthy. I think if you talk to first nations, they would say there have been problems with the treaty process throughout the 1990s. Given that there weren't any treaties negotiated under the treaty process, I guess that's a pretty good signal that the treaty process hasn't been very productive. We have got the courts, on one hand, determining whether or not government has done sufficient consultation and sufficient accommodation to warrant decisions in regards to traditional territory. The new relationship will get us beyond that kind of legalistic, conflict-based relationship.

Personally, as the minister responsible for mines, I don't really want to focus on the absolute minimum that we need to do in terms of consultation and accommodation with first nations. I think the new relationship has to get beyond that, and we have to find out by talking to first nations about what it is that they want from their traditional territories. Do they want jobs from new mines? How do they want new mines to go forward? How many new mines do they want to go forward? We need to have those kinds of discussions with first nations. We are beginning to have those kinds of discussions with first nations.

The new relationship will definitely…. Right now I think it is probably a skeleton, but we are going to put flesh on the bones as we go forward. The member mentioned the Premier's comments, and what I can say to the member is that within the mines portion of this ministry — and I'll let the senior minister speak for the oil and gas side, but I believe it is the same in that case — I think we actually are leaders in government in terms of the relationship-building that we are doing with first nations. I believe that some of the successes that we have, such as Eskay Creek and other situations around the province where mining companies, the government and first nations have come together and built constructive relationships, are going to be models for the new relationship as we go forward.

I'm extremely excited about the opportunities. I think what I see as the benefits from the new relationship are prosperity and certainty for everyone in British Columbia, including and especially first nations people.

S. Simpson: I'll mention it to the Minister of Energy and Mines. I have one more question related to this, and then we'll go to oil and gas.

I appreciate the minister's comments, and I know there still are questions. I know there are questions around things like who leads in coordination. Is it the Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation that coordinates this? Does it come back to the ministries? I know this is all kind of a work in progress to some degree. I appreciate that.

I also appreciate that in this instance, certainly from our discussions with those four first nations, they're very enthusiastic about economic development, but they have some serious questions about these mine tailings and going into the lake, and they're concerned about that.

What I would ask the minister…. It's more than a question; it's a request. The minister talked about the leadership and that he feels confident that his ministry, and his efforts in his portion of the ministry, is a leader within government in terms of building those kinds of relationships with our first nations and being able to find mutually agreeable and beneficial opportunities where both the first nations and the people of the province are benefiting in jobs and in economic development.

My question to the minister would be this: does the minister have criteria, or has he received briefing notes from his staff about how to apply the new relationship in practical terms? If so, would the minister make those available?

Hon. B. Bennett: I had to check with staff to find out whether they had given me a briefing note on how to implement the new relationship, and it turns out they haven't given me a briefing note on that. I'm not serious with that response, and I'm not trying to be cynical either.

Yesterday we had a meeting between me, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and the minister for aboriginal issues. We're discussing how we can push the concept of a new relationship out into the different areas of government and into the different areas of activity within our province. Of course, I focus on mining. I think we do that — not by sitting in Victoria and trying to figure out, ourselves, what the new relationship should look like. I think we do that by talking to first nations people to find out what it is they want.

I am of a mind that first nations people probably want the same thing that I want for me and my family and that everyone else here probably wants for themselves and their families. You want a decent job, you want some security, you want your kids to be able to go to a good school, and you want access to decent health care. Those are probably the same things we all want. It's a question of how we can, as a provincial government, help first nations people get there faster than they have been getting there over the last 100 years.

We've certainly made, through the Premier, some very important and serious expressions of sincerity and some expressions of reconciliation to first nations people. From what I've seen so far, I think we're making progress in terms of building a new relationship with first nations in this province. I also want to say that with any relationship, particularly one that has been off the rails for as long as this particular relationship, it's going to take some time to build the necessary trust before we can make the kind of progress that I believe is possible.

S. Simpson: I'd love to continue this. Maybe the minister and I can have another discussion, but we're on a tight time line here, so I'm going to step down questions related to mining at this point.

G. Robertson: I beg the minister and staff's patience with us as we juggle the order a bit here through oil and gas, Oil and Gas Commission and alternative, renewable energy. We have questions on all of them, and with the critic for Energy and Mines in Ottawa, we are piecing our batting order together a bit on the fly.

I want to lead off with a question related to the Oil and Gas Commission and meetings taking place between the Agricultural Land Commission and the Oil and Gas Commission and delegations of those jurisdictions. Can you explain the process occurring between them, why it's happened and how that's working out?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe before we go on I'll just introduce the two new folks that came up to the table to deal with oil and gas: obviously, Greg Reimer, the deputy minister; David Molinski, the assistant deputy minister in the oil and gas division; and Derek Doyle, a commissioner for the Oil and Gas Commission.

To the question that the member posed: the Agricultural Land Commission actually delegated to the Oil and Gas Commission the basic responsibilities — not to take land totally out of the agricultural land reserve forever, but the routine issues around that as it relates to oil and gas in northeastern British Columbia in 2004.

G. Robertson: At this point, it is the Oil and Gas Commission that has jurisdiction over those agricultural lands for their purposes?

Hon. R. Neufeld: For the routine things that take place as they relate to oil and gas. Not for…. I will try to be clear here. If someone wants to remove a piece of land from the Agricultural Land Commission in the northeast, that still is a process that goes through the whole Agricultural Land Commission — nothing to do with us.

But the routine things that take place with…. In instances where it may happen — it doesn't happen a lot — that a well may be placed on agricultural land, that routine, general nature is turned over to the responsibility of the Oil and Gas Commission but still, I believe, reviewed closely by the ALR

G. Robertson: Just to clarify: are different usages — extraction of oil, wellhead locations — on that agricultural land reviewed by the Agricultural Land Commission, or are the operators free to do whatever they do on that land without any review?

Hon. R. Neufeld: I will try this again. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. In the regular, routine business of the oil and gas industry, the Oil and Gas Commission is actu-

ally responsible for issues that relate to the agricultural land reserve in northeastern British Columbia. If there is a large removal of land that will never go back into production again, then that process still goes through the agricultural land reserve. They still have the authority over it.

The oil and gas companies don't have the right just to do whatever they want on that land base. There is a huge amount of regulation. There's the Oil and Gas Commission that actually regulates it and the ministry that actually has legislation and regulations that regulate it.

G. Robertson: If the Oil and Gas Commission effectively is the appropriate body to manage land use at this point on those agricultural lands, rather than the agrarian-based Agricultural Land Commission, then why is it that farm values rather than industrial or oil-and-gas-related values serve to set the lease prices for well sites, for roads, for pipeline rights-of-way?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The land, if it is in question…. We're talking about a small amount of land, let's remember, that the oil and gas industry impacts as far as agricultural land, land that's being farmed. The agreements that are made between the industry and the landowner — the farmer or the rancher, whatever it happens to be — are made freely between those two people. They make that agreement amongst themselves for a lease fee, a use fee and all those kinds of things. What takes place is that the commission is responsible to make sure, with all the regulations and the legislation that it has in place, that it's done in a correct and proper manner.

G. Robertson: I know there have been a lot of concerns voiced on the condition of the agricultural land post-extraction of oil and gas from that land, which effectively…. Speaking as someone who has made a living from agricultural land, when that land is unable to produce due to industrial impact, it's effectively not agricultural land anymore. Can you explain what measures are being taken to account for agricultural land that's being lost to industrial contamination in this process?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First, I appreciate what the member is saying about agricultural land. It is the responsibility of the oil company — whoever that happens to be that has a well on the land — as I said, to negotiate, pay a lease fee to the owner of the surface of that land for as long as the oil and gas company occupies that land. When they have finished occupying it, that land must be brought back to the same condition for agriculture or better than it was when they first arrived. That is done. It's not just the Oil and Gas Commission on its own. There are agrologist's reports that have to be done to make sure the process is adhered to and met.

S. Simpson: A couple of questions related specifically to oil and gas. Could the minister tell us: currently, in terms of when a producer comes on to do exploration on a private land owner's property, what is the bond that's set aside for reclamation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The bond that's set aside for reclamation. I think the member will be happy to know that we just recently, in the House, passed the orphan well legislation that actually puts in place a fund that's within the Oil and Gas Commission and that is contributed to by all producers of oil and gas across British Columbia. That fund will get to a maximum of about a million dollars — somewhere in that area.

That money will be used to reclaim and do the work that maybe a company that went bankrupt — or for whatever reason it's no longer owned by anybody…. That's why they're called orphan wells. It's actually fixed up.

Last year we, as government, authorized numbers of millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to clean up 12 wells that have been there, to be perfectly frank, for many years on farmers' lands. No one dealt with it. I dealt with it from when I got to the House, and I'm glad that we finally got an orphan well fund in place and that we actually started looking after some of those.

There are still some on Crown land, and Crown land is just as important. That fund will apply to Crown land, also, where someone or a company actually goes broke and leaves behind a mess that hasn't been cleaned up. It's interesting to note that some of those date back to 1915 and 1918 and are found in the Kootenays. There has been drilling in the province for a lot of years, but we can now have a fund where we can go in and clean that up that is not funded by the taxpayers of British Columbia.

S. Simpson: A question about the rights of private land owners in relation to development. It's my understanding, and I would stand to be corrected, that currently there isn't a formal appeal process. There is an advisory committee, I believe, to the commission that people could discuss this with, and that advisory committee may or may not make recommendations to the commission in relation to applications or for reconsideration on property. Maybe the minister could tell me if I'm correct there or whether there is an appeal process I'm not aware of.

Hon. R. Neufeld: There are two processes. That's a good question. When an oil company actually…. First, there have to be a number of oil companies asked to have a parcel of land put up for sale — right? — because we do it through a closed auction process. We're not just going to bid if there is one company asking. We need to know a number of them so that there is a competitive process.

Prior to that going to a competitive process, what happens is that they will identify the lands they want put up for sale. We will then contact a regional district or municipality or those people and tell them that this

land has been asked to be put up for auction. We hope that we get input from regional districts — and usually do, to be quite honest, and I'll refer just to northeast B.C., whether it's the Northern Rockies regional district, or the Peace regional district — about issues they may find in relationship to that piece of land going up for sale.

The ministry then, through titles division, has to deal with that issue. They may in fact defer it. A municipality or a regional district may say: "I don't want to see that little particular piece go up for sale." If it's a valid reason, the ministry will say: "Take it out of the sale." So it doesn't go up for sale.

Let's say all that has transpired, and then there is a sale, and there's a successful bidder, and they actually go talk to the landowner. Most cases, actually, are successful in negotiating terms of agreement, and those are terms of agreement between two individuals, not by government.

If, for instance, there is a dispute that can't be reconciled, there's what we call a Mediation and Arbitration Board. Either side can take the process to mediation-arbitration. The oil company can take it to mediation-arbitration, or the landowner can take it to mediation-arbitration. Out of mediation-arbitration, a decision is made one way or the other. Sometimes they favour one way, and sometimes they favour the other way, but they make a decision.

The landowner then has the second opportunity, if in fact they they're still not happy. Let's say the Mediation and Arbitration Board said: "No, they can go ahead. Here are the terms." They still have the second avenue, then, to go to the Oil and Gas Commission, to the advisory panel, and make their problems known to the advisory panel who then, in turn, will inform the Oil and Gas Commission before any permits are released for any work to be done on the ground.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell me: when they go through mediation and arbitration, is there support provided to the landowners in order for them to engage that process of mediation and arbitration? Or are they on their own hook for whatever costs they have?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As a business, they're actually on their own hook. But I'm told by the commissioner that if there are some extenuating costs at the end, the Mediation and Arbitration Board could actually award those costs to them.

The board is made up of farmers from northeastern British Columbia and miners, because mediation-arbitration also deals with mining, so there are some people that are knowledgable about mining. But the board is made up of a pretty good cross-section of people who may have worked in the industry or who may be farmers and have worked in the industry, so that it's not loaded against them.

Maybe I could give the member just a few stats, which might help a bit with mediation-arbitration. For instance, in '04-05 there were 51 new well applications approved on cultivated private land. That was in '04-05. Of those 51, there were two that went to arbitration hearings. So they couldn't make a deal prior to…. Because mediation and arbitration are two things, what the Mediation and Arbitration Board does first is try to mediate between the parties. If there's not an agreement, then it actually has to arbitrate. That's what took place out of those 51.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the comment. I guess I would say that these are very lucrative — assuming, of course, that every once in a while one of these oil and gas companies hits what they're looking for. It's very lucrative, and these are very large and well-resourced companies. I would hope that as we move forward, maybe we'll have discussions sometime in the future about whether there should be some assistance for people who legitimately are having concerns and may, for whatever reason, have financial issues around going forward.

I'll move to the second process that the minister spoke about: the advisory committee. Could the minister tell us: since 2001 or 2000, something like that — I'm not worried too much about the year at this point — how many times has the advisory committee gone forward to the commission recommending a reconsideration? And how many times have they actually been successful in getting the commission to approve a reconsideration?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Actually, maybe a little bit in response to your first observation, I should tell you that we are actively looking at how we deal with those issues. We're doing a whole host of things around landowners as they relate to the oil and gas industry. The orphan well was a big one. There are access issues; you're exactly correct. How we actually make sure the agricultural landowners are being treated…. They're being treated fairly under the process we have now. Is that process fair? What we're trying to do is review all that.

In fact, before long we'll be having some committee meetings with the agricultural industry in the northeast. Because we know all the organizations, we'll meet with them on a number of issues. But we want to get a group of them together to start giving us a little bit more on-the-ground knowledge so that we can develop some of those things the member talked about. We will be able to have…. I can't say exactly what's going to come out of that. I can only say that they're probably going to be pretty good things at the end of the day.

S. Simpson: Seven reconsiderations. There were seven times that the advisory board…. Of all the reconsiderations that may have gone forward, seven of them where the commission approved the reconsideration…. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There were seven reconsiderations made by the advisory panel, and the commission accepted none of them. What they did was, rather than deal with each one of those in an individual manner, they actually got together with other ministries, local government and industry to try to alleviate some of the problems that were being brought forward by one individual and to say: "Look, what we need to do is develop something that's more encompassing so that we don't have to do it one-off all the time." What they did is…. They didn't accept any of them, but they actually acted on most of the recommendations on a broader base rather than just one particular issue.

S. Simpson: That makes me appreciate even more the minister's comments about reviewing all of this process, because I suspect there would be some questions of confidence for people who were using the advisory process if they looked at the track record of how successful others have been in using that process to get the satisfaction they were looking for. I appreciate the minister's comments that all of this will be under review. And who knows? We'll look forward to seeing what the results of those discussions are.

I have one more question related to landowners, and then I'm going to move on to some regulatory questions. Could the minister tell us what kinds of security systems or protections are in place around sour gas when, in fact, wells are put onto people's property where maybe they're in relatively close proximity based on what is a safe distance? What kinds of safety measures are taken to ensure that people are protected from sour gas?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I understand from the commission…. Let me start off first. Sour gas is actually a huge issue regardless of whether you live in B.C., Alberta or Saskatchewan. So let me maybe take a little bit longer to answer this question. I'm not trying to not answer it; I'm trying to give the member a little bit more comfort in what we're doing.

We have, as a commission, a $5 million environmental fund called SCEK. Acronyms are great for everything, I guess. A good part of that fund is being used to fund a study that has been taking place now for about four years — it has been ongoing — in conjunction with Alberta and Saskatchewan, because of course, all three of the provinces face the same issues. That's done independently by…. In fact, I can get a copy of the report for the member, if he wishes, or he may already have it. It is called WISA, another acronym.

What's happening is that Alberta is funding it, mostly — Saskatchewan, some; and us, some. What they're doing is actually monitoring animal health over time. They're doing animal health on ranches in the northeast, lots in Alberta and, again, in Saskatchewan, because animals are subjected to the issues about sour gas on a constant 24-hour, seven-day-a-week basis.

When they actually…. This is a pretty high level. I'm not a doctor, so I'm not trying to…. There are about a dozen doctors that are doing this. What they're going to do is hopefully come back to governments to be able to say: "Look, these are the effects of sour gas." They're to come back with some recommendations on how we actually deal with sour gas going into the future.

I live and have worked in that industry all my life in northeastern B.C., so I know how people feel about sour gas. No one likes it. So in the northeast presently…. There are other studies that are ongoing and have completed and have finished. In fact, the public health officer is doing one as we speak, also in northeastern British Columbia. Hopefully, all those inform us in a real way, in a knowledgable way, on how we should deal with these issues moving forward.

We've actually been producing natural gas and sour gas since the '50s in northeastern British Columbia, so we have a long history of it — not as long as Alberta does, but a pretty long history.

The commission informs me, because I have asked for these stats, that there are no sour gas wells closer than 500 metres from any residence or place where humans live. The actual setback distance is 80 metres, but when it comes to sour gas, everybody wants to be pretty careful about how close we get to people's homes. So setbacks are another issue that fit in with what we talked about earlier, that we are actually looking at collectively with everyone up there to try to figure out what is the best. We're trying to do it with informed information, hopefully from the WISA study.

There are different levels of sour gas, so there are different levels of emergency response plans that are needed and are required to be put in place by the Oil and Gas Commission through regulation. The company will know that prior to drilling, and when they're drilling that's usually the most opportune time, I guess, to say that something could go wrong. It's not so much from the production, because then everything is in place. It's when they're drilling the well and something goes wrong that danger exists. So they have to have emergency response plans in place that say that if there are people within a certain radius, depending on the amount of sour gas, there has to be consultation with people, numbers of kilometres around. They have to all be aware of what's taking place, when it's taking place, what hours. They also have to have alternative routes from their homes if, in fact, they're close enough to get out of the area if something went wrong.

Technology is also taking us a long way in dealing with sour gas now too. For instance, when they're drilling, if there was a well blowout, which means they don't have control of it for whatever reason….. That could happen any time, whether it's sour or sweet. Actually, if they can't get it controlled within just a short period of time, it goes to flare. That means it's lit on fire — not the well itself, but it goes out a pipe system to a flare stack, and it's being burned. You don't want to do that because you know you've got a problem when that takes place — right?

So they have some pretty stringent — in fact, very stringent — plans that have to be put in place before

S. Simpson: I just have a couple more questions for the minister, and then I'll step down. I do appreciate those comments in relation to sour gas, and I am looking forward, again, to being part of that discussion.

As the minister would know, with the growth of this industry and the exploration that's going on and increased people moving into those communities, we just by proximity start getting people closer to wells. Everybody, as you say…. If they have a concern, that would be around the question of sour gas. I would hope that some of those issues would also be dealt with around whether there are alarms or notification systems that can be tagged onto these wells to ensure that people are aware immediately. I'm sure the minister is more than aware of that.

I have one more environmentally related question. The whole question around sump and flare pits, the status of those, and the management of the contaminants has been raised. It's my understanding, and the minister could correct me, that there is no requirement that those be fenced at present. Could the minister tell me whether that's accurate, and if so, why fencing isn't a requirement to keep both wildlife and others away from them?

Hon. R. Neufeld: There is a regulation in place and has been since September of '04. Any oil company must maintain a fence or whatever structure is required to keep wildlife and domestic animals out of sumps or flare pits. To be honest, flare pits have gone a long time ago. Flare pits are something that were mostly discontinued in the early 1990s, actually — that far back.

As I spoke earlier, drilling has been going on in the province of British Columbia since the '50s. There are, and I don't dispute for a minute, a lot of well sites out there that may not be — and are probably not — cleaned up to the standard that we require them to be cleaned up to today. At the present time through the commission, there's an inventory process going on to find out how many of those old flare pits that you spoke about are out there — because that's prior to — and how many sumps are out there that actually need to have some kind of remediation or bringing up to date to what it should be.

The other thing that is happening in the industry — and again, it's with technology — is sumps aren't always used. Companies will reuse the drilling fluids on a constant basis. They'll recirculate them steady. The whole technological world has changed there. They'll do it with tanks, and so any of the cuttings or those kinds of things that need to be hauled away from a well site will be put in another big open tank that is mixed, most of the time, with sawdust. Then an approving officer has to approve the disposal of that in disposal sites that are designated safe to do that in.

If it is contaminants that can't go into an ordinary dump site of some kind, they actually have to go to a site. We have a number of those sites in northeastern British Columbia that contain those contaminants in cells that are sealed for life, that are monitored and that are looked after — all under the Ministry of Environment regulations. That's something that is done all over Alberta, and we've actually got those companies now. We used to haul it to Alberta. We actually have two places now — there might even be three; I'm not sure — in northeastern British Columbia where they can take those contaminants to.

S. Simpson: A question in relation to the commission itself and the regulatory body. I guess I would make a comment, and the minister may want to comment in reference to the question as well. He talked about the work that the commission is doing to kind of explore and find those past abandoned sites and to ensure that they are up to environmental and safety standards or to address them accordingly — presumably.

I do know that the commission has had its budget increased over the past number of years by 50 percent, or whatever that number is. But as we would also know, as the minister would know, the growth of the sector has been significant, and it continues to grow. I guess the comment I would make is that you want to ensure that if the commission is the lead body on this, it continues to have the resources around enforcement and that which are necessary to ensure that it can do the job. But that's not my question. I just make that comment.

The question I have is for the minister, and it relates to the independence of the commission. We've heard the minister in the House in our debate around the Terasen–Kinder Morgan situation talk numerous times about the importance of the independence of the Utilities Commission, that there not be political interference in the Utilities Commission, that it stay at arm's length from government. We don't always agree on that, but I appreciate the minister's position.

In the case of the Oil and Gas Commission, it's my understanding that it does come under the auspices of the deputy and answers to the deputy. So my question to the minister would be: what is it about the Oil and Gas Commission that he doesn't view it as requiring the same kind of autonomy that he views as being so important for the Utilities Commission? And why is that the case?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, I will tell you that right now the deputy of the ministry is the chair of the Oil and Gas Commission, then the commissioner is one commissioner and another industry rep is a third commissioner. We are presently reviewing that structure, actually, and hopefully, in the very near future we will change that structure to a degree. Because of the growth of the industry, I think we actually need a bigger board than three, we need a better cross-section of folks on that board, and we need to remove, as far as I'm concerned, the deputy of this ministry from being the chair of that.

I would answer the member on one issue. I'm sure he is quite happy that, let me tell you, if the commission doesn't do something and a landowner phones me, he gets a call — and he gets it that fast. So I do have some dealings with the Oil and Gas Commission. They have a whole set of regulations and a piece of legislation, which was there prior to us even coming into office, that they have to adhere to, and they apply those rules and regulations. If we in our wisdom in this House decide we have to toughen some of that stuff or create different regulations, we will do that.

The independence of the Utilities Commission. Actually, the Utilities Commission is the responsibility of the Attorney General, so if you want to understand a little bit more about the Utilities Commission, I would appreciate it if you would ask the Attorney General. That should give the member a response why I will not actually interfere with the B.C. Utilities Commission. I think we had enough interference with the Utilities Commission over time. We don't need to start it now.

G. Robertson: A question related to the B.C. offshore oil and gas team. I'm curious how much money is still being allocated to the B.C. offshore oil and gas team, which was a separate line item, as I recall, but last year was integrated into the regular oil and gas budget. Can we get clarity on that expenditure and full-time equivalents?

Hon. R. Neufeld: They always do the writing in such big numbers. The current budget is $4.252 million. This is after the changes that took place with the reorg that just happened. There are 12 people that are employed — 12 FTEs.

G. Robertson: I have some questions now on renewable energy — or alternative energy, as I think the minister's referring to it. We'll make a comment that in the rest of the world "renewable energy" is the appropriate term now. "Alternative energy" is decreasingly used to describe resources that replenish themselves.

So on to renewable energy, those being energy sources that will continue to be in great supply long after the fossil fuels are literally exhausted. Referring to a report that was released today by the B.C. Sustainable Energy Association…. It's a report that draws on B.C. Hydro energy resource data and tallies the province's renewable energy potential from wind, solar, tidal, geothermal and other technologies. The findings in that report are that, combined with the energy savings from efficiency measures, these renewable sources would produce 84,000 gigawatt hours a year, which is 50 percent more than B.C. Hydro's current total generation and enough power for 8.4 million homes.

So my first question related to renewable energy: does the government equally value these renewable energy resources and the large-scale hydroelectric and fossil fuel energy resources? And how does the ministry's budget reflect this?

Hon. R. Neufeld: We're actually pretty proud of what we've done in the province as it relates to renewable or alternative energy. We're one of the lucky provinces across Canada that has a Crown corporation, called B.C. Hydro, which generates around 90 percent or better from clean sources, from renewable sources, hydroelectricity.

We have an energy plan that we brought into place in 2002. Prior to that, there was not an energy plan in British Columbia to look out into the future to figure out how we're going to deal with these issues. The energy plan had one of the toughest requirements for people that acquire electricity — that being B.C. hydro for resale to people in the province or for export, whatever that happens to be — to acquire a minimum of 50 percent of their new electrical, their incremental supply, from clean sources.

That wasn't mandatory. It was voluntary because we knew that we had to give B.C. Hydro some time, some breathing room, to figure out if that was, in fact, possible. It is the highest threshold of any jurisdiction in Canada right now. We challenged Hydro to do that. To be perfectly honest, all the new electricity they've acquired since 2002 is 100-percent-renewable, clean energy. I think they should be commended for that.

We have in my ministry a branch that deals with alternative energy, renewable energy, that's headed by an ADM, Peter Ostergaard, who is here with me now. It's his job to develop policy, work on policy with the ministry on how we can look forward further to renewable energy in the province. We, in fact, fund millions of dollars through my ministry.

New information, as it refers to hydrogen. We'll have a hydrogen highway in place for the 2010 Olympics that will have hydrogen buses fuelled at stations all the way from Vancouver to Whistler and on Vancouver Island. We are now partnered, as we speak, with Ford of Canada and the federal government on a proposal that sees five Ford Focus cars that have Ballard fuel cells powering them. We're working in British Columbia and will be for a while to monitor and see how well that works and how we can actually improve that as we move forward.

The Premier has an alternative energy and power task force appointed which will report soon to the Ministry of Energy, Mines on how we move a lot of those other issues forward as it deals with alternative power and those kinds of things. We also encourage…. I'll get back to the 84,000 gigawatt hours. I don't dispute that number. I mean, the report just came out. I think we need to look at that in a serious sense and say how much of that could we afford today, because I think we should be clear that we have the third-lowest hydro rates in all of North America — Manitoba, Quebec, us.

What we also have to do is remember that Fred and Martha who pay their hydro rates actually receive the benefit as we continue forward with low-cost electricity. That's a cornerstone in the energy plan for low-cost electricity, but with environmental responsibility. I think between the ministry, between B.C. Hydro and

trying to move forward with all of those renewable energy projects…. There is one happening out at Race Rocks right now with tidal. Two companies from Calgary — EnCana is one, and I can't remember the name of the company — are putting in a demonstration project, which we're part of as a ministry and so is Pearson College, and are working together on actually monitoring that to see how well it works, to see how that will fit into the future.

You know what? All of these things will fit into the future in the province as we move forward. As we move forward, some of them are very expensive now, but as technology helps, those costs will come down. To be perfectly frank, the cheap costs won't always be there. Those costs will go up, and it will become more economical to actually start looking more at producing some of that renewable energy or alternative energy, whichever you wish to name it.

G. Robertson: I would like some more direct clarification about the ministry's budget and FTEs in the alternative energy realm. Can the minister please clarify budget and FTEs that are dedicated to energy sources?

Hon. R. Neufeld: To the member: energy and alternative energy division is $1.482 million and 12 FTEs.

G. Robertson: There's a significant difference in the budget between the B.C. offshore oil and gas team and the alternative energy. The staffing is the same, but there's a significant difference in the budget. Can we assume that that is promotion-related expenses, or can you clarify what the additional budget beyond FTEs is for?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Through the oil and gas budget that I gave you earlier…. Actually, it's all on the website. You can go have a look at it. You just have to click on the ministry, and it'll show you what that money is expended for.

As far as the offshore oil and gas, there have been a lot of contracts let on the offshore because there is a huge education process that has to take place before you even decide whether you are going to lift the moratorium or not off the coast. There are literally dozens of first nations bands that live along the coast that have lived there for thousands of years.

We need to make sure that we have discussions with them about the benefits and the pitfalls of offshore oil and gas as we move forward. So most of that money in the offshore oil and gas division is actually out to groups and organizations for a lot of educational purposes but also to gather a lot of scientific information as we move forward.

G. Robertson: I'd suggest to the minister that there is every reason to invest equally if not greater in renewable resources to do that education, to do that outreach and research, as these are perpetual resources and therefore of significantly higher value over the long term to the people of B.C.

Just a question, then, related to demand-side management and efficiency. What are the ministry's full-time-equivalents and budget that are dedicated to demand side and efficiency?

Hon. R. Neufeld: In the division that I gave the numbers about last — the alternative energy division — there are three full-time-equivalents, and they're working on energy efficiency and demand-side management — about $300,000.

The member should know that we're pretty successful. In fact, this branch is very successful and has been successful in getting money from the federal government. In fact, we were just successful in being awarded $11 million. For the first time in British Columbia's history, we got the largest share of a pot of money that the federal government put forward through Kyoto. A lot of that is going to help us develop and move forward with Energy Efficient Buildings: A Plan for B.C. — again, something that we just released recently.

I want to say that it's not just the ministry that looks at alternative energy. We're developing policy and looking forward. We don't do the research, but a lot of that work will take place through B.C. Hydro as they try to acquire new sources of electricity as they move forward within their budgets.

Just a clarification on demand side. It's a little surprising to see only $300,000 dedicated to demand side and promoting demand side. B.C. Hydro has a mandate to sell power. It's admirable that their mandate and their mission includes efficiency in demand side, but ultimately, if the ministry isn't driving this education and pushing the technologies, it won't happen as fast as it needs to. It is a very significant potential source of energy in terms of a reduction in what we use.

One final clarification. I was a little surprised to hear the minister talk about hydrogen, which in and of itself is not a source of energy. I just wanted to be clear that the ministry is not involved in somehow manufacturing hydrogen out of nothing, and it's a new B.C. resource for energy.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I think that maybe I should clarify that a little bit. No, the ministry is not developing hydrogen. I know quite how you develop hydrogen, and that's with fossil fuels right now or electricity. Right now we import electricity from the U.S.A.

I try to get this message out on a consistent basis, so I would like to get it out to you. This year we'll be net importers of just under 7,000 gigawatt hours of electricity, and 90 percent of that comes from the United States of America. So when people talk about that we should

get tough with the Americans and poke someone in the eye sometimes, we should be careful.

We've also instructed Hydro to become self-sufficient again. Through a decade, very little was built because there was always surplus, but you know, it takes a long time to actually build some of these plants, as we move forward — even the smallest run-of-the-river, even the smallest geothermal plant. Right now there are companies through the Oil and Gas Commission that are drilling for geothermal and are actually testing it. That's a source that's probably going to come on stream relatively soon, I would hope — geothermal electricity here in the province — and I think it's great.

Through that process and through Hydro having Power Smart, which is demand-side management…. They hope that they can get one-third of their incremental new supply from savings through Power Smart. I think those are good moves.

I think we should also keep in mind the bigger picture, and the bigger picture is — and this may not be something that the member agrees with me about — fossil fuels are here for a long time. We'd better get smarter at how we use them, and I think that's as big a job for this ministry or for this government: to look at how we use fossil fuels into the future — how we develop them, how we control CO2 emissions, as we move forward — because we're going to need them for a long time.

That's not just coming from me because I'm the Minister of Energy and Mines. That comes from Dr. Ballard. He said, "Look, folks. Look forward to another 50 years minimum," and then he's not sure. Then he reminds us about exactly what the member referred to: the fact that to develop hydrogen likely requires a fossil fuel.

We should remember that we're lucky in the amount of electricity that we generate by water. If you go around the world or just south of us into the U.S., almost 60 percent of their electricity comes from coal generation. Let's go east of us to Alberta. About 85 percent comes from coal generation.

Are you going to be able to stop that tomorrow? Likely not. Is there something that will take its place in the next five years? Likely not. What we have to do is look worldwide. When we talk about…. I'm just going to give a few more stats, because they're very interesting for people. I hear about Denmark and Germany and the Netherlands and Spain and the U.K — I'll just name those, because I have those stats — and how they are looking at renewable energy. It's such a big part of their portfolio, and there's a reason for it. It's much as I talked about south of us and east of us, because they generate mostly with coal.

I always get Denmark chucked at me as one of the best. Well, 47 percent of their electricity comes from coal; 10 percent comes from oil — diesel fuel; 24 percent from natural gas; 3 percent, biomass; 3 percent, waste; no nuke; 1 percent, hydro; 0 percent, solar; 12 percent, wind and other sources. Is there a driving need for Denmark to really push forward with renewable energy? You're darn right there is.

But we already generate 90 percent of ours. That doesn't mean we should not be cognizant of that and move forward. That's why we put in place the 50 percent. We wanted to make sure that we were doing the best we could for the environment well into the future and trying to actually meet the demands that people have. I think that between B.C. Hydro and the ministry, we've been doing a pretty good job at that.

The other thing I think we often forget, and it's always interesting to me, about changing the fossil fuel is that we're not going to use it anymore. Well, I don't know whether you drove in the car today, but you probably flew in an airplane in the last number of days. That's a product of oil. B.C. consumes five billion litres of gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, kerosene, bunker C — you name it. It powers the world. It powers our province, not in electricity, but it moves our cars around.

Has it changed over the last 20, 30 years? You're darn right it has, and for all the right reasons. I don't dispute them for a minute.

Natural gas — I mean, that's the cleanest source we know today that's in abundance that can do the things that we need it to do — heat our homes and do those kinds of things. We use very little of it in the generation of electricity in the province. We have one natural gas plant in Fort Nelson that's totally off the grid. It uses that in a heat process. There's also one in Taylor, B.C. Those are the only ones.

Natural gas is found in products around us every day, and I'm sure you'll be aware of the plastic industry. There are all kinds of little plastic bottles that contain all kinds of different things — whether it's milk or fruit juice. That comes from the natural gas industry. We depend on that. Many depend wholly on that. So when you go get a gallon of milk, what you're carrying it home in is because of natural gas. When you go buy a nylon jacket, it's because of natural gas. When you go buy a lot of clothes, it's because of natural gas. When you brush your teeth in the morning, your toothbrush is plastic; it's natural gas. And I might add there are four minerals in the toothpaste that you brush your teeth with that are mined around the world and that we need on a regular base. When we think about not a bad goal, we have to think in real terms about what effects those moves have on us as to how we move through and how we deal with it.

I'll use one last point. I love antique cars, so I've a 1936 Ford half-ton. Actually, it's quite a bit older than me. I want to make that clear. It runs on gasoline. Now, my wife drives a brand-new Ford Expedition, and it runs on gasoline. They do it in two totally different ways. The '36 burns gasoline, was actually manufactured and put into place, in an engine that burns it totally differently than the new vehicle does today. That's what technology is, and that's what takes us forward.

I'm always cognizant of those things when people talk to me about: "Maybe we don't need a fossil fuel world." We're going to be surviving on a fossil fuel

world for a long time. We just better get smarter at how we do it — in each and every one of our businesses and our lives.

G. Coons: Thank you, minister, for this opportunity, and hopefully, I'll take five or ten minutes to just ask a few questions about offshore oil and gas.

Being from the North Coast, as you know, there's real concern, and as you say, there's huge education that's needed and a process and information-sharing that's needed before any thoughts are put towards lifting any moratorium and looking at the jurisdictional aspects — whether it's provincial, federal, first nations.

I just want to relate back to the conference last month, the Waves of Opportunity conference, where the government in one of its presentations indicated that this government considers offshore a high priority, and that B.C.'s approach is to work with first nations, coastal communities and key stakeholders to identify concerns, provide information and establish mutually agreeable solutions. I'm just wondering what work has been done with first nations in this regard.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I appreciate the question. Actually, if you want me to go through a whole long list of all the different contracts that we've had, whether it's with first nations groups or non-first nations groups or information-gathering, I can do that. You know, if the member is all right, I would just as soon either direct him to the website, where all that information is available, or give it to him, and he and I can sit down and talk about it. But it's a fairly lengthy process.

We should remember that the division was formed in 2003. It started in January of 2003, and it's worked forward since then. Maybe a little bit of information that I gave earlier I'll talk a little bit about here — that is that the budget is $4.252 million after the reorganization that we just went through with 12 FTEs. Some of the money that was transferred from that budget was that $1 million went from offshore oil and gas — money to the environment for an ocean strategy. The Ministry of Environment is responsible for beginning…. That isn't to develop the whole strategy, but that's for a one-year process to start developing a strategy around how we deal with the oceans, how we look at marine parks, and those kinds of things.

Half a million dollars was transferred to MARR, the Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, because they're the lead agency with the first nations along the coast that we work with — our ministry and our 12 FTEs — on a constant basis. Actually, MARR is the lead agency.

G. Coons: Yeah, thank you for that. I would have loved to have gone to the conference on October 21. It sounds like it was a pretty interesting conference. I think your comment earlier to one of the other members on the opposite side here when you talked about that we have to think, in real terms, about what effects things may have on us….

Also at the conference from your ministry there was the "Oil Spill Risks in British Columbia from Offshore Hydrocarbon Exploration and Development: Separating the Myths from Reality." I thought that was a really interesting slide presentation when I looked at that. One of the myths, if I could relate it, is that the B.C. coast is globally significant, and therefore offshore oil and gas activity should be prohibited. So that was one of the myths or realities.

The conclusion for this statement is: "B.C.'s marine communities are not globally significant in terms of biological composition, structure and vulnerability to oiling; however, they are globally significant in terms of intactness and importance to first nations. In addition, coastal complexity may magnify the impacts of a spill on first nations as resources are concentrated in a small geographic area." I think that's fairly significant as we're talking about looking at the real terms and how it may affect communities or first nations communities.

If I can just relate, before I get to my question, another myth or reality. It says: "Wind and wave climate are too severe to permit effective cleanup of oil spills; therefore, offshore activities should be prohibited." It goes down to say: "Winter wind and wave climate prohibits booming, skimming and in situ burning; beaches too exposed to permit safe cleanup; lack of access to most of B.C. coastline; predominant wind patterns onshore." However, in summer and fall those spills are likely able to be addressed with the traditional methods. I guess the fear is that it isn't a summer or a fall spill. I would hope that that would be the type of information-sharing that's getting out there to user groups, communities and first nations.

The last thing that I wanted to refer to — and my question is coming up — are the recommendations from this "Oil Spill Risks in British Columbia." The recommendations indicate: "Ensure rescue tug availability for disabled vessels, develop in situ oil burning or dispersant use guidelines, ensure adequate funds available for spill planning and response, initiate a natural resource damage assessment policy or process and develop an acceptable spill agreement between federal and provincial governments."

The recommendations sound…. I hope these are all myths and not realities, but these are the recommendations. It sounds like it's something that needs to be shared widespread, especially on the north coast. I'm finally coming to my question. One of the last recommendations there was to complete a first nations coastal inventory, and I was just wondering what that involved — this inventory.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm told that that presentation was made by someone from Agriculture and Lands. Maybe for the member's information, a year ago…. We from the ministry completed the funding that was needed by the ministry then called Sustainable Resource Management to finish the provincial oil spill response plan for the west coast of British Columbia. That is now complete. A company by the name of

Burrard Clean is the designated oil spill responder on the coast and the people that are contracted to do that, so we've actually done that.

Maybe we'll go back a little bit, because the member brought up some interesting points about things that are brought to these conferences. I think they're great, because people have an opportunity to come forward with what their experience has been or what they know about as far as oil spills go, as far as offshore drilling goes — the benefits, the pros and cons and all those kinds of things. Those conferences are great for our staff in the ministry, especially from the offshore oil and gas team, to be able to partake in and to listen to those presentations.

Our coast is — you're right — unique in its own way. Where I live is unique in its own way, and where you live is unique in its own way. It's our responsibility, if we're going to actually access that land base or that sea base, to do it in the best, environmentally sensitive, smart way we possibly can.

I don't know. I'm sure the member for the North Coast is aware…. I believe — and I'd be corrected if I'm wrong — that if I went back in my notes, I would find that there are between two and three tankers that ply the west coast of British Columbia on a daily basis, from Cook Inlet down to the lower 48, with oil. They are VLCCs — 250,000 tonnes. They do that on a daily basis out of Alaska. So we already have that traffic as far as tanker traffic.

When we look at drilling for the oil and the platforms — if, in fact, it ever goes to that — that would be in place, I think a good place to go, and where I want to go soon, is to the Gulf of Mexico to have a look and see what happened after Katrina wreaked havoc on Louisiana and those places. I want to look and see what took place. I'm told, at least from what I understand, that there was very little oil spill. These things are built to actually handle those kinds of storms.

There are ways that we can mitigate those exposures, but we should never think that there isn't something in Mother Nature or that something can't happen in human failure that could cause some small oil spill. I think it's incumbent on this ministry and the branch that deals with offshore oil and gas to gather all the information they possibly can about those issues.

G. Coons: I think that's a good point. When we start looking at tankers plying the waters along the north coast, it's important to remind ourselves that we're looking at offshore. Basically, when we start looking at it from the Charlottes in, it's inshore. We should be referring to what we're thinking of as inshore oil and gas versus offshore when we're drilling.

I'll just move to another couple of questions here, and then I'll be done, and I'll pass it on. Under the core business executive and support services with your ministry, objective one is to build relationships with first nations, and the strategies indicate leading the process of consultation and accommodation with first nations and implementing the first nations engagement strategy. So we just sort of looked at this recommendation from another ministry, where it's completing a first nations coastal inventory. Now in your service plan we're looking at developing or working or implementing the first nations engagement strategy. I'm just wondering….

I'll put my two questions into one, minister, so that you'll only have to stand up once, because this is two-part: leading the process of consultation and accommodation and the engagement strategy. I'm just wondering: what are the components of this strategy, and have the consultation and accommodation guidelines been approved yet to address the legal requirements for consultation and accommodation?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Sorry, it took me awhile. As the new relationship applies, MARR is the lead agency with the new relationship as we move forward. They will develop the criteria — what we have to, as a ministry, begin to operate in and work with them on that process. That is a work in progress. I'll use an example of accommodation, for instance, as it relates to natural resource industries in the northeast.

We're presently, and have been for about a year, actively negotiating with the Treaty 8 bands in northeastern British Columbia on a process of revenue-sharing. That hasn't come to fruition yet. There have been some re-elections there, too, so we'll have to see how that moves forward in the future. We've always had memorandums of understanding with first nations in the northeast, as it relates to oil and gas activity on the land, where there has been capacity money given to those first nations to actually deal with these applications as they come forward.

In fact, for every well that's drilled in British Columbia there is a fee of, I believe, $7,800. Fully half of that or better goes to first nations for accommodations so that they can actually start developing the resources on reserve — or wherever they want to do it — so they can deal with the multitude of applications that come forward. What we're doing now is taking that to the second step and saying: "Look, we think there's an opportunity here for us to start sharing some of those resources as a province, as a whole, with first nations who have traditionally lived there for 10,000 years."

G. Coons: Thank you, minister and staff. I hope to work with you and your staff on issues that concern my constituency. I'd like to pass it off to my colleague from Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

N. Simons: Thank you, minister and staff, for being here and answering questions that I have regarding areas specifically in my constituency — Powell River–Sunshine Coast, obviously. In particular, I wanted to ask a few questions about the pan-Pacific exploration and process that's currently taking place on Sechelt Inlet — I just want to make sure that it's clear to the constituents that the appropriate steps will be taken to ensure that their interests are protected — and perhaps

to run through a bit of the process that is taking place now and what might be taking place over the next year, I suppose, so that we can anticipate and identify what concerns might exist and where we have to be extra vigilant.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I'm sorry. There's been a lack of communication, I guess, with you. We have completed the mining division parts of the estimate. The minister responsible for mining is gone. He was the first one here, and by agreement with the critics, we were to move through a process, actually. The critic is gone. He's in Ottawa. He's leaving it all up to you guys, and he's over there in Ottawa having fun. But there was an agreement between the member for Nelson-Creston and myself, so those folks are gone.

It's my responsibility, ultimately, but it's actually the responsibility of the Minister of State for Mining. You know what I'd do, though? I'm sure he would be quite willing to arrange a meeting with you and answer any of these questions that you might have on those issues very clearly and succinctly, if that suffices.

N. Simons: Thank you, minister. Maybe I'll ask some tourism questions. I appreciate that response. I appreciate the sensitivity with which you expressed that to me. I have no problem deferring to a further meeting with Minister of State for Mining, and I have done so. Thank you very much.

My colleague from, let me see now, Delta North. He likes to call it Delta North and the islands because he likes to go up to Powell River that way. He's got a few questions for you.

G. Gentner: Just quickly, as time winds down, I'll go to something quite short. I take the remarks from the hon. minister relative to our critic enjoying himself in Ottawa, knowing full view that he's not here and therefore Hydro would not turn the lights out on him if he was speaking. I know that was a conspiracy done many weeks ago by Hydro, and we'll get to Hydro another time.

I want to ask questions relative to the Oil and Gas Commission. First of all, there's quite a lot of employee turnover right there. Can the minister tell us why?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The member is correct. There is high turnover at the Oil and Gas Commission. The commission finds itself in a difficult place in trying to attract folks to work in the commission. The unemployment rate in the northeast part of the province is 4.4 percent. Industry actually hires them away many times at a lot more money than they can make working at the Oil and Gas Commission. They have perks and benefits that people at the Oil and Gas Commission don't have, whether it's share purchases — those kinds of things as we move forward. We try to deal with that as best as we possibly can through the Oil and Gas Commission, but I know that the commissioner, who is here, would agree with me that it is an ongoing concern. It's something we seriously have to look at: how we alleviate that problem so that the commission can continue to provide the services that are required, not just to government but to the people of British Columbia.

G. Gentner: To the minister: what type of alternate service delivery is the commission now contemplating?

G. Gentner: What type of alternate service delivery is the commission contemplating at this time?

Hon. R. Neufeld: The commissioner has advised me, and I know he's told me this before, that they're looking at ways that they can work with the workforce there to actually alleviate some of those problems and maybe work some longer hours, take more time off at a different part of the year when it may not be as busy. The commission, and I'm not sure the member's aware or not, is very busy during the winter months and the fall through the winter. Usually in the spring and the summer it quiets down a little bit. There are discussions ongoing with staff as we speak about how they can actually apply their time maybe to the busy season and take some extra time off in the summer. I think there's probably everything that they can possibly do to try and get through the process.

The member may not know, but they have to go through the public service. By the time you post it…. Someone quits, and generally they'll quit in the fall, because that's when an oil company will come along and hire them for maybe twice the money. So they post it and — what? — six months later it might be through all that process, through government, until you finally have someone. You get them in place, you get them trained up, and someone else is gone. It is a concern, and it's something that we're trying deal with.

G. Gentner: I take it from that answer the minister is not contemplating contracting out to a private company like it has with Accenture. I'd like to also ask the question: in the service plan it suggests that the commission will be broadening its permitting authority. How is this going to occur, and are there necessary changes to the legislation or the act?

Hon. R. Neufeld: First off, let me deal with the Accenture comment. That was a wholly different process through B.C. Hydro to contract out a lot of their front office services, which actually saved you as a ratepayer, and me as a ratepayer, about $10 million a year over the next quite a number of years. The same people do the same job. The same people are represented by the same union through the Accenture process. They still receive the same salaries. There's actually a process between Hydro and Accenture to do that.

The Oil and Gas Commission is not moving to outsource any of those services. They will actually contract specialty services that they may not have in their ministry all the time or may not require in the ministry all the time. They may contract some of that out. What they're trying to do is broaden…. We're trying to move towards more of a one-window approach. Initially, the Oil and Gas Commission was set up by the previous administration with the goal in mind that it would be a one-window process. That means all the different ministries that are responsible for oil and gas as it happens on the ground in northeastern British Columbia or any other part of the province are administered through that agency. You don't have to go to ten different ministries to get a permit to do something.

I think it was a good process. In fact, I supported the legislation when it went through, because I think it works well. All we're doing is moving that process forward to what was anticipated at that time to have a fully single-window agency. It is close to a single-window agency. It is close to a single-window agency now, where you can walk in and there are people from the Ministry of Forests and from the Ministry of Environment, to mention a couple that actually work out of that agency under the auspices of the commissioner.

G. Gentner: Going back to the question again: how does the Oil and Gas Commission plan to broaden its permitting authority as according to the service plan? Will there be necessary changes to the act, or is there some new legislation needed?

Hon. R. Neufeld: You asked the question, and then you asked it again: will there be changes to actually broaden…? I answered the question about broadening it to more of a single-window agency. The second part of it: you asked whether there will be changes to legislation that governs the Oil and Gas Commission, and I said: "There may be." I don't know.

G. Gentner: Briefly to Hydro. There have been reports that safety's been compromised over the last few years. My question is: how many fatalities and accidents in the workplace have occurred at B.C. Hydro and B.C. Transmission Corp. on maintenance operations and all projects in the past year?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Maybe I could get some clarification from you folks. When we started this process, there was a list of how we were going to go through it. I've been pretty flexible in moving all over, and I don't mind doing that — other than the mining issue, which I think the member fully understands and agrees with.

Maybe for the members who are here now, I'll draw to their attention again to the list. There was the mining and minerals division; we finished that. Oil and gas division — well, we're in and out of that, and I'm fine with that. Titles division; offshore oil and gas division; electricity and alternative energy division; and marketing, aboriginal and community relations divisions within the ministry…. The other four things that are left are: B.C. Hydro, B.C. Transmission, Columbia Power Corp. and the Oil and Gas Commission, although we've mixed the Oil and Gas Commission in the process too.

I don't know who the responsible critic is right now for this ministry, but maybe someone could actually let me know: are we done with all those other ones, and now we're into the Crowns, which is B.C. Hydro? I'm fine with that. I don't have any problem with that at all.

Noting the hour…. Maybe the Clerk can help me through this, but I'll move to…

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