Hansard — Monday, May 7, 2007 p.m. — Vol. 20, No. 2 (HTML)

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		7589

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7590
	Wei Wai Kum cruise ship terminal
	C. Trevena
	Celebrating Women and the Spirit of the Cranes
	V. Roddick
	Carling Muir
	M. Sather
	Endako Mines and B.C. mining industry
	J. Rustad
	Anaphylaxis prevention
	D. Cubberley
	Public safety in B.C.
	R. Lee

Oral Questions		7592
	Role of Solicitor General in RCMP investigation of B.C. Rail sale
	C. James
	Hon. W. Oppal
	R. Fleming
	L. Krog
	G. Robertson
	S. Simpson
	Accountability for Olympic Games costs
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. C. Hansen
	H. Bains
	J. Kwan
	Real estate practices of Coquitlam developer
	D. Thorne
	Hon. J. Les
	M. Farnworth
	Funding for Mary Manning Centre
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen

Point of Privilege		7597
	Hon. R. Coleman

Petitions		7597
	S. Fraser

Committee of Supply		7597
	Estimates: Ministry of Health
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix
	C. Puchmayr
	H. Bains
	G. Coons

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7626
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues
	Hon. I. Chong
	C. Wyse
	C. Trevena
	M. Karagianis
	G. Gentner
	H. Lali
	C. Evans
	K. Conroy

Hon. J. Les: I'd like to introduce to the House today someone who is not yet in the precincts, and in fact it might be a while. Just this last Saturday my oldest son Chris and his wife Carina had their first child, a little girl. Her name is Airyn Nora. She clocked in at eight pounds and ten ounces, and I'd like everybody to welcome her to the world.

M. Karagianis: Today in the House we have constituents that border between the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca and me, so I'd like to welcome them on behalf of both of us — Kathy O'Connor and her daughters Amber and Katie. Would the House please welcome them here.

Hon. G. Abbott: As members of the House will know, we had a very nice event at the noonhour in the rotunda to celebrate National Nursing Week and to celebrate the provincial nursing day, Florence Nightingale's birthday. We were joined by nurses from a number of different specialties from all around the province — a wonderful event.

In the gallery today is my assistant deputy minister and chief nurse executive, Paula Bond. Joining her is the executive director of the nursing directorate, Gulrose Jiwani, and another director of the nursing directorate, Laurianne Jodouin. I would like the House to please make them welcome and to welcome and thank all the nurses of British Columbia, who do such a wonderful job for us each and every day of the year.

S. Fraser: Today it gives me pleasure to greet friends from magnificent Clayoquot Sound. From the Kakawis Family Development Centre are Sadie Greenaway and Lisa Charleson. Would you please join me in making them feel very welcome.

S. Hawkins: On behalf of Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to advise you that we have two visiting Clerks from another jurisdiction on attachment with our House this week. They are Ms. Shaarda Maharaj and Ms. Nataki Atabi-Dilchan of the parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

This visit is one of a continuing series of attachments whereby our Legislative Assembly hosts Clerks from other jurisdictions. Please join me in welcoming them to British Columbia and to this Legislature.

S. Simpson: I'm very pleased today that a constituent of mine, Pamela Lee, is here with her sons Nick and Aaron — Aaron is celebrating his tenth birthday — and Pam's friend Patty Little. They're here today rallying around the issue of anaphylaxis and encouraging the government to support the private member's bill that will help to support their children around this issue. Please make Pamela, her children and her friend welcome.

M. Polak: Joining us in the gallery today is my favourite person in the world, my daughter Miriam Polak. She's joined by her friend Adam Nelson. Would the House please make them welcome.

D. Routley: I would like the House to help me make welcome Alanna Elliot and Rob Elliot, two constituents of mine who have come down to join the demonstration in support of Bill M210, the anaphylaxis bill. Please make them welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: Two guests that I hope members will welcome. Brent Rathgeber served as an MLA in the Alberta Legislature from 2001 to 2004 in the riding of Edmonton-Calder. He is currently the executive director of the Progressive Contractors Association of Canada.

Also in the gallery today is a former Fort McMurray resident, Blake Robert, who is now studying at the University Canada West right here in Victoria. I hope that members will welcome them both.

D. Cubberley: As several colleagues have alluded to, we're being joined in the House here today by some special guests who are here to support efforts by legislators to have a non-partisan bill passed to better protect anaphylactic kids.

Along with a number of anaphylactic families, we are joined today by Sara Shannon, the mother of Sabrina Shannon, the young girl after whom Ontario's successful legislation was named. I had the pleasure and the privilege of meeting Sara Shannon in person for the first time today. She's an inspiring example of a parent with the courage to translate personal tragedy into a vision of hope for change in order to ensure that what happened to her daughter doesn't happen to other kids.

She's here today with Sabrina's aunt, Kathleen Whellan, who produced the radio documentary featuring Sabrina that still inspires us to this day. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

I'd also like to introduce to the House three other guests: Ms. Yvonne Rousseau, who is the regional coordinator with the Asthma and Allergy Information Association, B.C.-Yukon chapter; Carolyn Posynick, who is with Protect Allergic Children Today; and Anne Silver from the capital region, who is the mother of two anaphylactic kids.

Hon. C. Hansen: The Minister of Advanced Education has asked me to welcome a group that is visiting the Legislature today from Niimi, Japan. Part of the delegation is Mr. Masao Ishigaki, the mayor of Niimi; Mr. Hideo Enoki, chairperson of the Niimi municipal assembly; Mr. Yoshihiro Niinaka, the chairperson of the Niimi chamber of commerce; Mr. Yukimasa Sugii, the chairperson of the Niimi Art Association; Mr. Akira Tsuchiya, the chairperson of the Niimi Interna-

tional Exchange Association; Mrs. Kyoko Henmi; Miss Hiromi Sadaoka; Mr. Takashi Kodani; and Mr. Yoshinori Shibayama.

Accompanying them are Ms. Marilyn Loveless, a councillor of the town of Sidney; Mr. Robert McClure, chairperson of the Sidney-Niimi committee of the Sidney Sister Cities Association; and Ms. Iida, who is the interpreter and a former resident of Niimi. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have four people: Linda and Mike Virginillo, and their children Mark and Shayna, to attend the rally regarding Bill M210. Please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Hagen: It's my privilege today to have 70 grade 11 students from Highland Secondary School, a grade school in the Comox Valley, together with their teacher, Greg Kochanuk. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. R. Thorpe: On behalf of the Minister of State for Intergovernmental Relations, I am pleased to introduce to the House Lorraine Duclos, Pam Erikson, Joanne Brown and Jenney Drummond. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

C. Trevena: One of the attractions for many in Campbell River and for those coming to the city is to watch the massive cruise ships sail slowly down by the city during the summer season. They progress down the strait, sometimes three gliding down in a row, but this year there will be something different. June 5 is the day when the first cruise ship will dock in the city, the start of what many in the community hope will be a long and growing line.

The cruise ship terminal itself will be unique. It is a project of the Campbell River First Nation, on whose traditional territory it is sited, and will be the first cruise ship terminal owned by a first nation. The band saw great economic opportunity for itself and for the city, instead of having tourists sail past the city and its surrounds, to encourage them to stay and see close up what Campbell River, Vancouver Island and the Discovery Islands have to offer.

The natural majesty is of course an attraction, but the band has been hard at work to make sure that the first sights people have as they get off the ship will also be attractive. The Wei Wai Kum terminal aims to provide a glimpse into the history and culture of first nations. The first sight visitors will have is a traditional Wei Wai Kum village, complete with totem poles and big house.

The cruise passengers will be met by dancers and have the opportunity to taste traditional foods and appreciate and buy Wei Wai Kum arts. The Campbell River Indian band has been working cooperatively with the city and others in the community to prepare for the first ship. That means double-checking that all of the tourist operators providing wildlife tours and scenic flights and other opportunities are ready to transport the visitors. Nearly all of the pieces are in place for the first season of cruise ships and potentially thousands of visitors and crew who will disembark, get a taste of Campbell River and experience the first nations culture that has made it possible.

V. Roddick: In 1988 a group of Delta residents founded Burns Bog Conservation Society, led by Eliza Olsen. With her leadership, the society influenced the purchase of over 5,000 acres of Burns Bog by all levels of government — our lungs of the lower mainland.

Eliza has been brilliantly creative over the years in fundraising and signing up volunteers. One of her fascinating creations is an annual gala called Celebrating Women and the Spirit of the Cranes. Throughout the ages women and cranes have been associated with industriousness, loyalty and creativity.

Our communities are richer because women give their time and talents to projects they love. The Celebrating Women and the Spirit of the Cranes ceremony is an opportunity to recognize these women who have made such positive contributions in arts, business, education, community spirit, science and technology — and fledgling chick.

This year the gala committee was honoured to welcome Susan Soux as their guest speaker. Susan Soux has been a lifelong advocate for peace, democracy and human rights. She has trained civilians, police and military in peacekeeping and peace-building in Argentina, Canada, Chile, Macedonia, the Ivory Coast and the United States, as well as working for the United Nations peace support mission in the Sudan and Darfur. She serves as a testimony to how one woman's passion can help shape the world.

If you know of any industrious, loyal, creative woman who makes a difference in your community, please contact Celebrating Women and the Spirit of the Cranes at info@burnsbog.org.

M. Sather: On November 20, 2006, 19-year-old Carling Muir of Maple Ridge collapsed and went into a grand mal seizure in front of her teammates following a basketball game at Langara College. Later that evening she woke up at Vancouver General Hospital, where the sobering news was delivered: she has a malignant brain tumour the size of a large egg.

After her brain surgery she was asked how she could stay so calm. "I have some experience," she said. Just prior to age 13, Carling underwent heart surgery.

Yet with all that Carling has endured, she carries on. This week Carling will be meeting with the director of athletics at Langara College to begin organizing her cancer fundraising basketball tournament. She practises at Thomas Haney secondary and Langara College to keep up her strength and stay in shape, and she is making plans to return to Langara in September. Just yesterday Carling started work at Cooper's market in customer relations — a busy and active life for any young woman.

Carling continues to laugh with her family, have those sibling squabbles with her brother Parker and keep her room not quite as tidy as dad Grant would like sometimes, but they are staying in the day and moving through the horrible fog of the grief. Her mother Shelley says they feel lucky — lucky that Carling is still with them and they have a chance to fight this disease.

Carling Muir is a true inspiration. Please join me in sending Carling our hope for a long, happy and fulfilling life.

J. Rustad: This month marks the 42nd year of production for Endako Mines. This is truly a milestone, given that several times in Endako's history the mine was predicted to have only a small amount of reserves.

Coming out of the dark years of the mining industry in the 1990s, Endako was estimated to have only a few years of life left. The owners were making contingency plans to wind up operations, but due to changes in the mining environment in B.C. as well as rising resource prices, Endako has found new life.

Endako Mines has recently been purchased by a new company called Blue Pearl Mining. This company has confidence in the future of B.C. and is looking to expand reserves. They're also pursuing additional deposits in the area, and they're looking at Endako Mines as their flagship for regional production and processing.

All of this means a continued bright future for the mine and continued employment opportunities for the people in local communities — communities like Fraser Lake and Endako that flourish with the successful mining industry. With high-paying jobs and the security that comes from a good employer, Endako Mines is a great example of why we need to continue our focus on improving opportunities for mining in B.C.

Throughout our province mining has always been an important component of our economy. In the areas that are affected by the mountain pine beetle, mining has the potential to take on an even more important role. From the potential of the Mount Milligan project north of Fort St. James through to Gibraltar mine near Williams Lake, mining is poised to grow rapidly in the heart of the areas affected by the pine beetle epidemic.

With the continued focus by our government to help expand the mining industry, communities will find that a growing mining industry means a prosperous future, just like the example that Endako Mines provides. I look forward to working with the people in the communities to help advance these opportunities.

D. Cubberley: Every day in British Columbia some of our kids walk a precarious line between being safe and suddenly being caught in the deadly grip of an extreme allergic reaction.

Imagine for a moment what that would be like — a potentially lethal reaction to even passing contact with things so common that they're in every lunchbox and school cafeteria. Imagine being the parent of a child so vulnerable that moments after contact with an allergen, their life could come to an end. Surely we can grasp their apprehension and how it inspires advocacy for action to prevent contact and prepare for intervention.

Tragically, here in the capital region we recently lost 13-year-old Carley Kohnen, who unwittingly ate contaminated food. Like Sabrina Shannon, she did her part. She asked about the food. But the answer she got wasn't accurate. Sadly, she didn't have her EpiPen along when the reaction set it.

Anaphylaxis strikes fast. For the responsible adult confronted with it, there's just no time to get on a learning curve. Understanding the vulnerability, recognizing the signs and, above all, knowing how to use an epinephrine injector — those are essential to protect these vulnerable kids.

There are 13,000 children in B.C. schools susceptible to extreme allergic reaction. If anaphylaxis strikes, the teacher needs to know exactly where the EpiPen is, how to use it and what to do next. We can't entirely eliminate the risks, but we can minimize them, and we can ensure that every school community knows the stakes and has the drill down pat. Leaving it to chance is not the answer.

Anaphylactic families are trying to get our attention. They face a threat to their kids' safety that calls for a comprehensive response. Their message to us is clear. It's time to act now, B.C.

R. Lee: While wars and conflicts are still threatening people's lives in many regions of the world, we are very fortunate to live in one of the safest communities. However, British Columbians still consider public safety as one of the top five priorities. The other four are the economy, health care, education and the environment.

We are aware that public safety includes many areas, such as protection from flood, fire and other natural or mankind-induced disasters, as well as drug addiction and crimes. In 2005 British Columbia was second to Saskatchewan, with the highest overall crime rate in the country.

However, we are making progress. In 2005 B.C.'s overall crime rate decreased by 5 percent, and the property crime rate decreased by 8 percent. Although the property crime rate has decreased steadily from the

high rate of 90 Criminal Code offences for every 1,000 people in 1991 to 62 in 2005 — which is the lowest in more than 20 years — it's still high compared with many other provinces. In Vancouver, Burnaby and Surrey property crime rates have been reduced to 75 in 2005, compared with 50 in Richmond, 45 in Montreal and 30 in Toronto.

Last weekend I participated in the public forum on public safety at the Chinese Cultural Centre. The participants put forward many ideas, including more visible police forces in the street; stiffer penalties for repeat offenders; encouraging citizens' involvement, like Block Watch and community policing; and reforming criminal laws to introduce minimum sentences. Most of all, it is suggested that more resources should be directed to help people with mental health and addiction problems.

I would like to thank all of the concerned citizens for raising the issues and working together towards a safer community for all.

J. Rustad: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, in a heckle, accused me of: "How much did they pay me to make that statement?" I found that particular heckle offensive, and I would ask that the member withdraw and apologize for making it.

N. Simons: I'm not sure if he expected me to say that. I certainly didn't say that. If it somehow hits too close to the truth or if something that I said…

N. Simons: I withdraw if he took offence to whatever I might have said or he thought I said.

C. James: Last week we heard more startling allegations about the B.C. Rail investigation. Allegedly, the RCMP delayed interviewing two key players in the scandal, former Ministers Gary Collins and Judith Reid, at the request of the former Solicitor General. According to RCMP documents read in court, the government was concerned that two B.C. Liberal cabinet ministers could expose cabinet confidences.

My question is to the current Solicitor General. Can he explain why cabinet confidence would ever trump a criminal investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: These are matters that arose in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we can't talk about those things that are before the Supreme Court.

C. James: Well, the RCMP were about to fly to Hawaii and interview the cabinet ministers. But allegedly, the former Solicitor General stepped in, and those interviews didn't happen. Mr. Collins has even said publicly that he spoke to the former Solicitor General and was given details of the nature of the investigation.

C. James: Again to the Solicitor General: why was the then Finance Minister, Gary Collins, a key player directly involved in the investigation, allegedly given a heads-up?

Hon. W. Oppal: I don't know what part of the answer the members opposite don't understand.

Hon. W. Oppal: All of this arises out of the Supreme Court trial that's presently being heard by Madam Justice Bennett in Vancouver. It would be totally inappropriate for me to make any comments regarding those allegations. They're allegations.

C. James: Perhaps the Attorney General could tell the rest of his colleagues, because apparently it isn't inappropriate for some of his colleagues to comment on the court case.

The government can't have it both ways. Here in the House they want to hide behind the courts, and they refuse to answer questions. But in the media last week the Minister of Forests publicly commented on the matter before the court. If it's okay for the Minister of Forests, it should be okay for the Solicitor General.

My question again: why did the government allegedly give two of its own cabinet ministers the heads-up during the investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: It's always dangerous to make findings of fact with allegations that are made before the courts. I give the same answer. It would be improper for anyone in this House to comment on what's going on in the Supreme Court.

R. Fleming: Well, apparently, the Minister of Forests last week attempted to toe the line that the

Attorney General puts in this House. He told the media he wasn't going to comment on matters before the courts, and then he proceeded to do just that.

To the Attorney General: was the Minister of Forests wrong to make those comments?

Hon. W. Oppal: I'll give the same answer. It's inappropriate for us in this House to comment on what's going on in the Supreme Court. That's fairly basic.

R. Fleming: Well, day after day we've heard the Attorney General state how inappropriate in this House it would be for anyone on his side of the House to comment. It's been nothing but weeks of hiding from the government. Now his colleague the Minister of Forests has spoken out. But the Attorney General….

R. Fleming: I just asked him, and he won't say it's wrong. Will the Attorney General condemn his colleague's actions?

L. Krog: It's a simple question. Can the Solicitor General guarantee this House that the actions of his predecessor did not jeopardize the RCMP investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: That question is inappropriate for a number of reasons. First of all, we don't comment on investigations. We're not in a position to comment as to whether or not anyone's particular actions compromised an investigation.

L. Krog: The government took action to protect its cabinet. The RCMP delayed crucial interviews. Mr. Collins was given details about the investigation, and all of that was done by the former Solicitor General, now the Minister of Forests. Again, to the current Solicitor General: will he guarantee that the actions of his predecessor didn't jeopardize that investigation?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, I must say that I'm somewhat surprised that the member, who is a member of the bar, would make loaded comments like: "All of that was done." Allegations have been made in the Supreme Court. They may or may not be accurate. It's for the trial judge to make certain findings of fact. She may or may not make those findings of fact. In the meantime, it's our business to keep out of her business.

G. Robertson: Just a very simple question about the business at hand. Will the Attorney General say that it is inappropriate for his colleague the Minister of Forests to comment on this case?

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, the last thing a trial judge needs is to have a bunch of uninformed MLAs commenting on what they think….

Hon. W. Oppal: You know, when I was on the bench, periodically members of the Legislature would involve themselves in this type of debate, and we would simply roll our eyes at the uninformed comments such as the type that are now emanating from that side of the House.

We do not comment, for very good reason, on those matters, the allegations that are before the courts. There are three men on trial right now on serious charges. We don't compromise their right to a fair trial.

G. Robertson: Let's find out how informed the Attorney General is. Did he ask his colleague the Minister of Forests whether the comments were made last week? If he did, did his colleague inform him that he made those comments? If that happened, will the Attorney General, in this House, condemn the actions of his colleague the Minister of Forests to speak out?

Hon. W. Oppal: The answer is the same. I am not going to comment on anything that arises out of the trial.

S. Simpson: The double standard of the Attorney General in this case is incredible. The Minister of Forests and Range told the media: "I can tell you that at no time during my time as the Solicitor General of this province did I influence any police investigation." That was the comment the other day of the Minister of Forests and Range.

So will the Attorney General tell us…? Since that's a matter before the courts…

S. Simpson: …will he condemn, if he believes what he says in this House, the comments of the Minister of Forests and Range for influencing this case?

Hon. W. Oppal: It would be irresponsible of me to comment on anything that arises out of the trial.

N. Macdonald: VANOC thinks that the use of GM Place is worth $18 million throughout the Olympics, an amount that the industry insiders have called phenomenal and that far outstrips the industry standards. Meanwhile, taxpayer-owned facilities are apparently worth nothing.

The question is for the minister responsible. Can the minister tell us: what is the standard, then? Is it half a million dollars a day or nothing at all?

Hon. C. Hansen: VANOC is responsible for negotiating arrangements for venues, and that's a question that should be properly directed to them.

N. Macdonald: Taxpayers are going to be paying for these Olympics, and they want an accurate accounting. B.C. Place is going to show up as free, while I assume that the exorbitant amount that's being paid to GM Place reflects the truer cost. How can taxpayers have confidence that their best interests are being protected when this government will not come clean on the true cost of the Olympics?

Hon. C. Hansen: We know that the opposition party is divided when it comes to the Olympics. We know that the Leader of the Opposition came out opposed to the Olympics on a bunch of occasions. But we also know that British Columbians almost overwhelmingly….

Hon. C. Hansen: We know that British Columbians are overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the Olympics and the great profile that it's going to bring to this province. It's going to showcase British Columbia to the billion-plus television audience around the world and truly catapult British Columbia into the next generation.

Tomorrow VANOC is going to be releasing their business plan. I think that as members have a chance to read through that, they will see that the $600 million commitment that the province has made towards the staging of the games is going to produce full value and the best Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games that this world has ever seen.

H. Bains: I think it's very clear. Every day we hear from that side, they're clearly divided. Half the time half of them try to hide behind one court case, and the other time the other half are trying to hide behind another court case. That's how they're divided.

H. Bains: The public only seems to find out about this government's secret deals every time something goes to the courts. Another court case, another questionable secret deal is revealed — this time over the Olympics.

The government has decided to go with B.C. Place free of charge for four months. At the same time, the GM Place deal is worth over $18 million plus rent. What is the possible explanation for this exorbitant discrepancy between the two deals? Also, will the minister assure this House that the donation of B.C. Place will be included in the Olympic budget as a cost to the B.C. taxpayers?

Hon. C. Hansen: As the member knows, the Auditor General has looked at the commitments we have made from our $600 million envelope that we have for the staging of the games, and he has the right to do that as he goes forward.

I think the member may be comparing apples and oranges on this. When it comes to the use of provincially owned facilities, there are other benefits that flow to the province, such as the revenue from all concession sales.

H. Bains: It's interesting that the minister will talk about the Auditor General's report. The Auditor General was talking about the true cost to the taxpayers, and this government continues to deny the true cost to the taxpayers.

Many red flags around this deal are only becoming known because someone is getting sued, and the minister, like everything else around the Olympics, remained quiet all during this time. Who knows how

The question to the minister again: will the minister agree to make details of this deal and all other deals public, including it in the long-delayed business plan tomorrow?

Hon. C. Hansen: I just would like to remind the member that VANOC is a federally incorporated, not-for-profit corporation. As such, when it comes to the operating side of their budget, they have the responsibility to strike whatever contracts and arrangements that they feel are appropriate for delivering on the best-ever Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Hon. C. Hansen: I think that it's about time the official opposition came out and told us where they stand on the Olympics. What we hear time and time again are members of the opposition that are nitpicking the Olympics. They're doing everything they can to try to undermine what are the makings of a great success story for British Columbia and something that will profile British Columbia to the world in less than two years' time.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. It is British Columbians who are on the hook for the cost overruns related to the Olympics. For this government….

J. Kwan: First: "It's before the courts, and we can't answer any questions." Now: "I'm not responsible, Mr. Speaker, so we can't provide you with any answers."

Let's be clear. This government cannot run from this statement, and I quote from the New Era document: "B.C. Liberals will reform how government works from top to bottom to create the most open, democratic and accountable government."

J. Kwan: The members clap, but let's just hold for one minute. Today the Impact of the Olympics on Community Coalition, the IOCC, gave this government a D-minus on its performance. And you know what? It actually includes the government's performance on public expenditure and transparency.

This government has explicitly exempted VANOC from its very laws that ensure oversight and accountability — laws like the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Financial Information Act, the Document Disposal Act and the Financial Disclosure Act.

If this government is so open and accountable — and I wait for this bench and all the government bench members to clap — will this government live up to its own words and make VANOC and Legacies Now subject to the laws that ensure accountability and oversight? Just say yes.

Hon. C. Hansen: Once again I will remind the member that VANOC is a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation. They are not an entity of the provincial government. It would be inappropriate for us to try to apply a provincial freedom-of-information law to a federally incorporated not-for-profit corporation.

I know that VANOC is putting more information available for the public to see and consume than any other Olympic organizing committee has ever done, and I think that tomorrow will be yet another phase in that as VANOC releases its business plan. But I think that what we will see over these next two and a half to three years is that British Columbians are going to become more excited about the Olympics, as they are today in every corner of British Columbia.

We're seeing legacy projects that are rolling out — 90 different projects around British Columbia that are benefiting every single corner of this province. We see school children in every single corner of this province starting to get excited about what the Olympics mean, because it means striving for excellence, and that's exactly the kind of spirit that we want to engender in our children.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. British Columbians are getting more worried about the cost overruns for the Olympics, just like they are with the cost overruns with the trade and convention centre expansion project.

At a conference in 2003 marking the tenth anniversary of the B.C. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, Mr. Ken Dobell, in his then capacity as the deputy to the Premier, said he now rarely writes working notes of meetings and rapidly deletes most of his e-mails. And you wonder why there's a culture of secrecy in this government and that the public only learns about this government's misdeeds through court cases, Mr. Speaker.

So in this spirit, not only are VANOC and Legacies Now not subject to the laws on disclosure of accountability, their own board meetings are not open to the

public. If the Minister Responsible for the Olympics won't step up, will anybody — anybody in this government — step up and protect British Columbians' interests and order VANOC and Legacies Now to open up their board meetings to the public and ensure that they are actually subject to accountability laws, so British Columbians know how much in cost overruns they are really going to be facing when 2010 comes around?

Hon. C. Hansen: I'll remind the member that in the Auditor General's report that came down last fall, the Auditor General's office did not identify a single cost that was not already in the public domain.

Hon. C. Hansen: He also indicated that what we had costed out as costing a maximum of $600 million was, in his estimation, going to cost a maximum of $600 million. But I think it's time that the 33 members of the opposition stood up, one by one, and told the majority of British Columbians who support the Olympic Games whether they support them.

Everything that we hear from that side of the House about the Olympics is the typical negative, pessimistic, destructive approach that we hear on everything else. It's time for them to get behind the Olympics. It's time for them to get supportive.

D. Thorne: I have a question today for the Solicitor General. I would like to know if the Solicitor General will be investigating the recent real estate practices of a well-known Coquitlam developer — practices which have resulted in dozens of families in my riding being ripped off and losing their dream of home-ownership.

Hon. J. Les: As I have not been apprised of any of the details surrounding that, I'll take the question on notice.

M. Farnworth: Well, I'll apprise the minister, and if his staff had been watching CTV News, they would have known what's going on.

M. Farnworth: On the news this weekend the minister said he's not apprised of what was going on.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member, just for a second…. The Solicitor General took that question on notice. Now, if it is a new question, we'll accept it, but it has to be a new question on a different topic. Member, continue.

M. Farnworth: Will the Solicitor General examine the relationship between the developer and look at the amount of donations made by the developer to the B.C. Liberal Party and ensure that there is a proper and thorough investigation of the real estate practices and the ripoffs that have taken place for the people in the city of Coquitlam?

M. Karagianis: On Friday a government minister met with the Mary Manning Centre and told them that this government can't fund both prevention and support programs. That minister said it's too costly — that the credit rating of the province would be downgraded if they tried to fund all of those kinds of services.

With the government's pet project, the Vancouver Trade and Convention Centre, now running in the hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, we have ministers who are forcing sexually abused children to wait on lists for counselling services. Apparently, it's because their needs would break the bank of this government. The Mary Manning Centre requires $170,000 in order to keep its counsellors in the service. That is 0.0005 percent of the huge cost overruns that this government has subjected us to at the convention centre.

I think that this is an issue for all MLAs in this House to take responsibility for. It's a moral obligation for us to protect children. I think that it's very obvious that sexually abused children do not count in this House.

M. Karagianis: I would like to ask the Minister of Children and Family Development if he will commit today to fund the Mary Manning Centre the $170,000 they require to keep their counsellors in that service.

Hon. T. Christensen: The Mary Manning Centre continues to receive considerable funding from the Ministry of Children and Family Development to do the valuable work that they do. Their core funding has been increased to $320,000 this year from MCFD. Beyond that, the ministry has committed to continuing to work with the Mary Manning Centre and other service providers in the capital region to ensure that children who require counselling due to sexual abuse

receive counselling. That's the commitment the ministry has made to the centre, and we're continuing to work with them on that basis.

As I said last week, I don't believe that it would be responsible for us to budget for the ministry based on what we read in the newspaper or on a crisis basis. Rather, we will continue to work with the community. We'll work with the 58 community organizations that were involved in a broad consultation to determine how to allocate new funding, and we won't step in at a political level to undermine that community engagement process.

S. Fraser: I have petitions with hundreds of signatures from residents across B.C. urging the government to move forward with the Safe Antifreeze Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, in this chamber it's the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and in Committee A, it's the estimates of the Ministry of Community Services.

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, I'd like to introduce the very capable staff who are with me. They are among the leadership of, I think, an exceptional ministry leadership group that we are very fortunate to have in this province.

On my immediate right is my deputy minister, Gord Macatee. On my left is Assistant Deputy Minister Manjit Sidhu. Behind me is Rebecca Harvey, who is the executive director with the health authorities division. Of course, other staff will be joining us at various points through the process here today and through the week. I'll endeavour to introduce them as they join us.

I would like to thank them collectively for all the hard work they do every day of the year to try to ensure that this very, very large public undertaking that we call the health care delivery system is delivered as effectively and efficiently as is possible. I think we are seeing some great work that is resulting every day in better care for British Columbians.

I do want to make a few opening comments here, and then I'll look forward to hearing the comments of the opposition Health critic and the opposition's vision for health care in British Columbia. I want to open up with context.

British Columbia has a very good health care delivery system. It's not perfect, but it is a very good health care delivery system. Certainly, from the Conference Board of Canada, the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada, Wait Time Alliance, British Columbia gets very good marks, very good ratings for the kind of health care that is delivered each and every day by the doctors, the nurses, the residential care aides, home care aides, the paramedics — all of the front-line staff that do a great job each and every day of the year for patients in British Columbia.

We have been working tirelessly with the leaders at the health authorities, the senior executives, the administrators at the five regional health authorities and the Provincial Health Services Authority to identify ways that we can do things even better. That is a process that goes on each and every day of every year.

Among the priority areas that we have been pursuing in recent years are wait times. We've seen significant improvements in pretty much every area of wait times over the past few years. It remains a challenge. It will continue to remain a challenge as we see, demographically, our society aging and the proportion of an elder population that, on an aggregated basis, makes more demands for health care services. As that, particularly the baby boomer, generation moves through their elder years, it is going to continue to be a challenge to deliver timely surgeries in this province.

We're also looking at targeted funding to attract and retain health human resources. We've done a lot in that area since 2001. It's been a major initiative on the part of this government, a major partnership between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Advanced Education and others to try to ensure that we have enough doctors, nurses, paramedics and all the rest that we need to effectively deliver health care in this province.

Aboriginal health has also been identified as a priority area by our government. Health outcomes for the aboriginal population, first nations population, in British Columbia are not what they should be. We do not have a proud history in respect of participation by aboriginal people in the professional side of health care delivery. Nor do we have a proud history in terms of the health outcomes which are enjoyed or not enjoyed by aboriginal people in this province.

We are working in partnership with the health leadership and political leadership of all of the leadership groups among first nations and aboriginal people in the province to build stronger partnerships, to

ensure that we have better representation of aboriginal people among health professionals, to ensure a range of health outcomes from life expectancy to mortality at birth — all of these measures.

We are committed, along with aboriginal leadership and first nations leadership, to ensure that we improve on those outcomes. We're also looking forward to seeing more partnerships with the federal government to ensure that we, in concert with the federal government and with first nations leadership, get the kind of efficiency and effectiveness in program delivery that has not been seen, to date, in this province.

As we will no doubt canvass in these estimates, we are making very, very good progress towards the realization of the commitment of 5,000 incremental residential care and assisted-living units in this province. The number grows each and every day, and I am entirely confident that we will be fulfilling our commitment in respect of those incremental units — for the elderly in this province, generally speaking.

We're also seeing mental health and addictions programs and services as a priority for the government. That's a challenging area, but again, we've made some progress, and there's more to be done.

Emergency departments are sometimes a barometer of the health care system. Often when one sees a controversy in the newspaper or on television, it will revolve around emergency departments. There's been a lot of great work done by a lot of people over the past couple of years, and I hope we have a chance to talk more about that.

Of course, an ongoing priority through until September-October is the Conversation on Health — an opportunity, as has been the case, to engage with literally thousands of British Columbians about their health care system and how they think we can improve on it.

In all of those priority areas we've made considerable progress. We're building on some great achievements, and we're investing a record amount of funding this fiscal year — more than ever before. Generally, when we throw in all of the different components of operations, it's close to $13.1 billion for Health, just on the operational side. On top of that, of course, are the investments we're making in capital as well. Close to $14 billion this year of our provincial budget is going to be devoted to Health. That, I think, represents about a 50-percent increase over when we took office, when on the operations side the cost was about $8.3 billion annually.

We want to look at issues of funding, I'm sure, but we also want to look at issues of sustainability. How do we ensure that as the society, the population ages, we are going to meet what is inevitably going to be growing demand in a whole bunch of areas and manage it within a sustainable framework? That is a challenge. It's a challenge that's faced each and every day by the ministry, by the health authorities and by many of those who provide within those organizations.

I've mentioned the investment we're making, just over $13 billion, on the operations side. That represents 43.5 percent of the government's total budget for '07-08. It also represents an investment of 785 million incremental dollars over last year, an increase of 6.4 percent since a year ago.

In addition to that, we have a further $100 million that has been allocated to what we call the health innovation fund. With that, the total reaches $885 million, or a 7.3-percent lift, year over year, for health care delivery in this province — by far the largest lift for any of the areas of public service that are represented on the benches here. It speaks to the commitment of this government to continuous improvement in the health care system in this province.

Overall Health spending will have grown by 51.8 percent since the year 2000, or about four times the rate of inflation during that period. British Columbia's health system will also benefit over the next three years with $2.1 billion health sector capital spending, including funding from government, regional hospital districts and foundations.

The government is increasing capital grants to authorities by 22 percent, from $330 million in '06-07 to $401 million in '07-08. Overall, government has increased its capital grants to health authorities by 46 percent, or $127 million, since 2001-2002. New capital funding projects — such as building new hospitals, renovating existing facilities, purchasing new medical equipment — are benefiting British Columbia's patients right now. The health innovation fund is going to be a great source of new ideas, new practices and new techniques that will allow us to do even better.

The six health authorities mentioned earlier are the ministry's key organizational partners in delivering services to British Columbians. The services include health promotion and protection services, primary care, hospital services, home and community care, mental health and addictions services, and end-of-life care. There are no unimportant areas of health care delivery. They are all important, and our health authorities are key partners in delivering them.

Funding directed to B.C.'s health authorities will increase to $7.53 billion in '07-08 from $7.06 billion in '06-07. This represents an increase of 6.7 percent year over year to our health authorities in this province.

I should note a little bit about the Conversation on Health. It was launched by the Premier last September. It was our hope that we would engage British Columbians over approximately one year with ideas on how to improve the health care system. It has been, to date, a tremendous success. There have been over 120,000 people who've visited the website, with more than 3.3 million hits on the website. Of those who visited, over 9,500 British Columbians have made oral and written submissions to the Conversation on Health.

I think if you compare it to any other process, the Romanow commission or otherwise, that has been undertaken in this province, federally or anywhere else, we have seen just remarkable engagement by British Columbians with respect to the Conversation on Health, with 4,000 British Columbians calling the toll-free line. Over 6,400 British Columbians have

registered to attend a regional public form, health professional meeting or patient meeting.

Input gathered from the conversation will become part of the record for the Conversation on Health, and all input received by the Conversation on Health team will be put into a final report and submitted to government. This report will help determine what legislation, programs and services are needed to protect and improve health care in the future.

I did note, earlier, the issue of surgical wait times and patient care. The government is committed to providing access to safe, high-quality surgeries, and we're investing millions to reduce wait times and provide more surgeries as part of our provincial wait-time strategy. Surgical data shows that most wait times for elective surgeries are dropping or stable, despite additional demand as a result of our aging population and medical technology advances.

Close to 460,000 hospital-based surgeries and treatments are performed in B.C. each year, an increase of more than 12 percent since 2001. The number of surgeries for young patients who come to British Columbia's Children's Hospital in Vancouver increased 16 percent, from 8,200 in 2001-02 to over 9,500 in '05-06.

As part of our throne speech commitment, we've announced that we'll be introducing a surgical patient registry, a database that will track patients waiting for surgery throughout the province. This registry will give patients more control over their surgical options. British Columbia's surgical patient registry is a key component of government's wait-time strategy, as the province continues to increase the number of surgeries performed. Implementation of the registry is now underway and will be fully operational by January 1, 2008.

I want to note, also, a little bit about the emergency departments in our province. B.C. shares the challenge of congestion of emergency departments that we see across North America. Patients will now benefit from a series of initiatives developed through the province's plan to reduce congestion in emergency departments. The teams were set up in April 2006 to focus on the 15 emergency departments of the largest and busiest hospitals in B.C. The Ministry of Health will ensure improvements are met with quarterly data reports from health authorities.

On the 5,000 beds, as I noted, we're doing very well. Between June 2001 and March 2007 we've built a total of 8,494 new and replacement beds and units, with 3,196 net new beds and units since 2001. We know there is great and growing demand.

Over the next 25 years this province's population of people over 65 — including me — will more than double to 1.4 million. By 2020 there will be more people over 65 than there will be people under 20. That gap will continue to grow, at least for another decade or two. This will be the first time in the history of our public health system that we've seen such a large proportion of the population in this age bracket.

The silver tsunami is the greatest single challenge that our health system will face over the coming years. We are living longer. We are living healthier in British Columbia than pretty much any other jurisdiction in the world. We have some of the longest life spans of any group of people in the world, but of course, that does come with some issues related to the challenges for health care sustainability.

On aboriginal health, in November last year government acted on its commitment to close the health gap between first nations and non–first nations over the next decade. The First Nations Health Plan — Supporting the Health and Wellness of First Nations in British Columbia is the name of the document, which we all supported. It will be integral in the design and delivery of health initiatives to close those gaps. We know that first nations live an average of seven years less than other British Columbians, and we need to find ways to improve their health outcomes.

One of the highlights of the first nations health plan includes an aboriginal physician, Dr. Evan Adams, to advise on aboriginal health issues. He'll be working with Dr. Perry Kendall, the provincial health officer.

Other highlights: improved access to primary health care services in aboriginal health and healing centres; an aboriginal mental health and addictions plan, which includes counselling programs to build community capacity; and a new $6.3 million health centre in Lytton to improve acute care and community health services and to better meet the needs of first nations and other area residents. The need to improve the health of Canada's first nations is a priority for our government, and we share the responsibility to take action.

I also want to just make a note or two on health human resources planning. This is an area of challenge, given our demographics. It's not just the general population that is getting older. The largest bloc of our doctors and nurses are also getting older.

That's why we have been undertaking some strategies to address that, including the first-ever nursing strategy in 2001 when we took office. We have now committed $146 million to that nursing strategy. The aim is to educate, recruit and retain the best-qualified nurses in British Columbia. Since 2001 the total increase in nurses with a practising licence in B.C. is more than 2,935.

We are making some progress — fighting the demographics of it all but making some progress. The Ministry of Health has worked with the Ministry of Advanced Education to expand the nursing seats in the province, with more than 3,021 new nursing seats since 2001 — a 75-percent increase — with another 300-and-some that are going to be put in place this fall. We're going to be out, I believe, to 3,347 new nursing seats, or an 82-percent increase over the number of nursing spaces since we took office in B.C.

Nurse practitioners also are something new and innovative that we've introduced to British Columbia. The first group of nurse practitioners graduated in 2005 and have been just remarkably valuable in terms of the work they're doing in both urban and rural settings in B.C. The aboriginal nursing strategy is also aiming at

getting a broader representation of aboriginal people among the nurses in our province.

Like nurses, we're also working hard to ensure we have a sufficient number of doctors to serve a growing and aging population. In 2007 there are 9,285 physicians in B.C., according to the Canadian Medical Association, compared to 8,147 in 2001. Since 2001 the number of physicians has grown by 14 percent, while British Columbia's total population grew by 6.5 percent.

Through some strategies working with the BCMA, we've also increased the number of doctors practising in rural areas from 1,765 to 1,883 — a 6.7-percent increase. We've invested more than $40 million to expand the UBC clinical academic campuses at key teaching hospitals throughout British Columbia. We are, through that process, teaching and training a new generation of physicians for this province.

In '06-07 the Ministry of Education allocated funding to increase new education spaces — an additional 173 seats for allied health professionals. That, along with the doubling of the number of physicians' spaces at UBC and elsewhere, is going to make a tremendous difference. In total, 915 new seats have been added to allied health professionals. I think all of that speaks to a very powerful commitment by our government towards training, educating more doctors, nurses and allied health professionals than ever before in the history of this province.

On mental health and addictions. In partnership with the regional health authorities, we have been greatly improving the services to the mentally ill and substance-addicted. More than a billion dollars is spent each year on mental health and addiction services by the health care system in B.C. — almost a 28-percent increase over 2000-2001.

Some recent examples of successes in our investments in mental health and addictions include a new $19 million mental health building at B.C.'s Children's Hospital and B.C. Women's Hospital for children, youth and women with serious mental health challenges; an $11 million addiction transition home has opened on the downtown east side, and the four-storey complex will be run by the Salvation Army for up to 85 homeless people who have been through rehab; and the Cottonwood Lodge, a $5.5 million, 24-bed specialized residential facility on the Riverview Hospital grounds, of which I was proud to be a part of the opening in December 2006.

To date, almost 325 beds have been opened in communities around the province as part of the Riverview redevelopment project. Health authorities have received funding transfers for every patient transferred from Riverview. We are committed to continuing that improvement. There's much more to do, and we know that, but I'm confident that we are making progress in the right direction in respect of those challenging areas of the health delivery.

Cancer care. I'm proud to report that British Columbia is a leader in terms of the most favourable outcomes in North America, and in fact, some of the best in the entire world. According to 2006 estimates in the Canadian Cancer Statistics report, British Columbia women have the second overall lowest incidence rate of cancer in Canada and are far below most of the national incidence rates for individual cancers. B.C. women have the lowest incidence rate for breast, kidney, and colorectal cancer. B.C. men have the third-lowest incidence rates of cancer, and B.C. men have the lowest incidence rate for lung, colorectal and kidney cancer as well.

The report card noted that B.C. has the shortest wait time in Canada in time from referral to first appointment, ranging from 12 to 14 days. Another study, entitled Patient Experiences with Ambulatory Cancer Care in B.C., 2005/06, surveyed 7,000 people in B.C. who had recent experience with our cancer care system. The study reported 97 percent of respondents rated the quality of their overall cancer care as good to excellent.

Through government investments and prevention, treatment and research, B.C. has created a cancer care system which is recognized as a model for other provinces and, indeed, for the world. People from all over the world come to visit the B.C. Cancer Agency to see what a remarkable approach to cancer is undertaken there. The B.C. Cancer Agency, which is funded through the B.C. government through the Provincial Health Services Authority, provides provincially coordinated cancer treatment and cancer-related programs.

Just in closing, I think we've made some excellent progress on health care since we took office in 2001. In virtually every area that one can look at we have made great improvements. We know the challenges ahead are not going to be easy. They're going to be very tough. But I have enormous confidence in the team that we have assembled at the Ministry of Health, and I have enormous confidence in the team that has been assembled at our health authorities throughout the province.

I think British Columbia is very well-positioned to continue to lead the nation and, I hope, continue in many respects to lead the world in terms of the provision of health care services in the province.

A. Dix: Thank you to the minister for his opening statement. I was delighted to see the minister got all that in, in the 30 minutes he had. That's a good start to our debate and gives him an opportunity to lay out some of his ideas and achievements over the last year.

I guess I'd like to start by saying that I think we're in both an exciting and important moment for our health care system. I was reflecting on — I was doing as the minister does around the province at the many meetings and public meetings we all have, to listen to people's views on health care — what a great time it is to be alive and what a great place Canada is to be alive in.

When you think of the history of mankind, the fact of the matter is that in the last 60 years we've gained, I think, as many years of life expectancy as we gained in the previous several thousand years. Certainly, that's an indication and a positive thing. We tend to think of things like silver tsunamis as negative things, but in

fact it's our goal and our aspiration to ensure that as life expectancy increases, the quality of that life remains extremely high.

I know that while the minister has some staff here, there are some other staff somewhere in the back who are also paying attention to the debate. We're going to start with some general questions on the health budget today and debate on the health budget, some issues on the health authorities. Later today some of my colleagues are going to deal with some of the local issues they have with respect to health authorities — the member for New Westminster with respect to Royal Columbian Hospital, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith and the member for North Coast — between five and six.

My colleague who is the opposition critic for mental health will be speaking and dealing with those issues tomorrow morning. On Wednesday my colleague responsible for seniors health will be dealing with some of the long-term care issues that the minister referred to. Those are some of the debates we'll be having. On Thursday I think we're going to deal with the Ambulance Service, public health issues, preventative health issues, etc.

For those watching the debate who haven't had the opportunity to hear when it's going to go and when their issues might be raised, that's kind of what we're looking for in terms of the debate over the next few days.

This is an unusual budget for the Ministry of Health. When it was tabled, there was something of a note at the beginning of the budget indicating that budgets had not been ready and in fact deficit budgets were still in place in the two largest health authorities in British Columbia, the Fraser Health Authority and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.

I'm wondering if the minister, in light of that, had more information to table about those budgets today — when they would be finalized. Obviously, it's May in the fiscal year. When will those budgets in the Fraser Health Authority and the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority be finalized?

Hon. G. Abbott: For the fiscal year 2006-2007 all of the health authorities are completing their year-end audits, which will give a final number with respect to their final financial position for the year ending March 31, 2007.

All of the authorities have submitted their financial plans to the ministry with respect to '07-08, and all of those plans are currently under review in the ministry.

A. Dix: The minister will be familiar, of course, with the concerns expressed by the former chair of the Fraser Health Authority, Mr. Purchase, with respect to the way the budget process was undertaken this year.

Just to read from the unedited version of the letter of resignation that Mr. Purchase sent to the Minister of Health, he said: "This year's budget process has been totally unacceptable. Our board feels it has been kept out of the communications loop by government and, quite frankly, questions at times why it exists. The very community leaders we entice to provide good governance and business acumen to the management of the health sector now appear totally ignored."

It's been a number of years since the present health authority model was put in place by the government. How does the minister respond to Mr. Purchase's concerns about the budget process issue?

Hon. G. Abbott: What we attempted to do in the budget discussions that led up to the February budget in 2007 was to have discussion, at a much earlier point in time than ever before, with the health authorities to give them a sense of what they could expect for the coming budget year and to get some discussion with relation to that point.

We had never, at any point, initiated budget discussions as early as we did this year. As the member knows, when his party was in government in the 1990s, it was routine for health authorities to actually learn about what their fiscal requisition had been months into the budget year. It was sometimes two, three, four months after the budget year began that health authorities finally learned what it was they had to expend.

We were trying to have those discussions at an earlier date than ever before. That set up some awkward challenges in relation to how to have those discussions while at the same time ensuring that security around the numbers that were contained in those budget discussions could be ensured.

I know Mr. Purchase was frustrated by that. I think we were all frustrated by that. I think I was frustrated by that. I take full responsibility for that. I committed to the health authority chairs that we would improve on that process, that we would have some better opportunities for discussion in the coming year, and I remain confident we will do that.

A. Dix: Returning to what Mr. Purchase had to say. I guess I'll ask the minister this question. Mr. Purchase suggested that information around the budgets was shared only with board chairs and CEOs but that board members were kept in the dark in December of 2006.

Does he stand by that approach? Does he think that, given the obvious oaths of confidentiality that board members take…? I think that with respect to those issues, board members who are appointed, regardless of the government, take their role very seriously in terms of confidentiality.

Does he think that keeping board members in the dark under those circumstances is (a) healthy for the proper functioning of health authorities and (b) a course of action that he is going to continue to follow in the future?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to be clear, the issue was not that health authority chairs not share their understanding of the content of the preliminary budget documents which were discussed at leadership council. It was that

There are some important traditions around respect for budgeting confidentiality that needed to be observed, notwithstanding our aim to have earlier discussions of this than at any point before in the history of our province.

We have and will develop better mechanisms to ensure that we can have that sharing of knowledge but, at the same time, ensure that all of the appropriate confidences around budget development are observed as well.

A. Dix: Mr. Purchase in his letter said, and I'm quoting…. One of the interests of this — given, as the Minister says, the secrecy sometimes involved in these processes — is it shines a light on how, I guess, the ministry and the Premier's office function with respect to their relationship to the health authorities.

I have three questions for the minister with respect to that assertion by Mr. Purchase. The first is…. The significant portion of that assertion was deleted from the copy of this letter sent out by the Minister of Health, and now we know that was on the ministry's own accord and not based on any FOI principle. I wanted to know whether the minister agreed that hiding that information from Mr. Purchase's letter of resignation was the right course.

Secondly, I'd like to ask whether that decision to sever — in other words, white out — that portion and other portions of the letter which seem not to have any personal information in them…. Where in the Ministry of Health would that be made? Was it made in the freedom of information and privacy branch of the Ministry of Health? If not, where was it made?

Thirdly, and probably most importantly: does the Minister of Health agree with the assertion? The assertion is that as a result of the budget of the Ministry of Health, the Minister of Health's own appointed chair — we're talking about this fiscal year, and not a member of the opposition but his own appointed chair — is saying that bed closures and service cuts would be inevitable.

Those are three questions for the minister, and I'll sit down and hear his answer.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked, really, two questions here. In regard to the first portion of his question, around the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy severing of the Keith Purchase letter, there was no FOI request submitted at the time of the release of that document. Protection-of-privacy issues were an issue at the point of time in which the ministry released that letter. We needed to secure some agreements around the release of information before we could do that.

The decision to sever the document in the way that it was, was made by the officials as is appropriate under the act, and I'm entirely supportive of the work that they did in respect to that.

If the member has a different view, then he can have a look at the letter. He asked the freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy commissioner to launch a review of the way in which the letter had been severed. The commissioner made some very useful observations in respect of the way in which the letter was severed, and I stand fully behind my officials in the work that they have done.

To the latter portion of the member's question, in respect of the apprehensions stated in the letter from Mr. Purchase about bed closures, service cuts, etc., I have to note that the letter was sent at a point in time at which the budgetary allocations had not been finalized. I believe that Mr. Purchase probably knew that, given that we were some distance from budget day in British Columbia at that point in time. I'm sure the concerns he is articulating in that letter honestly express his apprehensions at that point in time, but that was preliminary information only that he was responding to.

In fact, the final budgetary allocation was considerably greater than what he was responding to in that correspondence. In short, the world changed somewhat between the time that Mr. Purchase sent his letter and the time that the Minister of Finance released her budget for fiscal '07-08.

It should be noted that the budgetary allocation for the Fraser Health Authority is 7.1 percent plus their allocation for the health innovation fund. So the year-over-year lift that has been devoted to the Fraser Health Authority is really about 7.3 percent. It's a very, very substantial amount of money. There are probably a number of ministries that would operate in our government for less money than was the increase for the Fraser Health Authority year over year from '06-07 to '07-08.

A. Dix: Well, the minister…. Of course, I presume he thinks that the $65 million deficit of the Fraser Health Authority is a small amount of money, but I think that he would agree with me that it is a significant amount of money to deal with in any budget year.

A couple of weeks ago Mr. Anderson…. Let me ask another question first, then. Those letters referred to in Mr. Purchase's letters, the letters from Keith Anderson and from Mr. Purchase in early January — I wrote to the minister recently, asking for copies of those. The minister was, shall we say, reluctant in his response.

Will the minister today share with us — because, after all, we're debating the very estimates, the very sums of money that he was talking about — those letters so all members of the House will be able to judge them and to consider them as we consider voting the budget for the Fraser Health Authority and the Ministry of Health?

Hon. G. Abbott: I understand that the member has a freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy application for those letters. They are being prepared for release, and in due course, when the officials have completed their work in respect of the release of those letters, they shall be released.

A. Dix: Of course, Minister, one of the things severed by the ministry — and they've never put this to any kind of independent freedom-of-information test — was in fact the very existence of those letters. One of the things severed from the original Keith Purchase letter was the existence of those very letters.

Finally, on that, does the minister really think that the assertion by Mr. Purchase that we have "a crisis situation" in the Fraser Health region…? Does he really think that that should be protected by privacy?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member seems to have a quarrel with the way in which the designated officials responsible for the administration of Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act initiatives in the ministry are not properly undertaking their work. If he has that apprehension, he can ask the commissioner once again to review the work.

The commissioner has undertaken that work. His letter is a matter of public record. If the member has some suggestions about how the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act ought to be improved in this province, I think he has an opportunity in some of the review work being undertaken in respect to that act.

A. Dix: I guess my question is then…. I'll just read from the recent message from the interim CEO of the Fraser Health Authority. Before I get to that point, I want to ask the minister about the interim tag. He knows that after the government fired his predecessor in February 2005, Mr. Anderson stepped up and took on the challenge of interim CEO. It's been actually more than a year since the minister said it had been way too long to replace Mr. Anderson.

I'm wondering if the minister could enlighten us on whether he thinks that there are many organizations of the size of Fraser Health in either the private or public sector that ought to go that long without having stability and a clear sense at the top — having a permanent CEO — whether he now thinks that a year on top of too long is too long, and whether he can let us know how it's going. Is there good news from New Zealand, from Iceland, from some other parts of the world that the minister would like to let us know about today?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to say that Keith Anderson has done a great job as the interim CEO at Fraser Health Authority. He has acquitted himself remarkably well in respect of the issues that confront Fraser Health. He has enjoyed my confidence, and he continues to enjoy my confidence as the interim CEO at Fraser Health.

The chair and board of Fraser Health have been engaged for some number of months now in recruiting potential permanent CEOs for Fraser Health. The process has been extensive and intensive. I know they are nearing the conclusion of that process, and I expect that the chair and the board will announce who the new CEO is sometime, hopefully, in the near future. At an appropriate time they will be announcing who the successor is.

A. Dix: I think people know this in Fraser Health. It's not us, unfortunately, who have sort of shown a little bit of lack of faith in Mr. Anderson. It's the government. I mean, this period is a long time to be left out there: two years and three months. It shows, I think, a lack of commitment to the important issues facing the Fraser Health Authority, which is the fastest-growing health authority in the province. It's an important health authority, and I think the minister would acknowledge that.

I agree with him that Mr. Anderson has been remarkably patient with the government's indecisiveness, under the circumstances. But nonetheless, hopefully the minister would agree with me that two years and four months is way too long for an organization of that value.

I want to ask about the letter we referred to in the House last week from Mr. Anderson, where he talks about the deficit. The deficit was $65 million in the budget. In February it was announced to be $65 million in the document. In fact, the minister's three-year fiscal plan notes that the two health authorities, Vancouver Coastal and Fraser Health Authority, have combined projected deficits of $119 million. That's a pretty significant combined deficit. I think the minister would agree.

In the letter Mr. Anderson says: "Given these other requirements, Fraser Health will need to rein in our spending by $65 million if we are to operate within our available resources." So does the minister today…? As we debate the budget of the Ministry of Health, and as he invites British Columbians who live in the Fraser Health Authority to address the issues in Fraser Health within the context of the Conversation on Health, can the minister tell us what the plan is? What are the measures that are being taken?

If it's not, as Mr. Purchase suggests, service cuts and bed closures…. If Mr. Purchase is wrong, and that $65 million can be found elsewhere — a $65 million budget for a mid-size hospital, it would be fair to say, is a lot of the money — can the minister let us know, before we vote these Health estimates today, what the plan is to close the $65 million deficit that is sitting in the midst of his budget and within the government's budget?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the first thing that we ought to understand is that Fraser Health has an annual budget for operations of about $2 billion. Three percent of that $2 billion would be in the area of $60 million. In short, this is a very large budget.

Often in budget-making processes, people identify a range of things that they would like to see in their

budget. Whether we can afford all of those things is a matter to reconcile, but the plans for Fraser Health are under review. I am entirely confident that Fraser Health will be able to balance their budget without impacting patient care in any way.

We will certainly see much attention focused on non-clinical areas, opportunities for savings through broader procurement, looking at issues like overtime, administration costs and alternate service delivery. All of these things are a matter of attention and discussion, but we certainly are very confident that Fraser Health Authority will produce a balanced budget without in any way compromising patient care. That has been our experience with Fraser Health throughout the 21st century — that they have made appropriate changes to succeed in meeting that goal.

A. Dix: In those areas, the kinds of suggestions that the minister has made, is it not the case that an organization such as Fraser Health, which has to deal with budget issues every year…? I think the minister would agree that the Fraser Health Authority has more unexpected pressures than your average government organization.

I think that it's fair to say, with the population in the region, with issues…. One could just imagine the single issue of diabetes and its growth in parts of the Fraser Health Authority — the growth of type 2 diabetes. Just that one issue alone, one could imagine, increased costs.

Is he saying that there is somehow, in the areas that he has talked about — procurement and other areas, areas on the side, non-clinical areas — $65 million in fat, currently, in the Fraser Health Authority? Is that what he's trying to let us understand? Or is it in fact not the case that the budget presented by the Minister of Health is going to force the Fraser Health Authority to cut essential services and close beds, just as the minister's own appointee Mr. Purchase said it would?

Hon. G. Abbott: I noted earlier that of all of the regional health authorities, Fraser Health in fact got the largest increase in allocation year over year of any health authority. Some 7.3 percent lift year over year for the Fraser Health Authority — that's a very, very substantial increase for one year. It represents about $112 million in incremental dollars — again, a huge lift — plus, of course, their opportunity to access a share of the $100 million health innovation fund.

Just so the member is clear, the '06-07 total was $1.65 billion, approximately. We have incrementally added $15.57 million for the 5,000-bed commitment, $6.4 million for the FMM wait-list, $32.2 million for wages, $33.4 million for Abbotsford and Surrey capital projects and operations associated with those, and $1.4 million MSP allocation.

The member said that Fraser was the fastest-growing of the health regions. That is reflected in the fact that under the population needs–based formula, the allocation for Fraser Health is one of the largest. It's over $57 million in the population needs–based funding formula for them, bringing the allocation '07-08 to $1.768 billion. Plus, of course, they've got some additional revenues as well, bringing their overall budget to close to $2 billion.

A. Dix: It's clear. Mr. Anderson's letter, in fact, refers to the increase in funding, and he says that essentially, all of the money is targeted to some of the things that the minister has just mentioned. On top of all that, they have to cut $65 million.

Can the minister tell us: is there a plan? We're now into May in the fiscal year. The minister knows that if you're going to cut that kind of money out of a budget, even a very large budget like Fraser Health Authority's, given that most of that money is clearly spoken for…. I mean, there isn't a lot of room there, unless the minister, as he suggests, believes that there might be $65 million in fat.

Can he tell us — can he present to us, can he give us any serious indication of anything adding up to anywhere near $65 million — what cuts the people in the Fraser Health Authority are going to expect as a result of this budget? As the minister will note, there was a special note at the front of the budget that said: "Sorry about this. We can't sign off on the budgets this year. The chairs won't sign off on the budget." Not just Mr. Purchase but the current chair refused to sign off on the budget this year.

Can the minister tell this House and tell people in the Fraser Valley where the $65 million has come from? What patient services are going to be cut?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member keeps referencing a $65 million cut. That is not the case. In fact, Fraser Health will enjoy an incremental lift, year over year, of $112 million, plus they will have, as well, a share of the health innovation fund. Since 2001 we have seen over $500 million in incremental dollars going towards Fraser Health. We have made and we continue to make a huge investment in health care in Fraser Health. I think that the board and the senior administration are doing a tremendous job at Fraser Health.

The member is confusing what people might like to have in terms of budget and what they may need in their budget. That is what we are reconciling in the current review.

A. Dix: It's not me, with great respect to the minister, that's talking about $65 million in cuts. It's in the budget document. The minister will agree — or at least I think he will agree — that there isn't going to be a deficit in Fraser Health, that Fraser Health isn't able to run a deficit. Maybe I'll ask him that question. It's unclear.

The Minister of Economic Development said in January that he thought that maybe health authorities were allowed to run a deficit in British Columbia. I want to ask the Minister of Health whether the Fraser

Health Authority will be allowed to run a deficit. If not, when the budget says there's a $65 million deficit, that has to be closed. When Mr. Anderson says…. It wasn't in the 1990s he said it; it was April 19, 2007. Mr. Anderson says that we're going to have to rein in our spending by $65 million. Those are their figures.

I understand the overall budget got a lift this year. We see it in the documents. We know the overall budget got a lift. What the Fraser Health Authority is saying is that to meet that budget, they'll have to make $65 million in cuts. Here we are. It's our one chance every year to debate the budget of the Ministry of Health. Quite reasonably, I'm asking, in the month of May, what the minister is going to do.

What measures is he going to take and what measures are Fraser Health going take to cut $65 million so that they don't run a deficit? Unless he's going to tell me that things have changed and that the health authority will be allowed to run a deficit this year, they're going to have to make $65 million in cuts. I just, quite reasonably, want to know what those will be.

Hon. G. Abbott: We expect every health authority to balance their budget, and we expect every health authority to take appropriate and reasonable measures to balance their budgets.

I have already noted to the member that there is a 7.3-percent increase to the funding of the Fraser Health Authority. I have noted that the increase year over year is $112 million to the authority, plus their access to the $100 million health innovation fund. I have detailed all of the areas where Fraser Health is going to see increased resources from the province.

I am entirely confident that the Fraser Health Authority will balance their budget for '07-08, I am entirely confident that they will balance their budget without compromising patient care in any way, and I am confident that they will address any budgetary pressures that they have by looking at non-clinical areas and ensuring that appropriate changes are made.

A. Dix: Okay. The minister, I guess, is saying that he won't answer that question, in his own inimitable way.

Let me ask him another question. The executive director of the Langley Memorial Hospital wrote on Friday, in response to concerns raised by doctors at that hospital that the Minister of Health has…. I'll just remind him. I'll mention them again to the Minister of Health so that he won't tell the doctors that he hasn't heard of their complaints. The executive director said that all Fraser Health hospitals are in a deficit position and need to reduce their deficits.

Does the Minister of Health agree with that analysis? Does he agree that every single hospital in the Fraser Health Authority is currently in deficit? What that means is that they all have to make cuts to their budgets. Does he agree with the analysis? Again, not mine, gosh darn it. I wouldn't want to make that suggestion, because I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking the minister. Miss Heppell made that suggestion. She says that all Fraser Health hospitals are in a deficit position. Can the minister confirm that information today?

Hon. G. Abbott: The information that we have from Fraser Health for '06-07 suggests that Fraser Health will conclude the year in a balanced budget or perhaps a modest surplus position. We're looking forward to seeing the completion of the audit to determine that.

In terms of the year ahead the member, again, is confusing preliminary budget figures with what is going to be the actual experience of Fraser Health. If the member is saying that there should be lots of money and that there won't be any pressures, then he's wrong. There will be lots of pressures during the year, but Fraser Health has been resourced with $112 million in incremental dollars, year over year, plus access to the health innovation fund. They are working with a total budget of close to $2 billion.

They will manage and, I'm sure, manage remarkably effectively the pressures that they have.

Fraser Health is not the only organization in the province that has pressures. There are plenty of pressures in the health care system, none of which are going to go away. The pressures are going to continue. They're related to the incidence of chronic disease, to demographics and to population growth.

That's why this government has stepped up with the largest-ever budget in the history of British Columbia. We're working with a budget this year that is over 50 percent larger than the budget of this member's former NDP government in 2001 — over 50 percent larger. There is no area of public policy that has been the subject of the kind of investment that health delivery has been by this government.

A. Dix: Well, of course, hon. Chair, and people at home will note this as well, the minister didn't answer the question. The question was very specific. This comes from the person who's in charge of Langley Memorial Hospital. They say that all Fraser Health hospitals are in deficit. My question to the Minister of Health isn't asking about the global budget. It's to ask him: is that true? Is Langley in deficit? Is Royal Columbian in deficit? Is MSA in deficit? Is Burnaby in deficit? Are all the hospitals in deficit?

We could go through them all one by one, I say to the minister. I think it's 14 of them. We could go through them all one by one and ask if each of them is in deficit. This is the kind of information, I presume, going into estimates, that the Minister of Health would be able to tell us.

He may wish to call Leanne Heppell, who asserts that all Fraser Health hospitals are in a deficit position and need to reduce their deficits. She asserts it, so he may wish to get a copy of that information from her. I'm asking him a very simple question, because it reflects the challenges facing the Fraser Health Authority.

The minister shouldn't worry. We're going to get to the other ones. We're going to get to the other ones

soon. There are many questions raised by Mr. Purchase's resignation, his rejection of the government's budget process and his strong criticism of the government's conduct with respect to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. They're legitimate questions raised. I'm sure that the minister isn't surprised to be getting them today.

The question is very simple. There's talk about this. There's talk about service cuts, again, from the minister's own senior political appointees. I'm asking him a very simple question about the Fraser Health hospitals. I'm asking to see if he agrees with the statement that they're in deficit and that they're all going to have to make cuts. Finally, what's the nature of those cuts? What might he expect those cuts to be?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't expect any cuts at all. What we are seeing is an increase year over year of $112 million. There is a 7.3-percent increase in the budget of Fraser Health year over year. That is not a cut. That is a very substantial increase in the resources that are being extended from our government to the Fraser Health Authority.

In terms of individual hospitals, we don't deal with individual hospitals. We deal with the Fraser Health Authority as an entity. We do not deal with the hospitals as independent legal entities or authorities. They are part of one overall health authority, the Fraser Health Authority, as I've said.

The expectation is that for '06-07, the overall financial situation of Fraser Health will be a balanced budget. We look forward to getting finalization of that in the weeks ahead when the audit processes are completed. In terms of the year ahead, right now the interim CEO is asking all of those leaders in Fraser Health Authority to look at areas where they can develop efficiencies and cost savings — and good on them. That's exactly what they should be doing.

Sometimes the NDP just say that the solution here is to spend more. Yet curiously, if one looks back at their record in the 1990s, what one saw was not only a remarkable lack of control over spending and deficits and so on, but also remarkably poor management. We're not seeing that from the health authorities.

I think what we'll be seeing is the health authorities stepping up in a very capable and professional way and ensuring that they make the very best use of the billions of dollars which are entrusted to them for health care delivery.

A. Dix: Well, of course the minister loves to debate the 1990s, and I'd love to. I think we should take that show on the road sometime, but for the moment we're talking about his budget for this year.

I have some questions about it. I just note with respect to health care…. The minister, the Premier and the Premier's Conversation on Health spent, I think, $7 million talking about the Conference Board report. The Conference Board report naming B.C. number one in health care was based largely on data from 2001 — largely reflecting the NDP's record in health care.

You go through the numbers, and that's what the Conference Board will tell you — that B.C. was number one then. The figures since then haven't been as good, but they're different figures, and 2001 tended to be the overall health figures that came from that time. It's not me that walks around celebrating the NDP's record in 2001 in health care; it's the Minister of Health. But in this case I'd have to say that I agree with him when he celebrates that record.

My question, coming back to the minister. He will recall, and this is…. The minister says: "I don't have to answer. I don't know anything about hospitals. When the executive director of the Langley Memorial Hospital says, 'Every hospital in the Fraser Health Authority is in deficit — every single one,' I don't have to answer that."

He doesn't have to answer anything. That's pretty clear already in estimates. But he knows and I know…. He will recall the decision of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 2003, which said that the minister "has not delegated any of his duties," referring to the health authorities. "The minister remains legally and politically responsible." That's why, when the vote is taken in this House and we want to ask him questions about these issues, we think it's a legitimate thing to do — to ask him questions about what's happening in the budget of Fraser Health Authority. That's where these questions are coming from.

The minister doesn't want to answer where they're going to find the $54 million, doesn't want to answer where every hospital in the Fraser Health Authority would like to cut. I'd like to ask the minister…. The anticipation is growing with respect to the acute care capacity initiative that we asked for a couple of months ago. The minister's own chair of the board, Mr. Barefoot, said that the acute care capacity initiative should be released to the public so the public should know, could see the information.

That acute care capacity initiative has been years in the making. I think it dates back four years in the making. In fact, the planning process has been so long in terms of the acute care capacity initiative that it's probably made some of the targets impossible to reach. I wanted to ask the minister, because here we are debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and gosh darn it, we'd like to have a little bit of information.

Will the minister today share with the people of British Columbia and the people of Fraser Health Authority the report that he's received from the Fraser Health Authority? This is a report that not just I would like to see released, nor even the chair who quit because he didn't like what the minister was doing, but the current chair who's said that this report should be released. I'm asking the minister if he will release the acute care capacity initiative report today.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member referenced the Conference Board of Canada report, and I know the member tried to take some of the material in there and make a case that things were good before 2001 but not afterward.

In fact, any informed reading and analysis of that document would show very clearly that there are far

more compelling incremental improvements since 2001 than was the case before 2001. The member's assertion with respect to pre-2001 just simply does not stand up.

In respect of the acute care capacity initiative, we received from the Fraser Health Authority a draft planning document of acute care capacity a couple of months ago now, approximately. That planning document is under review in the Ministry of Health. I think that Fraser Health has done a lot of very good work in respect of planning for acute care capacity, but it should be noted that that was a draft report and that it needs to be understood in the context of a broader lower mainland — i.e., Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, which also has acute care needs.

I guess a final point is that acute care capacity is an important thing, but it is one element in the kind of holistic delivery of health services in the Fraser Health region and in the province generally, which I think in future years will revolve more around primary care than it has in the past. I personally believe that the answers to some of the demographic and chronic disease challenges we are facing lie not in acute care capacity alone. That certainly will be one element of it. The areas of primary care are particularly important, and prevention is important as well.

A. Dix: Let me just…. I don't know. Will the minister give some time commitment? I think it's reasonable for people — since the head of Fraser Health is asking for the documents — to have a chance to see themselves and to review the documents. It's hard, when one isn't given access to information, to find out and to draw whatever conclusions need to be drawn.

The minister talks about other alternatives in terms of closing the gap, as he says. Well, how does one judge the alternatives if the minister is hoarding the information? What possible reason is there for the minister to continue to hide this document after his own chair of the board said he should release it? People would like to see it in the Fraser Health Authority.

What possible reason does the minister have today for not providing this information to this House, which is voting his budget, and more importantly, to the people who live in the areas covered by the Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is describing the document inappropriately as a report. It is a draft planning document, which is under continuing consideration by the ministry.

A. Dix: If I'm to understand it, the minister, even though Mr. Barefoot thinks we should have a chance to see the document, doesn't think that the people of the Fraser Valley should have a right to see that document — let me correct myself: to see that planning document — and to see what conclusions are drawn in it?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I said earlier, this is a draft planning document. It will be released in a timely and appropriate way when the review processes around it are completed to the satisfaction of those who are undertaking it.

A. Dix: The minister says it's a draft planning document, which…. I guess the minister's message is: "Don't bother with the FOI there. It's a draft planning document." Wasn't it, in fact, a draft planning document in 2005? How long has this capacity initiative been going on? How many years? Because clearly, if you're going to meet targets, then my presumption is that they're targets in terms of needs by 2010 and then 2020. It's taking us out to 2020. We're already quite a ways along to 2010. When did they start this process?

Wasn't it a draft planning document in 2005? How can a 2005 draft planning document still be a draft planning document in 2007?

Finally, I would guess that there isn't anything in this document that is embarrassing to the government, but I think that it would be useful for people in the Fraser Health Authority to have some idea what their needs will be and what their health authority, which is supposed to report to them and respond to them…. That's the purpose of regionalizing health authorities: to have the accountability that comes with having the health authorities connect with the community.

Can the minister tell us what possible reason beyond that that he has for not providing us with basic information about what's going on in Fraser Health?

Hon. G. Abbott: If the member has a question, he should ask it. I'm glad to share with him all we know about the planning processes at Fraser Health. If he wants to ask the question, I'd be delighted to respond.

What we know with certainty is that planning for future need began the day that the Fraser Health Authority was completed. I think that would be in January of 2002. Planning is an evolutionary process. It has continued each and every day since January 2002, and it will continue as far as we can see into the foreseeable future. There are always challenges, there are always changes, and there is always new infrastructure that's being added. All of those things make planning an evolutionary process, and this is part of it.

A. Dix: I thought I might just ask this question, then, in terms of the making up of the $65 million deficit. We asked the Fraser Health Authority for this information; now I want to ask the minister. The ministry sees, in all of the health authorities, very significant increases in own-source revenues. Can he tell us what those increases and own-source revenues at the Fraser Health Authority and at the other health authorities…? What are those revenues, and where do they come from? Do they come from fees, licences, investments? What do they come from?

Can he give us a detailed breakdown around what those own-source revenues are? Increasingly, the government is asking…. It's not, in the context of the whole health care budget, a huge percentage, but it's an increasing percentage of health care budgets to come

from own-source revenue. So would the minister provide us with a detailed breakdown of the budget expectations for own-source revenues in the Fraser Health Authority and — what the heck — maybe in all of the other health authorities as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: I wonder if I might ask the opposition Health critic what document he is referencing in respect of own-source revenues. We have an assembly here of literally thousands of pages of information. If the member could advise us what document he is referencing in his comments….

A. Dix: What I might do is send the information across, and perhaps the minister can bring it back to us later on. We asked the health authorities to provide us with their own-source revenue projections, and the minister will be delighted to know that they didn't break any rules of openness, since every little bit of actual information in the document is severed. We got empty sheets, which is great. So that's why we're asking the questions with respect to own-source revenue.

I'll send the information across to the minister. You know, it is wonderful stuff. It shows that the health authorities are taking seriously the command of openness that comes from the minister with respect to information available to the public and to those who have to vote the budget of the Ministry of Health for this year.

Let me just ask the minister a question about unfunded beds. We'll come back to this own-source revenue — it's a fascinating question — in a little while, when I send the information to his staff. Mr. Purchase makes reference to this, as does Mr. Barefoot. What they describe as unfunded beds — how many are there today in the Fraser Health Authority?

I'll help the minister out here. It was on January 25 that Mr. Barefoot said they're running about 120 beds over budgeted levels. How many beds is the Fraser Health Authority running over budgeted levels today?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, just to note that the expectation for the '06-07 budget year, which has just been completed, is that Fraser Health will be showing a balanced budget position. Hence, one could not describe any beds for Fraser Health as unfunded. Likewise, we do not fund the Fraser Health Authority for per-bed funding; we fund them on a global basis. We fund them year over year.

We are adding $112 million, a 7.3-percent increase in the budget, year over year, for the new capacity we know is coming on in Abbotsford and Surrey. There is a budgetary allocation made for that. So I'm having some difficulty following the critic's line of reasoning here.

A. Dix: Let me assist the minister, because, hopefully, he may feel the need to give that previous non-answer to his own officials in the Fraser Health Authority. In his January 25, 2007, resignation letter, Keith Purchase stated that acute care hospitals in the Fraser Health Authority are functioning with over 120 non-budgeted beds on any given day and that there are between 100 and 150 patients waiting in Fraser Health emergency rooms for a vacant acute care bed.

Gordon Barefoot — who the minister installed after Mr. Purchase and other board members resigned because of the minister's budget process — made reference to 120 unfunded beds in the Fraser Health Authority. Recently hospitals in the Fraser Health have told us the numbers of unfunded beds in the region now must not exceed 60. So depending on the number of patients currently waiting for funded beds, this cap will result in fewer beds in the Fraser Health Authority.

This is straightforward. This is what the minister's own chair of the board and former chair of the board have stated. They've stated that in fact there are unfunded beds and that people in the Fraser Health Authority should expect those unfunded beds to be reduced. The minister himself met with doctors at Royal Columbian. They raised this very issue with him. I know they raised it with me when I toured this area. We're not talking about….

If the minister has trouble following my line of questioning, presumably he has read the letter from Mr. Purchase — in full, unedited — he has read the comments, and he discusses these situations with Mr. Barefoot. So can the minister tell this House how many unfunded beds there are presently in the Fraser Health Authority? It's not me that came up with this idea of unfunded beds; it's the people that the minister has put in the Fraser Health Authority to answer these questions and to address these issues.

Hon. G. Abbott: Neither I nor any of the ministry officials is aware of any unfunded beds in Fraser Health. The suggestion from Mr. Purchase, in the context of the time and in the context of his views at the time…. I guess one can construe them in a number of ways. But there are no unfunded beds that we're aware of in Fraser Health. We fully expect that Fraser Health is going to report a balanced budget for '06-07.

If the member is saying that the answer to every issue in health care is simply to add more acute care capacity, as some people seem to suggest, I disagree. I think that in fact what we are seeing from the health authorities, which are attempting to provide additional capacity as they have through the addition of incremental residential care and assisted living units, a very important part of it…. Primary care is a very important part of alternatives to heavier acute care bed usage.

There is a whole range of initiatives, strategies that are undertaken by health authorities to deal with those things. To take any particular element in the mix…. Acute care beds are important. On occasion it's important to add to the quantum of acute care beds. But it is not the only answer to the chronic disease and demographic pressures which are faced by the system.

A. Dix: When Mr. Barefoot asserted that there are 120 unfunded beds there, did staff of the Ministry of

Health — because that's a pretty significant assertion from a person who the minister presumably has confidence in — say this to him? "What are you talking about? We're sitting here in Victoria. The minister is sitting here in Victoria, and he states that you're wrong.

"These beds that you say are unfunded, Mr. Purchase; these beds that you say are unfunded, Mr. Barefoot; the beds that doctors say are unfunded and will have to be shut down…. You're wrong. You're wrong. You may be closer, and you may know what the beds are. You may be closer to home, as it were, but you're wrong."

Has the minister clearly disabused Mr. Barefoot? The minister keeps talking about spending more money and everything else. These are assertions made by the minister's own appointees. So I would like to ask whether the minister has…. These were, shall we say, reported statements. These weren't hidden. In fact, they're in the same article — I'll help the minister — where Mr. Barefoot asks the minister to release the acute care capacity initiative, which he continues to refuse to do.

I want to ask: has the Ministry of Health asked anyone at Fraser Health what they mean when they talk about 120 unfunded beds?

Hon. G. Abbott: I know Mr. Barefoot very well. I've had the occasion to discuss important matters around the provision of health care with him on a number of occasions. I think he is doing a very, very fine job in a very difficult position at Fraser Health.

I have a world of respect for Mr. Barefoot. I think he is doing an outstanding job, and I know he will continue to do that. I'm not going to respond to every little quote that the opposition Health critic wants to take out of context.

I think Mr. Barefoot is doing a great job. He'll continue to do a great job, no doubt, for the people of Fraser Health. I have absolute, full confidence in him to meet the needs of Fraser Health and to meet them in a way that will ensure that — whether it's more residential care and assisted living or whether it's more surgeries than ever before — in fact, we continue to see continuous improvement in the delivery of health care in Fraser Health.

The member asked earlier about own-source revenues. Own-source revenues, generally…. We're talking about things like fees, charges to non-residents of the province, residential care fees, interest and — I presume in some cases — investments as well.

Own-source revenues for the Fraser Health Authority are $86.48 million; Interior Health, $97.88 million; Northern Health Authority, $45.37 million; Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, $144.52 million; Vancouver Island Health Authority, $110 million; Provincial Health Services Authority, $127.2 million, for a total of $661.14 million.

A. Dix: Will the minister share a detailed breakdown of what those own-source revenues are?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that detailed breakdown with us. We'd be glad to provide it to the member. We'll try to pull it up. We understand that it is available — I think in most instances, at least — on line in the detailed financial statements that would be available there.

A. Dix: Having looked on line — and you know, one can always be wrong — they do provide the information that the minister has provided. But as far as I know and as far as we can find, they don't provide the detailed information we're seeking. You know — how much is fees? How much is this? How much is that?

I'd really appreciate the minister and staff coming back with that information. I'd really appreciate that. It would be very useful in understanding what the health authorities are doing, because the minister will agree that those own-source revenues have been increasing quite significantly over time. So we're interested to know: what is the source of the own-source revenue?

I want to turn to the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority for a moment and ask the minister about, first of all…. He talked about the previous fiscal year in Fraser Health. Can the minister tell the House whether the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority ended the fiscal year 2006-2007 in a deficit position and, if they did, how he explains that in the context of the rule that says that you can't run a deficit?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I noted in response to an earlier question, the detailed audit of financial statements for all of the health authorities is still being completed, so we do not have a final accounting for Vancouver Coastal Health for fiscal '06-07.

We do expect that that there will be a deficit. We know that the chair and the board and senior administration have been working tirelessly since the change of board chairs and the appointment of Mr. David Thompson to the position of chair. Everyone has been working to mitigate that deficit, and I know that they are making some progress towards the elimination of the deficit. They're not there yet, but I think we're seeing a lot of constructive steps in that direction.

A. Dix: Perhaps the minister can tell us when the government learned…. The minister will know — it's in the fiscal plan — that there was an expected deficit, at that time, of about $40 million, which I assume was the best estimate at the time in terms of the size of the deficit for last year in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. The projected deficit for 2007-2008 in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority is $54 million.

If the minister is saying that there'll be a deficit in 2006-2007, how will the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority be expected to deal with that situation specifically? Will it be like they're starting the year $38 million down? This was the subject of some interest at the time.

The minister will remember…. Well, perhaps he won't remember, because I think that was probably the most relaxing week of his year. But others answered for the government. At the time, January 16, the Minister of Economic Development — who was the acting

Minister of Health — responded to the situation by first stating, to questions that had been raised by the Leader of the Opposition around cuts to surgeries and patient care, that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority will be allowed to carry the deficit.

Later the acting Minister of Health said that he misinterpreted a briefing and that Vancouver Coastal Health Authority was not actually off the hook. Since Vancouver Coastal Health Authority — it would appear from what the minister said — actually did run a deficit, the confusion grows again. I wanted to ask the minister about which version of what the acting Minister of Health said on January 16 and January 17 was true and whether the minister is satisfied that the steps were taken that he expected to be taken to close that deficit in the 2006-2007 year. What is the impact of that deficit on this fiscal year?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we understand, unlike some previous governments in British Columbia — i.e., the one that was in office in the 1990s — we are not going to be contemplating a situation where health authorities every year brought in deficit budget after deficit budget and consistently failed to meet their financial objectives. That is not the expectation of our government in respect of health authorities.

We learned of the budget issues at Vancouver Coastal Health, I think it was, in early June of 2006. We worked regularly with the Vancouver Coastal Health leadership to try to get them to resolve the issues around that. We were not satisfied with the progress that was being made in respect of the deficit at Vancouver Coastal Health. I made the difficult decision to change board chairs, and we did that.

The new chair of the Vancouver Coastal Health board has been working tirelessly to identify ways in which the costs can be mitigated, productivity improved. He is working tirelessly in a range of ways to ensure that Vancouver Coastal Health makes continuous progress in relation to their financial position.

We'll know after the completion of the year-end audit exactly what the deficit is. We presume it will be a deficit for Vancouver Coastal Health. We're not hiding that — that will be appearing openly in the financial statements — nor are we bailing them out. I think Vancouver Coastal Health is committed to getting their financial house in order and living within the financial mandate that's provided to them.

A. Dix: When we talk about the $65 million in cuts that will come in Fraser Health, what the minister is saying, I gather, is that when we look at the cuts that will have to come in Vancouver Coastal Health — presumably by improved procurement, and for there to be this much savings on procurement, they must not be doing such a good job now — it's $54 million plus whatever the deficit is for 2006-2007.

In other words, the minister is saying that in Vancouver Coastal Health…. The Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, the minister says — as if they're somehow the agency that's going to pay the price and it's not patients from across the province who are served by the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority who will be the ones paying the price. Of course, they'll be the ones paying the price. It won't be others in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority.

I want to ask the minister if he's saying that since in the budget it says there's a $54 million shortfall for this year — plus, presumably, approximately $40 million for last year — Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, to close that deficit to nothing, will have to make $94 million in cuts.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't know how the government did business with the health authorities when he and the NDP government were in back in the 1990s, but that's not the kind of way that we pursue our relationships with the health authorities. We work with them to try to ensure that we get maximum value from every one of those $13.1 billion that are expended in health care in this province.

We work with the chairs, the boards and senior administration from the administration level at the Ministry of Health to identify ways in which we can effect cost savings, ways in which we can produce efficiencies. All of those things are the order of business in our relationship with health authorities.

I know that the member just likes to talk about cuts, cuts and cuts. I guess he must be referring to the 1990s when he says that, because in the case of Vancouver Coastal Health Authority there's been no cut. There is a 6.1-percent increase year over year in the budget of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority — a $111 million increase in their budget year over year. In addition to that $111 million lift, Vancouver Coastal Health also has access to a share of the $100 million health innovation fund.

I think we are equipping the health authorities with an allocation. The member may say: "Oh, it's not enough." I invite him to say that if 6.1 percent is not enough or 7.3 percent is not enough…. I mean, what is it? Is it 10 percent, 20 percent or 30 percent? I don't know. The member always says it's not enough, regardless of the allocations that are made.

I do know that the allocations that have been made here are far in excess of what has been appreciated, achieved, gained or whatever in other areas of service delivery. I think government has demonstrated on an ongoing basis that it is commitment to health with these kinds of year-over-year increases. It's very substantial.

We're going to work tirelessly with the leadership at Vancouver Coastal Health to ensure that we make ends meet and that our health services are second to none in Canada.

A. Dix: I always enjoy the minister's flights of fancy. But these are his numbers from his government's budget that say that the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has a projected deficit of $40 million in '06-07 and a coming deficit — that they'll have to cut about $54 million in '07-08. They're going to have to make $94

million in cuts. It's not me that says it. It's not me that's asserting there will be cuts. It's the minister.

The minister likes to talk about this, that and the other thing. These are his documents, his statements and, by the way, his board members who resigned over this question. I asked the minister. The minister said he became aware of the gravity of Vancouver Coastal Health's situation in June of 2006. Then I think that sometime in the early fall the Premier and the Finance Minister called all the health authorities over. They were called over, and they were reamed out, one of the columnists said.

He said he'd been working on this situation from that point on, from June until January, when we discovered…. The opposition released the information. It seemed like a surprise to members on the government side that there were going to be severe cuts to patient care, including cancelling surgeries.

The minister talks about accountability. Since the Minister of Health himself, the Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Deputy Minister of Health, everyone working on Blanshard Street and lots of people in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority — who make lots of money there — were aware and working on the issue, does he think it's appropriate that the only person to carry the can with respect to that question was the part-time chair of the board? Does he think that that search for responsibility went far?

Why is it that Mr. Johnstone was the only one — if the minister means what he says about this — held accountable? Why was it that he laid all of the responsibility, even though he was intimately involved in the process himself, on the part-time chair of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority?

Hon. G. Abbott: First of all, the member should appreciate that the numbers that were contained on a preliminary basis in the budget document were the preliminary response of the health authorities to the budget numbers that they had received. None of that relieved them or the government of ensuring that balanced budgets are delivered in health authorities. As a consequence, there is detailed budgetary work being undertaken today. As we speak, it continues.

I have every confidence that we will ensure, as we have since the creation of the new regional health authority model, that we will see not only balanced budgets in the health authorities but the delivery of health services second to none of any jurisdiction in Canada.

It's not for no reason that the Conference Board of Canada, the Cancer Advocacy Coalition and the Wait Time Alliance all say very positive things about the delivery of health care in British Columbia. They certainly should say positive things about the delivery of health care.

The member says: "Oh, there will be cuts to surgeries." Well, there were more surgeries done in Vancouver Coastal Health in '06-07 than at any time before in the history of British Columbia. I don't understand. I guess it's always the role of the opposition to do some fearmongering and try to tell people that there are going to be cuts, surgical delays, and this and that.

The facts are that there were more surgeries than ever before in the history of British Columbia in Vancouver Coastal Health and in the province generally. We've made tremendous progress in that area, and we will continue to do so.

A. Dix: Of course, that wasn't the question I asked. I have the opportunity — fortunately, this isn't like question period — when I get to ask it again.

The minister says he took the decision to fire Trevor Johnstone. The question I asked was…. The minister says he knew about the crisis in June. The Minister of Finance and the Premier knew about the crisis in September. All the people they've appointed, all the staff, everyone else working at Vancouver Coastal Health and the Ministry of Health…. There was this fiasco in January when there was a plan put forward one day by Vancouver Coastal Health and rejected the next day. One day the Minister of Economic Development, the acting Minister of Health, said they could run a deficit; the next day he said they couldn't. It was a fiasco.

Who carried the can for the fiasco? It wasn't the Minister of Health, who says he knew about it in June. It wasn't anyone else. He decided exclusively to fire the part-time chair of the board as if the part-time chair of the board was the one. Not even the whole board. He fired the part-time chair of the board.

I would like to ask whether he thinks that is a legitimate allocation of accountability, whether he thinks that was the right decision, whether he thinks that was a fair decision and a respectful decision of Mr. Johnstone. And does he think, given his know-ledge of it and everyone else's knowledge of the thing for which Mr. Johnstone was fired, that it was an appropriate decision in that context? Does he think that all of the accountability, because it seems that the only person who paid a price was Mr. Johnstone…? Does he really think that that was the right decision — to focus attention simply on a part-time chair of the board, who presumably has other business interests and serves basically on a volunteer basis with a small stipend?

Hon. G. Abbott: I appreciate the member repeating his question. I hadn't realized I hadn't answered it in my first response, so I appreciate him asking the question again.

I didn't actually realize, Madam Chair, and perhaps you can relay this to Mr. Speaker, that you couldn't repeat questions in question period. My whole sense of question period is that often there is a kind of repetition to those questions. But I'm intrigued to hear that, and I'm sure the Speaker will be intrigued to hear that issue around repetition as well.

In terms of Vancouver Coastal Health and the issue of Mr. Trevor Johnstone's leadership of the board, I mentioned earlier that we had been working with Vancouver Coastal Health on their budget overspending issues since June. That is correct. I don't know if

the member knows, but I'm glad, in the interests of transparency, to share with him that Interior Health also had comparable budget pressures in June. Interior Health undertook to mitigate those pressures. They looked at initiatives in a whole range of areas, some of which we've discussed in the context of Fraser Health. But Interior Health was able to move from a substantial projected deficit to a balanced — in fact, surplus, I think — position as a consequence of the initiatives they undertook.

What we were not seeing in Vancouver Coastal Health was the kind of evidence of progress towards resolution of the deficit or overspending issue that we saw in Interior Health and that we have seen in terms of ongoing budgetary pressures from all health authorities.

I guess one of the challenges of taking on a leadership position…. The chair of the board is a leadership position. When one takes on those kinds of positions, one is exposed to pressures that other board members might not face. I have responsibilities too, and I'll enjoy this position, I guess, as long as I enjoy the confidence of the Premier.

But I was not getting a sense from Vancouver Coastal Health that they were turning the corner on their deficit that we wanted to see.

A. Dix: When in the beginning of January the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority presented its plan to deal with the deficit in the 2006-07 fiscal year, and all the cuts to patient care and the cancelling of surgeries that were proposed…. In fact, surgeries were cancelled, and I invite the minister to come to Vancouver and meet with some of the people who had their surgeries cancelled that week.

When Ida Goodreau and Mr. Johnstone made that announcement or laid out that plan, a plan that people in the government didn't seem to know about, but that was of course made public by the Leader of the Opposition and then retracted by the government….

Can the minister tell us: that early January plan — was the minister informed of it? Did the head of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority tell the minister about it? Did they brief the minister about it before they went forward and briefed all of the employees, or a significant portion of the employees, of Vancouver Coastal Health about it?

Hon. G. Abbott: The history with respect to this, I think, would conclude that there was some miscommunication within the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority in respect of whether they would be undertaking this. The province had not been briefed or advised with respect to it.

Further, I think it's important to note that in any given week there may be circumstances which result in the cancellation or postponement of surgeries. That does happen. Sometimes it's a shortage of critical care nurses that will see that result, and the member knows my views with respect to why we sometimes have those nursing shortages that were so much a product of the misgovernment we had in the 1990s.

Overall, what we see as we look at the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and surgeries is very substantial increases year over year in respect of the number of surgeries that are undertaken. The member might take any given day or week and say, "Oh my, there was a surgery cancelled," and we always regret it when surgeries are cancelled, but one has to look at the overall picture. The overall picture is that there have never been more surgeries undertaken in Vancouver Coastal Health and in British Columbia than there were in '06-07, and I expect that number will be eclipsed in '07-08.

A. Dix: The minister will know that significant cuts to surgeries in Vancouver Coastal Health for the rest of that fiscal year were announced by the president of Vancouver Coastal Health. I know it's hard for the minister to come to terms with that, and I know he was away when they did this, but I guess what I would like to know is….

Surely Vancouver Coastal Health had been attempting throughout the fall to winter of 2006-2007 to provide plans and proposals to the Minister of Health as to how they were going to close this deficit. So this view, this extraordinary view, given the control exercised not just by the Ministry of Health but by the Premier's office these days over the health authorities…. This extraordinary view that these cuts to surgeries that took place…. This announcement of a reduction in surgeries that took place the rest of the fiscal year happened as a surprise to the government.

I want to ask the minister: did the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority in fact bring proposals to the minister's attention? Were those proposals accepted or rejected? What were they?

In fact, it seems after the fact that the minister said it was only cuts to travel expenses and office supplies that he wanted to see dealt with. What cuts were actually made in Vancouver Coastal Health in January, February and March to attempt to close that budget deficit after the fiasco that involved two cabinet ministers, a fired chair of the board and one resignation at Vancouver Coastal Health?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the member may be trying to generalize about how these things transpire, based perhaps on his own experience as a critical adviser to the Premier back in the 1990s. Perhaps he assumes a kind of conspiratorial view of the world in respect of how these things unfold as a consequence of what was undoubtedly a very difficult experience in the Premier's office in British Columbia through the latter years of the 1990s.

I'll be very straightforward about this. We were engaged in discussions with Vancouver Coastal Health in respect of their $40 million overspending position from the month of June through the fall and into the winter. We had never, to that point, seen an acceptable

mitigation plan for Vancouver Coastal Health. As a consequence, we felt we needed to have a change of leadership at Vancouver Coastal Health. It was difficult, but that change was made.

Mr. Thompson is the new chair of Vancouver Coastal Health. He and his board are working tirelessly to identify ways in which the overspending position of Vancouver Coastal Health can be mitigated. With the improvements that we have seen and the continued work that will be undertaken by Mr. Thompson and his board and the administrative leadership of Vancouver Coastal Health, I'm entirely confident that we will see those issues resolved over the course of the coming year.

A. Dix: Given the minister's view that this fiasco — which, beyond the issues of deficits and so on, caused considerable unease in January for some of my constituents and many people in Vancouver — was solely the responsibility of the part-time chair of the board and that the part-time chair of the board bears all the responsibility, I'm going to ask the minister whether the part-time chair of the board, Mr. Johnstone, was asked to dismiss senior management, and whether he refused.

Hon. G. Abbott: We never asked that anyone in senior management at Vancouver Coastal Health be fired. That was never the case.

Further, the member talks about these surgical cancellations that he said had such an adverse impact on his constituents. The fact of the matter is, in terms of hip surgeries in Vancouver Coastal Health — up 35 percent year over year. Knee surgeries are up 43 percent year over year in Vancouver Coastal Health. In pretty much every way that one might measure those things, there were great improvements made around surgical timeliness and the number of surgeries in '06-07 at Vancouver Coastal Health. There were no cuts in that area, contrary to what the member says.

I've been very straightforward with the member around this. We have never said that exclusive responsibility for the budgetary situation at Vancouver Coastal Health rested with Trevor Johnstone. I've never suggested that.

What I have said is that Trevor Johnstone undertook to be chair of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority board. He undertook a leadership position in respect to that. Government was not satisfied with the direction and results that we were achieving, and as a consequence, a difficult decision was made to replace Mr. Johnstone with Mr. Thompson.

A. Dix: The fact of the matter is that the action the government took was to target Mr. Johnstone. I just want to quote from what Mr. Purchase said about that, because I think he summarized the situation. Perhaps this will inspire the minister to talk about the 1990s or something again, but what Mr. Purchase said…. This is a letter to the minister. He might be familiar with it, since he's been with the unedited version of the letter longer than I have.

It says: "On a…personal note, I cannot comprehend yesterday's firing of Trevor Johnstone as chair of Vancouver Coastal Health. Trevor is an individual who served that region well and whose guidance has saved this government hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet he was tossed to the wolves yesterday without even a thank-you. It is disappointing, to say the least, that this is how board members are treated for their commitment and service."

I would add to that the comments of Dr. Dana Devine, who, as the minister will know, is a prominent researcher and professor of medicine who also quit the board — quit the board in protest. Mr. Johnstone's firing…. She said: "I have come to the conclusion that there is no willingness on the part of the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Finance to face the reality of our situation."

That's what the minister's appointees said. That's what they said. There's nothing conspiratorial about that, I would suggest. It's a pretty clear statement of how they view what the minister did.

I want to ask: from the period where he selected Mr. Johnstone and fired him and had him carry the can for the entire fiasco that involved two cabinet ministers and the Premier…? What changes were made, what administrative savings were made from that point, which was approximately January 24, 2007, to the end of the fiscal year? What administrative savings were made by Vancouver Coastal Health, by the new board, by the CEO from there to March 31 in order to close that deficit, and what is the latest estimate from the minister? Surely he has an estimate that he can provide this House as to what that deficit was on March 31, 2007.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think it's important to understand that what we undertook in terms of the replacement of Mr. Johnstone by Mr. Thompson was difficult for all concerned. I had a good chat with Mr. Johnstone about it, and he appreciated why we needed to undertake this very difficult change in terms of the leadership at Vancouver Coastal Health. I have a world of respect for Mr. Johnstone and the work he undertook, but we were not getting the results we felt we needed to see, so I made the difficult decision that we would change the leadership at Vancouver Coastal Health. That is no disrespect to Mr. Johnstone. I'm sure Mr. Johnstone worked tirelessly to do what he could, but we were not seeing the results that we wished to out of that.

When one undertakes difficult things like the replacement of board chairs, inevitably there are going to be disagreements about whether that course of action was the appropriate one. I completely respect the fact that some people will disagree with my decision in respect of that, and they may disagree for the very best of reasons. But it is a decision I made, and it is a decision which I stand by. It's a decision which I believe to be the right one in respect of the challenges at Vancouver Coastal Health.

There is an issue, really, of accountability here, and what we did was attempt to ensure that we got the accountability around that ongoing $40 million overspending issue that we weren't satisfied we were getting in January of 2007.

In terms of what has occurred since Mr. Thompson's leadership, we have been seeing a very intensive…. I'm tremendously appreciative of the work that Mr. Thompson has been doing. He has been looking at literally every area of non-clinical expenditure and endeavour in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority to try to identify ways in which they could bring about some sustainability in respect of their ongoing financial concerns.

Among the areas he would be looking at are contracts, particularly consultants; information technology expenditures; overtime; procurement; administrative costs; non-essential overtime — I just talked about that; and targeted capital investments. He is looking at all of the non-clinical areas that one might use to bring the balance of expenditures and revenues into line.

A. Dix: The minister referred earlier to the preliminary estimates of deficits found in the three-year fiscal plan of the government. Just to repeat what those are…. Again, it's the 2006-2007 forecast update and the '07-08 fiscal plan. At the time they said there was a $40 million shortfall.

Presumably, given the centrality of this issue…. I'm sure it's an important issue to the minister, given all that had happened, given his decision. I agree with the minister. It is about accountability. It is about accountability, and unfortunately, it was about blame. They chose to blame a part-time chair of the board for all of this.

Can the minister tell us, since it was $40 million at the time that Mr. Johnstone was replaced, what his best guess is of what the deficit was? Here we are in May debating the estimates of the Ministry of Health, and this is our opportunity to ask questions and to focus on the budget. But maybe the minister can tell us what his best guess is today of what the deficit is in Vancouver Coastal Health, which would, I'm sure, inform our debate on these important questions.

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't do best guesses. There is a comprehensive audit that is underway. When that is completed, we will be releasing the final number in a timely way.

A. Dix: Maybe the minister can tell me this, then. The chairs of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority and the Fraser Health Authority couldn't sign off on the budget because it was in deficit. When does he expect a sign-off by the chair of the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority on the budget?

A. Dix: Happily, that's before this session rises for what we hope will be only a few months.

Will the minister commit to sharing that detailed information? We wouldn't want to go a full eight months without asking that question; our anticipation would be too great. So will the minister commit to coming here, to making a ministerial statement? This was part of the budget that we passed, and it's a significant issue — a significant issue to everyone in Vancouver Coastal Health and everyone in Fraser Health. Will he come and table those budgets in this House? Will he come before this House rises and provide us with a statement of what the deficit was?

What that will tell us, in part…. The final deficit number for Vancouver Coastal Health is, in some respects, the justification. I mean, they fired Mr. Johnstone. They said the deficit was $40 million. If at the end of the fiscal year the deficit was $39 million or $38 million, that wouldn't have been a lot of progress after the minister took direct control of this situation.

So I want to ask the minister — because we're all waiting in anticipation for these numbers — whether he'll commit to coming here, making a ministerial statement and laying out this information to the House prior to it rising at the end of this session.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his constructive suggestions, and I can assure him that this information will be released in a timely and appropriate way.

A. Dix: I think we'll review, because we know what the minister means by timely and appropriate. It usually involves quite a bit of whiteout.

I wanted to go through what we've learned today. So far we're only on the first two health authorities. We've learned…. Well, we haven't learned who severed the Keith Purchase letter. We haven't received a copy of Mr. Purchase's and Mr. Anderson's letter. We haven't learned any details of the $65 million in cuts that the Fraser Health Authority has to make. We haven't learned about whether — as has been stated by the executive director of Langley Memorial Hospital — there is a deficit in every hospital in the Fraser Valley.

The minister has refused to table the acute care capacity initiative. It may be an eternal draft planning document. He has refused to provide us with that. He hasn't told us how many unfunded beds there are in the Fraser Health Authority. He hasn't told us, although…. Oh, wait. He said it would be soon that we would have a CEO in the Fraser Health Authority. After how long?

A. Dix: Two and a half years. The member for Surrey-Whalley will know. He asked about this question 14 months ago, and I think it was soon then that we were going to get it. It's still soon, so that's good. That's not progress, but we haven't gone backwards on that one.

We don't know what the deficit was last year in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. The minister refused to tell us that or give us his best estimate now. We don't know what cuts were made in the last three

months of the fiscal year. So, hon. Chair, we're off to a very, very good start.

I wanted to give the minister an opportunity, because I know that he enjoys, at times, heaping scorn on people…. He has had a few days…. He knows that doctors in Langley raised a bunch of issues around Langley Memorial Hospital. The minister's response was that he has never heard anything about it — ever, in all time. I don't know if this is true, but he made it sound like he had never been to Langley and wasn't even sure there was a hospital there.

He has now had a few days, and the doctors from Langley Memorial Hospital would be interested in his detailed response to their concerns. Perhaps before we leave Fraser Health's budget situation, he could tell us what he thinks about the concerns expressed by doctors at Langley Memorial Hospital with respect to their concerns about the Fraser Health Authority and about government policy.

Hon. G. Abbott: I sensed from the member's presentation there that he wasn't satisfied with the progress that we had made in estimates to date, and I wanted to reassure him that in no way do I think that that is in any way a criticism of his abilities as an opposition Health critic. I think the questions were very good. He shouldn't blame himself for a lack of progress in respect of these discussions. I know he will continue in his extraordinarily patient way to try to get answers from me and from the government. I know I'm certainly looking forward to continuing to hear some of his penetrating questions about this area of public policy.

In terms of the issues at Langley Memorial. You know, the challenge always for opposition critics…. I was an opposition critic myself at times back in the 1990s, and it was a magical time being in opposition back in the 1990s. There was so much to oppose in those days compared to today. Every day there was something new to oppose, and so I understand what the role of the opposition critic is. I know that the opposition critic is often, in some measure, hamstrung by only hearing portions of the interviews that occur out in the hallways here with the news media.

I know that when I was asked about the situation in Langley, I said — and apparently it wasn't newsworthy — that we looked forward to hearing more about the issue at Langley Memorial, that it appeared that the concern expressed by some physicians at Langley Memorial was prompted by a contractual dispute around the operation of a maternity clinic inside the bounds of the hospital — not the maternity ward but a maternity clinic.

I understand that there is a dispute ongoing between the physicians who operate that clinic and those in Fraser Health who are responsible for those things. I don't in any way pass judgment on whether the doctors were right or Fraser Health was right. I said in my interview that I looked forward to hearing more about that. But it does appear to be a contractual dispute, and it was the first issue of its character that I had heard from Langley.

I've certainly heard much from Royal Columbian and some other hospital facilities over time, but I had not heard a comparable kind of concern from Langley Memorial. That's what I said in my interview, and for better or worse, that was the small piece of a longer interview that the news media chose to quote. But Langley is a very fine place, and I visit it whenever I possibly can. Just to clear the record on that one.

A. Dix: I agree with the minister. We finally find a point of agreement. I often visit Langley, and particularly Fort Langley, and it's a wonderful place to go. It's very inspiring.

I guess I was fascinated by the minister's discussion of his time in opposition. I just want to remind him, as I go through the list of these, that this is our opportunity to ask questions, and the minister is and remains, as the decision of the Supreme Court says, responsible. People will judge for themselves the fact that we don't get any answers to these questions and will draw their own conclusions.

This will be a treat for the minister. We are now going to move on briefly, because we're trying to stay and finish the Fraser Health envelope, and I'm going to allow my colleague from New Westminster to ask a few questions. I know that the minister will know Royal Columbian Hospital faces really remarkable challenges, and it always has because it's a central hospital in the lower mainland. Those of us who've had friends and family there know a lot about the hospital. I know that the member for New Westminster has some questions about Royal Columbia and some issues from New Westminster that he'll now ask the minister.

After he's done, I think the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith will have some questions that are local, and we'll start on the Vancouver Island Health Authority, and we'll get a couple…. There are lots of members over here who want a chance to have an equally positive experience with the minister as I've had.

C. Puchmayr: Thank you to the minister and his staff who surround him. I do have some questions about Royal Columbian Hospital. First, I'd just like to make a couple of comments. I thank the Health Minister for giving the opportunity for the mayor of New West, Wayne Wright, who was out recently to speak to the minister, along with councillors Bill Harper and Betty McIntosh, who also happens to be a registered nurse at Royal Columbian Hospital….

I did have some brief comments with the Health Minister after that meeting with respect to a piece of land that is available, which we will call the Labatt site, which is a very significant piece of industrial property where Labatt's, I believe in 2004 or 2003, left and moved to Alberta. Again, it's shocking that a big company like that would move to Alberta under the tenure of the Liberal government, but they did. They moved to Alberta, and they're now doing their production in Alberta.

One of the interesting things that transpired prior to them leaving for Alberta…. I was involved in some discussions, and one of the union reps at the Labatt site

was also involved in some discussions, which led the city to have some discussions with the Royal Columbian Hospital and Labatt with respect to some land. Labatt wanted to develop some of the land on the lower portion into a highrise — a change from industrial to a multifamily highrise configuration. There was some give-and-take, and they donated a significant water source in the event of an emergency. There's actually an artesian well on that site, which is certainly a real advantage in a system that works on a regular water grid — to have access to large volumes of water in the event of an emergency.

The other thing that was contributed to assist them in getting the density that they were looking for on the property was that they donated some property to the Royal Columbian Hospital Foundation. That property was for some future expansion to the Royal Columbian Hospital on that site.

My questions to the minister…. Now that he's had a chance to look at the fact that this is an area that is extremely well-served by transit…. It has a SkyTrain line that stops right on the site and a slight overpass right across the street to the hospital. It has a good emergency water system on there and also has a vast amount of land available. I think one of the documents that I read stated that there are only about three parcels in North America where a central city actually had that vast a quantity of land available for redevelopment.

I'd like to ask the minister if he's looked at that proposal or if he's looked at the concept of possibly increasing some capacity on to that site for that region.

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer is yes. We are a very considerable distance from seeing an opportunity for a transfer of properties there. But nevertheless, yes, we have looked at it and, more precisely, Fraser Health has looked at that opportunity. I've had the opportunity to meet the mayor now on a couple of occasions and with some council members on one occasion as well.

Fraser Health owns some properties immediately adjacent to Royal Columbian which they could develop and which I'm sure over time they will develop for the expansion and improvement of Royal Columbian Hospital. I don't disagree with the member's assertion at all that in a number of ways this is a great site, in terms of the way that it's served by transit, its proximity to the community and all of that. Royal Columbian is a very important tertiary hospital for our province as well.

The future for Royal Columbian is a positive one. I had the good fortune to visit for a couple of hours the doctors, particularly the emergency room doctors, but there was a pretty good representation of the leadership at Royal Columbian when I met there with doctors and nurses, etc., probably two or three months ago now.

I appreciate that the Royal Columbian has some challenges, and particularly their emergency room at times has some challenges. I know that different people have different views about how to address those challenges, but Royal Columbian is an important site and will continue to be an important site.

Really, the issue for Fraser Health is whether they want to add incrementally to the properties which they own in that corner of New West adjacent to the Royal Columbian Hospital. There has been some discussion that has occurred around the Labatt's site. My understanding, based on my most recent discussions with Mr. Keith Anderson, the interim CEO at Fraser Health, was that any proposal they had received to date from the current owners-developers of that site did not make a lot of business sense to them.

I'm not going to go into what their discussions were, but I think it's fair to say that what had been put on the table to that point was not something that made sense from a financial perspective to Fraser Health — again, particularly given they already have some properties in the area that could be developed.

C. Puchmayr: The land that was donated, I believe, to the hospital foundation, I think has been sold by the foundation to raise capital for other important initiatives they had in that hospital. There are still some negotiations ongoing, I believe. I don't believe that the matter has come forward for final approval from council, so I'm anticipating there is more discussion taking place in camera with respect to that land. Hopefully, there will be some further news that may very well make that an economical acquisition. I'm not quite sure.

Could the minister explain to me, then, where this other land on that site is available? What is currently on it now, and how much land are we talking about on that site that the minister alludes to that is already available?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have that level of detail with us. I'm certainly prepared to commit to undertake to provide the member with more detail with respect to FHA holdings in the proximity of Royal Columbian Hospital. We just don't have that level of detail with us.

I think the member's suggestion that some discussions continue is correct. I'm only relaying that to the point that I last spoke to the mayor and to the interim CEO at Fraser Health — that what had been put on the table was not anywhere near what would make business sense to FHA. I think that the member's correct that the door is not closed to those discussions.

C. Puchmayr: I just want to correct what I meant with respect to the discussions. I believe the city was coming forward with a reading on that development site, and that has now been pulled. I'm not alluding to any discussions that Fraser Health is having with the city or with the developer. I'm talking about the interactions that the city is having with the developer on that site. I'm not familiar with what any of those details are on there.

When St. Mary's Hospital was demolished, we had conversations and discussions with doctors after that. They really expressed the concern about the impacts that taking that capacity away had and having the relief valve that used to exist. When there were high

incidents of trauma and patients coming into Royal Columbian, they were always able to open up an operating theatre at St. Mary's Hospital, which is no longer available.

Can the minister make some comment with respect to what his impression of that situation is and how serious that situation is now, not having the ability to move into that emergency capacity?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member asked for my impressions of the issue around the closure of St. Mary's, so I'll provide him with that. I wasn't the minister at the time, but I know, or I certainly sense, that every health authority and every government grapples with the difficult issues of when it is more appropriate to invest in new infrastructure versus the remediation costs of decaying or antiquated facilities. I think government certainly grappled with that in terms of St. Mary's and formed the conclusion that it was better to invest any incremental dollars in the creation of new infrastructure versus trying to sustain — and I'm sure the member would agree — what was a challenging facility from an infrastructure perspective.

Again, we need to look at the overall surgical volume for Fraser Health Authority, and that has been enhanced. St. Mary's never did trauma cases. That has always been Royal Columbian. Yes, St. Mary's was of some assistance with respect to managing the volumes of elective surgeries, but that capacity now has been largely shifted to Eagle Ridge Hospital.

I think it's also worth noting that a lot of tertiary incremental surgeries in the hip replacement–knee replacement area have now shifted to UBC Hospital, which can annually do between 1,200 and 1,600 surgeries, provided they have the OR nurses that are necessary to keep the slate full.

This is an issue of overall capacity. I know it wasn't an easy decision for anyone. Was it the right decision? I think likely it was, based on, again, the cost of mitigating a decaying infrastructure versus investment in more modern infrastructure that will be sustained for a longer period of time.

C. Puchmayr: With respect to the minister's comments, speaking to one of the doctors that used to work at St. Mary's Hospital, it was used. Often, rather than bump elective surgery onto a waiting list, they could actually move it into St. Mary's Hospital from Royal Columbian. They could also move some of the minor trauma cases — broken ankle, broken leg — up rather than have people waiting in hallways. There was that ability to do that.

I guess it's easy when someone from this side of the House says that it was a huge mistake to close St. Mary's Hospital, that you could assume it's a political statement. I asked the doctors that I spoke with what impact that had on health care delivery in the Royal Columbian and in that region, and they all say that it had an overwhelmingly negative impact.

It was a huge, huge impact, as one of the doctors, I think Dr. Matishak, said to me. It had a huge impact on the delivery and has caused a lot of…. In their opinion, and certainly in the opinions that I have witnessed, it has contributed to a lot of the backlog in that hospital.

The other thing, with respect to the surgeries…. I brought an issue up in question period of a surgery being bumped. I know that the minister made some comments with respect to that being something that happens occasionally. But we're seeing it more than occasionally. We're seeing some significant cancellations due to trauma, which is understandable — to have trauma in there. But to not have the capacity to do elective surgeries….

It doesn't just bump the one surgery. One of the doctors tells me that for every one you bump, there's a domino effect, because now you're bumping that one today, you're bumping the next one tomorrow, and so on down the line. What happens is that some people are ending up back in the hospital or ending up in the emergency ward because their surgeries have been bumped for so long that they become so complicated that they end up coming into the emergency wards for treatment. So that has a significant impact.

My comments on St. Mary's are comments that I have received from other doctors. I want to ask the minister: what study or analysis of cost of delivery is being done to look at this situation of what it costs to prep somebody, bump them off for that surgery as they go down the line, and what cost does it have…? Is there an analysis done of when patients end up back in the emergency wards because they haven't received surgery in a timely manner? Is there a sort of a quantifying of the cost to the health care system on those two situations?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will try to gather up what information we can on that issue. I'll relay it on to the member, hopefully, during our discussions here.

I would find the member's thesis around St. Mary's much more compelling if the statistics suggested that the closure of St. Mary's was the cause of a reduction in the overall number of surgeries in Fraser Health. That has not been the case. If one compares 2000-2001 with 2005-2006…. In '01 it was 140,162 surgeries; in '05-06, 157,618 surgeries. So there's a considerable expansion in the number of surgeries that were undertaken in Fraser Health between those two points in time.

As I said, the elective capacity that had been provided by St. Mary's in effect was shifted to other facilities. Again, an important point here is that whether it's the NDP in government or the B.C. Liberals in government, or whoever is in government, we do have to sometimes look at aging facilities and look at the cost-benefit analysis around what would be the incremental costs of trying to remediate a decaying structure versus the cost of building new infrastructure that is going to be sustained for a longer period of time.

Certainly, that cost-benefit analysis was done, and it pointed to the wisdom of investing in new infrastructure versus remediation of decaying infrastructure,

Just a small point. The member from New West noted it. Just to be clear, Labatt's did not donate land to the Fraser health foundation. Labatt's donated $500,000 to the foundation. So that's perhaps a consequential detail, but one I should just note for the record.

C. Puchmayr: With all due respect to the Health Minister, it was a donation of land. That land was then sold back to the developer by the foundation.

A final point in terms of Royal Columbian, unless the member has further questions. Surgeries are postponed for a variety of reasons. Among them is that sometimes an operating room will be confronted by urgent or emergent cases that must always take precedence over elective surgeries. We do regret that when that occurs.

We want everyone, whether they need urgent surgery or elective surgery, to get their procedure in a timely way. That having been said, sometimes it is the emergency, sometimes it's the unexpected trauma cases from a motor vehicle accident, and sometimes it's a shortage of operating room nurses. There are a variety of things that can enter into it. Sometimes it's Norovirus that has broken out on one of the wards. There's just a range of things that can happen. We try to minimize those, but they do occur.

H. Bains: A few questions about Surrey Memorial Hospital and the medical services available to the residents in that region. As the minister will know, it's a fairly daily occurrence in the ER at Surrey Memorial Hospital that patients are made to wait lengthy, lengthy wait times. It starts at two or three hours, and sometimes can go to eight or nine hours. That continues on today, by the way.

As a result of the pressure from the community, there were announcements made by the minister back in 2005. There was a report done, and based on that report, the minister came to the hospital and made the announcement to deal with the situation. Part of that announcement — which came, as I understand, out of the report — was to have a separate ambulatory unit built and the expansion of the ER.

Now I draw the minister's attention to…. I believe it was October 2005 when the minister came to the hospital and that announcement was made. The announcement, as I recall it, was that the ambulatory unit would be built, but at that time it wasn't determined where it would be built. I believe it was decided the expansion of the emergency ward will go adjacent to the current emergency ward. So as such, the announcements were made as to when the construction will start.

I recall, if the minister agrees with me, that the announcement by the minister at that time was that the ambulatory unit construction would start in 2007 and the completion date would be 2009. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: I have no recollection of such a commitment. What we attempt to do in every case in respect of major capital investments, as we're making with Surrey, is to do it in the most timely and appropriate way possible. We try to ensure that the huge — and in this case it is absolutely huge — investment that the taxpayers of British Columbia are making for Surrey is achieved with the best possible benefit to the taxpayer.

I know this member and some of the other members on the opposition side sometimes say: "Well, I appreciate the new Porsche that you put in my driveway. I appreciate that you brought it to us for free, but I really deplore the fact that you're a week late in delivering it." That's the kind of argument that I'm hearing.

The project is going to proceed in a timely way. It is going to proceed in a way that ensures that the citizens of Surrey receive a world-class facility — it will be a world-class facility — and that all of this is unfolding in the most efficient and effective possible way.

H. Bains: If the minister says that the commitment on the time lines of the construction wasn't made in October of that time, I just want to draw the minister's attention to this. It was upon the receiving of that report, which was fast-tracked. It was announced by the Premier during the election time, May of 2005, that there was a study being conducted and that he would have that study fast-tracked so we would have a report earlier than anticipated or than the regular time lines.

I'm suggesting that the report was brought to the minister's attention, I believe, in October 2005. The minister came to the hospital and made the announcement that they accepted the report, that the construction of the ambulatory unit would start in 2007 and that the completion date for that particular part of the expansion would be in 2009.

Now, if the minister says that the commitment wasn't made — fair enough; I accept that. But then the Premier came to Surrey last year, along with the minister and other members of the government. That's the time when the location of the ambulatory unit was identified. There was a press conference, and the announcement was made. I would ask the minister if the announcement was made there that the construction of the ambulatory unit would start in 2008 but that it will continue to be completed in 2009.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm at a bit of a loss as to understanding what the purpose of this questioning is. Is the member saying that this project should only proceed if there are certain time lines associated with it? I don't understand why I would want to go back and try to relive every point in history since 2005; I don't quite comprehend. Is he saying that this $200 million investment in Surrey Memorial is somehow flawed because he thought that it should roll out more quickly than he thinks it is? I don't understand that at all.

This is the largest investment that has ever been made in a hospital facility in Surrey in history. It is long overdue. Perhaps it should have been done ten years ago. The member is nodding. He's agreeing that the colleagues in his government ten years ago should have done this. Well, we're doing it. We're making a huge investment here.

We're moving the project along just as quickly as we possibly can. I think the expectation is that construction is expected to start in 2008, with completion expected in early 2010. Maybe it'll happen a little more quickly, maybe a little more slowly. But it'll be done in a timely way, and we will have an infinitely improved infrastructure for patient care at Surrey Memorial Hospital as a consequence of it.

H. Bains: I don't know why the minister would rile up at a simple question about timing. People in Surrey are waiting to hear from this minister and this government about the expansion of Surrey Memorial Hospital, so that they know, at least, the time lines when they can actually expect this government to come through and have that facility completed.

My questioning is that there was an announcement made that the construction would start in 2007 and that it would be completed in 2009. Then the new announcement came that the construction would now start in 2008 and be completed in 2010, so there's a delay of the start of the construction and of the completion of the construction project.

That's my question. Is the minister saying that the earlier announcement was never made? As I hear the minister saying, he doesn't recall that the construction would start in 2007 with completion in 2009. If that's what the minister position is — fair enough. That's what I'll take back to the constituency: that the promise was never made. But the new statement now is that the construction will start in 2008 and that it will be completed in 2010.

Hon. G. Abbott: Let's continue to beat on this horse. The member says: "Well, the minister is saying this, and the minister is saying that." I answered the first question by saying that I did not recollect what was said at that point in time. Somehow the member seems to be asserting here that the value of this facility will somehow be diminished if it is completed in early 2010 versus late 2009.

Does it substantively matter? I can tell you one thing with certainty, and he can take this back to his constituency. This investment would never have been made if there was an NDP government in office in British Columbia. We waited for ten years for an investment in Surrey Memorial Hospital by that former NDP government — ten very long years of waiting for that reinvestment in Surrey Memorial Hospital.

This government made the commitment. This opposition wants to quarrel about a few months here or there that might well be made up during the construction. Go ahead and lament it. Every time that they raise this question, it provides me with an opportunity to remind them that this is a decision that the NDP government didn't make for ten years. This is a decision on an investment that they declined to make.

They ignored the needs of Surrey Memorial Hospital for ten years. We've stepped up with a range of investments — well over $200 million invested in Surrey Memorial Hospital. We'll be investing in a whole range of facilities, including the ambulatory out-patient hospital. Those are great investments, and they're being delivered in a timely and appropriate way.

H. Bains: The minister continues to make political statements rather than answer the question. I could easily say the fact is that this government, his government, didn't make any investment in Surrey for the first five years and that we now continue to see delay and delay, more announcements and less work.

I mean, we could go on, but it's the people who are actually waiting, even today in the emergency ward, right now. They're wondering: when will this minister, this government, start the construction? Will they hold on to the promise they made with them, or are they going to continue to see delay in the construction and completion of those projects?

That's what the questions are coming from, for the minister. To say that their concerns are not serious enough, that their concerns shouldn't be even talked about and brought to this House on their behalf….

I think the minister should probably come and take a walk around in my constituency. We'll go around door to door and let the minister hear exactly what the people feel in that region. I welcome the minister to come along with me. I'll make the arrangement. Let's go door to door and find out what the people of Surrey feel about your commitment in the last six years. I would challenge the minister to accept that challenge and come with me.

Now, Minister, I want to come back to the same question again, because I didn't get the answer. Have you delayed the start of the construction and the completion of that ambulatory unit from your original announcement? Is that delayed now? Can the minister accept and tell the House if that is the case?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, I'm not aware of any delay, apart from the delay between 1991 and 2001 when the NDP government was in office in British Columbia and this project was delayed for ten years. You know, this member's rooting around, trying to find some bad news amid what is clearly a good-news investment in Surrey by this government.

Again, it's: "Well, thanks for the new Porsche in my driveway that you delivered for free, but it was a day late, and I'm really, really upset about it being a day late." That's the kind of logic that drives this member and this opposition. This is negative, negative, negative. I wish that they might take on even a bit of the more positive attitude of their federal counterparts.

For example, the NDP 's federal Health critic — Penny Priddy, Surrey North — who knows a thing or two about Surrey Memorial Hospital as a former Health Minister in the province and today the NDP's Health critic federally, said this about Surrey Memorial Hospital: "I'm pleased to be at Surrey Memorial Hospital today to hear how this facility has made improvements to patient care in the emergency room, obstetric ward and operating room. These examples of rethinking services and reorganizing how patients are treated prove that innovation is the future of public health care." She said that on August 2, 2006. She said that. I mean, this is a striking contrast to the kind of negativism that I'm hearing from across the floor.

Are they saying that no, we shouldn't be making this investment? No, they're not saying that. Are they saying that it's the wrong investment? No, they're not saying that. Are they saying that they don't want it in 2010? No, they're not saying that. What they're doing is trying to blow up an entirely bogus issue and trying to get some speculation around whether it might be concluded in late 2009 rather than early 2010, as if this is some great conspiracy to limit the opportunities to improve health care in Surrey, and that's absurd.

The only delay here is the ten-year delay that was occasioned by the dark decade, which was characterized by the members across the floor. That was the only delay — 1991 to 2001. That's the delay the member should be thinking about — that ten-year delay as the province managed to rid itself of that government. That was the principal delay.

In terms of the improvements. The member said: "You didn't do anything during your first five years." Wrong. There was lots of work undertaken. The primary care strategy. They've got the minor treatment unit, the perinatal centre. There's lots of work that has been done at Surrey Memorial Hospital, and lots of work will continue.

The biggest investment is around the out-patient hospital and the tripling of the emergency room at Surrey Memorial Hospital. Those are very timely, very appropriate, very defensible expenditures of public resources on what is one of the fastest-growing communities in the nation of Canada — Surrey. It is an investment that we should be very, very proud of. I certainly am, and we'll look forward to the timely delivery of that project.

G. Coons: It's a pleasure to be here again, and it's great to see the minister being so positive. I hope to get some solutions — and not to root around with all of the negativism — and to look at some issues that we're having in the north, especially on the north coast.

We've had this conversation before. I didn't hear the minister take up the invitation from my colleague about talking to people in his riding. Last year at this time we agreed to take the Northern Health bus on a trip from Prince Rupert — the 11½ hours one way, the two nights in Prince George, and the return visit to Prince Rupert — just to get a feel for it.

That's one of my comments that I want to express to the minister. On the north, when we look at the conversations of health that are happening throughout the province, there are 16 of them, and the closest to us is Smithers. What I've been doing the last three or four months is holding some discussions on health. I've held about ten of them — four of them in the Nass Valley, in each one of the villages; four of them on the Haida Gwaii; in Stewart; and Prince Rupert — listening to people and hearing their concerns. Some of the major concerns…. It's going to come back to the bus, obviously, but being stranded….

The minister has heard this concern before, where somebody in the province is medevacked out to a hospital and left there, sometimes with no wallet, no clothes, no coat, and they're expected to find their way home. Even though hospitals have the social services apparently available, it's not working.

One specific example that the minister may know about is that Prince Rupert at times closes its doors to Queen Charlotte people who need emergency hospital rooms. They close them to the Charlottes. They're guaranteed a bed somewhere, but I asked Northern Health: what happens if they're medevacked to Vancouver? How do they get home?

They said: "Well, there's a northern bus." Mind you, from Vancouver back to the Queen Charlotte Islands…. It only leaves, I think, on a Friday or Saturday. So it might be quite appropriate to get the bus if you're discharged from hospital on a Friday night or Saturday or Sunday, but those 11½ hours to Prince George with a night in Prince George and another 11 hours to Prince Rupert, where it does not connect with the ferry…. This is inappropriate, I think, for health care in the north, quality health care, and health care when and where we need it.

I'm just wondering if the minister finds that a 20-hour bus ride with a stopover and perhaps a ferry ride where you've spent two or three nights in Prince Rupert is appropriate for the people in our province to expect after they've had to medevac out and get emergency care. Is that appropriate health care in our province?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is right. The one portion of the question from the member for Surrey-Newton that I didn't address was whether it would give me pleasure to join him in meeting some of his constituents in Surrey-Newton. I can't actually imagine anything that would give me more pleasure than having that opportunity, or to get together with the member for North Coast and meet with some of his constituents. In fact, later this year I hope to do exactly that. I have had the good fortune to get out to a number of corners of the province and to meet with residents there.

I think some of the suggestions that are being made by the member are unfortunate and unfair. First of all, I think that the northern connections bus is an addition that is a positive one, not a negative one as the member construes it. The fact of the matter is that there will never be in British Columbia a time when every community hospital in every corner of the province

will be able to provide the full range of tertiary services that are required in the province.

There are, for example, only a very few thoracic surgeons in this province. There are at this point relatively few places that one could get open-heart surgery. There are relatively few places where one can get a radiology therapy for cancer treatments.

There are always going to be times when people will have to leave their home community or even their home region in order to access specialized tertiary services that are available only in a relatively few centres. It is not possible to have those tertiary services in every centre.

Even if we had all the money in the world available to British Columbia to provide them in every community hospital, we couldn't do it. The experience base that doctors need to have in order to keep up with their skills around radiology treatment for cancers or open-heart or some of the very sophisticated surgical procedures that have to be undertaken…. It's not possible to get the volume to keep the level of skills up.

I hope that the member can understand and appreciate that there is always going to be a need to move some patients from some community facilities to tertiary facilities, generally in larger communities, where they can access those very specialized operations, procedures, skills, knowledge and sometimes diagnostics that aren't always available universally at community hospitals or community facilities.

That being the case, the question is, then: how would one transport most effectively and efficiently people from where they are to where they need to have their surgical procedure or their professional consult — whatever is needed.

I think that Northern Health has stepped up to the plate with the northern connections bus. Obviously, it doesn't replace medevac. It does not do that. Medevac is still used where there is an urgent or emergent situation in the northwest, in the member's riding. We will use air ambulance to move the patient to wherever they need to go to get the service that they need.

In many cases the northern connections bus is entirely appropriate and positive as a way of moving a patient from where they are to where the tertiary service is that they need. So for the member to disparage it in the way he has is unfortunate, I think. If he has a better idea, I challenge him to let us know what it is.

What is he going to do — have them hitchhike? Have them rent a car? I don't know what the member has in mind, but I'm sure he can tell us what his better idea is than the northern connections bus. I actually think that the northern connections bus is a very positive thing, and I think it's doing a good job. It is a relatively new service, but I know it's enjoyed a good increase in ridership. I think it's fulfilling the potential that Northern Health had hoped for it.

In terms of hospital discharge. Again, we've talked about this important issue a couple of times in question period. Health facilities don't discharge patients in the way that the member suggested — that they're thrown out into the cold without coats or shoes or that sort of thing. That is simply not done. That is entirely unfair to the health professionals that guide discharge policies in health facilities in this province.

In every case the facility will work with the patient to ensure that they are aware of the supports that are available to them and that they have a plan for getting home that is workable. Sometimes there are miscommunications around these things, no doubt. I don't doubt that for a moment, but in every case, the social workers and the discharge officials with hospitals are working with the patient to try to ensure that they are able to return to their home or to the community health facility they came from.

Just so that the member understands this very clearly, the policy with respect to discharge from hospital and return to home is exactly the same as it was five years ago, exactly the same as it was ten years ago and probably exactly the same as it was 20 years ago. The policy is now, and always has been, that if the patient is returning to a community hospital facility — whether it's in Powell River, in Prince Rupert or wherever it may happen to be — they are air-evac'd back from Vancouver.

If, however, their medical issues have been resolved and they are able to be released from hospital, the policy is that they make their own way back, but the facility works with them before discharge to ensure that there is a plan in place that will get them back home. The provisions for the medical transport back are exactly the same now as they have been for some years.

G. Coons: What's happening in the northern health region…. When we had the northwest regional hospital and we had the services and the specialists coming into the region, we saw all the services quite a bit different than they are now.

When you start looking at Northern Health, where our regional hospital is out of Prince George — which is 800 kilometres away, an 11-hour bus ride…. I don't think too many people in this province would put up with that. When you get on a bus and you aren't in the best of health and you're at your own expense for hotel accommodation, transfer from your hotel to the hospital and then back again…. I don't think too many other British Columbians have to endure that.

I agree with the minister that most of the situations are appropriate, but we get these ones where Northern Health has indicated that it's quite appropriate under the framework we have right now that if somebody is medevacked to Vancouver and they're released, then the Northern Health bus to Prince George, the Northern Health bus to Prince Rupert, and a two- or three-day wait for a ferry to the Queen Charlotte Islands is acceptable.

I wanted to confirm: does the minister think that trip for somebody just released from the hospital is acceptable? Or should they be perhaps transported back by another method?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is asking me to speculate on a hypothetical situation. The policy is this — and I outlined it in my previous answer, and let's be

very precise about this — if the patient is continuing to need medical services, they will be transported, probably by Airvac but perhaps by other means, from the tertiary facility back to the community facility for their continuing care. If the patient is well enough that they can be discharged from hospital, period, the point then is to ensure that there is provision in place before they leave that will ensure their safe return to their home community.

There's a distinction between those who require continuing health services in the form of a hospital stay in the home hospital versus those that do not. It's difficult to speculate on hypotheticals, and I shouldn't here, because every case is going to be just a little bit different than the other.

I'm not sure what the member is comparing the Northern Health Authority to in the world today. He's certainly not comparing it to ten years ago, because compared to ten years ago or five years ago, Northern Health has more doctors in the north than ever before. We have more specialists resident in the north than ever before. We have the largest budget ever for the northern and interior travel assistance program to ensure that we get those specialists — sometimes locums, but often specialists — into some of the more remote corners of the north to ensure that people get the attention they need.

Probably just as importantly, or perhaps more importantly, we have a very ambitious telehealth program that allows some of the northern communities to be hooked up through telehealth with specialists in other locations. A very good example: I did an early telehealth demonstration where a cancer patient in Prince George or Quesnel was hooked up with a specialist in Kelowna, getting a consult without the expense of having that patient fly down to Kelowna to have the consult.

We're making lots of progress here. Again, I'm not going to get up and say that every resident in rural northwest British Columbia, in the member's riding, is going to have the same kind of tertiary health services available within a 15-minute drive as someone who's in downtown Vancouver. That's not the case.

But given the challenge that I laid out in my first answer to the member, I think that Northern Health has done an exceptional job. I think they've put appropriate investments into telehealth, into the northern connections, into recruiting and retaining more specialists, more physicians and more nurses.

All of that still leaves the provision of health care to be a challenging thing, but to conclude where I started off, compared to what? Compared to any time in the history of British Columbia we have better health care services in northern B.C. than ever before.

G. Coons: In my travels throughout the riding, there are many concerns about people being stranded, about specialist visits, and about retention and recruitment — especially about seniors. One key thing is that people feel they don't have a voice with the appointed members at the board. Somebody on the Charlottes was saying: "Who's our voice? Who's our representative?" People don't know. When people are appointed to the board, people feel they are losing the contact with northern….

Perhaps the minister is right. Things are going well in Prince George. I hear the member opposite, with a big smile on his face, talking about, "That's where all the specialists are; that's where all the doctors are; that's where all the nurses are," while the rest of the province in the north slums around trying to find their doctors and nurses and have to travel to Vancouver and then take a four- or five-day trip home, which is unacceptable.

I just want to talk briefly about home support and home care. For about a year now I've been working with Northern Health and trying to get some information about what's happening in the communities about home support and the cuts to it. It's a key program, as the minister knows, for making the health care sustainable.

If we look at the NCMA, the North Central Municipal Association, they had a key component at one of their meetings recently that home support and home care for seniors were vital, vital concerns. There are concerns and a motion from the city of Prince Rupert. The Skeena–Queen Charlotte regional district is concerned about the funding for home support and for home care in the communities.

Seniors. I've got a note here signed by 26 seniors from Prince Rupert who totally lost their home support — totally cut off or cut down drastically in the new regime of attacking seniors and helping them in their homes, it seems.

The north coast health advisory committee did a presentation and basically said there are major concerns. This is a quote: "It's frequently stated, and this is no joke, that the problems will get better because the people most at risk will simply die before they receive the help they need." Seniors in the communities on the north coast, especially Prince Rupert and the Queen Charlottes, are seeing drastic cuts.

I'm wondering if the minister agrees with one of the statements that Northern Health has in one of their guidelines. This is a quote: "There's a responsibility and accountability for each case manager to reduce client reliance on home support." What we're seeing is that somebody is being re-evaluated, their hours cut right back. Especially as they get older, these hours should be increasing.

I'm just wondering if the minister has any comments on home support, especially in the north, and about the cuts that seniors are feeling.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member said a number of things in that discourse which he launched a few moments ago, and I'll try to respond to some of them. As the opposition Health critic pointed out earlier, this isn't question period. If I miss a portion of the answer, he can ask the question again — no problem there. I'm happy to do that.

First, the member seemed to be suggesting in the preamble to his question that boards should be structured differently than they are today — a

suggestion that the current arrangement, whereby board members are appointed rather than elected, is not the best approach. Perhaps the opposition wants to debate that at some point in those estimates. It would be interesting to discuss.

Certainly from my perspective, this has been an issue for at least a couple of decades — more than a couple of decades that I've been kicking around local and provincial government.

Most recently I remember a panel that was assembled by the NDP government back in about 1997. The team was called the regional advisory team. It was chaired by the then member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, who is today the Opposition House Leader. He chaired the regional advisory team.

I recall I unfairly characterized them as the "rat team" when they reported to the Legislature. But what they reported was that, notwithstanding the difficulties in trying to develop a perfect model for health authority representation, on balance, having appointed versus elected directors to those boards was the way to go. That has been sort of the definitive work on appointment versus elected since that time. I think, on balance, it's worked out reasonably well.

In terms of home care, the member should recall…. This is a quote from the Minister of Health Joy MacPhail back in May of 1997. She said: "We are no longer in the business of providing light housekeeping services. But if it is health-related, the client gets the service."

Now 1997 is actually when the policy change was made. It was not made by our government; it was made by the NDP government in 1997. In fact, if one looks at the facts here…. The facts, I'm happy to say, were recently provided to us by the Canadian Institute for Health Information. They looked at the issue of home care expenditures by provinces between 1994 and 2004.

The results, I must say, were most interesting around home care. Between 1994 and 2001, which was the terminal year of the dark decade with the NDP government, nationally there was an average increase of 91 percent in home care budgets. If you take all the jurisdictions across Canada — on average, a 91-percent increase over those years — B.C. had the lowest increase at 25 percent over that period, '91 to '04.

It's interesting when one compares the record of the current government. At a time from '01 to '04, when the average, nationally, was a 16-percent increase between those years, B.C.'s increase was 36 percent, the second-highest in Canada.

The member wants to talk about cuts. The only time in that period when we actually had a budget cut was 1999, when we had a 5.9-percent decrease. A 5.9-percent cut was brought in by the NDP in 1999. Today we have a budget for home care of over half a billion dollars — over $500 million, a 26-percent increase since 2001. We have 8 percent more clients. We have a 23-percent increase in the number of hours per home support client.

All of that adds up to the improvements that we have seen in home care. I know that Northern Health has had some challenges, but again, I think they've done a very good job with respect to home care. They continue to build the network. Quite remarkably, they lead the province in this way.

They are building a remarkably robust system of primary care in communities across northern British Columbia. They lead the province, without a doubt, in respect of primary care. I am extremely proud of the work that Northern Health is doing in respect of primary care. I know they're building home care, and they're building residential care. In a whole bunch of ways we are seeing them making sensible and timely improvements to health care in northern British Columbia.

A. Dix: We've just seen further evidence of the minister's guiding philosophy of estimates: let no briefing note go unread.

We don't really have time to get started on Interior Health here today, so I want to ask him just a couple of questions about some specific issues around cancer care. The minister will know that it is an issue that I'm very interested in — colorectal cancer screening — and that I've made some suggestions.

The minister, in fact, has received suggestions. It's not a new issue. It's certainly not new from my raising it. It's been raised by both the Cancer Agency and the Canadian Cancer Society for a number of years, and a lot of study and thought has gone into developing a provincewide fecal occult blood testing program. As the minister will know, Ontario, Alberta, Manitoba and other jurisdictions have launched various versions of them, some more comprehensive than others.

I wanted to say to the minister that I think this kind of screening program — I think he'll agree — has huge value when successfully initiated. For one thing, in many cases colorectal cancer is preventable. I have, from a family example, knowledge that it is survivable. Always, the key question in that regard is early detection.

It has been noted — and I think the work that's been done nationally on this issue has shown clearly — that a program with a 70-percent takeup could save between 16 percent and 33 percent of colorectal cancer deaths, which is a significant thing. I think, in terms of cost-efficiency, it has met every test that has been put before it. It's much more efficient than other forms of cancer screening. Of course, that sets aside — and we should speak of — the enormous savings in terms of the human cost of the disease.

I think there is a really compelling case in British Columbia to launch just such a screening program. It makes sense. It makes economic sense, and it makes health care sense. Other jurisdictions are going in this direction. The Cancer Agency itself, I gather, has recommended a screening program to the minister.

What I'd like to ask the minister today is to comment on such a program, on whether he thinks it's a good idea, on where the Cancer Agency's proposal is, which I believe was sent to him last fall — although I'm

not certain of that; he could confirm that — and on whether he would agree with me that a comprehensive program aiming to increase the use of fecal occult blood tests is a good idea for British Columbia.

As the minister will certainly know, of the provincewide screening programs for cancer that we have, it's probably the next one we want to move to. So I want to get his comments on that. He'll know that it's my intention to bring a private member's bill very shortly, not to implement such a program but to draw attention to the issue.

I also would like his comments in a broad sense. This is an issue where I think the more we talk about it and the more people learn about this issue and are prepared to talk about the problems and the terrible tragedy that can result from colorectal cancer — the more public awareness there is — the better job we'll do in addressing this issue and in preventing cancer death in this area.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his constructive suggestion in respect of cancer screening. I certainly don't disagree around the merits of screening. No question about that. What may interest the member is actually how close we are now to having the kind of screening program which he's suggesting that we need.

For example, I should note that anyone between the ages of 50 and 75, as well as anyone of any age considered high risk, is eligible for annual colorectal screening under MSP. So if you're within that age group, or if you're outside that age group and have a significant risk, you can have your colorectal screening paid for by the MSP plan. So that's important.

It's also important to note that the current guidelines for screening were developed in conjunction with the B.C. Cancer Agency and put in place in 2004. The member is correct. Last fall they did bring some updated recommendations to us, which are being reviewed. We expect to have that review completed June 30, 2007. So we'll look at whether there are any incremental improvements that we can make to the program at that point in time.

But again, while we might like more people to get screened, I think it's important to note that close to 500,000 British Columbians annually get fecal occult blood tests done to get early detection of colorectal cancer — 495,873 occult blood tests done in '05-06, in fact.

There were also 74,500 diagnostic colonoscopies done during that period. So there are many people who are taking advantage, in the best sense of the word, of the provisions for screening within the MSP program. So it is something that's being done well.

We're always receptive to suggestions from members of this House or from the B.C. Cancer Agency with respect to how we might incrementally improve on that. We welcome it. We welcome it because British Columbia has just a tremendously proud story to tell in respect to cancer.

The B.C. Cancer Agency does a wonderful job, supported by the Provincial Health Services Authority. B.C. is second to none as a jurisdiction on cancer care, on cancer treatment, on cancer detection, on cancer prevention and on cancer research as well. It is remarkable the work that is being undertaken in this province in all of those areas.

Screening, as the member rightly notes, is a critical part of that program. I thank him for his suggestion, and we will bear it in mind as we conclude our review of the most recent updated recommendations from the B.C. Cancer Agency.

A. Dix: Just to say to the minister, I think one of the real advantages of having an aggressive campaign around prevention, around screening in this case, is that there is still, I have to say…. One of the challenges in B.C. often is that we don't — this isn't anything new — cover annual physicals sometimes, so people don't have access sometimes or knowledge about it.

What I'd like to recommend to the minister, in addition to whatever is being proposed by the B.C. Cancer Agency…. I'd be very interested in seeing what that is and helping to promote what that is, because I think it's really important. All of us who have had any human experience with colorectal cancer amongst our relatives or friends know what a terrible disease it can be.

So I think one of the things that we need to do in terms of health promotion is to promote the existence of this screening test, which is actually, from a health care perspective, extremely cost-efficient.

I think that as the minister — we'll be talking about health promotion a little later in the week — develops those health promotion initiatives, independent of what the B.C. Cancer Agency does in whatever screening program is offered to the minister…. I haven't seen it, so I don't know the details of it.

What I want to encourage the minister and ask him to comment on is the importance of people learning about what their opportunities are, because in this area, taking that test can save a life, can save health care dollars. But set aside the health care dollars. It can save a life. That's an extraordinary thing. According to experts in the area, it may well be able to save hundreds of lives.

A further question just to deal with a topic that…. We'll call it the short snapper section for the minister here. To follow on the Cancer Agency. This isn't a Pharmacare question. It's a B.C. Cancer Agency question. But the minister will have received, as we all have, lots of concern by women suffering from ovarian cancer around the drug Caelyx.

I talked to the staff a little bit about it and told them I was going to ask him this today. It's not, I think, in this case that the Cancer Agency is saying that it's a bad idea or a terrible idea, as I understand it. They're, in fact, recommending it. It's just that in the list of recommended drugs which are accessible to patients, it's low down that list.

Has the minister talked to some of the women who are suffering from this form of cancer and would like to have access to Caelyx? Has he talked to them? What is his thinking about this? As to the Cancer Agency, in terms of the list, if Caelyx is sort of down the list a little

bit, where is it on the list? What can those patients who might need access to Caelyx…? What might they expect in the next little while from the minister on this question?

I know he will have received quite a few letters, as all members of the House have, and I think the women who would like to get access to this drug through the Cancer Agency would be interested in hearing his response.

Hon. G. Abbott: In terms of the issues of whether to add a particular pharmaceutical to the provincial formulary and cover the cost of it, there are some different ways in which the work is undertaken that would lead to decisions about whether to cover or not cover particular drugs. I know staff are looking to see whether they can find some information in short order on Caelyx.

The opposition Health critic is right. I have received correspondence on Caelyx. I just received correspondence on a whole lot of drugs. That's why I don't want to make a mistake about Caelyx, specifically, so we'll get the information on that.

Generally, the processes that we undertake before making a decision about whether a drug would be covered or not covered under Pharmacare often involve a process called the common drug review, which is done on a national basis. The efficacy, the real-world effectiveness, of a particular drug is tested. It is previously tested by Health Canada for safety. Once it clears that, then the provinces have to decide whether the pharmaceutical in question is going to be efficacious enough to warrant its coverage.

In the case of cancer drugs, however, we rely on the B.C. Cancer Agency to do their assessment of whether a particular pharmaceutical offers sufficient promise that it would be worth adding it to the list of drugs that are covered.

I do have a note here, which I'll just read. I haven't read this before, so I hope it makes sense. "The outcomes of Caelyx can be achieved using a drug that is available at any time to patients with advanced ovarian cancer, a drug with the same active ingredient as Caelyx and one that has been funded by the B.C. Cancer Agency for more than 30 years." That's the advice from us in this case on Caelyx.

It's not an unusual kind of recommendation. What we sometimes see are reformulations of existing drugs which are offered to us at some additional expense over and above what is now a long-established and perhaps generic drug. I guess that is the conclusion which the B.C. Cancer Agency has drawn with respect to Caelyx. I can't detail for the member at this point what processes B.C. Cancer may have undertaken in that, but that appears to be their conclusion.

A. Dix: I'd just say to the minister that the drug has in fact been ranked as recommended for funding by the B.C. Cancer Agency, but I gather not highly recommended. I think the issue for the women in question and the benefits that they're finding with the drug include less hair loss; fewer other symptoms, such as nausea and vomiting; lower risks of complications; a convenience factor, which when one is dealing with what is after all a terrible disease, one has to deal with; and an improved quality of life both before and after treatment.

It's something I know that the B.C. Cancer Agency is listening to and hearing about. I'd like the minister to know that I think it's an issue where clearly there's a very significant constituency of women who feel, in terms of their quality of life as they struggle with ovarian cancer, that this makes a real difference.

I gather that the Cancer Agency has recommended the drug for funding but that there's a hierarchy of such recommendations, and there's only enough budget every year to recommend some drugs. Perhaps he can comment on that, or we can come back and comment on it tomorrow, as the case may be.

I just want to mention one last drug that the B.C. Cancer Agency has actually taken off the list in these circumstances, and that's thalidomide. The B.C. Cancer Agency has taken it off the list because of really rapacious behaviour on the part of one company. The drug actually costs pennies to make. It has a terrible history in our country, of course, from the 1950s and '60s, but it's now used to treat those who suffer from multiple myeloma.

What I wanted to encourage the Minister of Health to do, as he adjourns debate, if he could, is raise this issue on behalf of British Columbia with the Minister of Health for Canada. Unlike other drugs, there's no patent protection here. It's made very cheaply around the world. The company which has gained the monopoly for Canada…. Due to an unusual set of circumstances, the drug is not freely available, for reasons that involve its terrible history. The company that does import it to Canada, Celgene, has increased the price for a bottle from $98.40 to $898.50 in the last few years, or 1,000 percent, on a drug where no research is being done.

A. Dix: As he adjourns debate…. And I'd just say to the Minister of Transportation and the member for Vancouver-Burrard that the government fought every minute to get to 6:30, and yet every day at 6:26 it's the same thing.

It's an important issue. The minister will have talked to Dennis Hemus and other people around B.C. he will know who are very active on this issue. I want to encourage the minister in his talks with the federal government to ask them to intervene so that the Cancer Agency isn't ripped off by a rapacious company — they've had to delist this from the drugs they provide, not for any other reason than because of the cost increase — and so that individuals aren't ripped off. I think this is an issue that the Minister of Health could use his leadership in the Council of Ministers of Health to raise with the federal Minister of Health and get some relief for B.C. patients.

Hon. G. Abbott: I agree with the opposition Health critic. I always feel kind of empty and shortchanged when we don't get to 6:30 as well. I'm glad that he's sticking to his guns and carrying on right through to the end, because I certainly want to as well. That's why I'm going to frame my answer relatively short, so that we can actually get out by 6:30.

Hon. G. Abbott: When is my first short answer going to occur, the member asks, and rightly so.

On thalidomide, if we can leave that until the next sitting, that would be good, but let me close the loop on Caelyx. Apparently oncologists, kind of like professionals in every other endeavour, have some differences of opinion around Caelyx. The B.C. Cancer Agency is not recommending it. It has been demanded by an oncologist not affiliated with the B.C. Cancer Agency. So I guess it's not surprising that his patients would get a mixed message around the efficacy of Caelyx.

It is not one that is recommended, as I understand it, by B.C. Cancer. The note that I have from them, and from PHSA, says: "The active ingredient in the brand name Caelyx is doxorubicin, a drug that has been funded by BCCA for more than 30 years and is widely available to patients with advanced ovarian cancer. Oncologists in Canada have not universally embraced Caelyx, because it has not established a clear role in the earlier management of advanced ovarian cancer."

Obviously, there are some professional differences of opinion with respect to this, but I'll look forward to renewing the discussion on pharmacological policies tomorrow or whenever the critic brings it forward next.

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

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
SENIORS' AND WOMEN'S ISSUES

I'm pleased to rise today to present the Ministry of Community Services estimates for 2007-2008. Before I begin, I would like to introduce a few members of my staff who are with me today.

To my right, I have my deputy minister, Sheila Wynn. To my left, I have the assistant deputy minister for seniors', women's and community services, Barbara Walman. Behind me I have Gary Paget. He's the executive director for governance and structure, dealing with local government. As well, beside him is Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister of management services. From time to time, hon. Chair, if we require additional staff or have additional questions, we will bring them in and I will have them introduced.

As I was saying, it is certainly an honour to be the Minister of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues as well as for the Public Service Agency, a position I have had the privilege of holding since June 2005.

I consider that our ministry's mandate is to promote livable, sustainable communities that provide healthy and safe places for British Columbians. Through three key ministry areas, we're actually meeting that goal. Those areas are, of course, local government and communities, and women's and seniors' issues.

In terms of local government, I'm particularly pleased to oversee this portfolio as we enter into a very exciting year, one that will see our communities continue to prosper and grow and to be vibrant, connected, socially responsive and environmentally sustainable. Through strong partnerships that we have built with municipalities, regional districts and the Union of B.C. Municipalities, we are helping local governments to build the communities they want for their citizens so that they become even greater places to live and to work, with safer drinking water, cleaner air and more choices for physical activity.

This ministry alone has committed more than $600 million in direct grants to local governments in British Columbia since 2001 so that they can improve air and water quality, reduce energy consumption, improve safety and encourage British Columbians to be active.

Our government has also worked in partnership with the federal government and UBCM, resulting in $1 billion more for communities to enhance infrastructure and public transit. With a number of new programs in place this year, we will continue to make a real difference.

We're investing significant amounts in British Columbia's smallest communities, in particular through our small community and regional district grant programs, our municipal rural infrastructure program and our new Towns for Tomorrow program so that they can offer their citizens the services they need and continue to make B.C. communities great places to live.

Through our new LocalMotion fund and Spirits Squares grants, we're helping local governments to reduce greenhouse gases and support active, healthy lifestyles with more walkways, bike and jogging paths, as well as providing places for people to come together to celebrate as a community. All the while, with our traffic fine revenue sharing funds, municipalities are making their communities safer with more policing, smarter policing and more crime prevention programs.

We continue to assist communities facing unique challenges to help them build on local opportunities and ensure a prosperous future. This includes community transition services to rural and remote resource-based municipalities, also our support of the Vancouver agreement, working to improve life in Vancouver's inner-city communities, and our work with local and federal governments to put in place urban development agreements.

As well, our BladeRunners program is helping at-risk youth, a majority of whom are aboriginal in a number of communities throughout British Columbia, to build careers in our booming construction industry.

As the Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues, I continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that women from all backgrounds have the opportunity to reach their greatest potential. This includes our commitment to providing direct essential services for women and children fleeing abuse.

We have increased funding in this area by more than 40 percent since 2005, for a total spending now of well over $48 million a year. We are proactively working to combat violence against women by focusing on the attitudes and the behaviours that lead to violence through our partner in prevention grants, engaging men and boys to become partners in prevention.

We're also continuing to support women through a number of mentoring programs, helping them to enter or to re-enter the workforce so that they may participate fully in British Columbia's booming economy.

To ensure seniors, as well, continue to participate as fully as possible in their communities, we are developing a comprehensive action plan. This is in response to the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues report, the Aging Well in British Columbia report, which I must say has had significant amount of downloads right across the country.

We've already acted quickly on the council's number 1 recommendation by introducing legislation to eliminate mandatory retirement. That report will continue to play an important role as we plan for our future here in British Columbia and work to ensure seniors continue living healthy, active and independent lives.

Finally, as minister responsible for British Columbia's public service, I am responsible for the lead agency for the human resource management services in government. I am proud to be in this role, because I recognize and respect the vital and important work of our public servants providing valuable services to British Columbians in all communities, each and every day.

I look at the tremendous work staff in my own ministry do, and I know there are similarly dedicated individuals working all across government. At this time to be sure, we face increased competition from the private sector for talented employees, a challenge we are meeting head-on.

As we move forward with our new Being the Best human resources plan and our newly launched Pacific leaders program, we will continue to build an even more dynamic, productive and engaged public service that is second to none — one that attracts and keeps the best and brightest minds with stimulating career options, extensive training, flexibility and incentives.

This is and must continue to be one of our highest priorities, because a strong public service supports all that we do here in government, providing each and every vital service to British Columbians.

Mr. Chair, this summarizes in brief my main areas of responsibility. I am very pleased to now entertain questions from my colleagues opposite.

C. Wyse: It is indeed my honour to begin on behalf of our various critics. As the hon. minister had indicated in her opening, definitely her Ministry of Community Services has a variety of different areas that she is responsible for.

I'm the lead on this side of the House with regards to addressing those areas around local government. We have individual critics that take on the responsibility of the broader issues — women's as well as seniors'; also those parts that fall underneath the Public Service Act — so the minister is aware there will be a number of speakers on this side of the House that will be up to proceed with questions to ask of her.

As part of an introduction, it is indeed my privilege to take the lead on behalf of this ministry. I have quite an extensive background in local government. Over the last several weeks I have been attending meetings that have involved the regional governments from around the province. I have been at three of those types of meetings, of which, for sure, concerns have been brought to me around issues that are affecting local governments.

Later on, when it is my turn — which will be tomorrow, from the looks of things — I will pursue those questions with the minister. But I would like to acknowledge here at this time, to be on record, that local government's role is to establish unique rules in specific areas to achieve the specific goals of their communities.

I discovered in my discussions with many representatives from all over the province over the last couple of weeks that sometimes that particular definition of local government gets lost down here in Victoria as we pursue the other goals that are the responsibility of a senior level of government.

At this time it would be also appropriate from this side of the House to acknowledge the efforts that the minister's staff have extended to all our members on this side of the House with questions that have come up over the last year. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the cooperation which I have received in my role from her staff, in providing me with information in a timely fashion around questions I have had and which, in my judgment, has assisted me in doing my job on this side of the House.

With that, I would like to turn over to my colleague from North Island, who will have questions with regards to issues around women.

C. Trevena: As my colleague said, I'm going to be focusing on women's issues. This is the first time that I've had the opportunity to ask the minister on the record about women's issues, and on the record I would like to state that I think it's very sad that the Ministry of Women's Equality is now being subsumed into a larger, and important, ministry dealing with municipal affairs.

Now that women's issues have effectively been pigeonholed into this one ministry, not much emphasis is going on women's issues, because of that. That being said, I would like to ask the minister a few questions about the areas where her ministry does deal with women's issues. I know there are other ministries that are also dealing with this, and some of the questions that I have will have overlaps with those other ministries.

Firstly, I wanted to talk to the minister a little bit about the area where there has been a lot of money going into the system over the last few years, and that's transition houses. There is clearly a support from this government for transition houses. I wanted to ask the minister if there are going to be any plans for making sure that the transition houses have more secured funding rather than the three-year rollover that they are facing at the moment.

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, just a quick comment. I want to thank the critic, the member for Cariboo South, for his opening remarks and for coordinating all the various critic roles. In doing so, he has ensured that we have the appropriate staff here and that we will have an effective and efficient exchange of information here today.

To the member for North Island…. My apologies, hon. Chair, if it takes a moment to just re-establish where members reside.

I can tell her that indeed this ministry takes very seriously, as this government does, the commitment to end violence against women and to protect children fleeing abuse. We have invested heavily in those areas and, in particular, in our transition houses.

What I have been able to do is meet with service providers in our transition houses over the number of years that I've had this particular role, as well as when I was the minister of state. Each and every time, I am impressed, as I say, by the commitment of the front-line workers and the dedication and the passion they have. When they have indicated that there are areas that need additional support, I have endeavoured to find how we can adjust to make those supports necessary.

Sometimes it's one-time dollars to deal with security, as the member well knows, such as security cameras. Other times it is to provide a range of services in the transition houses. What we have been able to do: this year we developed a procurement strategy that allowed for a multi-year contract. I believe this is what transition houses wanted to have in place. We should be able to continue on that basis.

I think it's fair to say as well that from time to time we do need to speak to our transition house providers to see that the multi-year contracts are working — so that they are not left without evaluation if we don't have an opportunity to speak with them. But I am pleased that we have moved to a multi-year contract with them, and that is something that they had asked for, for a number of years.

C. Trevena: I just wondered if the minister could explain how long a multi-year contract is.

Hon. I. Chong: Currently, it is a three-year with an option to renew for two. It depends on each transition house.

C. Trevena: If I might ask the minister: what happens at the end of the three years? Is it likely that it's going to go out to an RFP or an RFQ?

Hon. I. Chong: This is the first opportunity we've had to establish this kind of multi-year contract where it's a three-year with an option to renew for two. I don't want to speculate because we're not there yet; this is very new. I would venture that at the end of the three years we will have an opportunity to discuss with our transition houses — those who would like to renew for two.

Even within their own structure they may wish to have changes take place. I can't imagine what they would be, because as I say, we're still very early in that process. Because they know there is an option to renew after the three years, I think that allows us time to work towards what that might look like. In the event that even in discussion in the next three years we have other ideas or exchanges of ideas, our ministry — particularly the staff who work in our ministry — is very willing to listen to those ideas.

C. Trevena: If I can ask the minister: this has been running now, effectively, for a year, so the three years will run out in another two years — am I right? Or is it that we're going into year zero of the three-year process?

Hon. I. Chong: The contracts, which the transition houses have, start in July.

C. Trevena: Thank you, minister. I've been travelling around the province quite a bit, talking to women's organizations and many women from transition houses. The Atira Women's Resource Society has been very concerned about the ongoing funding for their society. Will that be ongoing? Is that confirmed?

Hon. I. Chong: I, too, have visited with Atira services society. They run a number of transition houses. They have a number of services in that, and we continue to meet with them to have an opportunity to discuss what additional services they may or may not be looking to provide. I can say that they have been funded to the extent of the services that they originally had requested.

Any time we see a society that operates a transition house looking for additional services, I think it would be fair to all of those service providers not to deal with them in isolation, to be able to find out the other services that are offered within the region and ensure that we have an effective regional distribution of services in an area.

I can say that we in fact have provided funding to Atira houses. They have at times received additional increased funding when they've had some pressures. Again, we will continue to work with our transition house service providers in that way.

C. Trevena: Through that, I can read that Atira's funding is stable and is essentially going up.

Hon. I. Chong: Atira has several transition houses, some of which they are managing…. I wouldn't say better than others, but what they are able to do is manage and provide the counselling service needed by those women and children in those areas. When we deal with one particular house where there is a shift in demand and there are pressures, they do as other transition house service providers do: they come to see the ministry, and we see if we are able to provide additional dollars.

My understanding is that they have the dollars there to provide them with the services they are currently providing right up through to the contract period that will end in June, and then they will have their contract renewed for a further three years. At that time if they indicate to me that they continue to face other pressures, we will again continue to speak with them on that basis.

M. Karagianis: It's my understanding that the minister met with the Mary Manning Centre late last week, and I would like to know what advice the minister gave to the organization regarding their staff layoffs and their need for additional funding.

Hon. I. Chong: The discussion that I had was an hour-long discussion, and while it may be convenient to pick and choose phrases from that conversation, I think it's more appropriate to refer those specific areas of programs that are being funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development to that minister. I will say for the member that I met as a local MLA, and I said I would undertake to continue to speak to the Minister of Children and Family Development.

M. Karagianis: I'm uncertain what the minister's opening comments were with regard to my answer. What I did ask was what advice she has given to that organization regarding their staff layoffs and funding cuts. Can the minister please elaborate on what advice she has given that organization?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm dealing with the Ministry of Community Services, and that program that the member is referring to is being funded through the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

C. Trevena: Going back to the specifics, then, of transition houses, I wanted to ask again on the specifics. More than anything what I would like to know…. There is, obviously, the fixed part. The minister has talked about $48 million a year going into programs for violence against women, particularly to transition houses. I wanted to know what flexibility there was in expanding this program and moving it, also, with the Ministry for Housing, into second-stage housing programs.

Hon. I. Chong: With the $48 million budget allocation we have for direct essential services to women, we do provide the counselling services. We have been able to provide outreach services, which then drives up demand for services. We have, as well, been able to provide training services, and of course we provide a variety of services for our 63 transition houses, our 27 safe homes, our nine second-stage housing and, as I say, 69 multicultural outreach services, which we had not been able to provide for in the past.

What I can say is that our ministry works closely with the Minister Responsible for Housing in that oftentimes in visiting various communities, I am advised that they are looking to establish another form of housing. I'm able to speak with the Minister for Housing on that regard and work with him to see whether or not that is a possibility.

While I respect that every organization, every community would like to provide more and more services, sometimes it is about making sure that there is not a duplication, that there is not overlap, that a particular service that is provided in the area perhaps is under capacity — that we can put more dollars in that area. So I do rely on the Minister Responsible for Housing — the minister who works with B.C. Housing — to take a look, because he has the staff and better knows where the opportunities lie.

As I say, I certainly understand that as we move forward, the organizations are more desirous of doing more, and I applaud them for their commitment and passion in that area. But that when it comes to

establishing a particular house in a particular area, they do need to work through the Ministry for Housing and, in particular, with B.C. Housing, which I understand there have been some very positive outcomes on.

C. Trevena: The minister talks about just wanting to make sure there is not an overlap or duplication of services. As she cites for second-stage housing, there are only about nine or 11 across the province. It clearly is a need. If you have a successful transition house, there is then the need for something successful to support women beyond that. I would hope that, as part of the development of this determination to prevent violence against women and to assist women, she is working closely with the minister on this to encourage him to make sure that that support is happening across the province.

On a secondary part, I would like to ask the minister whether she is also working with the Minister of Health on ensuring that there are enough detox beds for women who also may need them when they are either going into transition houses or within the transition houses in that 30-day period.

Hon. I. Chong: I would like to say that I am always willing to work across government with the minister, whether it is with the Minister of Housing or the Minister of Health, to share with each of them the concerns I hear while I am out in the community and travelling. I am aware that the Minister of Housing, in particular, has worked on a comprehensive Housing Matters B.C. plan and that dollars have been allocated to look at innovative ways to provide housing. That includes all persons who are in need of housing.

The fact that we have one of the largest housing budgets, that we are now able to invest in and provide a variety of options, such as rental supplements, even…. I am going to anticipate the further announcements that the Minister of Housing makes.

In regards to the Minister of Health — and again, I'm willing to work across government with the various ministers…. I know the Minister of Health, as well, is always looking at what options are available to provide a variety of services and the flexibility that is needed. But in regards to specifics and what numbers of beds are available, I'm afraid, hon. Chair, I'll have to ask the member to ask that of the Minister of Health.

C. Trevena: Thank you, and I will be asking the Minister of Health on that issue.

Going back to the second-stage housing, I know that the government has announced money towards housing. But I think the minister has to recognize that women with children who are fleeing violence from an abusive spouse are in a specific situation. They have had to leave their homes. For some, they may have had a very comfortable existence that is suddenly uprooted.

They are dealing with many, many issues, and they have to try and sort out their whole lives within 30 days, the time they have in the transition house. This is why I will be asking the minister — because she does have this commitment to trying to prevent violence against women — to be making sure that the commitment goes beyond the 30 days when a woman is in a transition house and into that period beyond, where a woman and possibly her children are having to recreate their lives. Under the present situation they are the ones who generally leave the home.

I will, however, move on, because I know that for the whole period of your whole ministry we only have a day and a half. The women's section is all too small in your ministry. I'd like to move on to the other area of violence against women. That is the issue of counselling, of crisis lines, of victim support.

One of the things that I'm hearing when I do talk to women's organizations, whether it is crisis lines or counsellors, is their sadness and their distress by the fact that they actually have women on wait-lists. A woman who has been sexually abused, has been raped, if they do manage to get to a hospital where there is a nurse who can help them through that physically…. If they look for counselling, then they're told that there is going to be a six-month wait-list, which I'm sure the minister would realize and recognize is an appalling thing to be putting women through.

I would like to ask the minister whether in this year's budget there is going to be a commitment to making sure that crisis lines and support networks for women are increased, and if so, by how much, and specific locations.

Hon. I. Chong: I know the member is aware that there is in fact a 24-hour, confidential, toll-free, multi-lingual, crisis telephone line that operates, called VictimLINK, and it does operate on a 24-7 basis.

So first and foremost, there is a line that is available for those who are victims of crime or for those who immediately require crisis support which victims of domestic violence are able to call and contact. From there, my understanding is that generally, in the case of domestic violence, they would be able to put them in touch with a transition house and get them, first and foremost, the safety and support they need.

From there, there are counselling programs. Our ministry provides a variety of counselling programs, which we call stopping-the-violence counselling. I can say that in fact, while those services are provided, there is still a community-based victim services program provided through, I believe, the Ministry of Attorney General. There's a police-based victim services program provided through the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

There is, I guess, a complement of services and programs that are being provided to assist victims, depending on the nature of the counselling that is needed and the referral that would be made. Oftentimes the VictimLINK line will put them in touch with the appropriate places.

We have increased counselling services in that we have provided more dollars for counselling through our ministry. I can't speak for the other various ministers, and I would ask that the member refer to those.

In terms of providing additional lines…. I'm not sure if that's where her question was leading, whether we need to open up more telephone lines. But with a 24-7 line that is available in multiple languages, I believe that is at this time the line that most people are being referred to in terms of the necessary supports.

C. Trevena: I think the minister misunderstood my question. It wasn't: how do women get in touch with the transition houses? I do realize there is the VictimLINK, which can assist.

As I said in my question, if a woman has been sexually assaulted, if she's been raped, and she then goes to the hospital and gets helped in that way…. If she gets through, manages to report the crime and then needs help, needs counselling, she doesn't go to a phone line. She needs counselling in person.

I know that a number of the counselling services are reporting that they have long wait-lists of women who need counselling, who have been sexually assaulted — not domestic violence, but women who have been raped.

I wanted to know from the minister…. She says that there are dollars for counselling. I would like to know how much those dollars are and where they're being directed.

Hon. I. Chong: The counselling programs that we provide for in our ministry do specifically relate to the Stopping the Violence, which is domestic violence, as well as the CWWA — Children Who Witness Abuse — programs.

In terms of sexual assault victims…. Sexual assault, first and foremost — and I know the member would appreciate this — is a complex issue. It involves not just counselling but a variety of professionals, service providers and government ministries as well as, depending on the age of the victim, where that service may be provided for.

Through our ministry we do provide programs and services for vulnerable women and children fleeing abuse, as I said. It could be physical or even can be, in some cases, sexual abuse. Those are the services and programs that we provide for.

I know that through the Ministry of Children and Family Development, for example, they do have what they call their sexual abuse intervention program, SAIP, and that provides counselling for children and youth. So that deals with that category.

As well, I think they provide particular counselling services for ages from four to 19. I cannot provide the member with all the details on that. Again, it would be the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I know that B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre also offers sexual assault services, which include things such as patient care. Education and training is also provided to the provincial sexual assault nurse examiner — called SANE — for training and resources. Again, because that is through B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre, it might be an area the member would be able to get a more full, complete answer from the Minister of Health.

I know that here in Victoria, the Women's Sexual Assault Centre does provide a sexual assault response team they call SART in conjunction with the local hospital staff and police. They offer a 24-hour crisis and information line. They offer specialized victims services and counselling. They also have a program they call Project Respect, which is a prevention program they've been able to focus in terms of stopping sexual assault.

When I advise of the various programs, while we provide primarily Stopping the Violence and Children Who Witness Abuse, some of the other programs that she may wish to have further knowledge on would be, again, through the Ministry of Children and Family Development and, perhaps as well, through the Ministry of Health, who could provide funding and that in whatever areas around the province.

C. Trevena: Thank you very much for that explanation. I just want to clarify in my own mind, then. If the rape crisis centre here in Victoria or the Women Against Violence Against Women Rape Crisis Centre in Vancouver had….

They've got their own phone lines. They've got their own support lines. They're run by volunteers. If they were getting funding for counselling support, that would not be coming through your ministry. Your ministry only deals with children who witness abuse, and transition house. I'd just like a clarification on that.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that would be correct. Primarily, Stopping the Violence and Children Who Witness Abuse are the counselling programs our ministry is funding.

C. Trevena: I just find it interesting because I was given, as I believe were most MLAs, this Community Guide for Preventing Violence Against Women — a very glossy brochure which details a number of the projects that were funded by your ministry, the Ministry of Community Services. It includes a number of organizations, including the violence against women crisis centre and other ones, but that would just be for one of the research projects. It wouldn't have been for any sorts of counselling projects, then?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct in that the guidebook she is referring to is one we were able to put together as a result of a number of prevention initiatives we funded last year. They were exactly that: prevention initiatives.

We put out a request for calls for ideas or for enhancing existing programs to see how we could all work together to take a look at the prevention of violence against women. The guidebook brings the best practices together so that communities can see what other communities are doing and really share in that way.

What we have found in the past is that oftentimes we get requests from community organizations wanting to initiate a program that, strangely enough, has already been initiated elsewhere and that actually has some success.

So we felt it would be appropriate to put a guidebook together, especially with the programs that were funded through this particular initiative, and allow for communities to share in those best practices and share amongst themselves those that have been successful and some which may not have been as successful as they would have liked. They were one-time grants just to initiate or to launch some prevention initiatives.

The counselling services we have provided have continued to be provided. But these were, again, an opportunity to take a look at new ideas that may be out there that the community may then wish to find a means of supporting if they were successful.

C. Trevena: I have a number of questions about the minister's answers, the first one being…. These are one-time grants to these organizations to initiate projects that are supposed to help prevent violence against women, and these organizations are then supposed to try and find money elsewhere to carry on the funding of these programs to prevent violence against women. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Chong: Oftentimes it's important to provide an opportunity for community service providers, who are already providing a variety of services, to be able to access new dollars to see whether they can bring in a new service or program. That is supported not only by their organization but also even at times by their community.

They had requested an opportunity to access dollars. We provided that opportunity to access dollars, and that was what was made available last year and which is what the guidebook is a result of.

C. Trevena: So these projects were clearly very innovative, and the minister's staff thought they were good enough to include in a very glossy brochure. The communities themselves now have to find the rest of the funding to keep them going?

Hon. I. Chong: If the organization wishes to continue with some of those programs, they may certainly want to find out where they can receive additional dollars to continue those programs. In some cases, they just wanted to be able to initiate an action which would then maybe work in partnership with other organizations.

Again, it was to be able to access dollars. They were all made aware of that. When the grants provided were announced, that's exactly what they said would allow them to take a look at new ideas. Again, not every initiative or program, while innovative, was one they felt they wanted to continue with. There might be some there that might take shape into a program as such.

If it is one that is supported by the organization and they want to continue, then, if it's a direct, essential program that we can look at, we would do that. But I would not suggest that every grant recipient will be able to continue that program. In some cases, they were trying to do something different, and we gave that opportunity for them to do so.

C. Trevena: I understand that these are clearly one-off fundings. I think the minister, if she has also been going out to communities…. I know that communities and women's organizations with whom she has been meeting will most likely have been telling her exactly what they've been telling me.

What's very unfortunate is that they do just get one-off funding. They have to apply for this project funding. No matter how much they want to do the project, it is extremely time-consuming for these organizations, which are running on a shoestring, to spend a lot of time and staff effort in getting project proposals together for funding for one-off projects, which brings me to my next question.

Chair, $1 million was available for these projects. In 2001 about $1.9 million was cut from women's services, and I'm talking particularly about women's centres, yet $1 million could be found to have one-off projects around the province. I would like to ask the minister why $1 million wasn't put into the existing women's centres, some of which I see actually did receive part of these one-off grants.

Hon. I. Chong: I know that the members opposite also are of the agreement that it is important to prevent violence. One of the objectives in preventing violence is, in some way, to build awareness. Although we may think that people are aware, there still is an opportunity to build awareness. There is also an opportunity to change attitudes and behaviours that lead to violence.

For that reason, we do have prevention initiative opportunities for those community service providers who believe they have a prevention initiative that's available. When we were asked if they could access some dollars, we set aside some dollars to be able to do that, and that's what we will continue to do.

C. Trevena: With all due respect to the minister, she didn't answer my question. My question was that $1 million went to one-off programs. I wondered why the minister chose to put them into one-off projects rather than into the few existing women's centres that remain and that would have been able to use the money to both educate people about issues of violence against women as well as provide other support services to women, including giving them information that might get them out of a potentially abusive or violent relationship.

Hon. I. Chong: Again I want to say that we provide dollars for direct essential services for things such as counselling, and even for training and outreach. We also provide dollars for prevention initiatives. That is where our focus has been. The fact that our budget has gone from about $33 million to $48 million shows that

I can say that in terms of the grants that were available last year for the $1 million that was provided, all eligible applicants were available to apply for those dollars if they were providing an initiative that dealt with prevention of violence. That's where our focus has been on those grants.

C. Trevena: I'll try it another way for the minister. The ministry, which includes women…. The Ministry of Community Services and the Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues looks more broadly at women's issues and the issues of women in our society. Women in poverty, women who are trying to find work, women who are trying to network, women who are trying to escape violence, women who may work in the sex trade, women who want support often turn to women's centres.

I would like to ask the minister directly whether the $1 million that was spent on one-off projects would not have been better put into these women's centres and, therefore, work at some of the root causes of violence against women rather than the one-off projects.

Hon. I. Chong: Let me say to the member that we certainly do recognize that women's centres do good work in their communities. However, we have also indicated — and I know she's heard this a number of times, as well as the critic prior to her — that we made a decision to focus dollars in direct essential services for our women and children fleeing abusive situations.

We've also said, though, that if those direct essential services are being provided from a service provider which may happen to be a women's centre, then they will receive funding for that. In fact, I understand there are 16 women's centres that currently still receive funding from this ministry to provide services for those direct essential services.

C. Trevena: Those 16 women's centres, though, are only receiving funding because they are providing services that relate to women fleeing abuse. They are not being provided funding because they are women's centres and provide, therefore, an essential service to women within their community. Am I correct?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is correct in that we are providing dollars to those women's centres that are delivering our direct essential services programs through this ministry.

C. Trevena: I wanted to ask the minister how many women's centres she has had the opportunity to visit since she's been minister in this role.

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have the list with me, but I have visited a number of women's centres. I believe I've been to the Kootenays, visited there. I've been on Vancouver Island. I have certainly been over on the mainland and met with a number of them. I think, in fact, my staff have a list for me.

Certainly over a dozen. Perhaps even more than that. I can't count them all up, but I have been on the mainland, I've been in the interior, and I've been on the Island here. So perhaps the only area that I have not been able to visit at this time is the farthest part of the province up north, and I do intend to be going up in that area as soon as time is available.

C. Trevena: I understand the minister's time constraints. I would be very interested in finding out which women's centres the minister has met with. I know that I've had concerns from a number of women's centre coordinators about the fact that they haven't been able to meet with the minister.

One specifically. I know that there was a request from the Northern Women's Centre in Prince George. Has that one been on the list?

Hon. I. Chong: I have been in Prince George a number of times, and I can tell the member that I have visited the transition house. I have visited and spoken with the…. I'm not sure if she's the executive director, but I believe the lady runs the sexual assault centre. I've met with the Elizabeth Fry Society.

I've met with a number of women-serving agencies in the Prince George area. I don't recall if that was the name of the centre itself when I was in Prince George, but again, I have been there a number of times and met with those who have had requests to meet with me in that area.

C. Trevena: I'd like to ask the minister…. It's the Northern Women's Centre based out of UNBC, and it is a women's centre. It isn't the E. Fry Society, and it's not others. I wanted to know if the minister's been meeting with women's centre coordinators, not E. Fry or others.

Hon. I. Chong: I did meet with the individual — and again, I don't know if she's the executive director or coordinator of a sexual assault centre, which she may be calling the women's centre — out of UNBC, I believe, last year. Again, I'm not sure if that's the same reference that the member is making, but in fact I do recall meeting with that particular executive director or coordinator. I don't want to give her the wrong title. She did say she was based out of UNBC.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. I don't know whether your staff would be in a position at some stage to provide me with a list of those women's centres that you have met with. I would find it quite helpful.

One of the questions I have is, as Minister of Community Services and very aware of the needs of communities, whether there is funding going into those communities where they have women's centres that have closed, basically, and have lost that resource —

and those that have women's centres that are opening for very short hours, so they're losing that resource there — and whether, in applying money for projects and communities, some of that shortfall is being diverted in other directions.

Hon. I. Chong: It's hard to imagine going from a budget of $33 million to $48 million. In fact, I can hardly call that a shortfall. I can say that what we have been doing is focusing the dollars that have been provided through this ministry for those areas of programs. They have, in fact, gone for those direct essential services.

As I've indicated, they're for our counselling services, for outreach and training — something that was not available some ten years ago — that we had been advised was sorely missing. So we have provided for that.

I can also say that our transition houses have received additional supports, which have again been very welcome. The B.C.-Yukon Transition House Society, who I meet with on a fairly regular basis, has been very appreciative of the additional supports we have provided.

I can say that this ministry has received a 40-percent lift in its budget. We've been putting it into those areas that focus on the prevention of violence and, in particular, into those directed services that deal with counselling, outreach and training.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. She talks about the increase in money and what wasn't there ten years ago. I think what people sorely miss today is that there isn't a ministry for women's equality and that it is just subsumed into this very small section.

There have been a number of women's centres that have closed and a number of communities where women are suffering because of that. What I was asking the minister was whether there has been extra funding going to those communities from her ministry, not to transition houses but from her budget into those communities, to make up a shortfall that was there to provide community support — not transition house funding, but if there is money going in to support those communities.

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, with the increase in our budget, we are providing more services in various communities. If the member would like a list of where dollars are provided in every community, then I can see if we can put that information together for her.

C. Trevena: I think it would be very helpful if I could see a list specifically on women's services, not on women's employment services. I would be very interested to see how the money is being divided per community.

I wanted to go back very briefly to the nice guide on preventing violence against women, which gives some very basic information about planning — to make sure that you plan a project before you start it and stop it if you run into trouble — and on the lessons learned. I wanted to ask the minister, beyond the $1 million given to the agencies, how much this guide cost and how many copies are being distributed?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have the exact dollars for the cost of it, but I do believe that 1,000 copies were printed. They were provided to the grant recipients, MLA offices and community organizations.

I know that the member is not being disparaging about the guide and she doesn't mean to be, because I can tell you that last year when I met with some of these grant recipients — when we came together to talk about their programs — they very much asked that the various programs be put together in a way that they could see it and share it amongst themselves.

I'm sure the member sees guides and books and things printed all the time and may think they're not necessary. I can tell her that this was a guidebook that the grant recipients had asked us to put together particularly for their benefit, so that they could see what others were doing in their communities.

I have not heard from the grant recipients that they have not found it to be useful. I do understand they have found it to be quite useful.

C. Trevena: I wasn't asking about the use of it; I was asking about the cost of it. I wonder if the minister is able to find the cost of it. She doesn't have the figure with her at the moment, but I would like to have the cost of it.

I wanted to move back to the Prince George area, briefly, and the issue of the highway of tears. I know that the minister was very involved, along with her colleague the Solicitor General, about a year ago with the highway of tears. There was a symposium in Prince George about it, and I would like to know what the minister has been doing on this issue in the last year.

Hon. I. Chong: I know she's aware that after the symposium was held last year a number of people came together, not least of which were from the various serving agencies in the communities. I believe a report was produced that was coordinated by the Lheidli T'enneh First Nation in the Prince George area. I believe they had a number of recommendations.

As well, from that, a governing body was then formed that was led by the Carrier Sekani First Nations people to develop an action plan. I know there was hope to hold a number of — seven, in fact — two-day community youth forums and to develop a tool kit. Again, this is what they have asked for.

The purpose of that kind of project was to identify issues and practical solutions to address youth and community safety needs along Highway 16. I understand that the Ministry of Solicitor General has

provided some dollars towards that. I believe some $58,000 was provided towards that. This year, through our Partners in Prevention Program, we were able to fund a Children of the Street Society, an organization that is going to provide 40 workshops in ten communities along Highway 16 from September '07 to March '08.

They are just developing this now. Again, we will evaluate it after they've been able to do that. We've provided just over $85,000 for them to be able to do that. So again, we're working with the local community, and we are taking a look at how we can best address the issues that have been brought forward to us in terms of Highway 16, the tragic incidents that have occurred there.

C. Trevena: Just to clarify the Partners in Prevention Program with the minister. Is this a direct program of the ministry, or is it a partnership with another program in the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: Our Partners in Prevention Program is this year's initiative in terms of prevention. We focus on changing the attitudes of boys and men in terms of violence against women. One of the successful applicants, as I say, is the Children of the Streets Society.

I guess the word "partners" has occurred here in that those successful grant recipients are not trying to put together a prevention initiative in isolation. They are in fact partnering with other people. In some cases it could be partnering with another agency. It could be partnering with employers. It could be partnering with the local policing units.

We're very glad that they've been able to bring in more people, because the more people you can bring in, the better we're able to build awareness. It goes towards everyone's concerted efforts to the prevention of violence against women.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister for that. I wanted to clarify. I understand the Solicitor General put that money in for the forums. So the minister who is responsible for women's issues is putting $85,000 into an agency that will be running a program to try and educate young people about violence along Highway 16. This is what the minister is saying.

Hon. I. Chong: This particular grant is one that is aimed at these 40 workshops in these ten communities along Highway 16. In fact, my understanding is that it is focusing on youth and raising awareness amongst the youth.

C. Trevena: With that, I will hand over to my colleague, the member for Cariboo South, who has some questions on specific women's centres.

I would like to, at this point, use the opportunity to say again I think it's very disappointing that there is really so little emphasis going on in women's issues coming from both this ministry and this government.

C. Wyse: Minister, I have a couple of questions for you with regards to two women's centres that are found in the Cariboo — Cariboo North and Cariboo South, just for the record. The two communities have had a reduction in government services as a result of either relocation of various government programs or actual reduction of services to the service centres of both Williams Lake and 100 Mile.

Both Williams Lake and 100 Mile women's centres serve a very large geographical area. The characteristics of the clientele that are dependent upon these centres for service are quite standard throughout the province. However, when you come to a rural location like this, there is not the alternative opportunity to go a little further up the road to provide the services that these resource centres provide.

The inflationary costs continue to squeeze these centres. At best, they are able to hang on in keeping their doors open. Approximately a year ago I drew this to the minister's attention, and the response that I received fell into the broad category of the contracts that are available and provided through her ministry and that type of increased funding.

However, the issue still remains the increase in administrative costs to provide these particular programs in centres such as Williams Lake and 100 Mile. What plans does her ministry have for this year to provide the necessary funding to keep these needed services open in communities like 100 Mile and Williams Lake?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to also say for the record — because I know that perhaps this may end up being somewhat of a constant — that our government has made a decision to focus the dollars provided on direct essential services. In fact we have received a substantial increase for those direct essential services. Our government and, I believe, all members of the House are committed to not tolerating or accepting the fact that there is violence against women, and we will continue to work with our service providers in that area.

To the member for Cariboo South: we do provide dollars for programs or contracts for the various organizations, be they women's centres or family resource centres or transition house societies, provided they are able to deliver the counselling programs that we are requesting of them.

I know that in 100 Mile House, for example, the 100 Mile House and District Women's Centre Society receives over $125,000 for the two programs that they deliver for us. I understand, as well, that in Williams Lake — I believe that was the other location — the Contact Women's Group Society receives about $35,000 for the Stopping the Violence counselling programs. Those are in fact the dollars they receive from this ministry.

C. Wyse: Once more, with due respect, the ministry is continuing to focus upon a contract, a fee-for-service basis, in order to provide the support around the general area of safety and other related types of issues. I would then ask, hon. Minister: what other increased

contracts then would be made available to communities like 100 Mile and Williams Lake centres so that in actual fact they have enough resources coming in for their buildings and, therefore, their services, to be able to remain functioning?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have the financial statements of all the various centres and the various organizations.

What I have seen in the past, though, is that oftentimes a variety of programs and services are delivered by a particular agency and not through just one particular ministry. I am aware that in some cases some of the agencies — who provide those services that we contract with them — also provide services through either Health or a health authority, through the Solicitor General or Attorney General. If they have those contracts available, that allows them to continue in operation.

Granted, not every agency is the same, and not every agency has the same capacity or even the trained personnel in each community. I cannot speak for them directly as to what they are able or not able to provide, but I do know I have seen in the past that a number of these agencies are able to procure a number of contracts, whether they be from various provincial ministries or from federal agencies or even in foundations that are requesting that. They are able to do that. Many of them continue to do that and do very well by that.

C. Wyse: Maybe we could try and answer the question in this sense. Over, let's say, the last three years with the existing set of funding relationships, how many women's centres in B.C. have closed their doors?

Hon. I. Chong: What I'm able to tell the member is that because we have 16 women's centres which do provide government program services through this ministry, we have a contact with those particular centres. I can't give him a breakdown as to which ones currently operate or not. We have contracts with at least 16 of the women's centres that deliver our counselling programs.

C. Trevena: I think we're playing a bit of tag team here because questions that my colleague from Cariboo South asks spark off answers that I want to proceed with.

I'd like to ask the minister then: is the funding for women's centres just going to those ones that are providing these specific services?

C. Trevena: I would like to ask whether the ministry will contract for any other services that may help women. For instance, one of the great goals is for literacy. The ministry might be looking at contracting a program run at a women's centre which might help a woman improve literacy and therefore enter employment, which is another part of this minister's responsibility.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, we need to provide our counselling programs and our outreach and training programs. We also have been able to work with women entering and re-entering the workforce, so we do provide supports in that regard. But if the member is specifically looking for an issue such as literacy, or even if it were health, then those would be contracts that those ministries would have responsibility for, and I would ask that she ask those appropriate ministers.

C. Trevena: If the ministry has a certain amount of responsibility in women's employment…. I know that the minister has been talking about BladeRunners, although that is not specific to only her ministry. I wondered, therefore, if a women's centre is looking at something innovative to try and get women into employment, would the minister look at supporting a project like that at a women's centre.

Hon. I. Chong: I think, to be clear, it's not a question of whether it's at a particular place. If the member is suggesting that all programs must occur at a women's centre, then I don't want to leave the impression that that's the situation that would arise to allow us to fund that.

What I am saying is that when we are looking for contract service providers to deliver government programs and services, we take a look at those who are best able to provide that particular service or program. It may be a women's centre; it may be a family resource centre. It may be another family-serving agency of some sort that delivers that program, because they may not only have the capacity, they may have the location and a client base. We do take a look at that when the applications come in, and we evaluate on that basis.

We did embark on our mentoring program — what we call our Empowered to Work program — about a year ago, where we wanted to, as I say, take on a new initiative to help women entering and re-entering the workforce. What we were able to do is support four specific pilot projects to test various approaches to mentoring women in the workforce, and we will be evaluating their effectiveness. In some cases, they are helping women enter the trades because that is a non-traditional role. With the construction industry the way it is, women have a great opportunity, in this day and age, to be considering that particular employment role. They weren't able to do that in the past. That's just one example of where we've been able to focus some attention in terms of mentoring.

Again, we will be evaluating that in due course and will find out if in fact we have been able to achieve some of these positive outcomes. I'm sure we will; it's just a matter of how many.

C. Trevena: I think the minister misunderstood my question. It wasn't where is the best place for the funding to go but whether this was a way that women's centres might be able to get some funding from the ministry — or whether the ministry was really

very blinkered in looking at the only funding that would go to women's centres is for violence against women's issues.

Hon. I. Chong: When we put out a request for proposals in terms of prevention initiatives, our Empowered to Work program, we do not limit who is able to apply for that. Again, it depends on the applicants, the ones that are the most successful, that are able to deliver that particular program. If it happens to be a women's centre, then it may well be that particular case. I can say, for example, the Partners in Prevention program this year was one which I just mentioned earlier. Another successful applicant I believe is the Women Against Violence Against Women in Vancouver. They were yet another successful applicant.

We do put that out for all interested agencies to consider and evaluate based on the information received back.

C. Trevena: I thank the minister. I think we are talking in a very different language here, because what I'm looking at is finding ways that women's centres can carry on operating and alternative ways of getting grant money. The minister is clearly only looking very narrowly at violence again women issues.

I have one last question that doesn't quite relate to women's centres. I'd like to ask it before going back to my colleague from Cariboo South. It is the issue of mentoring and getting women into the trades. There have been projects in the past to get women more involved in the trades, particularly when there was a stronger apprenticeship program under ITAC rather than the new ITA. How many women have been entering the trades since this program was started?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member is looking for specific numbers through the ITAC program, I would have to refer her to the Minister of Economic Development, who has responsibility for that. I don't keep those statistics with me. Again, we have been able to work with a number of organizations who are looking to have women enter and re-enter the workforce. One of those programs does specifically target women who are looking to enter the trades. Again, we have not received our particular program evaluation, but if the member is looking overall as to how many women have entered the trades, she may need to canvass that in the Ministry of Economic Development.

C. Trevena: I have one last question on the subject for the minister. The minister says that there hasn't yet been an evaluation. At this stage will there have been a count of how many women have been assisted through the program, to see where they have gone, what they are doing and do an evaluation of the failures as well as the successes of the program?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I can share with the member the following. Our Empowered to Work program that we launched last year with the four pilots I spoke of. One was to seek women who are looking to enter non-traditional roles, specifically in the trades. Another is to see if women need to be mentored to look at possible self-employment.

Another is to help in mentoring women to explore various career options. At this point I can say we have served about 197 participants, though 457 mentors have been involved, which is a really good ratio. There are more mentors than there are participants at this time, so this clearly created some interest out there.

So that is our Empowered to Work program, which has not yet been fully evaluated. In some cases we have a 12-week program. In other cases, a six-month program, and we're still trying to gather the results of that as to how successful they have been.

If the member is specifically looking for, as she originally alluded to, the ITAC program or industry training through the Ministry of Economic Development, then again, I would ask her to request that information from that minister, as he would perhaps have that more detailed information.

C. Wyse: Once more, if my memory serves me right, the minister made reference to having contracts, I believe, with 16 women's centres around the province to date. I don't necessarily expect that the minister would have this at her fingertips here, but I would request that she give a commitment to me to provide the number of contracts that her ministry has had with the various women's centres, let's say, starting in 2002 numerically and moving through to 2006. So I would look for that commitment from the minister.

Hon. I. Chong: We will do our best to hopefully provide the member with the information that he's requesting, but I can say that all contracts that are provided through government are available through the public accounts. I just don't know how long it would take to get that, and I don't want the member to think that we're not trying to put some information together for him for that time period. I will see what we are able to provide as quickly as possible. But I do know that through the public accounts material, all contracts are listed.

C. Wyse: It's sort of, I think, left over from my former career. It seems to me that it may help the ministry to also know just how many contracts with various centres may have fallen by the wayside since, let's say, 2002. That's one way that we may be able to obtain that information for both of us.

Also, I would likely be very much out of line if I were to conclude from the discussion I'm hearing that both sides of the House here don't recognize the great value that is provided by centres such as women's centres for providing for the needs of a particular part of our society at large.

Given that, and given that I have now been up two years in a row, attempting — albeit, it looks like, inadequately…. The continual stresses that centres such as 100 Mile and Williams Lake are facing with the

reduction of contracts that are available to them by other ministries, as well as by other levels of government…. For example, changes that have been made federally by the child care referral and resource centre programs have led to reduction of programs that were available to these particular centres, at least one of them. Other contracts are falling by the wayside.

It is this piecemeal approach to providing funding to these resources that is putting pressure on a very valuable resource. As I mentioned earlier, rural communities such as where I'm from do not have the advantage of going five or ten kilometres up the road to find a replacement for these services. We're literally talking about travelling huge distances — in the area of hundreds of kilometres in some cases.

Therefore, I'm sure the intention here is to provide means to keep those sources readily available. Recognizing the shortness of time that we do have, we've concluded our questioning of your ministry on women's issues. We have the members for Yale-Lillooet and Delta North that would like to ask some questions of your ministry, including your staff, on the area of the Public Service Act. If the minister could tell us whether we want to have a word or two from her, I'm sure, to wrap up on this issue, then possibly she could let us know how she'd like us to proceed.

Hon. I. Chong: I want to thank the member for Cariboo South. I will endeavour, as he has indicated, to provide the information he has requested. I understand the purpose and intent that he has in mind. I would just caution that while you may see contracts that were once there not there, what the information may not be able to provide are new contracts with new agencies providing new services and new programs.

Therefore that leaves out half the equation or even more than half at times. As I say, we are providing new services and new programs such as outreach and training that weren't previously provided. We will do our very best to see what we can provide.

I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the member for Cariboo South when he said he thought that after two years he was perhaps not doing an adequate job. I think he's doing an adequate job, and we just need to understand the specific areas that he wishes to canvass more directly. I do want to thank him and his colleagues for the respectful nature of this dialogue.

I want to thank the staff with me who have been of assistance to me today. We will just take a moment to have new staff take their places in these chairs and to provide the Public Service Agency staff here.

Today I have with me staff from the Public Service Agency. To my right I have Mr. James Gorman, who is deputy minister. To my left I have Lynda Tarras, the assistant deputy minister for talent management. Behind me and to my left is Barry Turner, assistant deputy minister, compensation, benefits and policy. Right behind me is Ms. Tara Faganello, acting executive financial officer. Beside her I have Mr. Steve Klak, acting senior financial officer.

C. Wyse: I'm going to turn over the questioning predominantly to my colleagues from Delta North and Yale-Lillooet. Thank you very much for bringing your staff in to assist us at this period of time.

G. Gentner: It is indeed a pleasure to be here on a beautiful spring Victoria day and seeing the minister enjoying that with her prevalence of colours. An apricot jacket looks quite fitting on such a festive day. I'd like to thank her and her staff for being here today.

We'll go right to the crux of the matter relative to the Public Service Act and all that it entails. Can the minister explain the ministry's mission relative to public sector hiring?

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for Delta North for his participation in these debates. The Public Service Agency is the agency that is there to provide advice to other agencies or other ministries with regard to hiring practices and hiring procedures and ensuring the appropriate implementation of that.

G. Gentner: I have it, therefore, that this is the mission — strictly that it's within the ministry and shared among other ministries.

My next question, therefore, would be: we're basically looking at the mission, but what is the minister's vision? We've seen the service plans, and we've seen what's been suggested over the years. I want to make sure we're still on the same vision for the Public Service Agency regarding hiring and promotions.

Hon. I. Chong: What the Public Service Agency strives to see occur is to have a strong, capable, talented workforce that is hired on the basis of merit.

G. Gentner: Is this merit based on contractual obligations outside the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: Appointments are made based on an assessment of merit as outlined in the Public Service Act.

G. Gentner: If the minister can just bear with me with the preamble here, we'll get into more interesting things. For the record, what is the minister's vision for the Public Service Agency regarding the hiring and promotions? Are we doing basically the old '90s thing, what was evolved there — mission, vision and values? I want to know what the values statement is.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member must have a copy of the service plan, but if not, I will read into the

record the vision, mission and values as stated in our service plan. In terms of the vision, it is:

G. Gentner: What specifically do the ministry and the minister have in place for monitoring progress in public sector agency hiring and, also, for the promotion process itself?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sorry for the delay. I wasn't clear exactly what the member was asking, so I'm trusting that this is the response or clarification he might be seeking. In terms of monitoring our performance measure that we use in terms of the percentage of employees appointed to the public service based on merit, we base that on the Merit Commissioner's report-out to us.

If the Merit Commissioner believes that we have done extremely well and has given us a high percentage of individuals who have been appointed to the public service based on merit, then we are able to use that as our tool to go forward to either do better — certainly, not to do worse but to do better if we have not achieved 100 percent of that goal — or to find where there might have been errors that can be corrected. The Merit Commissioner's report-out will in fact show that we are basing our public service appointments on merit.

G. Gentner: What kind of accountability measurements does the ministry have in place to make sure the goals and objectives of the ministry have been met?

Hon. I. Chong: The Public Service Agency conducts a number of initiatives, one of which is the work environment survey, which is done annually. Our service plan or report is published annually, which also identifies our outcomes. Of course, the Merit Commissioner report is also published annually and is an independent report.

G. Gentner: Okay. What does the ministry do when some of these accountability measures are not met?

Hon. I. Chong: With respect to hiring — and I'm presuming this is where the member is leading his questions towards — as I've indicated, we do publish our service plan report. We do work environment surveys that help us and provide a tool for us to see whether in fact we are meeting our objectives.

At the same time, we have a Merit Commissioner who publishes an independent report annually. Perhaps that is one of the most effective ways that we can measure in terms of accountability. When the Merit Commissioner is able to produce the report and it shows areas and specific ministries where the appointments have not been based on merit and that they can be improved upon, the agency would therefore contact the appropriate ministry and the appropriate deputy minister, advise them that there are concerns raised by the Merit Commissioner and then request that they address those issues raised by the Merit Commissioner.

In cases where they need additional assistance, we would attempt to provide that, indicating where they can perhaps tighten up those practices they are currently using so that we can implement those policies and procedures we have in place in terms of hiring.

G. Gentner: The minister mentioned the needed areas of improvement. Can she elaborate what that means relative to hiring and promotions?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, it would be based on the Merit Commissioner's report. I don't have the Merit Commissioner's report with me at this moment. If the Merit Commissioner were, for example, to say that on two instances there was something that was not made available and therefore the Merit Commissioner made a conclusion that on those two occasions she could not irrevocably say that the hiring was based on merit, then we would take that back to the deputy minister and say: "Do you realize that on two occasions this occurred?"

I don't have a list of areas that need improvement. Those would come out when the Merit Commissioner report comes out. I would expect that that report would have enough information and detail for various ministries and for various agencies for which improvement can be made. Our agency would work with those particular agencies or ministries to bring their attention to that for areas upon which they can make improvements.

G. Gentner: Does the ministry have a team of people in place to monitor progress in the Public Sector Agency?

Hon. I. Chong: Maybe I can ask the member if he could be more specific. Is he requesting if we have a team that is there to deal with hiring or ensuring that

other benefits are properly implemented? I'm not clear exactly what team he's looking for. Maybe I can, then, provide him with some clearer response.

G. Gentner: No, I was looking, more or less, at whether there have been any equity groups that have had a priority in hiring or promotions from within the private sector.

Hon. I. Chong: I wanted to make sure we had the numbers correct. There are a number of people who work in the Public Service Agency dealing with hiring, but specifically we do have six people who are focused on our hiring strategy, which includes looking into specific labour market areas in terms of diversity. While there are many people in the Public Service Agency who deal with hiring practices or hiring strategy as a general rule, there are six persons dedicated towards that.

H. Lali: I'm going to ask some questions on the six people that the hon. minister said are on the hiring strategy, but I want to hold off on that for a second.

I'd like to ask: are there any specific successes? What successes can the minister point to, to claim that she has actually been doing her job to include members of the equity groups for hiring or for promotion in management and senior-level positions — i.e., people of visible minority backgrounds, aboriginal people, women and persons who have disabilities?

Hon. I. Chong: I can tell the member that in the four specific groups he has mentioned, in terms of women the percentage of women in the B.C. workforce is around 60.7 percent. This is not Canada-wide but B.C. These are the statistics that we have available. In our British Columbia public service, the percentage of women is at about 58 percent. So we're still not on par, but we're not far off from the B.C. Statistics information.

In terms of visible minorities, the information we have is that about 15 percent of the British Columbia workforce is considered as visible minorities. In the British Columbia public service we're at 9 percent — again, room for improvement.

For aboriginal peoples, the percentage in the British Columbia workforce is 3.7 percent. The B.C. Public Service percentage is at 2.4. For persons with disabilities, 4.3 percent in the British Columbia workforce. In the B.C. Public Service workforce, we're at 4.3, so we're actually equal there.

While I know the member will likely say that we're not doing enough, I can tell him that I would say, yes, there is room for improvement in all those areas where we are not equal to what the B.C. workforce percentage is. What I can say is that taking a look at the statistics I have, the trend has been going up.

Where in January 2000 the percentage of the public service that were women was at 55 percent, we're now at 58 percent. We are trending up. In terms of visible minorities, in January 2000 we were at 6.4 percent. We're now at 9 percent. Again we're trending up.

For aboriginal peoples, the amount in January 2001 was 1.8 percent. We're at 2.4 percent. For persons with disabilities, we've been actually staying fairly steady with the B.C. workforce. Again, the trend going up is good news. If the member were to ask the question if there more that can be done, I would agree. There is always more that can be done.

H. Lali: I'm glad the minister admits that more can be done. And yes, she's absolutely right that I'm going to say that the government is not doing enough.

As I recall, way back in the mid-1990s the hon. minister was a member of the opposition and, along with her colleagues, was very critical of the government at the time when we brought in our equity-hire provisions in the bills that were before the House. They made much ado about the fact that it was not merit-based, and somehow they were going to change everything, and they were going to make everything based on a merit principle.

Rather, that's exactly what we were saying — that people weren't being hired within the public service or for senior level and management positions based on their abilities, educational levels or their experience. Rather, it was who you knew.

Obviously, the people that were being left out were members of aboriginal groups and women, as well as persons with disabilities and folks who comprised the group of visible minorities. Even in the instances where they had a higher education — especially with visible minorities and newly arrived immigrants — and were better experienced, they were being overlooked for not just access into jobs within the public service in the general sector but rather for upper management, middle management and senior-level positions.

It was our government in the 1990s that started changing all of that. The minister can say: "You guys didn't do enough." Fair enough, but we started the ball rolling, and it was the opposition, when that government was in opposition, that said they were going to change everything, that there were going to be people who were going to be represented.

So it gives me no comfort that in the last six years since this government has taken office, there has been virtually little or nothing done by this government to actually make sure that the public sector, employee-based, and the senior- and management-level positions are reflective of what's going on in the private sector and in society in general.

The private sector gets it. You can go to any particular small business or medium-sized or large business or a multinational corporation. They make sure that people from these four groups that I mentioned are involved in all sorts of positions, including management and senior-level positions, because they know it's good business. It brings people in the door.

It's the same thing in the public sector. If there are people that are represented in these higher-level positions, it will make for the delivery of the services by the public service even that much better when you

can get through — especially for visible minorities, people who can speak a different language — to make sure that that service is delivered.

I've been asking these same questions. This is my third year in a row. I'd like the minister to stand up and actually say — after repeated questioning, not only from this side of the House but from out there in the private sector and from people in general…. What has this government done specifically to make sure those numbers increase?

While she's at it, I would like the minister to give me the numbers in senior management — at a deputy's level and executive level positions — representing those groups. I know she has given me the numbers in the general public. Naturally, through the process, people are accessing those positions at the lower level, at the entry level.

I am concerned about the upper level, because unless things change at the upper level, things will not change within the ministries as well. So I'd like the minister to give me those numbers — the difference between 2000 and the latest figures — for those groups in upper management level positions and senior-level and deputy-level positions.

Hon. I. Chong: First let me say that the Merit Commissioner, an independent person, has year after year concluded that our hirings, in fact, are based on merit. So I don't want to leave the impression — and I don't know whether the member intended to or not — that merit hiring is not important, because it is important. The Merit Commissioner has concluded that we do hire based on merit.

I can also advise the member that in terms of senior management, I am aware that 54 percent of deputy ministers are women, which exceeds the percentage in the private sector, which is reporting out at around 30 percent. So we are doing almost double what the private sector is doing in terms of senior management in that area.

Now, I know the member has — this is the third consecutive time in estimates — asked for specific details. I had indicated to him in the past, and I will do so again today, that we will do our utmost to provide him with information as we are able to provide it. But certain information he requests cannot be compiled simply because of restrictions due to questions or information that we can gather.

For example, it is not always possible to identify — he may think so — those who are persons with disabilities, in that category. It may not always be able to identify those who would class themselves as aboriginal peoples or visible minorities. To do so and ask that question of people who are hired, as the member can appreciate, I would suspect would violate what they believe as discriminatory practice in terms of their hiring.

While perhaps it's much easier to tell if you're a male or a female, and you can track that, there are some category groups here, which he is aware of, that have been more difficult — and I would say problematic — because we have not been able to ask specific questions of those people who are hired.

As I say, we have in the past endeavoured to provide him with that information. We will continue to update that as best as we have and provide that. So I don't want him to think that our ministry and I haven't tried and the agency hasn't tried to cooperate. It's just information that is somewhat difficult to retrieve, simply because of the limitations as to what we are permitted to ask.

H. Lali: This is the third year in a row I've asked this question and the third year in a row I get the same excuse from the minister: it's not possible to identify folks based on the four equity groups that I mentioned, with the sole exception of women.

I'd like to ask the minister: if that is the case, how can she give me numbers here in the general public service saying that 60 percent are women, 9 percent are visible minorities, 2.4 percent are aboriginals and 4.3 percent are persons with disabilities? How did she arrive at that number? How did she find out there are that many people with those percentages in the general public service that she's not prepared to give me an answer for, for the senior level and management positions, where it's a lot easier to track these numbers?

It's just excuses every year, hon. Chair. The minister says the same thing over and over again and gives the same excuse: "Well, it's not possible."

I say it is possible, and the reason is because she's given me numbers from the general public service of what's happening. How did she arrive at those numbers? How did the ministry find out that there are that many people involved in the general public service from these four equity groups that she's not prepared to answer on the record for the upper-end management and senior-level positions?

Hon. I. Chong: I would have thought that the member, in reviewing past Hansards, would have acknowledged that I have not refused to provide him with information, which the comments he makes today imply. That's why I want to have that made clear for the record.

What I have been able to provide the member are statistics, absolutely, but as I indicated, this is not absolute information — because he's requesting that. This is information that we have to the best of our ability based on those individuals, once hired, who do self-declare. I've indicated that in the past two, three — well, for the third year now — years of estimates. For those who self-declare, yes, we can track that; yes, we can count that. For those who choose not to, we don't have that available information.

If he wants a complete record, that is what I'm advising him that I'm not able to provide. I'm giving him the best information we have based on that self-declaration. I'm giving him the best information we're able to compile. As I indicated — I made this offer to him moments ago — we're willing to continue to provide him that information, and we will continue,

as well, to watch as best as we can where there is an opportunity to seek that information.

If an individual who is hired for the public service wishes not to disclose that information, and we cannot make it clear as to which particular equity group they represent, we are not able to include them in that statistic without someone questioning the validity of it.

H. Lali: If the minister is saying that she has been complying with the questioning from myself for the third year in a row — that she is not refusing to provide those numbers — and she says that people need to self-declare or they do self-declare, why is it that they will self-declare in the general public survey but they don't want to self-declare at the senior and upper management level positions? Why is that?

Why is it in a bigger group, where you have tens of thousands of people, there is self-declaration going on, but where you have a limited number of people — perhaps a couple hundred, maybe 400 people — there is no self-declaration going on?

I mean, really…. Okay, maybe the minister is providing the numbers that she is given. My question is: what is the government hiding? Why is it that the government is not coming forward and being honest with the public, and why are they hiding under this fact that self-declaration is the way to go? Self-declaration is going on with thousands of people at the general level, but not at the specific level, where there's a small group of elite people who are refusing to self-declare. I would like the minister to answer that. Why is there a difference in one versus the other?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the issue of an individual self-declaring is certainly one of a personal nature, and in some cases people will declare. In others they won't, because I guess the position that they are applying for or the category or the group that they're applying for is small enough that perhaps they have chosen not to provide that information — again, because of personal preference.

What I have indicated to the member is because we know not every hiring provides us with that information, while I have statistics here, I can say that they are likely underrepresented, understated, because we, as I say, don't have the full picture. For the third year in a row, for that information we do have, I can say that the numbers for visible minorities and aboriginal people are in fact going up.

H. Lali: In the general service, when she's talking about visible minorities, the minister says there's 15 percent of the population that is visible minority; in the government it's 9 percent. That's a touch over 50 percent in terms of the representation — still doesn't cut it. The numbers of participants in the public service may be going up, but so are the numbers in the population as well. So it's still not keeping up. It's far behind.

Maybe the minister could make a commitment to find out and have people self-declare what it is that we're looking for in terms of the information with the senior-level positions. Is the minister prepared to do that: to come back in a couple weeks — a month, two months, however long it takes — and to make a genuine effort to find out what the makeup is of the senior-level positions according to those four equity groups that I mentioned?

Is the minister willing to make a commitment, on the record, to say that she's going to do that and find out? Until she finds out what the problem is, there's absolutely no way that this minister, this ministry or the government is going to do anything to make sure that those people are getting their just due.

All of those people from those four equity groups have every right — as well as any one of us here sitting in this chamber — to access those government positions in the public service, at the senior management level and at the deputy level, based on merit, and not because they happen to be friends of the Premier or somebody else in cabinet.

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I will endeavour to provide him with the information that we have, but let me just say this. In terms of assistant deputy ministers and deputy ministers, there are approximately 130 people in total in the B.C. public service — 130 people. They have, in fact, been asked to self-declare, and for personal reasons have chosen not to.

Am I to hear from the member for Yale-Lillooet that I am to force these 130 people to self-declare? That's what it is — self-declaration. If they have chosen, for whatever personal reason, not to do so, and he's asking that they be required to do so, then he should make that clear today.

H. Lali: I think the minister is just trying to play with words as to what I said. That's not what I said. I said: will the minister make an effort to find out — if the minister will commit to actually making an effort to find out what the makeup of those senior-level positions are. That's the question I asked the minister: if she would make a commitment. I hear the minister nodding, saying that she will.

I'm wondering how soon or when…. As to what process she's going to use, how she's going to do it or when she's going to come back with those figures, would the minister like to give some sort of a time line, please?

Hon. I. Chong: Not to let it be mistaken…. As I was listening to the member and nodding in my chair that I was willing to make the effort, that in fact is what I have agreed to. I will make that effort. We in fact have made that effort by requesting people to self-declare. But again, if they choose not to, then how are we to force people?

That's what it sounds like. I'm sure that's not what the member wants, but it certainly sounds like that. We're asking people to provide us information, to let us know. For those who choose to let us know, we're able to gather that statistic. We're able to put that

information together so that we can, in fact, have a statistic that compares to the B.C. statistical data that's provided.

Now, I don't even know if the B.C. Stats are as good as they should even be. If they have as much difficulty in getting that information for people who do not provide that, then their statistics can be understated as well. From the B.C. public service workforce, I am able to say — knowing what the practice has been and the information that has been provided — that while we are trending up, the data we provide is still understated.

We will continue to try to glean that information from all the data that we have. We will continue to try to put that in a format that we can continue to monitor, because I don't disagree with the member opposite. We obviously would like to see a representative workforce.

We know that there are jobs available. We know that we are trying to attract people to the workforce, but at the end of the day, somebody who enters the workforce, regardless at what level…. If they choose to not identify in one of those specific groups, then I don't know how it is we can force them to do so.

H. Lali: For the second time, I would like to put it on record that the minister is trying to misrepresent what I have said and to misrepresent my viewpoint here. I have never used the word "force." I have never used "force."

What I am trying to do is pressure the minister into doing something and into taking some action to make sure that she can come back with some realistic figures, put a realistic plan in place and think outside the box for a change, instead of trying the old, conventional stuff, saying: "People won't self-declare." Well, they're sure doing it at the general level. The minister says: "How do I know whether they're doing it or not?"

Where does she come up with these figures? Where does the minister, then, come up with the figures saying that in the public service, this is what we've got? How did she derive that figure, which she's unwilling to do for the senior-level positions? That's the question.

I never used the word "force." That's the minister's word. I would hope that the minister would quit misrepresenting what I said, because I didn't use the word "force," and neither am I saying that she should force people to do that. What I am doing is pressuring the minister into doing some action.

She's been in this ministry for how long? She's been in here for years now, and we don't see any successes. They're actually going backwards in some areas. In persons with disabilities, July 2001, it's 5.6 percent of the public service. In 2004 it's down to 4.8 percent. In 2005 it's 4.7 percent. She just told me it's 4.3 percent now. It ain't going forward. It isn't going up. It's going backwards.

How long is the minister going to sit there and delude herself into thinking that her government is doing a good job in terms of trying to bring people from these disadvantaged groups into the public service and into upper-level positions?

Now, the minister has just said that they're trying to make every effort in terms of merit hiring and that the Merit Commissioner is also in support of all those goals. Maybe the minister would like to explain why in the reports from 2002-2005, the annual reports of the Office of the Merit Commissioner, there's not a single word about any of those four disadvantaged groups.

Is that the kind of commitment that the Merit Commissioner has? Is that the kind of commitment that this minister and her cabinet and the Premier have to making sure this problem is solved, that justice is going to be served and people are going to be able to compete on the level of merit? Bringing forward the kind of recommendations for hiring and promotions that are based on merit, and not because they happen to have a Liberal card, or they're pals of the Premier, or they happen to donate to the Liberal party in a big way…?

That's the underlying question that the minister refuses to acknowledge or answer. Where does it say in here, in this report, that efforts are going to be made to make sure that the public sector reflects the face of British Columbia and what is out there in the private sector?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the statistics I provided to the member are statistics that have been made available to us — the B.C. Stats. I don't know how well they have gathered data, but because we are trying to compare our workforce to whatever statistics B.C. Stats has available, that's what I have.

I'm not going to assume that those statistics are 100-percent accurate either. They could be understated; they could be overstated. I don't know, because I don't know their method of determining that — what kind of declaration they have. So let me be clear on that.

Yes, I have given the member statistics. I've been able to receive that information based on what has been made available through B.C. Stats. I've been able to give him these statistics through our B.C. Public Service workforce, again based on what we've been able to gather as a result of those who have self-declared. We know that we are trending upwards in all of these categories.

In terms of persons with disabilities…. While the member says, "Yes, there has been a trend where it's down," we are actually seeing the same trend happening in the B.C. workforce as well. I don't know why that is, but it's happening in the general population as well, not just in the B.C. public service. We do know that persons with disabilities are a group that we would like to see join the public service.

This is why the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance has a specific initiative called the 10 by 10 Challenge, which is encouraging not just the B.C. public service but all people in the communities, whether it's municipalities or otherwise, to look at hiring persons with disabilities. In the end, if those with disabilities report such that you don't know that they, in fact, have a disability, we're still going to have an understatement that occurs.

In terms of the Merit Commissioner, I've indicated that the Merit Commissioner, who is an independent

officer of the Legislature, has concluded that we have been hiring and appointing based on merit. If the member takes issue with the report, if that's what he chooses to do, he should take that up with the Merit Commissioner.

H. Lali: I don't know whether to laugh or cry with that answer. "Take it up with the Merit Commissioner," the minister says.

This is, again, just a shirking of responsibility. Now it's up to me to go talk to the Merit Commissioner. It's up to me to go, and I've got absolutely no authority as an opposition member to actually be going out there and talking to the Merit Commissioner or giving policy directions or anything to the minister.

H. Lali: She's stonewalling. That's basically what it is — not taking responsibility for her ministry's or her own failings, or that of her government. Rather, it's up to me, a member of the opposition, to go talk to the Merit Commissioner, to do her job. That's her job. It's the minister's job. She's the top person in her ministry, who is responsible for all of this, and she wants me to go talk to the Merit Commissioner. How silly is that?

Well, I don't think I'm going to be getting any kind of a decent answer on this particular issue. I'm going to go on to the next one and spare the minister the pain, I guess.

Now, a few minutes ago the minister said something about her merit-based hiring, that there's a strategy in place. There are six people on the strategy. I think that's what she said. There are six people on that hiring strategy. Could the minister tell me how many of those six people actually come from those four groups — persons with disabilities, visible minorities, aboriginals and women? What's the makeup of that hiring strategy, the six people that she's talking about?

Hon. I. Chong: Let me be clear. I just want the member to know that I do not have any more authority than he does to tell the Merit Commissioner what to do. She is an independent officer of the Legislature. My comments were that if he takes issue with the Merit Commissioner's report, then he will have to speak to the Merit Commissioner. I don't have any more authority than he does to tell the Merit Commissioner what to do.

In terms of this question regarding the six people who are involved in the hiring strategy, I'm not able to provide the member with the specifics that he is looking for because that is too small of a group, too small of a number. To state so would violate their privacy issue.

H. Lali: It's just getting sillier by the minute. Now it's too small of a group to actually tell us here, on the record, the makeup of that hiring strategy — the six people. You know, if I had six people sitting in the room, I could tell by looking at people whether somebody has a disability or whether somebody is a visible minority, whether they're a man or a woman. But the minister finds it too difficult.

I think she's not even going to try to tell this Legislature, this committee, what the makeup of that committee is. Again, I'm led to wonder what it is that the minister is really trying to hide. I would ask the question: is there anybody out of those six people that actually fits into any one of those four categories that are mentioned? Maybe the minister might be able to answer that question.

H. Lali: Like I said, it's getting sillier all the time. Now it's hiding behind…. First of all, the minister has done nothing but make excuses. Year after year, minute by minute, second by second, all the minister does is make excuses. One is led to believe or wonder what it is that the minister is trying to hide. What is it that the minister is trying to cover up?

First of all, it's too difficult a task. Then the next year, it's self-declaration. They have to self-declare. This time around, every time I ask a question, the group is too small. It's okay. It's easy to find out the numbers when there are tens of thousands of people, through self-declaration, but it's too hard to find out from 130 people what it is.

Now we've narrowed it down to six people. That's it. Now the minister has no further excuses, and she's hiding behind that fact. She's hiding behind this one fact that she's saying…. It's not a fact, but the fact that she's saying this: "I'm not going to violate anybody's privacy issues…."

Well, I'm sitting here and I can tell, of the six people sitting there across the way, how many are women, how many are men and how many are visible minorities. That's the terminology. It's not an invasion of anybody's privacy when you can turn around and look across the way — if there's a visible minority person — because that's the nature of the definition. They're visible. Totally visible. You can't miss it when you look at somebody, whether they're a man or a woman, whether they're aboriginal, whether they're a visible minority or a person with a disability.

That's what the nature of discrimination is: people making assumptions based on how people look so they can discriminate against them. For decades all governments in Canada discriminated against aboriginal people. It's a 300-year history of that. They discriminated against women, and women had to fight tooth and nail just to be able to get the right to vote. They discriminated against Japanese people, Chinese across the way, Indo-Canadian — myself. Discrimination took place. We had to fight two world wars in order to be able to get the right to vote in this country.

There were laws in place at the time. You couldn't go on to a higher degree in a university for a doctor's or lawyer's position or an engineer because government systematically discriminated against people who were visible minorities, people who were aboriginal, people

who were women and persons with disabilities. That's why they did it: because it was visible. You could tell that these people were different.

The hon. minister across the way hides under this shroud — this excuse — that she would be invading people's privacy. What I've got to say is: those four groups have had their privacy invaded for hundreds of years, but it was okay then. When you ask a simple question of the minister — why she wouldn't answer that, how difficult it is — she hides behind the excuse that it's invading people's privacy.

I ask the minister again: will she make a commitment and an effort to find out, if she's not prepared to say something today? Whether she's hiding behind something or covering up for the fact that she knows they have not achieved what they say they want to achieve in the merit legislation and the Merit Commissioner's report….

They haven't achieved it, and she knows it — not at the level of the six members of this committee, and not in the 130 people she described in senior and upper management positions. She refuses to answer that, but it's okay when you're talking about 30,000-plus people. She's got the numbers for those. What's the minister trying to hide? Will the minister make a commitment to come back in a timely fashion and report to this committee or to the Legislature that she will have the answers and will make her best efforts to find out what the makeup is of those six people, in terms of those four groups that I mentioned?

Hon. I. Chong: I've answered the member's question: I will not violate people's privacy.

H. Lali: It looks like the Attorney General and the Liberal House Leader and the Premier aren't the only ones who are used to stonewalling not only members of the opposition but, more importantly, stonewalling the people of British Columbia who put us here to do their job, to bring about accountability. It certainly makes you wonder what the Premier meant when he said he was going to have the most open and accountable government in Canada. It sure puts a lie to that statement, because it ain't happening here, and it isn't happening in the House over there.

The Chair: Member, I'm going to request that you refrain from remarks such as that, and I would hear an apology for using that word.

One is led to then wonder why it is that misrepresentation is taking place, because that's what is happening.

Maybe the minister might be able to tell me what specific initiatives the minister is willing to put into place to make sure that people who represent those four equity groups are going to be treated in a fair manner — that it is merit that will decide whether they get hired to these upper-level positions or not? What specifically is the minister prepared to do to put initiatives in place?

Hon. I. Chong: I know the member likes to take this opportunity every year to try to make comments regarding how the B.C. Public Service Agency operates which are not an accurate reflection of the work that the Public Service Agency does. Again, I would hope that when he uses remarks such as "open and accountable," it does not infer that people's privacy matters are violated, because that's not where I'm headed.

The member specifically has asked about what initiatives are in place. I can say that we, first and foremost, know that it's important to have a public service that has the best and brightest that we can bring to it — to increase, as much as possible, from a very culturally diverse population. For those who choose to join the public service — and again, it would be their choice — we have a recruitment and retention strategy that is founded on an employment marketing approach that markets the public service as an attractive career choice and expands the reach to more external applicants.

In the past where we have not been able to look externally, perhaps that may have been part of the reason why we have not been as attractive as a workplace. We have a strategy to develop partnerships and linkages to better capitalize on some untapped markets for high-potential applicants. Partnerships and may include educational institutions, professional associations, public and private sector employers, and diverse communities.

We have the development of a suite of program supports that will increase the efficiency and effectiveness of hiring. Some examples of that are in enhanced technology solutions; expanded standard testing, assessment and screening options; mechanisms to establish and deploy pools of preassessed talent; and ongoing measurement of service.

I can say the Public Service Agency in fact does want to be an employer of choice. We know we are competing with the private sector, and we are certainly looking to those groups that have never considered the public service as a place of employment to sincerely consider the public service as a place of employment.

H. Lali: Not only does the minister refuse to give the numbers and hides behind some imaginary invasion-of-privacy comment that she has made, but the minister said that their government is committed to bringing — what did she say? — the best and the brightest possible into the service.

I guess, in the minister's opinion — because of the numbers or her refusal to provide some of the numbers — that would exclude persons with disabilities, that would exclude visible minorities. That would also exclude people of aboriginal descent as far as the minister is concerned. According to her and her government, they aren't the best possible, the best and the brightest, because they're not doing it when it comes to upper-level hiring. That's the kind of commitment that the minister really is making.

I have to then wonder — I asked this question, and she knows I'm going to ask this question again — what

specific initiatives or processes has the minister put in place to make sure that folks from these four groups are going to be equitably represented in those upper-level positions?

She knows this. It just shows you how much of a commitment, or should I say the lack of commitment, this minister has that she can't even answer that question without having to read from her book. There is a written statement in the book that is prepared for the minister, which her staff prepares. This is how much of a commitment this minister has to making sure that she provides justice to those four equity groups. She can't even remember a single initiative that her government has put in place or she has put in place or her staff has put in place. She has to read from a book.

That tells me how much of a commitment this Premier, this Liberal government, this Liberal cabinet and more specifically this Liberal minister has for actually bringing justice to this issue that has been going on for hundreds of years, for decades. While people wait to get their just dues to access those senior-level positions, the Minister has to look into her book to read some arcane language that has been provided to her because she doesn't even have it in her head or her heart what her initiatives are.

Well, the minister has told us that they have done nothing, that the government is prepared to do nothing to make sure that equity groups are going to be represented. I'd like to ask for the minister's own view. Will she make a commitment to make sure there is an equitable rise in those numbers for senior-level positions for aboriginal people, for persons with disabilities, visible minorities and, yes, even women — even though they are, as the minister says, overrepresented in terms of their population?

Hon. I. Chong: I have provided the member with information that I have been able to attain as a result of statistics that have been gathered — statistics which have generally been based on large population groups. I have provided the member with statistics on these four population groups — as he has asked — in the B.C. public service, based again on those large populations or large numbers and for those who have self-declared.

While he continues to suggest that we are not attempting to give him as much information as possible, I would say that he is incorrect to leave that impression. But I'm sure he will continue to do so.

Maybe it would be easier to explain to him why there are restrictions and why we have limitations. The Statistics Act section 9(1)(b) deals with the issue of secrecy and therefore requires us to be very cautious on what we are able to disclose. Further in that section of the Statistics Act it says that the contravention of subsection 9(1)(b) by a member of the public service constitutes reasonable cause for dismissal.

Again, if he's asking that we invade a person's privacy because the population group or sample is so small that it would identify and therefore cause a person's privacy to be violated, then I would tell him that we have to abide by what is available to us through the Statistics Act section 9(1)(b). If he requires that, we can send a copy of that to him.

H. Lali: It is getting more unbelievable by the minute. Unbelievable, the answers that the minister has to provide.

The first year that I asked the hon. minister this line of questioning, her excuse was that they don't have the numbers. Last year when I asked the minister this question, her excuse was that they have to self-declare. Earlier on when I asked the minister the question, the numbers are too small. Then a few minutes ago when I asked the minister this question, it's privacy issues. All of a sudden somebody happened to find some section…. She's now hiding behind the Statistics Act section 9(1)(b) and whatever subsections.

It's one excuse after another excuse provided by this minister time and time and again. She's hiding behind excuses and not actually providing the numbers and not actually providing the answers that the people of this province, through the opposition, are deserving from the minister. Unbelievable.

I'm afraid to ask anything further for fear that there might be another dozen excuses that the minister might come up with. Absolutely unbelievable — the lack of openness and accountability by this Liberal government. Shame. It is an absolute shame.

Maybe the minister might be able to answer me the next question. I have made suggestions over and over again in terms of what kind of a commitment this government might have. I wonder if the minister would like to answer a two-part question.

Is there and has there been any specific directive from the government or from the cabinet or from the Premier's office asking this minister, and whoever sat in her shoes prior to her, and asking ministers and ministries to make sure that they will execute the hiring and the promotion of individuals from these four equity groups into the upper management–level positions? That's the first question I would like the minister to answer.

The second one is that the minister said there are six people that are on this hiring strategy. I'd like to ask the minister if that is a watchdog group. If yes, how can the public be assured that they are getting value from a body of people who are doing the monitoring?

Hon. I. Chong: Let me just be clear for the member for Yale-Lillooet. He has said that he has raised the matter three times consecutively, and I would concur that he has. The problem is — and I don't know why he's choosing to or failing to listen — that the issue is the same.

In the first year there were very spotty statistics because we were not able to get that information from people who were not providing us information. I explained to him that in the second year the reason why the statistics are not as accurate is because people are not self-declaring. Again, this year I have said the same thing — that because those who are not desirous

of self-declaring, who choose not to, do not. We cannot invoke or suggest that they must, because of the issue of privacy.

If he chooses to not accept that, then there is nothing I can do about that, other than the fact that the issue is the same. We are trying to gather statistics as best as we can. If people are not able to come out forthright and provide that and we cannot make assumptions, even based on what the member suggests we should do, then he's just going to have to accept that. I know he doesn't like it, but unfortunately that's just going to be the way it is.

The issue that he raises, the questions about a directive from cabinet. I would say that there has been no directive, because that would be counter to our principles of merit hiring. If he feels that should be dealt with otherwise, then again, he might want to take it up with the Merit Commissioner. What we are doing is ensuring that we are targeting various population groups because we know that there is a vast number of people in those population groups who have not looked at the public service as an employer of choice. We in fact have been targeting those groups in the sense that we want them to apply and that if they are successful based on merit, they can be hired in the public service on that basis.

For a final comment, the six people who work on this team, who are involved in the hiring strategy, are not watchdogs. It's the Merit Commissioner who will be the watchdog ultimately. These are six people who are facilitators, who help design the strategy to look at the markets and see how we can attract people in those particular population groups to look at the public service as an employer of choice.

H. Lali: The minister finally answered a question. She finally actually answered a question when I asked her, and that answer was that she agrees with me that she has been making excuses year after year. Three years in a row she has been making excuses. That's what the minister has done. She agrees that she has made excuses. She's on the record as saying that she's made those excuses, after I told her what the excuses were, and she has repeated them. Yes, she has done that. That's the first question that she has actually answered, hon. Chair.

She has also said basically, to me, that I am just going to have to accept the fact that both the minister and the government are going to do absolutely nothing to stand up for those people who represent those equity groups. That's what her comments were.

If I don't like it, I can go to the Merit Commissioner. That's her statement. She admits to making excuses. She admits to doing nothing to support equity groups, and her government does nothing to support equity groups in their fight to get their just reward in terms of senior level positions. She says that I'm going to have to just accept that, as a critic of her government, and if I don't like it, take it up with the Merit Commissioner.

How dismissive is that? How respectful is that of the minister, who herself is a visible minority? Oops, I shouldn't have said that. I might have invaded the minister's privacy. I guess I'm going to have to withdraw that remark, hon. Chair. I shouldn't have said that, because according to the minister, I just invaded her privacy.

If it isn't one thing that she's hiding behind, it's another. She's making stark admissions, finally, that she's making excuses, she's going to do nothing to help equity groups, and neither is her government. They have got nothing in place to do that.

I made this suggestion to the minister before, and I'm going to make it again, because it's my duty to do that. Will the minister, if she's not willing to tell this House what the makeup of the hiring strategy is, the six people on there, ensure, when somebody comes off that group or she's going to add to it, that there will be one or two or three people from those equity-hire groups, from those four groups on that strategy?

Will the minister also commit — and I made this suggestion before — that in the future those hiring panels that the government has for senior-level positions will have at least one member from the four equity groups — women, aboriginal, visibility minorities and persons with disabilities? Unless this government actually puts people from those equity groups on those hiring panels, I dare say to this minister and this government that they will continue to do nothing to represent those folks from those equity groups.

Hon. I. Chong: It's astounding that the member for Yale-Lillooet would suggest that we violate our merit-hiring principle. He is suggesting that I would just hire on….

Hon. I. Chong: I heard from the member that he wants to see, when one member of the hiring team goes off, that I would absolutely ensure there is a person from another population group he has mentioned without necessarily going through the issues of merit.

The Chair: Minister, could I ask you to take a seat for a minute. May I ask both sides to please refrain. Tempers in moderation are the hallmarks of any parliamentary debate, and I would ask that the members restrain themselves when one another, member or minister, has the floor.

Hon. I. Chong: The member for Yale-Lillooet has gone on at length. He has stated that I have made excuses when I have in fact told him the reasons I have not been able to give him all the information he wants is because of the limitations of what we have.

He wants to call those excuses. They're the facts, and the fact of the matter is that he just fails to listen to what is available. He would like to see our government and the Public Service Agency violate some of that

information. I told him I'm not going to do that, and that's where it comes back to. The member for Yale-Lillooet wants us to go back to the way it was when we didn't have the merit principle. I'm not going to do that.

I'm going to ensure that we are going to focus our hirings on the principles of merit. I did tell the member — and again he failed to listen to, which is a failing of his — that we do have in place a strategy that looks at these four particular population groups who we know have not looked at the public service as a workplace of employment in the past — women, visible minorities, aboriginal people and, yes, persons with disabilities. We in fact do believe that there is a huge resource there for those individuals to come in the public service. Are we looking at them? Absolutely we are. I think I said that clearly a number of times. If he didn't hear it, then I guess I'll have to say it one more time.

At the end of the day, even though we are attracting these people from these various population groups, they must still be hired on the basis of merit. If they are not, I dare say, the Merit Commissioner will report out on that. I don't think that's what the member for Yale-Lillooet wants to happen.

We obviously are working to see that the Public Service Agency continues to recruit people for the public service agencies. We have an attractive package for people to enter the public service. I'm looking forward to the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance specifically with his challenge that he has put out. His 10 by 10 Challenge is specifically looking at persons with disabilities. There is good news out there. Things are happening.

Will we get the statistical reporting that he wants at the end of the day? I can't tell him absolutely, because I don't know if people will absolutely tell me through their self-declaration if that's going to take place. The trend is going up, so what I do know is that more is happening. Something is happening, and the member — for all his comments, for all the rhetoric that he wants to offer here in this dialogue — can say what he wants because he doesn't want to believe that in fact there are more people in these population groups being hired.

Is it as high as he wants? Probably not. Is there room for improvement? I conceded at the very beginning that there's always room for improvement. At the end of the day, if he wants people to tell us what population group they represent, then perhaps he should suggest that they do that. If they choose not to, I am not going to tell them that they must do so in order to get a job with the public service.

C. Evans: I would like to ask a question about the boards and commissions process. Is there a policy with appointments to boards and commissions through the Merit Commissioner's office about MLAs serving on boards and commissions?

Hon. I. Chong: We are not involved in board resourcing hirings. Those are through the Ministry of Labour and Citizens' Services.

C. Evans: It's not a trick question. Can you explain where the line exists between your responsibility and the other minister? I was under the assumption — I assume wrongly — that the Merit Commissioner was in charge of both public service hiring and also appointments to boards and commissions. Is that false?

Hon. I. Chong: As the minister responsible for the Public Service Agency, we are responsible for employees hired who are covered under the Public Service Act, which is why I'm not able to provide the other information for the member. He would need to ask the Minister of Labour and Citizens' Services if he requires that information. That ministry deals with the board resourcing and development office.

C. Evans: Would I then be correct in guessing that the Merit Commissioner reports to two different ministers out of two different parts of their job?

Hon. I. Chong: The Merit Commissioner is an independent officer of the Legislature and does not report directly to any minister.

K. Conroy: We're going to change topics a bit here again. As the Seniors' critic I have the pleasure of addressing questions to a number of ministers. I was quite happy to hear the minister in her opening statements refer to Aging Well in B.C., the report of the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors' Issues, and to acknowledge the importance of this report's recommendations and the importance they will play in the ministry and the government's decision-making.

As she pointed out, they have begun the implementation of the recommendation to eliminate mandatory retirement at age 65 with the tabling of Bill 31. I'm sure we'll have more discussion on that in the House when it actually comes to the floor of the House.

There were a number of other recommendations in that report that were made, and it was a very well thought out report. I know they received input from across the province through the meetings they had as well as through the reports that were sent over the Internet and written. The report was very well canvassed.

Some of the recommendations were health-related, and I will be canvassing those questions in Health estimates. Today I want to focus on the recommendations that I'm assuming will be carried out by this ministry, or this minister will know where we can go with those recommendations and the questions.

The first one I wanted to talk about is recommendation 5, which is entitled "Provide leadership on aging issues." Under this title there are a number of recommendations. The one I wanted to ask the minister about is if she can inform us what the intentions are of the government as to appointing a minister of state on aging to champion the coordinated change of the agenda of seniors across government.

Hon. I. Chong: First and foremost, I'd like to acknowledge the return of staff for the benefit of the

critic for Seniors. On my right, Deputy Minister Sheila Wynn; on my left, Assistant Deputy Minister Barb Walman; and behind me, Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister, management services. I think I have got that right.

Again, I thank the member for her interest in this area. In terms of her question regarding the appointment of a minister of state, that is not a responsibility I have. The Premier decides what ministerial appointments would be made.

K. Conroy: From that, we will be taking that question to the Premier's estimates.

All right, what about establishing a secretariat, then, within a ministry? Is it something that this minister will in fact be recommending, perhaps, to the Premier or to the cabinet — that this is something that is appropriate and that needs to be done? Would there be the resources in the budget that would go into ensuring that this is a functioning secretariat?

Hon. I. Chong: All of the recommendations in the report are currently being reviewed with — in some areas, as the member has noted — specific recommendations going to specific ministers to look at. So we will be able to receive and gather that information from those lead ministries, if you will, and put forward a proper implementation of these recommendations.

That is still underway at this time. As she can appreciate, I'm sure, some of them are complex in nature, and some are programs that need to be, I guess, looked at in a cross-government way.

In terms of the secretariat, what I can say is that depending on how we move forward in terms of a minister responsible for seniors specifically — and whether that should take place or not — if a secretariat were established, it would likely be under the purview of the minister, if that is the case.

Not knowing if that will be the situation, I can't say definitively today that a secretariat will be in place. What I do know is that the intent that is put forward in the recommendation to have a secretariat in order to bring all programs and services together is a good one. It's a recommendation that I think we can accomplish.

At the end of the day when we take a look at these recommendations that are in this report, if we can ensure that the intent of the recommendations are fulfilled, then we will have achieved, I believe, some success. How they are ultimately structured, I think, can still be decided upon to make sure we have the right structure in place.

I'm hoping that's somewhat helpful for the member in terms of where we're going with the secretariat in that regard.

K. Conroy: I'm taking it, then, that the minister is saying she does think this is an initiative that has merit and potentially would be supporting resources and actual budget for it in the future. So I take that as a positive note.

One of the recommendations was also to respond to diversity. I'm just wondering what the ministry has done to ensure that government services are delivered in ways that meet the needs of older people.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member for Nelson-Creston was not trying to be too facetious in his comments.

I can say that we certainly do want to respond to diversity because, as we all know, British Columbia's population is very, very multicultural. In terms of seniors in a changing demographic we see that happening more and more, not just in our urban areas but in our rurally populated areas. The diversity is much more significant than it may have been even ten or 20 years ago.

I can tell the member for West Kootenay–Boundary that in response to that particular recommendation, it's something the Ministry of Attorney General is looking at. As the Minister Responsible for Multiculturalism, he has the lead on that.

As I say, all these recommendations have been provided to various ministers who we believe have direct programs that may affect how the outcomes of these recommendations are implemented. We have been asking these ministries to report back to us so that we can put the whole package together to see how we move forward on these recommendations.

K. Conroy: In fact, the recommendation is actually about ensuring the inclusion of older people. It's something that's not generally recognized when you're looking at multicultural issues or diversity. I think it's a first. I don't think older people is one of the four groups, as was referenced by my colleague previously. But it is something now that is coming up.

The report actually…. They were asked not to refer to "seniors." They were asked to refer to "older people" or "aged" or to try to come up with an appropriate term.

I would think it would be appropriate to be in this minister's mandate to look at ways of including older people in the workforce of the government, especially if we're looking at getting rid of the mandatory retirement at age 65.

Hon. I. Chong: In the recommendation responding to diversity, there is reference made to the aboriginal and ethnocultural organizations, to ensure cultural appropriateness of services for their older adults. We're not talking necessarily about the hiring practice, but we are talking about services for older adults who do represent these groups.

As an example, the Ministry of Health has an aboriginal nursing strategy in place, which I'm sure the member is more than fully aware of and has looked at. That aboriginal nursing strategy is intended to increase the number of nurses of aboriginal ancestry graduating and working in aboriginal communities in British Columbia. I would expect that one of the outcomes within terms of…. Those aboriginal nurses working in

the communities would then be able to serve the older adults of the aboriginal communities. That's one example in terms of the aboriginal communities.

When I indicated that the Ministry of Attorney General had some role to play here…. He does in terms of all other multicultural groups. The Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation also is involved with the Ministry of Attorney General. Some of these recommendations will have two or three ministers looking at what they can contribute towards making sure that this recommendation can in fact be implemented. Hopefully, that's helpful to the member.

K. Conroy: I'm thinking that as we go on with this questioning, I'm going to keep getting the response that it has been referred to another ministry. I'm wondering: is there a time frame when the minister is expecting…? Is this ministry coordinating all of the responses? If so, when is there some sort of time frame that we as legislators can look at it and see the mandate and how it's going to be rolled out in the ministries?

Hon. I. Chong: The member, I would say, is very perceptive. In fact, she is correct that a number of ministries have been assigned the task of looking at these recommendations. Perhaps what would be of most help for her is for us to compile that list in terms of the recommendations and the minister or ministry responsible. We can provide that to her, hopefully in the not too distant future, so that she has that available and so that she knows which ministry, as I say, is taking the lead on some of these recommendations.

As the Ministry Responsible for Seniors' Issues, we in fact are coordinating those responses and coordinating the specific programs that may currently be in place or those that might need to be enhanced as a result of these recommendations. We're going to bring that all together. So I'm somewhat dependent on waiting for ministries to provide that to us.

We're hoping that, certainly once everyone is done with their estimates and the legislation this session, they will have been able to conclude the work that needs to be done to provide that to us. We want to act as quickly as we possibly can on these recommendations.

As you know, the one that we were able to work on very quickly was the mandatory retirement, without having to wait for feedback from the minister responsible. But the others are going to require us to receive that information.

K. Conroy: One of the recommendations is around supporting volunteerism, and it's my understanding that that does fall within this ministry's mandate. When I travelled across the province in the last couple of years…. I canvassed the minister on this last year — about the support to non-profit groups and the funding, and the lack thereof, to support the different services that these various groups do provide and provide very well.

They actually end up saving money, maybe not necessarily in the Ministry of Community Services but in the Ministry of Health, as well as other ministries. They actually save money by the services that these groups provide. I think that one of the recommendations was to provide ongoing core operating funds to these non-profit groups, and I'm wondering where — I don't find it in the budget — in the ministry's mandate or in the budget has this been allocated for?

Hon. I. Chong: The issue and, I guess, initiative regarding volunteerism is one that is under the purview of the Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts. Volunteerism is not just with older persons groups. There is certainly volunteerism in a variety of ways. The Minister of Tourism, Sport and the Arts has responsibility for that.

However, we acknowledge that there is a sector of the volunteer group which is older persons — I'm trying not to use the "s" word — that our ministry will be working closely with. When we have all the information available…. As I say, we're in the process of developing our action plan, gaining the information we can from the various ministries, putting that in place and having recommendations or having an implementation on how some of these recommendations can take shape over the course of the next number of months and years.

In terms of older persons groups, we have been receiving information as well. We have been taking a look at the various ideas that have taken shape. As the member can appreciate, in going out to the community some people have very distinct ideas of how a volunteer organization that supports older persons should be supported by government, and others have very different ideas. At the end we want to make sure we have a program that while being somewhat consistent, also has some flexibility so that those in rural areas and those in urban areas, as I say, have some flexibility.

Before we implement that or commit to that in full, we are still awaiting some information from the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, because there is volunteerism at that level as well that may affect older persons as well as volunteers in general.

K. Conroy: I'm gathering from the minister's answer, then, that the ministry is canvassing organizations from across the province to determine what kinds of needs are out there. If not, why wouldn't they be doing that to be able to say these are the kind of services that are out there? This is the type of funding they need in order to sustain themselves — the core operating funding. For primarily the organizations that I've talked to that do provide seniors services through seniors societies and organizations such as that, is there any way that the ministry is looking into that?

Hon. I. Chong: The actual canvassing and the input came through to the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. A number of seniors organizations — I hesitate to keep using that, but they are called seniors organizations — have in fact provided input and attended the various public hearings and public fo-

I do believe that there is a sufficient amount of information we have received. What I am saying is that in order for us or for myself as Community Services to proceed, I will be taking a look at that in conjunction with how the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts also sees how to support seniors.

It's not just about seniors organizations where we're helping seniors go to their doctor's appointments or get their groceries. There are seniors who are involved in a variety of other ways. Right now seniors and the Olympics are taking on a whole new shape that we perhaps hadn't thought of, because we have seniors now wanting to see how they can be involved in that — again for active lifestyles and such.

What I am saying is that what our ministry is able to do, having received the input from the council as well as all the submissions that were made, is take a look at some of the general comments that were made. When we are able to implement that recommendation, we will then be able to ensure that there is some consistency in terms of volunteerism but at the same time ensure that there is flexibility to meet the needs of citizens in our rural versus our urban areas.

K. Conroy: I'm finding that there are not a lot of seniors in the rural areas that can really contribute to the Olympics.

K. Conroy: It's an example. They do really depend on the programs, though, in their communities. One group that I spoke to is actually from Penticton — the Penticton Seniors Recreation and Wellness Society. They did make a presentation to the member for Penticton–Okanagan Valley as well as send a letter to the minister expressing their concern about what they provide in the community and the work they do.

For the lack of some operating funding, they were going to have to downsize the organization — in fact, move out of the building that they were in. They were quite stressed about it. They've been in operation since 1974, and they've never faced the financial stress that they were facing this past year.

Sad to say, they did have to move. They did have to downsize their operations. This is a group where they had over 700 members in Penticton. They provided all kinds of support. They had a friendly visitor program, where people could go out, go into seniors homes and make sure that seniors weren't isolated and lonely.

What they were looking for was some operating funding. I had a number of conversations with them. They were having fundraisers. They managed to secure some municipal funding. They managed to secure some funding through grants, but the problem with that, as the minister is probably well aware, is that it's difficult to sustain a program with grants here and there and willy-nilly.

In order to be able to be sustained on a long-term basis, they needed operating funding, which they were unable to secure. They're not the only organization I've talked to that has been in this type of situation. They do provide really valuable supports and services to seniors in the different communities, especially in rural areas where there is not a lot of opportunity to get out sometimes. There are issues with the bus. Where I live, we don't have a lot of transit. In fact, I can't take a bus in my area. There is no bus to get me into town, and a lot of seniors live in that area. That's an issue throughout the rural areas.

These programs that are being provided, where they actually get out, visit the seniors in their homes and then bring the seniors into town so they can get a hot meal and just deal with the isolation, are really important.

Again, is there any hope for these organizations that this might be the year that in fact there could be some funding for organizations like this, so they can be sustained so that things like the Penticton Seniors Recreation and Wellness Society are not downsizing, and they're not having to move from facilities that worked really well for them? Is there any kind of future for these organizations?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member, we are working through all the recommendations on the council's report. We are developing an action plan. Each and every recommendation is being looked upon seriously on how we may wish to implement them. Some will be able to be implemented fairly quickly. Others may take a while simply because of governance or structural issues. We may, as I say, need to put in place a program that actually people can all adhere to.

I'm aware that there are a number of community organizations, whether they're for seniors or for youth or whoever, throughout all of our communities…. Each one of them functions and operates in a different way. In order for us to put in place a program that may ultimately support the recommendation as presented, we do need to ensure that we work through that with, say, the Ministry of Tourism, Sport and the Arts, and at the same time ensure that, once implemented, it will be sustainable and have a good outcome.

If the member is looking for a specific date, unfortunately I cannot give her that date today simply because, as I say, we are still waiting to receive information and trying to ensure that our action plan takes into consideration all the other remaining recommendations — other than the mandatory retirement legislation — and put that in place so that we do in fact have dates upon which the recommendations can be implemented.

Today I can say that we certainly have heard from the seniors organizations. We know that they are requesting some assistance. I'm not able to, at this point, provide the member with a funding amount, simply because that is something that, ultimately, the Minister of Finance would make a decision on. But I can say that we do believe that the recommendation which has been brought forward certainly has merit.

K. Conroy: I hope that I'm not here again this time next year asking the same questions, and that in fact the funding will be approved and these groups can be supported. It's interesting you mentioned Tourism, Sport and the Arts as the ministry that's looking into it because that ministry is ultimately responsible for a $400 million debt on the convention centre.

That's a lot of money that could be funding various organizations throughout the province. In fact, I'm quite sure it would probably fund most of the organizations across the province that are asking for the funding. So I think it's a matter of political will to ensure that the funds are directed into these agencies that require them.

One of the other recommendations was to ensure sufficient income for older persons. I recognize that this is definitely not within this ministry's mandate, but what I would like to know is how well the ministry and the minister work with the Ministry of Employment and Income to ensure that this recommendation is in fact carried out?

Hon. I. Chong: In this particular area — the recommendation of ensuring sufficient income for older persons — that actually is the Ministry of Finance who would be the ministry that takes the lead on that. In part it's because the Ministry of Finance will need to work, as identified in the recommendation, with the federal government to enhance income security programs with regards to older persons.

We have, in fact, renewed our seniors supplement. That was certainly a step that the Minister of Finance took, I believe, in 2005 so there are more dollars that are available to seniors. We have looked at property tax deferral as well, so seniors on fixed incomes are able to defer their property taxes. Also, seniors who are renting are able to access the SAFER grant.

The homeowner grant is an important one, although people may not think so, for seniors in their own home. When you are on a limited, fixed income and property values rise, the homeowner grant can disappear. That was something the minister heard from many members, on both sides of the House actually, which is one of the reasons why she brought forward the initiative she did this past budget.

It's not always just about a flat sum of dollars. It's a variety of factors that can affect an older person to ensure that they have an adequate income to deal with the kinds of expenditures they're looking at. So the Ministry of Finance will be the lead on that and will be taking a look at that. Of course, we will work with her to ensure that those issues that we hear from the community are adequately addressed.

K. Conroy: One of the other ones is making it easier for people to get around. I did raise this in Transportation estimates, and there was a commitment there. I'm just wanting to know if the same commitment is in this ministry, especially with the issues around handyDART and rural communities, who are really struggling with transportation issues.

Hon. I. Chong: Absolutely. You've probably heard this as well as I have, even in my community, about the fact that with an aging population, transportation is becoming more and more of a concern.

What I can say is that through the work that our ministry has done with UBCM and through the federal government, a portion of the public transit capital trust, some dollars which have gone into public transit, has in fact been set aside to look at innovative new transit initiatives. I have specifically requested UBCM through their member municipalities to consider transit systems — smaller bus services or whatever it is — for older persons, for seniors, who may only want that service in the daytime hours as opposed to in the evening hours.

I haven't heard from the various municipalities what in fact they're looking at. But I have, just as an MLA, raised it a number of times with them — that they needed to take a look at that. Because some dollars have been set aside for that, I'm hopeful they will do that.

But I can say that public transit, while important, is in itself not the only way that we can help seniors still have independence in terms of mobility. In many cases a senior loses that independence when they lose their driver's licence. We know that when a senior reaches the magical age of 80, they get this letter from ICBC suggesting that they have a proper doctor's certificate to ensure that they can continue to drive.

Oftentimes that letter is very disconcerting to the senior, and some give up and just decide not to challenge the exam. So what our ministry has been able to provide is support for a program, the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation's mature drivers program, whereby we have volunteers who go out into communities and actually host a workshop.

They invite seniors to come and attend this workshop at no charge to just even give them an idea and assurance of the fact that they are reaching that age, and they should really know whether or not they are able to continue to drive. I have heard of seniors renewing their driver's licence when they are 93 and some 87, so I know it doesn't mean that at 80 they stop driving.

We want to provide seniors with a sense of confidence that if they wish to continue to drive past 80, they can. So these drivers' workshops are meant to help them. If the member is not aware, I would like her to check the website and find out. All she has to do is make a request to the BCAA Traffic Safety Foundation and have them arrive in her community. It would do a great service for those seniors.

That's just another area that we're looking at, in addition to the transit situation.

K. Conroy: One of the issues that came up in the Transportation estimates was around actually being able to get around in the winter in the rural part of B.C.

What I'd be asking is if the minister could also add her support to people who live out in the rural areas and the need for being able to access roads. For everyone, all ages, it's difficult to drive in the winter but especially for seniors.

I know seniors who park their vehicles in the winter because they can't navigate the roads in the area when it's snowy because of the difficulties with that. I would ask that the minister also lend her support to helping seniors with the issues around road maintenance in the rural parts of B.C., which has been a real difficult situation.

I know drivers have contacted my office who have issues with getting their letters for their driver's licence. It is quite disconcerting, and we have recommended the program. I know people that are in their 40s and 50s that should probably take the program too.

K. Conroy: Yeah, no names. It's not necessarily just an age thing. Present company excluded.

It is an issue, though, especially in rural areas because, as I've said, the transit isn't available. It can often be quite hampering to a family to all of a sudden not be able to drive your vehicle, especially when you are living out in the rural areas, as I said.

One of the issues that I just wanted to touch on briefly was to ask for the minister's support for low-income renters around the recommendation that seniors not spend more than 30 percent of their income on housing. It's a recommendation that I think has merit and can be canvassed in other ministries.

Obviously, you were saying that the Ministry of Finance is responsible for this one, but I'd just like to ask that the minister also support that initiative. It means a lot to seniors especially in rural areas and also seniors in urban areas where the cost of housing is so high.

Hon. I. Chong: Maybe what I can do is provide this assurance to the member for West Kootenay–Boundary. The recommendations that have been brought forward by the Council on Aging and Seniors Issues are recommendations that the Premier in fact has said are important and should be implemented, and we will have to ensure that we develop an action plan that allows us to do that.

As the member alluded to in her opening remarks, it was a very good report. It really was concise and depicted, I think, what people were saying around the province. So I certainly will be lending my support to the various recommendations that have lead ministries taking care of those recommendations.

What I have to do is wait for those ministries to bring forward, in seeing what those recommendations are. So, I guess, somewhat conditionally, I will be supporting them, provided I believe they meet the spirit and the intent of the recommendation, as was provided. That's the lens I will be able to use when a particular minister has responsibility and provides for…. I will need to put on that lens that says, "Well, this is what the report says. How will we accomplish that? Will we accomplish that?" because these in fact are recommendations that have come forward from the council.

I hope it provides some comfort to the member that we are involved very much in all the recommendations — sometimes not directly but definitely indirectly.

K. Conroy: The recommendation around monitoring and reporting annually on the province's progress on this report, then, I'm assuming…. I'd like to ask what the minister has put in place and if in fact there will be some type of monitoring to figure out where we're going with this report.

Hon. I. Chong: What was good about this report…. Well, it was all good, I should say. But what was particularly helpful was that the report also gave us some monitoring mechanisms. That will certainly be helpful in our ability to measure and monitor the progress and the performance that takes place.

What I can say is that in all likelihood, once the governance structure is determined, there will be a responsible minister or agency or secretariat that will be able to follow these recommendations and ensure that we reach those outcomes, as indicated in the council's report.

K. Conroy: Has the process been started — to develop a comprehensive inventory of services for older British Columbians so that we know where those services are amongst all of the ministries?

Hon. I. Chong: We have started that. We actually started it even before the council reported out, because we know there are a variety of programs for seniors throughout government — as evidenced in the seniors handbook, which I know all MLA offices have and which is actually one of the only publications that sells out at the end of every fiscal year.

We do know that there are a variety of services and programs throughout all government ministries, so we have been trying to monitor those in conjunction with the recommendations from the council's report to see if we need to enhance that. That's one of the reasons why we have different lead ministers on some of these recommendations.

You take a look at the handbook, and you can see clearly that there are some areas that are services to seniors that are provided by a particular ministry, and it fits in appropriately with a particular recommendation. That's why, by asking that ministry to look at it more fully, we're going to be able to develop an action plan that gets us to the eventual implementation of all those recommendations.

K. Conroy: So in doing that, then, you have developed a system where it's part of the ministry's mandate to update this regularly, to ensure that it's actually in your budget and it's in your mandate that this is being done and carried out?

Hon. I. Chong: One of the recommendations is that we do monitor and report annually on our progress in supporting these recommendations. At this point, it is our responsibility as the Ministry of Community Services. Now, that could change, but definitely there is a recommendation that it be monitored and reported on annually. That will, in fact, take place. At this time it's here at the Ministry of Community Services. That could change, but again that will be decided upon by the Premier.

K. Conroy: I thank the minister for the answers to the questions, and I look forward to canvassing other ministers to get more input on this report. At this time my colleague, the member for Cariboo South, would like to ask a few questions.

C. Wyse: Some questions from Cariboo South around seniors-related issues. In the rural area where I'm from, the choice for seniors — where they live — gets narrowed down. It doesn't matter what community I'm now talking about throughout the Cariboo-Chilcotin area. When those individuals are eventually forced to relocate away, they are forced to leave their support behind them. Many of these people have been in those communities for a very long time — some of them for maybe most of their adult lives.

The report on aging suggests that a variety of options in accommodations be made available for seniors to achieve the particular goal to allow seniors to remain in their community as long as is feasible. In rural areas the pressure that gets put upon seniors is accelerated because they also often need to leave that area to get medical attention. In doing such, it puts pressure upon the caregivers to literally travel for hours at a time in order to receive that type of attention.

Given that preamble, my question to the minister is: what support is her ministry bringing to the table to expand the availability of a variety of accommodations for seniors to allow them a greater opportunity to remain within their home locality?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member is specifically wanting details as to housing options and housing opportunities in rural versus urban areas, I would ask that he canvass that in the Ministry of Forests and Range and the Ministry Responsible for Housing. As he has the Housing Matters B.C. portfolio as well as B.C. Housing, he would know better than I as to what plans may be in place. But what I can tell this member is how our ministry has been able to be supportive of seniors, maybe not in actual physical housing but housing and support initiatives. Clump that as a definition.

In March 2004 — I remember this very vividly — the Premier announced…. A memorandum of understanding was signed with UBCM and the previous ministry to this current Community Services. The purpose of that initiative was to assist local governments in preparing for an aging population, and $2 million was set aside. I don't know if the member is familiar with that.

I have been, for the last number of years, prodding UBCM to ensure that their member municipalities were aware of this $2-million program. It was there to assist those local governments to prepare for an aging population with a main focus on housing and support services. In some cases it means a municipality may have to ask for dollars to help put on a workshop so the community can come together to decide exactly what they envision for their community. In larger areas it's quite different, but in the smaller, more rural areas it actually is very important.

It could even be things such as providing know-ledge to the local government like when they approve plans for development, that they don't do so by creating mobility barriers for seniors in terms of the use of walkers — the fact that there are too many stairs and that it's poorly lit.

Whatever a local government felt they could use those dollars for to support the housing and support initiatives in their communities, that's what this was for. Phase 1 of that initiative was May 2004 to September 2005. I know that a number of activities focused on the gathering and sharing of information.

Phase 2 was October 2005 to September 2006 — just last fall. A number of local governments received grants to again have a particular dialogue with their seniors, and I think some pilot projects were also initiated. I don't have the list of them. I'm sure UBCM can provide that. A seniors and communities website was updated as well.

Then phase 3 is October 2006 to December 2007. It's phase 3 that is currently underway. It includes funding for an additional round of grants, and the projects are to be concluded by the end of this calendar year.

In this particular phase — in phase 3, as was the case in phase 2 — there are two categories. There's a seniors and communities dialogue, in which funding supports an organized exchange or collaboration between local government leaders and others involved in the delivery of seniors services within a community or group of communities. There's also seniors and communities pilot projects funding, which supports pilot projects dealing with housing, transportation, social services for seniors or integrated projects that focus on more than one of those issues.

Those projects were funded at three levels — up to $10,000, $20,000 and $35,000, respectively. As I say, phase 3 is underway. We're hoping to also get those results. That was one way this ministry was able to support our aging demographic in 2004 prior to the council undertaking their very important work.

C. Wyse: I appreciate that information. I apologize if I've misheard the minister, but I believe that this will now be the second time today I've heard the expression of "prodding UBCM" about doing something. I do apologize. I know for sure I heard it at least once, and I believe I heard it earlier.

This leads me back to my question, where I'm coming from, which is: what is the minister doing in

order to ensure that these things are being achieved? The time is over for the programs the minister is referring to.

I'm looking for the accountability to bring forward to fruition the very significant information that has been referred to and the implementation of that information so that the seniors I've referred to — using Cariboo South as an example only — do get the advantages of that.

I know that the minister accepts the responsibility for everything in her area, but here is an aspect that we need some more information on. So it's back over to the minister, to find out the accountability and to follow up on these programs that have been funded.

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, if the moneys had been retained by our ministry, then we would have directly had to review, assess and evaluate all the grant applications. As a government we felt that it would be more appropriate — in fact, more efficient — if we provided that $2 million to UBCM and for them to have communities come to them more directly so that they could access those dollars to initiate those various programs.

When the member is wondering what we're doing, we are ensuring that UBCM can deliver that particular program for us because they're closer to the communities in the sense of the grant applications and how quickly they can be, I guess, processed. What we receive is a progress report from UBCM from time to time for the various programs they administer on our behalf. We will continue to do that.

Because we are now in phase 3 of this program, which is currently underway, it will be concluded by December 31. We will have that as well.

I would suspect that at the end of the process we will very likely learn what we already know: that seniors, as the member has indicated, would like to find ways of staying in their communities and maybe have ideas in terms of specific initiatives, housing or supports and to be able to provide that, in terms of housing, to the Minister of Housing to see what innovative ideas can be supported.

In terms of the supports, we're working with the recommendations in the seniors' council. We will continue to work through that report with the various ministries that have programs that provide that support. I hope that's helpful to the member.

C. Wyse: Hon. Chair, I am watching the hour very closely, so if I can just sort of, through you, watch for some body language.

I'm sure the minister is going to indicate to me that she is going to provide members on this side with those reports that she's referred to on the evaluation of the programs.

If you're willing to just nod one way or the other, then I will…. You go ahead and answer it.

Hon. I. Chong: I will endeavour to retrieve the information that UBCM has provided in terms of the data they have. I know they have some web-based information. I'm not sure if it's an actual report-out. I will take a look and see what we have available, and whatever I can share with the member, I will certainly do so, respecting the fact that UBCM may still be finalizing it.

If it's still in draft form, then I may have to wait until they're prepared to have it released before I can share that. But I would suspect that they should not have a problem with that, given that these are their member municipalities that are accessing these dollars. The idea is to share information with each municipality so that people don't duplicate those same kinds of initiatives.

C. Wyse: I know that all members of government are interested in accountability and openness and so on, so I know that the information will come to us.

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

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