Hansard — Tuesday, May 8, 2007 a.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Second Reading of Bills		7657
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill 26)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	A. Dix

Committee of Supply		7659
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	R. Chouhan
	Hon. G. Abbott

Reports from Committees		7669
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills
	A. Horning

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7670
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues (continued)
	C. Wyse
	Hon. I. Chong

Hon. G. Abbott: In Committee A, I call continuing estimates debates on the Ministry of Community Services, and in this chamber, second reading of Bill 26, intituled Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, followed by continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker, I would request that consent be granted for the Private Bills Committee to sit while the House is sitting. I understand the Opposition House Leader has supported this consent.

The Health Statutes Amendment Act will amend three separate acts. The Health Statutes Amendment Act will amend the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility Act in a number of ways. It will apply the definition of a care facility to a broader range of facilities, including those outside the Community Care and Assisted Living Act. This will include unlicensed family care homes that provide care for only one or two persons.

The act will also provide for informed consent on the admission and release to these care facilities, with a clear framework for an adult or a person acting on the adult's behalf to apply for admission into or release from a residential care facility.

This act will strengthen the rights and protections of adults in care facilities by extending the provisions of the adult care regulations to these facilities.

This legislation is timely and necessary. There has been no provincial standard guiding the consent to admissions or release of individuals in residential care facilities. Now, with this bill, there's a clear and safe framework to support care facilities, health authorities and individuals to make better choices. There was, as we did our consultations, very considerable response from stakeholders and strong support for the amendments to move forward.

These amendments support the work we've been doing in redesigning our home and community care system. Since June 2001 we've built 8,102 new and replacement beds and units across British Columbia, adding over 3,000 net new units to the province. By the end of 2008 British Columbians will not only have 5,000 net new beds, they will have thousands of upgraded beds and units in modern facilities with the latest equipment. We're renewing the infrastructure to ensure the legislation also meets modern standards.

The Health Emergency Act will also be amended to do the following: transfer the B.C. HealthGuide program, B.C. NurseLine, B.C. HealthGuide on line, B.C. HealthGuide Handbook, Dial-a-Dietician and B.C. Bedline to the Emergency and Health Services Commission to expand and strengthen the scope of its health information services.

The B.C. HealthGuide program provides 24-hour seven-day reliable health information and advice to British Columbians through the HealthGuide Handbook, HealthGuide on line, B.C. HealthFiles and B.C. NurseLine. The self-care program helps individuals manage and make better decisions about their health.

The Emergency and Health Services Commission offers emergency health services and ambulance services throughout the province. These non-emergency, amalgamated services will now be called HealthLines Services B.C. and, as part of the commission, will play an integral role in the expanded portfolio to include strategic self-care and health system navigation strategies in the province. By transferring these important services to the Emergency and Health Services Commission, we can better enhance and expand pre-hospital care, self-care and health system navigation service in the future.

The B.C. Ambulance Service already works with B.C. Bedline and B.C. NurseLine to ensure safe, appropriate and timely care for patients. Under a single commission, these linkages will continue in areas such as patient transfers and referrals of non-emergency 911 calls. All current staff, of which there are approximately 250, will be offered employment with HealthLines Services B.C.

Additionally, this move is representative of the Ministry of Health's goals to build on accomplishments and extend innovation across the continuum of health care services. The Ministry of Health will work closely with the staff of each affected service to ensure a smooth transition to the commission.

The Health Statutes Amendment Act will also amend the Pharmacists, Pharmacy Operations and Drug Scheduling Act to allow electronic prescriptions to be recorded in the province's PharmaNet system and strengthen patient confidentiality by providing a new level of accountability to patients with the future provision of authorized on-line patient access to their own medication profile and access log.

PharmaNet records information on all prescriptions dispensed in community pharmacies throughout British Columbia and processes approximately 41 million prescriptions each year. The network provides on-line 24-7 availability of patient medication information. Health professionals access the electronic network for prescriptions and patient health information every day throughout the province.

This amendment will strengthen the confidentiality provisions of the act and clarify the types of information that must be recorded within PharmaNet and add new types of information that may be recorded within PharmaNet, such as over-the-counter medication. It will also mandate how information can be used and

will facilitate electronic prescribing on PharmaNet, direct patient access to PharmaNet and sharing of the information within PharmaNet with health information banks under the Health Act.

This will also assist in the development of the foundation of e-prescribing and e-drug, two areas of the province's e-health initiative set to be operational in coming years. E-prescribing will be implemented in alignment with the electronic medical record project, a commitment to the health system made in February's throne speech.

The province's e-health initiative places the utmost importance on the protection of personal health information and complies with provincial government requirements, B.C.'s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and international standards that protect privacy and assure system security. E-health will improve health care quality, safety and outcomes; increase services, service efficiency, productivity and cost-effectiveness; and enhance service availability. It will also increase satisfaction for citizens, patients and health professionals in the management of these sensitive and important health records. The province's vision for e-health supports accessible health information when and where it's needed, health care decision-making and patient-focused, sustainable public health.

B.C.'s Information and Privacy Commissioner has reviewed these changes to the legislation, and the College of Pharmacists of B.C. has expressed support for it as well. British Columbians want access to the best health services available. This amendment allows health care providers to continue to provide safe, quality health care through leading-edge technology to patients throughout the province.

In closing, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, supports the Ministry of Health's goal of continued excellence in service, innovation and quality health care in a public health system for all British Columbians. I look forward to hearing the comments of other members and to debating the bill at committee stage.

A. Dix: It's good to rise on Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, and bring forward a few comments. As the minister notes, this is essentially a miscellaneous health bill, so I think the majority of the debate that will take place will take place at committee stage as a result. I'll just make a few comments in an introductory way.

It's a tribute to the minister's panache that he continues to try and depict the government's broken promise of 5,000 long-term care beds as some sort of success. But I will leave that issue aside because we can debate that in estimates — that a promise one would have expected to have been completed years ago is still years away from being completed. I guess in the context of the minister's record, perhaps he views that as a success.

Let me just say on the specifics of the bill…. Some of the issues that members of the opposition will raise at committee stage…. I'll just underline them. First of all, on the issue of PharmaNet and use of personal health information, I think many of the changes in the bill authorize the exchange, recording and, in some cases, the disclosure of personal health information. I think the parameters around disclosure need to be clearly delineated.

I know that the Minister of Health has today, for example, tabled amendments around section 36 of the act, section 23 of the bill, and we look forward to pursuing that within the committee stage. The Information and Privacy Commissioner has made some quite reasonable comments. I understand the Minister of Health has listened to those, and we'll canvas the issues raised by the Information and Privacy Commissioner at committee stage.

Equally, with respect to the transfer of responsibilities to the commission, there are issues around that that we would like to discuss. The minister has said that no employees will lose their positions. Clearly, there'll be interest in discussing the consultation that's taken place with those employees at committee stage. Equally, I'm sure that during estimates, if not during discussion of this bill, we will discuss the future of the commission and the future of the ambulance services commission, which the minister referred to briefly in his statement.

The final set of things or the changes with respect to residential care…. The minister will know that our critic for seniors health will have some questions to ask about this at committee stage. Clearly, there is ongoing concern about the level of protection available for people living in small unlicensed residences, and these are issues we'll raise at committee stage.

So with that, those are the main…. I think discussion of this bill isn't about the debate in principle, since there are many statutes being amended. But at committee stage we'll have that debate, I understand, for those watching at home, on Thursday. I look forward to having an exchange on the details of the bill with the minister at that time.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Minister of Health closes debate.

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the opposition Health critic for his comments, and I do look forward to pursuing those issues at committee stage as well. I now move that the bill be read a second time.

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

Bill 26, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

R. Chouhan: This morning, as we mentioned yesterday, we'll be dealing with the mental health portion of the Ministry of Health budget.

When Senator Kirby investigated the issue of mental health in his report, he said that approximately 800,000 people are affected by mental illness and that a large number of those people suffer from mild to serious illness.

Since July 2006 when I was appointed as critic for mental health, I have traveled all over B.C. and met with stakeholders and service providers. They have consistently told me of the number of difficulties that they have been experiencing since then.

Senator Kirby said in his report that he was shocked by how fragmented our system of mental health care is and saddened by the effect of that fragmentation on persons living with mental illness. That was repeatedly confirmed by many of those stakeholders and service providers. I was in Prince George, Kamloops and Kelowna and on Vancouver Island and the lower mainland. Each and every one of those people who I met with were talking about those inconsistencies in the system.

I know that the minister would say how much more money has been spent and invested in this area, but if that's the case, then that money is not well spent. We have to make sure that the resources for these services, for those people who need these services, are there when they need it.

We have also found out that since the provincial advocate was eliminated in 2001, there is nobody to monitor what's happening about the problems experienced by these people. The cuts in the Attorney General's department have led to the elimination of the mental health Crown positions, of mental health screening on admission to B.C. jails and of the Vancouver Pretrial.

We have also seen that because of these cuts, many of the police officers who get into this kind of situation when they have to face somebody who's suffering from mental illness are not trained and are not equipped with how to handle that individual. A few months ago we had an incident in Vancouver where a person suffering from mental illness was…. His house was surrounded by police for almost 24 hours.

At the end of the day, even when the family intervened and told the police about his mental state, the police didn't take those steps, and he was arrested. He suffered physical abuse, and I personally still don't know what happened after that, though the family really was very concerned about that individual.

So my question to the Minister of Health is: what is the government's mental health plan, and how is this plan funded?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member raises quite a number of issues in his opening comments, so I'll try to address at least some of them and would invite him to set out some supplementary questions on those points that I may have missed.

Let's begin where the mental health critic began, which is with Senator Kirby and the Senate report with respect to mental health, which as I recall was entitled Out of the Shadows, which is a very appropriate title for the work. It's very good work that Senator Kirby and his Senate committee did in respect of mental health, and I think it's appropriately titled because one of the prevailing themes that we saw in Out of the Shadows was moving beyond the stigmatization that is so often associated with mental illness.

Again, I don't want to overly simplify what is a complex problem and a complex work in response to it, but I believe that one of the themes that struck me in respect of Out of the Shadows was that we should begin to try to address the challenges and the needs of mental illness in much the same way that we do with physical illness. In short, move beyond the stigmatization that is so often characteristic of both our understanding and our treatment of mental health issues.

I think the Kirby report was a very important report in terms of our understanding of mental illness and how to move forward with a new framework for mental illness. I very much thank Senator Kirby and other senators for the very important work that they did in Out of the Shadows. I know it is, in many respects, a framework that British Columbia not only endorses, but it will be helpful in moving us forward on our work in terms of meeting the needs of people with mental illness in this province.

We in this province expend over $1 billion every year towards mental health and addictions issues. When we say "mental health and addictions issues," we don't try to undertake a severing of that because so often there can be a correlation between those two very compelling issues in people's lives. I suspect among mental health professionals there might be some difference of opinion on this point, but I think we would generally see correlations between 50 percent and 70 percent, between additions issues and mental health issues. Often they are intertwined in individuals. It makes treatment more difficult and the issues they are facing often even more compelling, so we need to look at it in that sense.

Also, I should note — again, in response to the mental health critic's introductory comments — that I've had the exceptional opportunity to meet with Senator Kirby on a few occasions. He is remarkably well-informed on a range of issues. I guess if there was ever a model senator, Senator Kirby is it.

I should note to the member that in fact Senator Kirby found British Columbia to be a model of how we should proceed in the future. Yes, the Senate committee points out the challenges of a sometimes-fragmented approach to mental health and addictions issues, but he wasn't using British Columbia in that reference. In fact, in my discussions with Senator Kirby he has been very complimentary of the work that has been done in British Columbia in respect to mental health issues.

In particular, Senator Kirby — and I presume the Senate committee would share this view — is supportive of the continuum of services that we have built and are building in this province. I would not for a moment suggest that we have reached something approaching perfection in relation to the delivery of mental health programs. This is an ongoing challenge, and we know that there is work to do.

Are we doing most of the right things? Yes, absolutely we are. I think if you ask Senator Kirby, he would agree with that. We are doing most of the right things. We are always receptive to suggestions on how to do things better. We always welcome that.

He likes, in particular, the continuum of care that we have built. We have come a long way in terms of moving away from what was, some years ago, an overly centralized system. Everyone who had at least mental health issues that required institutionalization…. People with those challenges were obliged to leave their home communities, leave their home regions and go to Riverview to access service and treatment.

We have made a huge investment in regionalization. It is exactly the right thing that needed to be done. We have seen great success stories in British Columbia that involved the repatriation of mental health patients to their home communities or home regions, and it's been a tremendous step forward.

As a great example, I was part of the opening — not as minister but as the regional MLA — of South Hills in Kamloops, a beautiful facility that I think is leading-edge in terms of a community mental health facility. That was one example of moving it out, but we've got lots of them: Seven Sisters in Terrace, Seven Oaks in Saanich, Iris House in Prince George, Sandringham in Victoria. There are some more recent ones: Cottonwood and Connolly Lodge, both on the original Riverview sites but in a new, home-like setting, which I think is highly appropriate and highly effective for dealing with the needs of the mentally ill.

I am tremendously proud of the work that the Provincial Health Services Authority has done as the lead in respect of mental health issues, tremendously proud of what the officials in my ministry, the Ministry of Health, have done in respect of mental health issues.

We have come a long way. Is it possible that we can continue to build and improve on this system? Absolutely, and there's work that will be done in the years ahead. I certainly look forward to the opposition Health critic's advice about what we ought to be doing incrementally in this area.

Exciting things have been done, and there's more to do. But let me assure the member that what we will be doing will be consistent with the overall direction of Senator Kirby and the Senate committee, consistent with the overall direction of Out of the Shadows. I think we're doing so many of the right things in British Columbia. I wouldn't want us to get off on the note of suggesting that Senator Kirby was somehow being critical of British Columbia in his report. If anything, he would probably put forward British Columbia as a model for other jurisdictions to follow.

R. Chouhan: It's great to hear that the minister is very much in favour of accepting the Kirby report. Could the minister tell us how the Kirby recommendations are being implemented?

Hon. G. Abbott: We will be meeting with Senator Kirby on May 16 in Vancouver. This will be the first forum on the delivery of mental health services since the release of the report, so that will provide some follow-up in respect of it.

Another thing that I think I should point out here is the misinterpretation that the Leader of the Opposition placed on the Kirby report, because it is entirely inconsistent with what the Kirby report actually says. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that the report was critical of British Columbia.

In fact, what does the report actually say? I want to put this on the record because I think this is very important. This is a direct quote from the standing committee, and it reads as follows: "Ideally, a broad set of coordinated services and supports would be available to address substance use problems, such as the continuum of services described in the recent B.C. government framework Every Door is the Right Door: a British Columbia Framework to Address Problematic Substance Use and Addiction." That is a direct quote from Out of the Shadows.

R. Chouhan: My question was very simple. I understand the minister is meeting with Mr. Kirby fairly soon, but his recommendations have been on record for a long time. What steps are being taken to implement his recommendations, if any?

Hon. G. Abbott: The beauty of this is that we don't have to undertake any kind of shift to meet the recommendations of the Kirby report. We're doing it. British Columbia is in many respects the model for the nation in terms of the provision of mental health services, as is reflected in the direct quote from the document itself.

However, just so the member understands the range of things that we would be doing — mental health promotion, prevention and harm reduction…. I'm just going to give him the headlines here, and he can dig deeper on these points if he wishes.

Promotion, prevention, harm reduction are a big piece of our strategy. Out-patient mental health and addictions services are another piece. Short-term acute community mental health home care. Withdrawal

management services. Residential addictions treatment and support recovery services. Mental health community residential and family home care homes and supported housing programs. Psychiatric emergency services. Community-based crisis response and stabilization services. Psychosocial rehabilitation. Primary care. Pharmacare plan G. Acute in-patient psychiatric services. Tertiary acute and rehab psychiatric services. Provincial specialized programs and mental health and addiction services for special populations. That, in headline form, describes the continuum of the B.C. mental health program and services.

That continuum is what Senator Kirby was, I think appropriately, praising in his report. We do not have to undertake a shift here in order to accommodate that. We have come a long way since 1998, when a former NDP Health Minister had to acknowledge that the $125 million mental health plan they had constructed had never secured budget approval. We have not only walked the walk; we've walked the talk as well. I think these are the right things to be doing, and they are consistent with the Kirby report.

R. Chouhan: We are dealing with people suffering from mental illness in British Columbia, and we need to have a very consistent plan here to adjust those issues. On the one hand, the minister is saying that he likes what Senator Kirby has said in his report, but then again, he's saying that they don't have to implement those. I don't know why.

Now, my question to the minister is: who plays an oversight role in the province over these issues?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so the member doesn't misconstrue my words, I said that it would not be any kind of shift to implement the direction and framework of the Kirby report, because in pretty much all respects we have in place and are building the continuum which in fact the Kirby commission finds appropriate. I know this is a political debate, but I want to make very clear what I was saying in respect of that.

In terms of who has the oversight role, the Provincial Health Services Authority is the lead in respect of mental health services, and of course, the health authorities are critical partners in that. The Ministry of Health also has a strategic and policy role in respect of mental health.

R. Chouhan: Is there anyone from the Ministry of Health with the responsibility for mental health inside the Ministry of Health, outside of PHSA?

Hon. G. Abbott: Wendy Hill is the assistant deputy minister responsible for that area of public policy, and Ann Marr is the lead beneath Wendy in the ministry.

R. Chouhan: Is the assistant deputy minister not solely responsible for mental health within the Ministry of Health?

R. Chouhan: So we don't have one individual assigned the responsibilities to deal with the serious problem of mental health in British Columbia. We used to have a minister of state dealing with that. Is there anybody taking it seriously, or are there any plans to deal with this at that level?

R. Chouhan: I'm pleased to hear a short answer from the Minister of Health for a change.

In this year's budget the minister announced $100 million for a health innovation fund. The priorities for that fund include primary care, ER decongestion and performance. Why is none of that $100 million innovation fund allocated for mental health?

Hon. G. Abbott: The issue is not that simple. If the health innovation fund is dealing with, for example, emergency room issues, often emergency room issues are mental health issues as well. There is a portion of the patient base that presents at an emergency room with a compelling mental health issue — perhaps a psychotic episode, an addiction withdrawal issue, those sorts of things. Emergency rooms do struggle with those issues. They are not particularly well suited and well equipped for those issues.

One of the things that we have been working studiously on, in terms of trying to improve the flow-through of emergency rooms, is trying to find ways to ensure that those who need mental health or addiction supports in ERs are given those supports. So when we talk about effective emergency rooms, one of the elements in an effective emergency room is the management of those mental health issues.

Similarly, on primary care, which I hope is going to be one of the features of our health innovation fund…. Primary care is not just for chronic physical illness; it is also for chronic mental health issues. Again, how we manage those issues outside the acute care stream can be remarkably important in terms of how well that acute care stream operates.

Primary care is something where I think we need to build our continuum and resources in the years ahead. I say that not just because of the aging demographic — that's certainly a part of it — but also the growing incidence of some physical chronic diseases like diabetes. The chronic mental health illnesses are also part of the challenge we have for primary care.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister give me a breakdown for mental health spending, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for the question. I'll try to give him the overall, and then he can pursue these more extensively or intensively, should he wish to do that.

The overall projected '06-07 budget for mental health and addictions services is $1,086,800,000. That compares to $1.058 billion in '05-06, $997.7 million in '04-05, $996.5 million in '03-04, $982.1 million in '02-03 and $905.3 million in '01-02. So we've seen across those years a substantial increase in mental health and addictions funding.

The range of service, and I talked about the continuum in an earlier answer…. The funding goes into these general areas: acute care services; the continuum of community-based mental health and addictions services; the specialized services managed by the Provincial Health Services Authority; such things as Riverview Hospital and Forensic Psychiatric Hospital and community clinics; Pharmacare; physicians' services, including general practitioners and psychiatrists — both salaried and sessional.

It also includes work being undertaken with the Centre for Applied Research in Mental Health and Addictions to develop evidence-based information to support health authorities in the ongoing implementation of mental health and addiction reform. It goes to the development of an information plan to provide accurate and timely information to people with mental disorders and substance abuse disorders, to their families and to sectors of the public, including service providers.

R. Chouhan: The minister has also agreed that the mental health system in British Columbia is nowhere near perfection. In 2001 the provincial Mental Health Advocate position was axed. What steps is the minister planning to bring it closer to perfection when we don't even have somebody to monitor provincewide the issues dealing with mental health? Are there any plans in the works?

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe that mental health issues are far too important to delegate all of that responsibility to one person, so we have a very large team that deals with mental health issues in this province. I have the honour of leading that team as the Minister of Health, but it also includes my Deputy Minister, Gordon Macatee. It includes Wendy Hill, whom I mentioned earlier, who's the assistant deputy minister responsible for mental health issues.

Bob Nakagawa is our ADM of Pharmacare, and they deal with Pharmacare plan G for mental health consumers. Paula Bond is the nurse executive in our ministry and an assistant deputy minister, and her responsibility includes registered psychiatric nurses.

Stephen Brown has responsibility for primary care, including mental health. Ron Danderfer is assistant deputy minister responsible for information technology. He looks at the health tools that we are building to support our mental health clients.

I think the mental health consumers of the province are better served by having a team which, I must say, works relentlessly to try to improve the conditions and services for mental health consumers in this province. The notion that somehow one can create an advocate's position and that those issues get resolved without having the team in place is a specious notion. It is not one that I subscribe to.

I think what we're doing is building the continuum. We're building it in an effective way. We're building it because we have a team that's committed to the effective provision of mental health services in this province.

R. Chouhan: There's no independent voice who can speak on behalf of the people who are suffering from mental illness. We used to have that until 2001, and now you may have some individuals in the big, huge Ministry of Health who may be responsible for dealing with some of the issues. But independently there's no one in the province who is able to speak on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of people who are suffering mental illness.

Where's the accountability for funding in mental health programs? Is there any program, any person, any individual or any group of people who are dealing with the accountability portion of the spending on mental health?

Hon. G. Abbott: I've gone through now a couple of times a listing of the people who have responsibilities around mental health programming. As I noted, the Provincial Health Services Authority is the lead among the health authorities for mental health and addictions issues, but these are very much a partnership.

The accountabilities are set out in the government letters of expectation, and those accountabilities are followed up on relentlessly. In fact, we are moving forward with a sound, effective plan on mental health. We're not going to do what the member suggests, which is to create a mental health advocate and then think that all these challenges suddenly disappear, because they don't.

We need to have a team that can build on these things. I have the honour to lead that team. There are a whole lot of people in the health authorities, in the ministry and in communities who are a part of that team, and we'll continue to build on that.

R. Chouhan: We may have the team, but there is still no provincial mental health plan. The question I asked earlier and I repeat is: is there any provincial mental health plan?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, there is. I'm not sure if the critic will be aware of this report. I think this probably precedes his election to the Legislature. But I'll just quote from the second annual report of the Mental Health Advocate for British Columbia. This is her annual report for the period January 1 to December 31, 2000.

In that report — on page 9, for the member's reference — it says: "The current recommendation, issued in March 2001 by the Associate Deputy Minister of Health,

is that the positions move inside the Ministry of Health Services and become part of government." So the member may wish to reference that report. It's from the Mental Health Advocate of B.C., and it's for the period January 1 to December 31, 2000. It makes that interesting observation about the Mental Health Advocate.

R. Chouhan: Could you please advise where we can find it? Also, the reference that the minister has made to the provincial advocate's report on page 9…. Did the ministry adopt that recommendation? Was it implemented?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the latter portion of the member's question — was the recommendation by the Associate Deputy Minister of Health in 2001 acted on by the NDP government? — I've consulted staff with respect to that matter. They're not aware that it was acted upon.

But of course, the time frame between the recommendation in March 2001 and the departure of the former NDP government from office in June of 2001 was relatively short. He may wish to canvass his colleagues from the day to see if that occurred, but I would be surprised if there was sufficient time in there for that to occur.

In terms of the plan, I referenced earlier Every Door is the Right Door: a B.C. Planning Framework to Address Problematic Substance Use and Addiction. I should also note that the plan includes these elements: providing a full continuum of high-quality mental health and addiction services within each health authority to better integrate primary, secondary, community and tertiary care within larger care networks.

The plan also includes working with the Ministry of Forests and Range, now responsible — as the member knows — for B.C. Housing, working with health authorities and other partners to better address the housing and service needs of those with mental illness and addictions. I'm sure the member would agree that stable housing is often a very important part of stabilizing those who have challenges with mental health and addictions issues.

The plan includes the enhancement of services for people with dementias, including Alzheimer's disease. Targeted improvements include earlier assessment, clinical guidelines to improve treatment and better integration of services.

I don't believe I need to persuade the opposition Health critic on this point that as we have an overall aging demographic in our society, as we see that percentage of the population age 65-plus move from about 12 percent to 13 percent of the population currently to, in about 20 years — including me, sadly — over 25 percent approximately…. As we see that change, we are going to see this particular provision around dementias and Alzheimer's take on additional importance in terms of the continuum that we are building in the mental health plan.

Other elements in the plan: expanding drug and alcohol treatment for at-risk and addicted people who seek help and specifically addressing the need to provide integrated programs for youth addictions, including both detoxification and outreach programs. Particular focus will be placed on contributing to government's integrated approach to addressing crystal meth use in B.C.

Finally, in terms of the plan, working with other B.C. government ministries to ensure initiatives, programs and services are integrated to achieve maximum benefit for those in need, including people suffering from mental illness and/or substance misuse, children with special needs, children and seniors at risk, and persons with disabilities.

Those are several key elements in the plan. Of course, as always, I'm happy to try to fill in any further information that the member would wish.

R. Chouhan: Let's for a moment deal with the issue of housing. As Senator Kirby has said very clearly in his report, governments at all levels must build affordable housing for people with mental illness.

What's the plan of this government to deal with the housing situation faced by people suffering from mental illness? Are there any mental health housing initiatives in the works in B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: We believe profoundly that stable housing is an integral part of bringing overall stability into the lives of those who are afflicted with a mental illness or are potentially afflicted with a substance abuse problem or addiction, and sometimes those who may be afflicted with both those things.

There are a couple of areas that I think need to be noted. There is a range of initiatives which are underway with the leadership of the Premier and the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing in partnership with the Ministry of Health and others. They are moving ahead with some very ambitious programs in relation to that, and the member may wish to canvass the Minister Responsible for Housing on those points in his estimates.

There is, though, a purpose-built housing program that is led by the Ministry of Health, which involves mental health community beds in health authorities, and I will just note that we are making very good progress in respect of those mental health community beds. If one compares, in 2001 there were 4,940 mental health community beds in this province, and today — and the number is maybe even a little bit higher than this — in 2006, 6,391 community mental health beds in British Columbia.

We have made a substantial investment in this area. We've seen substantial increases since 2001 in respect of community mental health beds, so we're proud of that. Again, we recognize that the demand is something that shifts and grows in response to societal and other issues, but the number is certainly there.

I'm glad to provide for the member a breakdown of where those incremental community health beds are by health authority between 2001 and 2006, should he wish it. I won't take his time unless he wishes those things, but I'm glad to provide that on request now.

L. Krog: With us in the premises today — including a number of them already behind me in the gallery, I believe — is a group of grades 4 and 5 students from Coal Tyee Elementary School in Nanaimo, a very inquisitive group who gave me quite a grilling on the steps earlier. I'd ask the House to please make them welcome.

R. Chouhan: Could the minister just briefly tell me where those beds are that he's talked about and what supports are available? When he's talking about beds, are they solely meant for mentally ill people, or are they used for other purposes as well?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes. These are community mental health beds, and they are for those in need of mental health supports. Where they are located: 874 of the 6,391 are in the Interior Health Authority, and that 874 compares rather favourably to the 548 that were in Interior Health in 2001; 1,879 of the total beds are in the Fraser Health Authority, and again, that number represents approximately a 400-bed improvement over the 1,498 that were there in 2001.

For the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority the total number of community mental health beds in 2006 is 2,175, and that compares favourably to 1,769 back in 2001; 1,195 of the mental health community beds are in the Vancouver Island Health Authority, compared to 930 in 2001; and for the Northern Health Authority, 268 community mental health beds, compared to 195 in 2001. Again, all of those total 6,391 compared to 4,940 five years ago.

R. Chouhan: Recently, there were a number of purchases made by the Ministry of Forests and Range — Housing. Some buildings were bought. There are two buildings that were bought in Burnaby, in particular, and we were told that some of those units will be housing people who are mentally ill. Could you please confirm if those units will be available for people suffering from mental illness?

Hon. G. Abbott: The question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Forests and Range and Minister Responsible for Housing.

R. Chouhan: What is this government doing in terms of early intervention for mental health issues?

Hon. G. Abbott: Early intervention and outreach are very important parts of what we do in respect of youth, particularly, but of all those who may have mental health issues or in some cases substance abuse issues. So those outreach and early intervention programs…. These are the two general categories, and again I'd invite the member to pursue it more intensively should he wish.

One area is outreach services. Each health authority has developed outreach and early intervention services, which include street youth peer-based programs and always include street nurses and outreach workers. These are the brave folks who are out on the streets in actual front-line, face-to-face dealings with those who need their help. So those are the outreach services, and they're in every health authority.

The other major program is early psychosis intervention, and B.C. has become a leader in research and development in respect of early psychosis intervention programs. They're established in every region in conjunction with the child and youth mental health regional program. This is an area where we are working closely with the Ministry of Children and Family Development and working in partnership to try to address the needs of youth.

R. Chouhan: Before I start asking other questions, let me just get one clarification from the minister. When you were giving the breakdown of those beds in different locations in B.C., who qualifies for those beds? Are there any criteria set which would make those people access those beds?

Hon. G. Abbott: The clinical assessments are undertaken by the appropriate health care professionals before a client would be designated to a facility.

R. Chouhan: When we talk about mental illness, it's not confined to one group of people. It knows no boundaries. You know, all cultural groups and language groups suffer from that. So my question to the minister is: are there any particular programs designed or available which would make it easy for people from different ethnic communities to access these programs in B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: We don't have the answer immediately available. We can get the member more information in respect of the multicultural responses within health authorities to these issues.

I would say generally that our government is responding to the quite wonderful cultural and multilingual diversity that we have in the province by constantly working to extend the range of documents and programs that are available in more languages. I'd just use as an example the B.C. HealthGuide — which has now been translated into, I think, Hindi and Mandarin and perhaps other languages as well.

What we aim to do on every occasion is to try and build that continuum. It is enormously challenging — as I'm sure you would agree, Madam Chair — to try to address every linguistic group that exists in the province. There are probably 100 or more linguistic groups that exist in the province, but we are trying to meet the cultural and linguistic diversity in a reasonable and balanced way by providing more materials and programs in more languages than ever before.

We're certainly doing that, but we'd be glad to try to get more specifics on what is happening in each health authority for the opposition mental health critic, as is possible here, later in estimates.

R. Chouhan: We have had these conversations on health in several communities of B.C. During those conversations on health, were there any steps taken to make it easy for people suffering from mental illness, especially from different linguistic groups, to make their participation in those conversations more comfortable and more easy?

Hon. G. Abbott: In the Conversation on Health, we have made every effort to have as wide an opportunity for British Columbians to give us their advice on health care as is possible. Certainly, mental health and addictions issues are part of that broad reaching-out for the views of British Columbians in respect of all health matters, including mental health issues.

We have, I think — as the member knows — created quite a remarkable process in the Conversation on Health. First, it's not an overnight process. This is a process that's probably about a year in duration. It was launched last September and will continue through until at least this September when, hopefully, we'll be in a position to deliver a report to government on that.

Among the ways that British Columbians can provide their thoughts and advice on the health care system are the regional forums. There are 16 of those. We're about two-thirds of the way through those regional forums now. There have been some 6,400 British Columbians who've registered and reflected their interest in being a part of those. They've been very well attended.

I've had the opportunity to attend a number of those. As well, the Parliamentary Secretary for the Conversation on Health has attended those that I have not been able to attend. We've attended professional forums with doctors and nurses and front-line health care workers across the province. They've been tremendously well attended as well. Great ideas were generated by that.

We've had patient forums where we've actually taken the opportunity to sit down and listen to the experience of patients and what they thought, from their perspective, could be possible to improve the provision of services in our province.

We have the website, of course, that has had tens of thousands of visits, and thousands of submissions have been made on the Web to the B.C. Conversation on Health site. We've seen great takeup in that regard too. Of course, we've received all the old traditional ones like letters and phone calls as well. In terms of a process that is inclusive of the people that it aims to include, this process has been second to none.

If one compares it to the Romanow commission or any of the processes that preceded it, the public involvement in this has been absolutely remarkable — probably hundreds or thousands of times more involvement by the citizens of this jurisdiction than there was involvement overall by citizens of Canada in, for example, the Romanow report and Romanow commission.

R. Chouhan: Is there any information available as to how many people with mental health and addictions participated in the Conversation on Health? Is there any information, any breakdown available? Did they identify themselves when they participated?

Hon. G. Abbott: We never ask people to identify themselves in respect of the submissions, and I think that's the right approach.

Just to clarify a point that I made earlier, the health guide has now been translated into Punjabi and Chinese as well as French — not Hindi, as I misspoke earlier.

R. Chouhan: What happened to the Ministry of Health's mental health advisory board which we used to have? Is it still functioning? Do we still have it?

Hon. G. Abbott: The mental health review board is still very much a part of the processes of adjudicating mental health issues in the province.

Hon. G. Abbott: Just to be clear, the mental health review board is a very large structure with many members. It forms into panels to deal with individual cases, and of course they meet whenever those cases appear. So I wouldn't be surprised if they were meeting today. They meet on a continuous basis in response to the adjudication of particular appeals by the mental health client.

R. Chouhan: Why does this government refuse to have services available for mental health clients during evenings and weekends?

Hon. G. Abbott: That assertion is incorrect. The member will have to persuade me as to why he would want to make such an assertion.

Just to go back to the earlier point in respect of the materials that are available in languages other than English. The Ministry of Health has developed a guide for physicians, families and individuals to provide evidence-based information on prevention, early intervention, self-management, treatment, crisis management and relapse prevention of depression, anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders and early psychosis.

The guide provides detailed evidence-based information for physicians consistent with clinical practice guidelines developed by GPAC and supplemented with information for individuals and family members, translated into the five most common languages in B.C. Those are Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Punjabi and Korean. These exclude English, obviously. The guide also includes information related to workplace mental health.

R. Chouhan: I'm advised that there are no services available for people with mental illness during the evenings and weekends. If it's true, could you please confirm where they can access those programs in the evenings and on the weekends?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a whole range of ways in which a mental health consumer might be able to access information during the evenings, during the night. This is a program that is 24-7. There's a variety of different ways. For example, one could call the B.C. NurseLine and get information from one of the registered nurses that is available. If there is a compelling issue, the mental health consumer could visit an emergency department and get a reference from there. Additionally, we have psychiatric emergency services, community-based crisis response and stabilization services.

All health authorities have and are building a continuum of crisis response and emergency psychiatric services, which include crisis response networks comprising 24-7 crisis lines, mobile units, crisis stabilization beds in the community and an integrated team of ER and police response.

There are lots of examples of these initiatives, but I'll give a few examples: the mobile crisis response unit, car 87, an excellent crisis response unit in Vancouver; the mobile crisis response team in Victoria; a new emergency crisis stabilization residence for women in Campbell River; a new six-bed, short-stay crisis stabilization treatment facility in Nelson; the psychiatric emergency services unit, Archie Courtnall Centre at Royal Jubilee Hospital in Victoria; and increased psychiatric liaison physicians in emergency departments in the Fraser region.

R. Chouhan: Are all of these programs that the minister has now stated available after hours and on the weekend?

R. Chouhan: What steps has the government taken to promote mental health in the schools and colleges in light of the recent Virginia Tech incident that we had? Are there any plans to promote and deal with those kinds of issues at the school levels and the college levels?

Hon. G. Abbott: When it comes to those issues in schools, he may wish to canvass — although I believe they're completed — the estimates of the Minister of Education or alternatively, if we're talking out-of-school mental health issues for youth, the Minister of Children and Family Development.

R. Chouhan: My question is: is there any coordination between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education? We are talking about mental health issues. In a news item today in the Vancouver Sun, it says: "The stigma of living with a mental health disorder explains why 63 percent of youth feel embarrassed and fearful about seeking help." This is a quote from Sen. Michael Kirby. He further says that though up to a quarter of all youth have mental health concerns, only one in six has sought services from a health professional.

My question to the Minister of Health is: is there any coordination between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Education? Are there any programs designed by the Ministry of Health for students in schools and colleges?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is yes, there is coordination. The Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development all work in an integrated and coordinated way to deal with those issues. In terms of what may happen with a particular program, our public health nurses may or may not be involved, to a greater or lesser extent. But yes, there is coordination.

R. Chouhan: Is that coordination plan available? Is the information available to the public?

Hon. G. Abbott: We work together at a local level on a constant basis. This is the real-world working-together of those who provide those front-line services.

I should just add to the record, as well, that in terms of the Mental Health Review Board, there are currently 67 members on that board. As I indicated in my earlier answer, they do form into quasi-judicial panels to hold hearings where applications are presented to them.

Hon. G. Abbott: We know the plan is proceeding, and the Ministry of Children and Family Development is the lead.

R. Chouhan: We have heard from the mayor of Vancouver. His plan is the cleanup act, which is coinciding with the 2010 Olympics. What is the long-term support or planning beyond 2010 to deal with people who are

suffering from mental illness regarding their housing concerns? I know the minister has said we should be talking to the Minister for Housing, but I'm talking particularly about people who are suffering from mental illness.

Hon. G. Abbott: I can't speak for the mayor of Vancouver. But the date 2010 — apart from the fact that we're holding the Winter Olympics and Paralympics in Vancouver and Whistler — from a mental health perspective, has no particular magic to us. We know that the challenges of mental health will continue on after 2010, as they are today.

R. Chouhan: We have dealt with this issue before as well. When a person suffering from mental illness is lucky enough to go to hospital, is there any consistent discharge plan provincewide when they're released from the hospital? What plan are they dealing with?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll provide a shorter version of this answer to start off here, and then the member may wish to pursue further details around it.

Everyone who is discharged is discharged with a care plan, with appropriate supports as they return to the community. That may involve facility support on a day basis. It may involve ongoing care involving a physician. It may involve the appropriate use of plan G in Pharmacare. There will be a plan assembled for each person who leaves those facilities.

R. Chouhan: If a person who ends up in hospital is homeless and after the treatment the person is released, where would that person go? The person doesn't have anywhere to go to. Are there any steps included in the discharge plan to deal with those people?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is setting out a hypothetical instance. Of course, when we have specific human beings attached to the situation, the answer may change here. We can't take account of every situation that may occur.

What hospitals will attempt to do with a patient-client who has utilized the hospital's facilities and programs and who is ready to be discharged…. They will try to have a coordinated plan with the community mental health officials so that there is support. That may also involve B.C. Housing and the opportunity for the mental health patient to have a support there.

Again, this is a hypothetical situation the member is advancing, so it's difficult to be definitive, but that is the general scheme of things — that we work with the community mental health to try to ensure they don't get lost in any kind of shuffle.

R. Chouhan: We are not talking about hypothetical situations. I was in Prince George and met with several doctors and care providers there. They have told me there were at least two incidents where a couple of these people were homeless and were left on a street in downtown. The vicious circle started all over again.

My question is very specific: is there any plan that the ministry has to deal with those people who may not have a home to go back to?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm glad the member asked that question, because do I ever have a volume of information for him here in respect of follow-up on this. First, I want to note that not everyone who accesses hospital services for either physical or mental illnesses or injury will require follow-up. But it is very impressive that we do have, obviously, a program of follow-up that is working very well.

I'll give the member and those who are watching here some excellent information in respect to just how effective that 30-day follow-up is from a mental health centre, or from hospital to mental health centre, community mental health centre or a physician. For the Interior Health Authority in 2006-2007, 79.5 percent of those hospital mental health clients were followed up by either a mental health centre or a physician — almost 80 percent in Interior Health. That compares to some 73.2 percent back in 2001-2002.

For the Fraser Health Authority: 76-percent follow-up on hospital mental health clients by the community mental health or a physician, and that compares to 75.1 percent in 2001.

For Vancouver Coastal Health — where, of course, the downtown east side is located and which is one of the more challenging areas in terms of both the numbers that present in hospital and the compelling nature of their challenges — for '06-07 hospitalized mental health clients had an 82.6-percent 30-day follow-up by mental health centre or physician. That compares to 70.8 percent back in '01-02 — so a full 12-percent increase in the number of people who were receiving follow-up services from community mental health and the physicians. That is a stark improvement over five years by Vancouver Coastal Health.

Vancouver Island Health Authority: 77.3 percent compared to 75.5 in 2001. Northern Health Authority: 78 percent compared to 71.2 percent in '01-02. Overall in British Columbia: a follow-up rate of 78.3 percent versus 72.9 in fiscal '01-02.

Bear in mind that not all of those appropriately need follow-up. I think the system is doing remarkably well in trying to ensure that the clients or patients, as they leave a hospital setting, are not lost or forgotten in terms of their mental health or substance abuse needs.

R. Chouhan: That was quite a short answer. I shouldn't say anything like that, I know.

We canvassed this question last year. Let me ask this again because we don't have an answer for that yet. Do the health authorities know how many homeless people with mental illness are in their regions?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's important question is this. One could only estimate what the portion of homeless that could be afflicted with mental illness might be. First, when it comes to the homeless themselves — and depending on the definition one would use in determining whether one constituted homeless or not — one could only provide an estimate.

Of course, when it comes to those among that cohort who have mental health issues, that would be even more difficult to estimate with precision, given that we have not been able, nor will we be able, to do a clinical analysis and assessment of all of those who would be deemed homeless. We would have to do that clinical assessment to say with precision what it might be.

I understand from staff that there are some estimates of what that number might be. I presume it would probably be an estimate based on the general population having about one in five or one in six in terms of mental health or addictions issues, and then extrapolating from that what the number might be in a homeless cohort.

That having been said, these are going to be estimates, but the estimates do exist, and we could provide those. We don't have them with us, but we can provide our best information that we have to the member, should he wish it.

R. Chouhan: We know that 50 percent of people in the prisons suffer from mental illness. What kind of support services are available for those people who are in the prisons?

Hon. G. Abbott: To begin, the member used a figure of 50 percent in relation to that portion of the prison population which he reckoned would be afflicted with a mental disorder or addictions issue. The estimate that my ministry has in respect of the number that might be affected in the prison population is 30 percent.

In terms of that 30 percent, there is a coordinated interministerial strategy related to mentally disordered offenders. It's a partnership that's been developed with the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General and the Ministry of Attorney General. All of this partnership revolves around improved integration, planning, services and supports for people with mental health or substance abuse disorders who are involved in the criminal justice system.

Among the initiatives currently underway we have evaluation of the Vancouver intensive supervision unit, or VISU; analysis of the service needs of a cohort of chronic offenders; further integration and evaluation of the urgent response team; planning a community court pilot project in downtown Vancouver; implementation of a chronic offender pilot project in Vancouver; enhancement and analysis of integrated cross-ministry data to improve planning and services; and implementation of better central and regional structures and processes to improve planning and service delivery.

R. Chouhan: I have a copy of this press release from the Canadian Mental Health Association and the Schizophrenia Society of Canada, in which they're saying that a large number of inmates have a mental illness that requires treatment. Of these, 7 percent to 9 percent have a serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depression. If these inmates do not receive hospital-standard psychiatric care, their chances of rehabilitation are extremely low and their risk of reoffending remains high.

Do we have any specific programs to deal with or provide services to these people in our prisons?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member might better refer his questions to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

R. Chouhan: Let me ask this question of the minister: is the minister aware of any coordination between his ministry and the other responsible ministries? Are police officers trained to deal with mental illness situations? Are prison guards trained to deal with these mental illness situations in the prisons?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, there is coordination. Again, the lead with respect to these programs and issues is the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

R. Chouhan: Let's deal with Riverview Hospital. Can you give us an update on the Riverview redevelopment program? Where is it now?

Hon. G. Abbott: The question the member asks has a number of levels of complexity associated with it, as you might expect. I know staff are digging out a range of materials which may be of assistance in answering more detailed questions in respect of Riverview.

Let me sort of give an overview of what we attempted and are attempting to do with the Riverview devolution project. The aim was to take what are some of the outmoded, outdated and declining facilities at Riverview and see their replacement with regional facilities. I mentioned a number of those in an earlier response.

Among those regional facilities which we've seen move out: Seven Sisters in Terrace; South Hills in Kamloops; Sevenoaks in Saanich; Iris House in Prince George; Sandringham in Victoria; and of course the Cottonwood Lodge — Connolly Lodge — facility, which while on the Riverview site, is a new facility oriented towards being a home-like environment. Again, it is a huge improvement over the facilities that they left at Riverview.

The other piece, which has been very important because it saw the closure of a really outdated facility at Riverview, was the 44-bed tertiary Hillside facility in Kamloops, in conjunction with Royal Inland Hospital. I had the honour of officially opening that several months ago. It is a beautiful facility, and I think the province can be very proud that for those cases where there's a concurrent injury and brain illness or disorder, we at last have a facility that is really appropriate.

That's sort of the overview. I know the member may have more specific questions, so I'll invite him to

submit those. I think the staff now have more information that we can offer up in response to his questions.

R. Chouhan: Are the complex care case individuals still residing at Riverview? Also, when are they going to be transferred to community-based programs?

Hon. G. Abbott: I can add to the level of detail here and then invite the member to ask further questions.

Of the 600 approximate patient population when the devolution process began, about 300 have been transferred now to the regional health facilities, which I outlined in my previous answer. About 300 patients remain at Riverview Hospital. A portion of that 300, I am advised, are patients who are ongoing, in much probability there for the balance of their lives.

There is another portion, however, who are new, who are being treated, and who will in due course be discharged. So there is a division among that 300 between the sort of chronic, ongoing population and those that, while they may have chronic issues, will be treated and discharged.

Another example of those with chronic disorders is the new 44-bed neuropsychiatry facility which has been constructed near Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops and now provides excellent premises, where the previous facilities at Riverview really cried out for closure some time ago.

R. Chouhan: We're going to pursue this line of questioning later on this afternoon. In the meantime let me ask another question, given that we don't have much time left. What is the government's approach for specifically adult mental health care?

Hon. G. Abbott: We just wanted to make sure that we understand the member's question. What we thought we heard was: "What are we doing about adult mental health care?" If that is the question, we outlined much earlier in the estimates today the continuum of care that has been developed and continues to be developed for the mental health consumers of the province.

But I suspect we may have misunderstood the question. If the member wouldn't mind clarifying what he's seeking here, I'd be glad to respond again.

R. Chouhan: Let me give you a little background. In February of this year the government closed the waiting list for the adult ADHD clinic at the B.C. Children's Hospital. Let me ask this question; maybe then you can cover the previous question as well. Will the government reopen this waiting list?

Hon. G. Abbott: Thank you to the member for his question. We believe that the issue the member is canvassing here is in respect of a pilot project undertaken at Children's Hospital, which involved consultation with adult sufferers of ADHD. I believe what we're talking about here was that pilot project.

The pilot project has proceeded, as we understand it. Staff are going to pursue this further, so we may see ourselves refining this answer a little bit later on. But my understanding is that the conclusion that Children's Hospital came to was that it is not a core function of Children's Hospital to be providing adult ADHD programming, that ADHD is something they want to focus — perhaps appropriately for Children's Hospital — on children. That will be their core program in the future, so for that reason they declined to add any further clients to the adult pilot project in respect of ADHD.

Again, we may refine that answer as we get more information from PHSA and Children's on that point.

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.

A. Horning: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Bills Pr401 and Pr402 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: With that very appropriate addition to our business of today, I move the House do now adjourn.

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

C. Wyse: Good morning to everyone. Yesterday we finished up our discussions around contracts and grants that extend to UBCM from the ministry. I would like to provide an opportunity for the minister to clarify the accountability process that the ministry has with UBCM with regards to the goals and objectives that have been set up between her ministry and UBCM for contracts, grants, and so on.

Hon. I. Chong: The UBCM has been able to provide a number of programs on behalf of various ministries, not just the Ministry of Community Services. For example, we will have Ministry of Education who may ask UBCM to deliver some programs in terms of their school community connections program. We could even have the Ministry of Health asking UBCM to undertake some initiatives where local governments can be involved. We know through the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the emergency preparedness program, for example, would be an area that they would be taking a look at.

A number of initiatives that we believe local governments can be involved in and oftentimes would request grants of various ministries can make it problematic. What we have undertaken to do from time to time is set aside dollars in whichever ministry is appropriate and provide it to UBCM so that they can link with their local government in a much more direct way.

What each ministry is then able to do is deal directly with UBCM, and it's generally the executive director, Mr. Richard Taylor, who I know the member knows, who would then be able to provide us with a reporting — it can be as frequent as quarterly but most often at least once a year, annually — as to how the grants have been distributed and for what particular projects.

Again, because we believe local governments at that level who are accessing those dollars know best what they're wanting, we also rely on UBCM to make the determination whether it fits within that program. One example, I guess, perhaps the easiest, is the $25 million we've provided for the community tourism program. I understand that half of those dollars have been expended. The second half has just been reviewed, and UBCM has reported out to myself as well as to the Minister of Tourism which municipalities applied for those dollars and how they have used those dollars in their communities to promote tourism.

There is an accountability mechanism insofar as they do have to report back and see how those dollars are expended, and from time to time they will seek our direction as to why there hasn't been perhaps a large pickup on that and other times to just let us know how quickly people are accessing. You can imagine the emergency preparedness as one example. Many local communities look to receive those grants fairly quickly.

As I say, these programs are administrated through UBCM. They, I believe, have it on their website as well. I'm aware, just as an example, that the community tourism program put a sheet on the website, and they'll perhaps even cite examples of how the dollars have been used. The West Nile virus risk reduction initiative is another example. Strategic wildfire prevention initiative, school community connections program, the seniors housing and support initiatives, which we spoke about briefly yesterday — these are all…. There is a number of them, and I know UBCM has them on their website. On a very regular basis at the annual conference UBCM provides workshops for local governments, as well, to share with them what's been happening in those particular areas.

C. Wyse: It seems to me, if I understood the answer correctly, that there is no direct accountability for the ministry to determine, in actual fact, whether the objectives that either her ministry or other ministries have are actually being achieved. I don't wish to put words in the minister's mouth, so I would like the minister to either agree or disagree with that statement that I have made.

Hon. I. Chong: I would disagree insofar as we do believe there is a mechanism to monitor these programs and provide for accountability. Now if the member is suggesting that we are going to suggest to local governments that they cannot expend the dollars in the way they

feel is most appropriate and he feels that we should be placing conditions on those grants, then I guess I would ask him to make that clear.

In many cases we do provide these grants in an unconditional sense, other than to provide them with the purpose and intent of which they are to be used. Just as an example, and this is not about dollars being transferred to UBCM, I know the member is aware that the traffic fine revenue sharing, a grant that we provide to the local governments through our ministry.

Those are unconditional, except that when we said we would provide those dollars, they would be for things such as policing, crime prevention, community safety. If the member expects that I would have to go to each municipality and ask them to be accountable, and it doesn't fit with what we're asking…. If they believe that they've accomplished the policing initiative or crime prevention initiatives, then I will accept that.

What we are able to do is ask local governments to report back to us. In the case of the traffic fine revenue sharing, what we have now asked is for a reporting out every year of how they have spent those dollars, not just for my benefit but for the benefit of all British Columbians and all taxpayers to see. When large sums of dollars are going to local governments which are saying that it's to provide additional services, I would expect their taxpayers would want to see how those dollars are spent. So absolutely there is a mechanism.

In some of these programs, such as the emergency planning, the local governments will be able to say how those dollars are spent. They would tell their citizens, as well, how additional dollars are able to be accessed through the UBCM program, share with their constituents or taxpayers as to how that was spent in their community. UBCM would then be able to list that as one of the outcomes or achievements that community has and list them for everyone else to see.

It is an ongoing process, and UBCM is constantly updating it. But if the member is suggesting that the accountability requires that we direct how money is to be spent, then I would say that is not how the programs actually occur. We don't direct.

The crystal meth program is another one that UBCM administers. We say: "Here are the dollars." Community after community has said this is a scourge on their local areas, and they needed a way to access dollars. They have in mind what it is. One community may decide to put on workshops to tell parents and raise awareness of what crystal meth is all about and how to watch for these in their communities. Another community may decide to post a webpage for parents to have support systems.

We're not going to say, "This one is the right one," or "That is the wrong one," or "This is the one you should follow." But we will say: "Here are dollars that are available, because you say these are the needs that you have in your community. We're prepared to provide those dollars through UBCM, allowing you to access those dollars, and you decide how you feel it best meets the needs of the citizens in your area. We want to hear back from you."

They do provide us with a report. That is a method that can show taxpayers where dollars have been spent.

C. Wyse: I think I followed the response from the minister. At no time was I suggesting that an evaluation would be made upon the projects that were chosen by local governments to achieve the objectives of the province. I was simply attempting to determine whether the province had any agreement with UBCM for some type of an evaluation to ensure that the funds that were being provided to meet the provincial objectives were basically being expended in that very broad area of those objectives. From what I have understood, it's fluid.

At that moment I'm going to move on to another topic, which is the trade, investment and labour mobility agreement. TILMA was signed by the B.C. and Alberta governments on October 6 as a bilateral offshoot agreement from the agreement on internal trade.

The deal has basically been done behind closed doors of joint B.C.-Alberta cabinet meetings. A number of protocols and memorandums of understanding on specific issues have been signed in the lead-up to this agreement.

The first the public heard about the apparently final deal being signed was a news release issued after the pact was signed April 28, 2006. There has been no legislation concerning this deal introduced in the Legislature to date, and there is no provision in the agreement for public consultation or legislative debate. The Premier of Saskatchewan, however, has committed to a public consultation process prior to signing on to TILMA.

Under TILMA municipalities are prohibited from implementing any measures that may impact trade, investment or labour mobility between B.C. and Alberta. Municipalities are very worried about the impacts of TILMA on municipal autonomy. For instance, Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, who is also the GVRD's representative on the international trade agreement, suggests that "it isn't necessarily in the best interests of our communities to have international corporations using our regulations to make money, the greatest amount of money possible," and that "TILMA is a situation in which there is an omnibus attempt to take away the powers of municipalities."

Now, there is a legitimate objectives exemption that I would also like to bring to the attention of our discussion here. The B.C. Economic Development Minister wrote in an e-mail to a constituent on November 28, 2006: "B.C. and Alberta have reserved the right to supersede the agreement when they are pursuing a legitimate objective."

However, article 6 of TILMA, "Legitimate objectives," allows government to justify their measures only if they can demonstrate to the satisfaction of a dispute panel that…. There are three conditions, and all three conditions must be met. They are: (1) they are pursuing one of the few objectives TILMA defines as legitimate, (2) their measure is not more restrictive than necessary to achieve that measure, and (3) they are not engaged in a disguised restriction on trade investment or labour mobility.

It is not enough, therefore, to claim the pursuit of a legitimate objective, as the Minister of Economic

Development suggests. What B.C. and Alberta have created in TILMA's article 6 is a next-to-useless defence against challenges rather than a right to supersede agreement.

As the Council of Canadians notes, the track record of governments trying to convince trade panels that their measures are necessary has been resoundingly negative. In the six cases brought to similar panels under the existing agreement on internal trade, when governments have tried to prove that what they were doing was necessary, those governments lost every time. Dispute panels have argued the government must prove that there is nothing else they could do to meet their objectives, an almost impossible task. Clearly, these restrictions on legitimate objectives leave municipalities extremely susceptible to losing any authority they might have to overrule any action or inaction as a result of TILMA.

TILMA is extremely broad in that it assumes that everything is covered by it except those areas designated as specifically excluded. The legitimate objectives specified are — and there are a number of them: public security and safety; public order; protection of human, animal or plant life or health; protection of the environment; conservation and prevention of waste of non-renewable or exhaustible resources; consumer protection; protection of the health, safety and well-being of workers; provision of social services and health services within the territory of the party; affirmative action programs for disadvantaged groups; and prevention or relief of critical shortages of goods essential to the party.

However, I emphasize that there are potentially numerous policy areas not included in this list, including land use planning, preservation of heritage sites and the agricultural land reserve. The three categories of exemption — the general exemption, part 5; legitimate objectives, article 6; and also the transitional measures, part 6 — are relied on heavily to reduce fears about the impact of TILMA.

It is thus important to note, and I repeat, that the list of exceptions is very narrow and that TILMA is so broad that anything is not explicitly articulated in the current wording of the agreement is not protected. Even with general exemptions it is stated in TILMA that there is the intent to shrink this list over time through annual review, with a view to reducing their scope.

Legitimate objectives are subject to TILMA's necessity test and least-restrictive test, which means that a government does not only need to prove that its policy, any measure, is a legitimate objective, but even if a measure falls under this exemption, a government would still have to prove that the measure is the least restrictive it could be on trade, investment and labour mobility to accomplish the objective and that there is no other available option, in the wording of TILMA, article 6, that has minimal adverse effects in trade, investment and labour mobility.

All exceptions are still subject to dispute procedures whereby investors can always argue to the three-person panel that there is a less restrictive way to accomplish a goal. While local governments have been told that TILMA does not apply to them until April 1, 2009, in fact there are some aspects of TILMA that apply to local governments starting this April 1, 2007. What is more, TILMA also contains a provision that states that no new measures can be introduced after April 1, 2007, that would be inconsistent with this agreement, and after April 1, 2007, government cannot "amend or renew a measure in a manner that would decrease its consistency" with TILMA.

TILMA comes into effect April 1, 2007, with a two-year transition period. The agreement covers the provincial government and its entities, including Crown corporations, government-owned commercial enterprises, local government, regional districts, school boards, health and social services, and non-governmental bodies that exercise authority delegated by law — for example, the Workers Compensation Board.

Municipalities are exempt from the provisions of TILMA during the transition period to April 1, 2009, except being bound to — there are three of them — involvement in further consultations and negotiations to identify any special provisions, exclusions and other transitional provisions; working on reconciling differences in standards and regulations, investment, business subsidies, labour mobility and procurement of professional services of architects and engineers; not establishing new or amending or renewing existing standards or regulations that operate to restrict or impair trade, investment or labour mobility.

TILMA has structured trade panels to interpret the agreements. It's important to understand some things that the trade panels themselves may and could do. TILMA could be used to challenge local government zoning as an obstacle to investment. B.C. local government bylaws could be challenged even if they do not discriminate in any way against Alberta investors. TILMA does not exempt government measures simply because they serve the public interest. Private investors can pursue complaints under TILMA and be awarded compensation without having the support of the government where they are based. TILMA panel rulings effectively cannot be appealed.

There are a number of areas of concern in this agreement, and I list them: the effect of harmonizing B.C. standards and regulations with those in Alberta, the effect of the provincial government possibly leaving itself and municipalities open to lawsuits on actions construed under the agreement as restricting investment, concern around restrictions on procurement policies that would discourage such practices as local hiring, and ethical purchasing policies.

TILMA is an agreement that has occurred with no public consultation or input and will have devastating effects on numerous sectors of the province. Members on this side recently called on the government to bring TILMA into the House for a full debate. The government voted against this and therefore proved that they are not willing to have any public discussion or consultation on TILMA. Consequently, we are here pursuing questions in this particular process.

My first question to the minister on this particularly important topic is: why has the government refused to bring in legislation to implement TILMA?

Hon. I. Chong: My apologies. I had forgotten to introduce staff who are with me here today. Very quickly here, to my right I have my deputy minister, Sheila Wynn. To my left, Gary Paget, executive director, governance and structure and deputy inspector of municipalities. Behind me I have Assistant Deputy Minister Shauna Brouwer, management services. Beside her, Marijke Edmondson, manager, local government liaison. I was remiss in not introducing them, and I want to ensure that the members know who is here today with me.

In regards to TILMA first of all let me say that this is an area that the Minister of Economic Development has the lead on, and he will be primarily responsible for it. What I can say is that it is an agreement that British Columbia and Alberta entered into to eliminate barriers to trade and to enhance competitiveness and stability of both provinces. I should note that we have had in the past an agreement, the existing agreement on internal trade — the AIT, I believe it was called — that came into effect in 1995. It's not that there has never been internal trade with provinces, but there have been some problems with that.

With TILMA we're expecting to eliminate some barriers to trade and to enhance, as I say, the competitiveness and stability of both provinces. It's not an agreement that is designed to negatively impact on municipalities. Rather, it is an agreement that is expected to produce many economic benefits for both British Columbia and Alberta.

It should be noted that TILMA will not profoundly change the way in which local governments operate because, just like the province, local governments have long been expected to operate in a trade-competitive manner. So I think some of the issues that have been raised, that there are going to be some drastic changes in the way local governments operate, are incorrect and in fact unfounded. I know that TILMA is going to have a direct impact on local governments in three areas specifically, which is in terms of business registration, business subsidies and procurement.

Again, TILMA is not designed to constrain the ability of local governments to develop bona fide non-discriminatory bylaws or make land use decisions. There has been talk that there would be land use decisions affected by TILMA, but that is not the case.

What I can provide the member with…. I know he may have a series of questions, but let me put this to him. The fact of the matter is both provinces will come into compliance with TILMA by April 1, 2009.

It came into effect April 1, 2007 insofar as to advise or make aware that both provinces must not, in these two years of transition leading up to the full compliance requirements of April 1, begin to enter into any such arrangements as would therefore have to be adjusted or reversed by April 1, 2009. Knowing something will be required to be in full compliance two years out, we would expect that both provinces would not be jeopardizing the spirit and intent of the TILMA during the transition period.

In terms of consultation and involvement, I know that the Minister of Economic Development met with the UBCM executive — I believe on the 18th of April, when the executive were here in Victoria — and then subsequently wrote a letter to the president of the UBCM, Ms. Brenda Binnie. I'll just read to you two paragraphs in that letter:

Those two paragraphs are in the letter dated April 20 that was sent to the president of the UBCM, Ms. Brenda Binnie. So my understanding is that the Minister of Economic Development has agreed, pursuant to section 277 of the Community Charter, to consult with UBCM as to the negotiations that can take place over the next two years. I know that they are looking forward to engaging and providing information and input from their members, so I believe we have to allow that process to take place.

Any other specific articles and sections that the member or any other members — his colleagues — may have in regards to the agreement in itself, I would ask they direct to the Minister of Economic Development.

C. Wyse: I would take under advisement the suggestion from the minister upon where questions may or may not be directed. This is Community Services. Local government, to my understanding, falls very much underneath this particular ministry, and there are questions that come into play around TILMA.

The minister is quite correct when she refers to the Community Charter in consulting local government, with all due respect, upon items that will affect them. But the consultation is taking place after the agreement was signed. The horse is out of the barn when the consultation is now beginning with local government. There are concerns that local government has around this issue that have been conveyed to me.

I will return to the question with which I started off the discussion around TILMA. So once more, back to you shortly, the minister made reference to trade. Trade is a federally regulated item, and anytime that an issue around trade or any trade barriers has come up at a provincial level, the federal government has stepped in and stopped immediately any practices that were considered to set up trade barriers between the provinces. I do wish to have that upon the record.

Now my question, once more, back to the minister. I would wonder what her rationale or reasoning is. Why did the government refuse to bring in legislation to implement TILMA to the House?

The Chair: Member, if I could have your attention for a moment. I want to caution you that your questioning about the need for legislation or not is not

strictly contained in this. We're here to debate the estimates for this ministry.

Certainly, certain questions, as you indicate, are probably relevant, but questions about the need or not for legislation, which is the second time you've asked this question, are really not within the bounds of this. I'm encouraging you, essentially, to stay on topic.

C. Wyse: Thank you, Chair. On topic or off topic, I'm always appreciative of obtaining information from my colleagues opposite on their points of view.

Well then, let's return to this question. Does the minister recognize the devastating effects this agreement will have on the municipal economy?

Hon. I. Chong: I've already indicated in my first response to the member that the purpose of TILMA for British Columbia and Alberta local governments is to allow for competitiveness and to create stability. In that sense, I would think that local governments would appreciate that.

I can also say that it's not the first time that UBCM were made aware. I understand that a letter on January 31, 2007, was written by the Minister of Economic Development as well as the Alberta Minister of International, Intergovernmental and Aboriginal Relations — the minister responsible for TILMA in that province — to Mr. Taylor at the UBCM as well, so they have certainly been apprised of ongoing work in this area.

In terms of the effects and impacts on local governments, I've already stated to the member the three areas where TILMA will have direct impact. Those are business registration, which is to require local governments to reconcile their business registration and reporting requirements with those of Alberta; business subsidies, to prohibit local governments from providing business subsidies that provide an advantage to an enterprise that would entice a relocation of an enterprise or that otherwise distort investment decisions; and thirdly, procurement, which would require local governments to provide open and non-discriminatory access of their procurement activities. Those are the three areas where TILMA will impact on local government.

As I've indicated, the Minister of Economic Development, who is leading the implementation of TILMA, has welcomed the input and participation of the UBCM executive. They will provide, whoever that person will be, information that local government member municipalities may wish to have addressed at that consultation process.

C. Wyse: From this I understand…. I will back up just a little bit. My recollection was that the letter that was referred to, in January, was advising — that is, the Alberta and B.C. counterparts — that in actual fact TILMA was well along the way and that input and consultation would be provided at a different period of time.

I think we are very much on the same page, that the consultation is taking place after the agreement has been signed. I think we can just move on to deal with the issues of the concerns that do exist now with local governments around the restrictions on their particular area.

Now, it might be interesting to look at the difference between the two levels of government and what their various functions are, and then view that in the context of the description that I gave of TILMA. Provinces are in the business of regulating trade investment and labour mobility. They set regulations for the registration of vehicles and businesses. They set the criteria for professions and trades. They set minimum standards in areas of health and safety. They regulate transportation, agriculture, energy, minerals, forests, fish and wildlife, the environment and financial institutions.

A good description, in my mind, of some of the functions that a senior level of government, the province, does. Let's compare that to the description of a local level of government. The role of a local government, however, is to establish unique rules in specific areas to achieve the specific goals of their community. This aspect of local government is described in several different ways.

As you can see, that contrast between the two levels of government is very dramatically different, yet TILMA applies equally to both sets of circumstances. Through you, Chair, to the minister responsible for local government: what steps is the ministry taking to help municipalities learn about TILMA and prepare them for the effects that this agreement will have on municipal autonomy?

Hon. I. Chong: I would say to the member that we are not removing municipal or local government autonomy. They still have autonomy in the areas that they're most and primarily concerned with. What we are saying is that this agreement is intended to eliminate barriers to trade and to enhance the competitiveness and stability of both provinces.

Now, if the member and his colleagues are suggesting that we do not want our local governments to be competitive, then I guess we'll beg to differ on that. We do believe that this province continues to lead in economic growth, in economic opportunities, because we have shown to be and have been a leader across Canada as a competitive province. We believe that local governments want to join us in that so that their communities can also thrive and do well and create jobs and have the potential that they believe they can have.

Again, I will say that TILMA has a direct impact on local governments in three specific areas. I've listed those areas. The Minister of Economic Development has engaged the president and the executive director at this time of UBCM to be involved in the negotiations and in the consultation process. I would expect that we would ask the president of UBCM as well as the executive director and the entire executive how they wish to include their member municipalities in how that engagement should take place.

It may be in the form of a workshop at UBCM, or it may be in terms of the area associations. I'm not going to dictate or direct that's how it should be. I'm going to ask the UBCM president and the executive director what they would like in terms of assistance to facilitate, to share that information, if that's what the member is asking.

How will member municipalities be able to learn about TILMA? Well, there are a variety of ways. If they

feel it's helpful to have it in some form of workshop, again, we will have to decide how that can best be accomplished. Sometimes it's a lot more difficult at UBCM, because you have a thousand delegates. Everybody is trying to partake in every particular workshop or forum that takes place, and it's just not possible. Perhaps the area associations would be the best place.

Again, I'm going to await and receive input from the UBCM president and executive as to how they want to proceed. But I do know that the Minister of Economic Development opened that door and said to UBCM: "You're very welcome to speak with us on how we can engage your member municipalities on understanding the implementation of TILMA."

C. Wyse: It's an interesting situation that I find here. A group has been taken to the dance and told they are going to dance. They were not asked whether they wanted to dance. Once that has been established, then we're going to discuss, possibly, how local government is going to learn about the effect of the agreement.

Sometimes my analogies are not particularly good. So I'm going to swing back over to the minister and try to rephrase this question. What direct plans does her ministry have for working with local government on dealing with TILMA and its effect — and if, furthermore, local government has the option of actually even being involved in TILMA?

Hon. I. Chong: I've indicated to the member that the implementation of TILMA will be led by the Minister of Economic Development. However, because there are three areas that will have a direct impact on local governments, our ministry and staff will be working with the Ministry of Economic Development and with UBCM in these negotiations.

Again, my understanding is — I've just checked with staff — that UBCM has already indicated that they would like to consider having a workshop at this year's conference. But because I don't set the agenda, I can't say absolutely that will occur. But there is every indication that they're hoping to put on a workshop at UBCM in September of 2007.

C. Wyse: Let me try it this way, then. What funds have been allocated in your budget to the process of adapting to TILMA?

Hon. I. Chong: As with many initiatives that sometimes go across government, you don't actually have to set up a particular fund to deal with a particular initiative. What you do is you dedicate staff and reallocate resources, in a way, within your ministry. We do have at least one of our staff members, and perhaps it will be more, dedicated to or who will be working with the Ministry of Economic Development to ensure that the concerns we hear can be addressed. Again, I would say that it's not expected that TILMA will profoundly change the way in which local governments operate.

Respectfully, if local governments have those concerns and if they raise them with the critic or they raise them with me, we have an avenue with which to pursue those. We have the UBCM, the UBCM executive. We have the annual conference. We have the area association meetings.

More than that, what I can say is that local governments meet with me regularly throughout the year. They call me regularly. I'm in their communities on a regular basis, and if an issue is raised, then I'm able to bring that back and share that when the consultation process takes place with the Minister of Economic Development. But in terms of bringing as many people together as possible, I guess UBCM has chosen that they would like to consider that at this year's conference.

C. Wyse: Let me try it this way, then. What is the Ministry of Community Services' actual role in this process of TILMA and its effect upon local governments?

Hon. I. Chong: The Ministry of Community Services will play an active role in ensuring that these three areas which have a direct impact on local government will be addressed if any of these concerns are raised. If local governments are concerned about how the business registration should take place, then I'm confident they will let me know. I will certainly have my dedicated staff person in those discussions and will raise that with the Minister of Economic Development, and we will see whether we can facilitate any changes to ensure that everyone understands how that business registration should take place.

In terms of business subsidies, another area that will impact on local governments, if there are concerns about how that is understood, interpreted, we will bring those issues — if it's unclear — to the Minister of Economic Development, get that clarity and ensure local governments are aware.

In the area of procurement, once again, this is about ensuring that local governments can disclose their procurement information and look at where the value of goods is greater than $10,000, the value of service is greater than $75,000 and the value of construction is greater than $100,000. Those are what are in the agreement.

In the event that local governments raise concerns or issues on it, as their representative at the executive council level, I will then present these to the Minister of Economic Development and say: are these legitimate concerns? Do we share them across the province? Are they only in one province versus another? How can we ensure that there is understanding as a whole?

For these three areas in particular that directly impact local governments, my ministry staff will be involved to ensure that there is clarity and understanding, that local governments are able to implement them and come in compliance by April 1, 2009.

C. Wyse: I appreciate the honesty of the minister in acknowledging that there are at least three areas where there is agreed-upon concern.

However, when you have an agreement that is subject to interpretation by panels, and when there are no rulings to date — no past practices to establish, in actual fact, where other areas of concern may be — to simply state that there are only three is presupposing the rulings of these panels I referred to, which will ultimately be making the final say. Establishing the overall effect of TILMA is still to be decided. That statement hasn't been made.

I now have become a little bit confused. At this moment in time I'm not certain whether local government is to be consulting the Minister of Economic Development or the Minister of Community Services with issues around TILMA, so I would ask to have that clarified. Who does local government get in contact with when they have concerns here?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sorry if I created confusion in the mind of the member for Cariboo South. I'll try to be clearer this time.

Because the Minister of Economic Development is leading the implementation of TILMA and because there are three areas that directly impact local governments — and I say that these three areas directly impact local governments — he has allowed and permitted the UBCM executive to be involved in the consultation process, as required under section 277 of the Community Charter.

For that reason primarily, I would expect that many of the concerns that we hear should be coming through the UBCM process. Therefore, the UBCM representatives in this consultation process will be able to directly speak to the Minister of Economic Development and have those issues of concern dealt with.

As the Minister of Community Services, I too, on a daily, weekly, monthly and an annual basis hear from local governments — as I'm sure the critic will — and meet with them on a variety of issues. If the issues concerning TILMA are raised with me directly, then I'm just suggesting that I won't be dismissing those. I will take those and share them with the Minister of Economic Development.

He may not be meeting with all the local governments that I meet with on a frequent basis, but if the Minister of Economic Development chooses to, and if local governments choose to meet with him, they can do that. If a local government chooses to meet with me instead, to raise an issue of concern with me — whether it's on TILMA, on water or sewer, or on local government grants — they can do that. They know they can.

My door has always been open to local governments. If they raise an issue with regard to TILMA with me and have not had an opportunity to bring it to the attention of the UBCM executive or the Minister of Economic Development, then I would be more than pleased to make sure that those areas of concern or those issues will be brought to their attention. If I have information to provide back to the local government, then I will do so. I will facilitate that exchange of information.

I do that not just for TILMA, but on a whole host of requests that I receive from local governments. I'm hoping that's clearer for the member.

C. Wyse: I think it's clear for me now that local governments have got two ministers that they're dealing with on an item where we're in agreement that there are at least three areas of concern that are going to have profound effects upon local government.

It seems to me that we're also in agreement that the minister with assigned responsibility for this area has somewhat of a significantly different role than advocating for the needs, wants and desires of local government. I will have to leave that up — to have a system as has unfolded here in this discussion — for local governments to sort out to whom they are going to now be pitching their interests and concerns upon this very, very important item.

That leads for me into another area, then. As I've already noted, under TILMA "…municipalities are prohibited from implementing any measures that may impact trade, investment or labour mobility between B.C. and Alberta." My question now is specifically to the minister here: what measures is her ministry taking to ensure that matters of municipal concern be protected, even though they may conflict with the interests of trade, investment or labour mobility between B.C. and Alberta?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to ensure that I've got the member's question correct. Is he suggesting, if local governments are not interested in having a competitive environment and aren't interested in having TILMA implemented, that his expectation would be that we would advance those issues?

I find that rather odd, because TILMA is an agreement that our government has signed. I'm part of our government; I support the TILMA agreement. I also support the process that the Minister of Economic Development has put forward, the welcoming of the UBCM executive and president to be involved in the transitional period.

Perhaps I'm just not as pessimistic as the member opposite. I do believe that in those two intervening years we are going to be able to work with local governments to have any of the areas that they feel are of concern addressed appropriately.

At the end of the day if there are matters still required to be resolved, then I would expect that we will continue to work towards that. My role as the Minister of Community Services is in fact to ensure that our local governments can be vibrant, sustainable communities. We've done it in a variety of ways. Here's just another tool that will allow our local governments to do that.

It is about allowing them to be competitive. It is about allowing them to ensure that we continue to lead the country in growth and that their communities continue to realize the potential that they can.

I'm not sure of what the member is asking — whether I'm to reject TILMA because he feels that some local governments may be expecting that at this time. That's not what I'm hearing. What I'm hearing from

local governments currently is that they don't know how it will directly impact. They would like information. That's why the offer has been made to UBCM to have them be involved, and I would expect that UBCM will provide that information to local government.

For the member to say that local governments have now two ministers to come to…. Local governments go to every minister on every possible issue that can impact their particular community. I have seen local governments meet with the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Small Business, the Minister of Health, the Minister of Education and with me.

We see this at the UBCM. They don't report to me. I can tell the member that. Local governments have dialogue with every ministry that they feel is relevant or pertinent to the decisions that they're making for their citizens.

What we have here is an agreement that the Minister of Economic Development will be leading the implementation on. We have the UBCM, which will be involved in the next two years to ensure that local government issues and concerns, if raised, will be addressed. We have UBCM committing to a workshop. As I understand it, that will take place this year and perhaps even at the local area association.

I think we have listened to local governments, and we're going to be working with them over the course of the next two years. I'm looking forward to that process unfolding.

C. Wyse: The point that needs to be reiterated here is that when we have health issues that affect the local government, we fully expect that they're going to go and talk to the Health Minister. When they have transportation issues, it's fully understood that they're going to go and talk to the Minister of Transportation.

However, the distinctively different point we have here underneath TILMA is that TILMA clearly, in agreement, has effect upon how local governments will govern. No question about it.

We're in agreement that there are at least three areas where there are concerns. Why local government would not be coming to the minister responsible for local government on this item is where the ambiguity comes into play. They are now, in my judgment, dealing with a different minister about how local governments will in actual fact conduct their business.

I read into the record two very distinctively different descriptions of the two levels of government and what their functions are about, and we have an agreement that applies to these two levels of government equally. Therefore, the effect upon local government is now agreed, by the hon. member opposite, to have at least three areas of concern. Those are three areas that were not agreed to a while earlier.

One more time, Chair, if I may. What avenue is there for municipalities concerned about their autonomy under TILMA — local government that has those concerns? What avenue can the minister offer to those municipalities with those concerns?

Hon. I. Chong: Let me make it clear for the record. I did not suggest that there were three areas of concern. I said that there were three areas that directly impact local governments, or that TILMA will have impact on local government in these three specific areas.

Whether local governments are concerned about those three areas, we'll find out over the course of the next number of months and next two years. What I did say was that these were the three areas that TILMA has direct impact on. Again, I want to be clear on that. Local governments may have concern in other areas, but these are the three areas of direct impact.

In the letter written to Mr. Taylor of the UBCM on January 31, 2007, there was some clarification that I think the ministers of the two provinces attempted to provide. I'll just read that into the record. This goes to local government autonomy. This goes to local government areas of responsibilities, in response to what the member has to offer.

The member has dutifully noted that the area of responsibility for local governments such as zoning bylaws, height restrictions, things of those nature, are the purview of local governments. TILMA is not going to affect those changes.

Nothing in TILMA will prevent a municipality from regulating what kinds of businesses can operate. I just need to provide that clarification for the member. Local governments will still have autonomy. Local governments will still be able to make the land use decisions they wish and provide the benefits to the citizens as they wish.

However, there are three areas that will directly impact local governments, and these areas — of business registration, business subsidies, of procurement — are intended to, again, provide for competitiveness as well as stability in both provinces. I would expect and hope that local governments would feel the direct benefits of being competitive, would feel there are benefits of having stability in their community — something that oftentimes I hear members opposite asking for.

When TILMA comes into full implementation, we know there will be as many as 7.7 million people, which is one-quarter of the population of Canada. You know, other jurisdictions are looking at this agreement, wishing that they had the opportunity to sign on.

C. Wyse: To deal with some other aspects around TILMA, could the minister advise me if her ministry has any regulatory bodies that her ministry is responsible for?

Hon. I. Chong: I think if the member has something specific, he should just come right out and say it. At the

top of my mind, I guess the only regulatory function we have would be the board of examiners, which deals with the educational component of those people who work in local government.

C. Wyse: I have nothing in mind. I only have questions. I'm looking for information, and that's what I understood this was about.

Has the ministry consulted professional associations that would be impacted by TILMA?

Hon. I. Chong: I know the Minister of Economic Development has done so. But I can say that I recently attended an annual meeting of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. This matter briefly came up, and they basically said: "What took you so long? We have had this ability to have our professionals go between the two provinces without hurdle, without a problem, and we think this is great." So there's one professional body that actually has come out already and said that this is working fine with them and they can't wait to see how others are also going to be able to reap the benefits of this kind of an arrangement.

Again, I'll say that the Minister of Economic Development, I understand, has spoken to a number of professional organizations. If the member would like that, he will need to canvass the Minister of Economic Development.

C. Wyse: Has the minister provided input to the Minister of Economic Development re concerns that these organizations may have received from the provincial bodies that they're responsible for? You have mentioned that you have one.

Hon. I. Chong: I have not received a litany of concerns or complaints from professional organizations, primarily because the Minister of Economic Development has engaged and has spoken with a variety of them, as I'm led to believe. So in that case they would have directly spoken with the Minister of Economic Development.

The example I gave is one that I happened to be able to hear from because I attended one of their annual meetings, and they very promptly advised me how pleased they were that TILMA was going to come into force dealing with professional organizations, professional associations, because they have had great experience with that. They happened to share that with me, and I would imagine they've also shared that with the Minister of Economic Development.

For a full list of those, again, I would ask the member to refer that to the Minister of Economic Development.

C. Wyse: My apologies for not having been clear. You had mentioned being responsible for the board of examiners. My question was specifically about that board — whether they had any concerns and if you had conveyed those concerns to the Minister of Economic Development.

C. Wyse: Minister, I'm going to change topics now, just so you have a bit of a heads-up. I'm going to move on to climate change.

A recent study has shown that up to half of all greenhouse gas emissions have to do with decisions made in municipalities. In B.C. there are a number of municipalities — and I'll name two of them, Dawson Creek and Anmore — which are leading the way in implementing green initiatives. These municipalities are well ahead of the curve and indeed well ahead of the throne speech.

However, communities can only do so much before higher levels of government need to step forward and bring industry and investment along with them. Much of the impetus for climate change must come from and be implemented at the local level. These support the green initiatives of the throne speech, but we do not see the necessary funding or action taking place to support these initiatives.

Many local governments are already taking steps to address climate change, which are well ahead of any steps taken by the provincial government. However, these local communities can only do so much with the limited resources they have. They require a commitment of investment and industry from the province in order to move ahead.

Now, some facts for the record. A recent study showed that up to half of all greenhouse gas emissions have to do with decisions made in municipalities. Partners for Climate Protection stated that by 2012, communities could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 20 to 50 megamillion tonnes from municipal operations and communitywide initiatives with investments in environmental infrastructure and sustainable transportation infrastructure.

Municipal governments can reduce emissions through land use, energy and transportation planning, green procurement, building retrofits, water conservation, solid waste diversion and renewable energy. In Dawson Creek, city hall has already been fitted with solar panels, and the police station is next in line. Green retrofits planned for public buildings are projected to cut back 43 million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year. The town is looking at adapting its own green vehicle policy and is considering building a biodiesel plant.

Dawson Creek is looking to invest, along with government and industry, in a $200-million wind energy project that will line a ridge just outside of town. For this, however, they would need the support and funding of the provincial government.

Local input into land use issues and zoning around this project is needed. However, last year the government took away the voice of local government concerning land use and zoning with Bill 30. The government needs to assure local communities that not only will they be supported financially with these green initiatives, but they will also have a voice in planning and zoning these initiatives.

These local climate initiatives require support from higher levels of government. Funding cannot be raised at the local level. There is only so much that municipalities

can do without investment and infrastructure support from higher levels of government.

A recent study showed that up to half of all greenhouse gas emissions have to do with decisions made in municipalities. Many municipalities have already taken green initiatives into their own hands, but they need the support of the provincial government to implement many of the initiatives they're working on.

To the minister: what is the ministry doing specifically to help municipalities achieve the green initiatives set out in the throne speech?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member raising the issue. In fact, our government and this ministry have done much to help communities, local governments, to be able to meet our objectives to have environmental sustainability at the forefront of their vibrant and connected communities.

The member well knows, for example, two years ago, about the signing of the federal gas tax transfer and the public transit agreements for infrastructure investment in cleaner drinking water and air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions that will have a direct, positive impact on the environment.

That is where, working with higher levels of government — that being the federal government — we've been able to have that put in place. Public transit, especially in the lower mainland, has a huge role to play in terms of helping us reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the substantial investment that we've been able to procure and secure with the federal government and provide to local governments has taken some of the financial burden off our local governments.

The member well knows a number of the green cities project initiatives that our government has introduced and which this ministry has the lead on. Our LocalMotion fund, which the member knows, is about helping our local governments build walkways, cycling paths, disability access and other improvements aimed at getting people out of their cars and, therefore, having less use and less reliance on cars. The member knows about our Towns for Tomorrow, again helping our smaller local governments — those towns under 5,000 — to be able to have infrastructure in place to ensure that they are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Our B.C. Spirit Squares is another opportunity for communities to celebrate not only their community pride but to be in the outdoors again — to have healthier lifestyles. We have, in fact, also provided in this ministry a number of planning grants. I know the member knows, as I'm sure there were some available in his community. Integrated communities, sustainable planning, reasonable growth strategies and grants for water and sewers — these are all making important contributions.

For example, in our ministry we have a smart development partnerships program. What that does is facilitate partnership projects between the provincial government, local governments, the development community and others to promote sustainable and healthy communities. So what we're seeing is that local governments are wanting to step up to the plate. They are wanting to ensure that they can create greener, livable cities. They oftentimes will come to higher levels of government, senior levels of government. When they come into our ministry and ask for a planning grant, we generally provide those. We certainly ask as to how they are going to proceed.

We will continue to work with the federal government to continue to receive our share of infrastructure dollars to provide for cleaner drinking water and for better air and water quality. We will also ensure that some of the projects which are funded will also deal with energy conservation, another important initiative that we have.

Our ministry is currently and has been working on a number of initiatives and programs aimed at achieving our compact, green and sustainable communities. I know that working with the Minister for Housing, as well, we will see if we can reduce the impact that we have on the footprint of our lands. But again, it's about working with local governments. They, too, have to share with us and work in partnership with us on how they want to see their communities develop.

Currently, I can say that we have a very good working relationship with our local governments. Those who are interested in moving forward on greener cities are coming forward, sharing their ideas, and in fact there will be rewards for the first time — cash awards — to local governments that have initiatives they want to share with us. They will be rewarded by a cash award. Our green city awards will allow us to, again, share that knowledge and best practices with other communities, which otherwise might not have thought of those kinds of initiatives.

C. Wyse: I want to acknowledge the minister's response to my question. I may come back in different forms to some of the information that she has provided for me. But at this moment my question to the minister would be: how much of her budget is dedicated to help municipalities with these green initiatives? If it's not immediately available, I would be willing to have her office provide that information to me.

Hon. I. Chong: I would say that most of the budget seems to be going to local governments. Therefore, for the greener cities, our infrastructure dollars are all about, as I say, water, sewer and cleaner, greener energy-efficient projects. The member knows the substantial amounts there.

Our LocalMotion dollars — all for local governments. The $40 million for LocalMotion over the next four years, $21 million for Towns for Tomorrow and $20 million for Spirit Squares….

The list goes on and on. Not to ignore the substantial amount that was transferred directly to UBCM, and not through our ministry accounts — the $635.6 million over five years, the gas tax transfer dollars that have gone to local governments. In addition, the public transit capital trust…. I want to always get that name right. About $105 million has flowed directly, again through the UBCM.

I would say that a substantial part of our budget is all about providing the ability for local governments to

have their cities, towns and villages be cleaner, greener, sustainable, vibrant communities.

C. Wyse: I'm not certain whether I'm going to be provided with that information as I've requested.

Hon. I. Chong: We can provide that. It is in the blue books, but we can provide that in a more succinct way if the member wishes.

We've already canvassed the aspect about funds being turned over to UBCM and determining whether they're actually going to achieve the goals that have been set forth. So I'm going to walk by that and not return to it. I know that the time that we have left for myself….

Moving along, and returning back to the example that I referred to around Dawson Creek…. Local input into land usage and zoning around those types of projects is needed. However, last year the government took away the voice of local government concerning land use and zoning with Bill 30.

My question is: what is the ministry doing to assure the local communities that they not only will be supported financially — I don't have the answer to that part yet for the projects with those type of green initiatives — but also that they will have a voice in the planning and zoning of the initiatives?

It's a two-part question, because I'm still looking for what the province will do to financially help a project with the windmills. The second part of the question is: what assurances do local governments have to deal with the zoning around such an item given the effect of Bill 30?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member knows, Bill 30 dealt with ensuring that the projects on Crown lands for independent power producers would be treated as all other initiatives that take place on Crown land. If he wants more specific information, I would ask him to refer that to the Minister of Energy and Mines, who brought in that piece of legislation.

What I can say, though…. I just want to put this on the record, and I'm not trying to go back to it. The member made comments regarding dollars transferred to UBCM. For my benefit, I would like to be clear that if he would rather dollars not be transferred to UBCM but that they be retained in our ministry budgets and have ministries deal with them directly and provide accountability in that way, then I would like to know that's his position on that. That's not what I'm hearing from UBCM.

C. Wyse: Possibly after 2009 the minister may have the opportunity to ask me those types of questions, and I would be in a position to answer them. Returning to the actual roles that we have here at this moment, I think I will return to asking the questions.

If I may, once more…. I'm still looking for the answers to this question, and if I've missed it, I apologize. Dealing with the example of Dawson Creek, and the project requiring tens of millions of dollars of investment, the first part is: what is this ministry doing to support financially such a green initiative?

The second part of the question is: what is her ministry doing to ensure that local input on the zoning and land usage will be provided?

The Chair: Excuse me, may I take this moment? As members may know, the Legislative Assembly is hosting two visiting Clerks from the parliament of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago this week. From time to time our guests will be observing the chamber and committee proceedings from the table.

I would ask you to please join me in welcoming Mrs. Nataki Atabi-Dilchan to the committee this morning.

Hon. I. Chong: I think I had outlined to the member a plethora of grants, initiatives and programs that we have available. We have the gas tax transfer, the $635.6 million over five years that UBCM provides and administers. Local governments access that for whatever initiatives they have, and that can be for their water, their sewer, their energy conservation projects.

There is a pooled amount that they can also access, and I don't know if Dawson Creek is looking to access that as well. In terms of zoning and bylaws, those are the purview of local governments, and they will continue to have that authority.

I can say, though, subsequent to Bill 30, that my understanding is that staff in the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources have been working with representatives from the UBCM to identify opportunities for continued local government consultation on IPP development. I'm not sure whether the officials and members from the city of Dawson Creek have been engaged in that. I understand that that's a possibility.

Representatives from the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, B.C. Hydro, the integrated land management bureau of the Ministry of Agriculture and Lands, the Ministry of Environment, the environmental assessment office — they're all collaborating to identify opportunities to strengthen local government involvement in the IPP processes and to streamline processes. I know there is work that is underway across government. It will continue to be a work underway.

If the member is asking specifically whether this ministry provides funding directly to advance a specific project of that nature, then I would say it would be dependent upon the grants and programs we have available for our infrastructure dollars. We provide planning grants from time to time, when communities request it, and that's how we continue to support our local governments.

C. Wyse: I think I'm beginning to develop a better understanding of the lay of the land around this particular question, and I do appreciate that very much. Let me try rephrasing half of the question differently, then. Is the government financially supporting this initiative in Dawson Creek?

Hon. I. Chong: I would ask the member to be more clear. If the city of Dawson Creek specifically has a project, we would consider that under the terms of our infrastructure programs and grants that we make available from time to time, as he's well aware. If he is referring to a project that is by a private developer or enterprise, then that would not be an area that our ministry has direct involvement with.

C. Wyse: Once more, I thank the minister for her considered response. Again, Chair, I accept responsibility for this. I have a little bit of confusion now. The way I understood not the last response but the one before…. I believe I heard the minister say that the issues around zoning and land usage would remain with the local government. Then if I reflect back to three or four questions ago, my understanding was that Bill 30, for independent power-producing projects, had taken that responsibility and right away from local governments.

I would ask for clarification on this issue of what Dawson Creek is looking for, putting an independent power-producing wind project on the ridge outside Dawson Creek itself. Does the municipality control the land usage, or does Bill 30 take precedent?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I'll provide clarity in this way. This was a bill that was debated last year, and I would ask the member to refer to the Hansards if he needs to on that. The amendment to section 121 of the Utilities Commission Act last year was intended to clarify the respective roles of the province and local governments with respect to public utilities, which include independent power producers. For example, local governments' land use decisions cannot prevent a public utility from constructing a facility. That is what it was designed to do.

The amendment states, as well, that an IPP will continue to be considered a public utility as long as it meets the conditions, which include that the project be entirely located on provincial Crown land; that the IPP has obtained an electricity purchase agreement with B.C. Hydro, Powerex or Fortis; and that the IPP has acquired the necessary federal and provincial authorizations.

The project that I think the member is referring to with Dawson Creek is one that the city wishes to pursue. If it's a project they believe qualifies for funding under one of the Canada-B.C. municipal rural infrastructure funds, the MRIF program, then they are certainly welcome to apply under that and compete with all other municipalities and local governments who may be having projects similar in energy conservation.

C. Wyse: I understand, Minister, that you and your staff produced a service plan prior to the throne speech announcement of an overreaching and cross-ministry commitment to climate change. I have some curiosity here about what sort of specific steps your ministry is making to immediately implement the government's broad commitments.

Climate change initiative LocalMotion was mentioned in this year of your service plan. What plans are underway to implement LocalMotion, and where is this in your budget?

Hon. I. Chong: The member can refer to the blue book, the estimates book, in the budget documents. He will see that LocalMotion has been identified as a program over four years. He will also see the Towns for Tomorrow identified there, as well as the Spirit Squares, so it's certainly within our budget. It has all been detailed. I don't know which document he is referring to, but it should be there. In fact, I think on page 38 of the briefing in the small book it identifies…. There is a little box which shows the amounts.

I can say that in this fiscal year just ended we were able to approve and advance some $19 million worth of projects to about 27 communities in British Columbia under the LocalMotion funding program.

We are still evaluating the Towns for Tomorrow and the Spirit Square applications, in part because a number of these are smaller projects and some have applied to for the same project under two different programs. We're trying not to duplicate them.

As the member will know, having been in local government, sometimes you apply for every possible avenue of program in hopes that one of them is successful. We're having to clean up the list a little, shall we say.

As well, the MRIF applications closed on January 31. We are also evaluating those. Because those include the federal government, we have a management committee that we must meet with in order to ensure they are fine with the projects that we have chosen to move forward with. So a variety of programs continue, all towards our green cities project.

C. Wyse: Also, Minister, I note that your service plan discussed the green city awards, which "provide monetary awards to local governments that demonstrate leadership in creating greener, healthier communities." Again, my question: where is this initiative in your budget?

Hon. I. Chong: It is within the infrastructure program budget that we have. We will be announcing those, as I indicated, at UBCM this September.

C. Wyse: When I went through the throne speech, I discovered that there are actually 11 different green objectives that are referred to in the throne speech. I have questions around all 11 of these particular initiatives that were announced in the throne speech. I'm wondering where each and every one of these particular green initiatives are, with respect to my hon. colleague across the floor, with her own ministry.

I see the time that is here, so maybe to give the flavour of it, I will simply ask three or four, and then I will move on. But I do want to note on the record that there were 11 identified, specific items in the throne speech, which I assumed that all ministries would be addressing within their budget in some plan.

I would ask the minister where her ministry is with regards to conservation as referred to in the throne speech. Where is that in her budget?

Hon. I. Chong: I can say that items in the throne speech are the government's vision to move forward to ensure that we have strong, vibrant local governments and also to ensure that the province continues to meet its goals of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by one-third by the year 2020.

All ministries across government are focused on that. With items mentioned in the throne speech, sometimes they will be shared responsibilities with ministries. We will work with ministries. For example, I will continue to work with the Ministry of Environment on some areas where it deals with clean water and air. I will work with the Ministry of Transportation when it comes to public transit initiatives. I will work with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources and B.C. Hydro in terms of conservation. I will work with — specifically through our own ministry — our local governments. We'll deal with the integrated regional and growth strategies and planning strategies.

We will continue to work across government to ensure that we meet the objectives of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and ensuring that we look at ways of energy conservation. That's, in part, one of the reasons why when the gas tax transfer, the $635.6 million, was provided through UBCM, it was not just entirely for water and sewer. There was a component in there to deal with things such as energy conservation.

Each and every one of us has a responsibility, not just in government but as individuals, to ensure that we make as little impact on our world as we possibly can so that we can leave behind communities for future generations.

C. Wyse: Assuredly, I think anyone would have assumed that there was cross-ministry responsibility for all these items. Because I'm dealing here with the Ministry of Community Services, I was looking for specific responses from her ministry that were dealing with the items that were mentioned in the throne speech. Because she had mentioned what I have down here in my list as number 9, my question to the minister is: what is her ministry doing to encourage the personal choices that are environmentally responsible for the people of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not sure what the member is trying to ask here. When the Premier speaks to various groups — when he talks about our government's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and about the opportunity we have to build smarter, cleaner, liveable and sustainable communities — I believe that he is challenging not just local governments but also the business community to step forward.

Whether it's schools, whether it's hospitals, whether it's just business buildings or whether it's building a home, we're all being challenged to do that. If the member is asking whether I directly have a role to play and to suggest to people how they're going to do this, then I would suggest that that's not what any one of us has the ability to do. We set out these targets. We set out these goals. We try to facilitate where possible and, in fact, engage associations, groups and interested parties to come to the table and work with us.

Everything that we do in our government right now across government in terms of reducing greenhouse gas emissions is done, I believe, in a coordinated way. In some cases some ministries take the lead, and others will work with them on that. I've already indicated a few of those.

We're working with all sectors on the green agenda. I'm working across government and with local governments on the green agenda. I think they know pretty clearly where we're headed in terms of a green agenda.

C. Wyse: I may not share as optimistically the minister's deal about where everybody understands where her ministry is with regards to these items.

I'll ask one more around the 11 that I identified. I'm wondering where her ministry is with regards to dealing with the issue of the capture of methane in sanitary landfills and where that would be.

Hon. I. Chong: The Minister of Environment would have more to say on that in terms of phasing in requirements to capture methane in our landfills and using it for clean energy. He is, I believe, working on that. We would be involved with the Minister of Energy, Mines as well as with the Minister of Environment to ensure that we do so in a coordinated way.

When the member is listing these 11 items, perhaps for the sake of time, if he wanted to provide his understanding of that list of his 11 items that he may think are all under the direct purview of this ministry, we may be able to respond to it and share with him whether in fact we have some role to play but with the direct lead being a different ministry. Maybe that would be more helpful for the member.

C. Wyse: I will provide a list. What I'm asking for is simply where this ministry fits in or doesn't fit in with regards to the various items that were mentioned in the throne speech.

To return to maybe something a little bit more broad or generic, to the minister: what staff have been allocated to climate change–related activities in her ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: I understand there are about ten staff who are working on these initiatives full-time, but as time progresses and as need demands, we will adjust that to provide additional staff. Sometimes it is about redeploying staff to meet whatever particular initiatives require their attention first and foremost, and that will take place. But at this point we have about ten staff people involved.

C. Wyse: I thank the minister for that response. What resources have been allocated to climate change–related activities?

Hon. I. Chong: The member will note from the blue book, the estimates book, that we have not substantially increased staff in our ministry. We have been able to ensure that we have staff available to take on some

A year ago we didn't have the LocalMotion fund or the Towns for Tomorrow fund or the Spirit Squares fund. A year ago we hadn't had the signing of the MRIF. So when it's necessary, we will redeploy staff for that. I can tell you it's possible, because sometimes other initiatives or projects conclude. I know, for example, that our B.C. community water improvement program concluded a year ago, so staff working on that are now able to work on this.

It is a bit of a juggling process when you move staff from one area to another, depending on what initiatives or programs are available. As I say, we have not significantly increased our staff. I understand there are maybe five new FTEs in our ministry as a whole, and we will use them to their fullest potential, I'm sure.

C. Wyse: What immediate plans are in place, if any, to implement any climate change–related activities?

Hon. I. Chong: I believe I've answered that. Again, immediately this is one of the reasons why the Premier announced our green cities initiative and project at UBCM last year, with our LocalMotion, green city awards, Towns for Tomorrow and B.C. Spirit Squares.

With the announcement on October 27, 2006, and with the first funding announcements that were made in the middle of April, I'd say that's a pretty fast turnaround — about a six-month turnaround for a program, which I've rarely seen happen so quickly. I think even the local governments were surprised.

We're moving very quickly. We want local governments to be able to build those sustainable pathways and get people out of their cars so that they can provide for more commuting. I can also say that we are negotiating for another new Canada-B.C. MRIF agreement. As soon as that is in place — and that does take more time because the federal government is involved — we will act very quickly to move that along as well.

With the public transit capital trust, again dollars went out as quickly as we could possibly make it happen, inviting those dealing with public transit to put in cleaner, low-emission buses.

C. Wyse: Once more, I appreciate the minister's responses. One final question around this general topic of climate change. What monitoring enforcement of industry is your ministry doing to ensure preventive climate change activities?

Hon. I. Chong: It's not the responsibility of my ministry to be monitoring industry.

C. Wyse: Noticing the time, I'm going to move to a topic that I believe we will be able to finish up before lunch. It deals with the Community Charter and regional districts. The government promised regional districts that they would be brought into the Community Charter, but as of yet they have not done so. The Community Charter ensures that communities will receive mutual respect and consultation. We have had that discussion numerous times this morning.

However, Bills 75, 30 and 11 do contradict those promises. What are the ministry's plans for regional districts regarding the Community Charter?

Hon. I. Chong: I have spoken to UBCM executives on a number of occasions as well as a number of local representatives, especially those in the electoral areas, regarding the issue of potential future legislative needs. I have stated that at this time I am not proceeding with development of a specific charter for regional districts.

I do feel that the Community Charter is still relatively new insofar as local governments are still investigating the full potential and benefits that are available, the tools we have made available to them. I have made it quite clear that it was important that we understand the full ability of the Community Charter before we move forward on any future legislative requirements.

C. Wyse: Likewise, I have been approached by area directors from the unincorporated regions with increasing frequency since I've been in this position. They raise with me the difficulty they have in addressing quite a variety of issues that have come to them as the electoral area director. They deal with a whole range of issues. This ambiguity with regional districts and where they fit in underneath the Community Charter seems to be contributing to some of the conflict in dealing with the complex issues that are in front of them.

One more question to the minister: when, if ever, does the minister expect regional districts to be brought under the Community Charter? I believe that they would like to have some indication of when they would be brought underneath this piece of legislation.

Hon. I. Chong: What I can say to the member is this: I think the local government legislative framework currently in place is working well. At the same time, I would say that there are always ways to improve. There are always improvements that can be made and issues to be addressed. In some cases those matters will require legislative change, and in some cases they are best addressed in a non-legislative way.

I can say that at the last UBCM conference last year in October here in Victoria there was a workshop held called "Strengthening regional districts." I don't know if the member partook in that particular workshop. It was an opportunity for delegates to discuss and respond to questions related to four themes.

One of the questions was "Thinking regionally," another was "Building interjurisdictional relations," another was "Connecting regional districts and their members," and the fourth one was "Providing assistance and advice."

At that time, the results of the workshops were shared with regional district chairs and other administrative

officers at their annual meeting on March 13 in Vancouver. That report will be sent to every local government in British Columbia, inviting comments as well.

We will continue to work with our regional districts. We will continue to find ways for communities, whether they be municipalities or regional districts with electoral areas, to work cooperatively to best deliver regional services in the region for the citizens so that the citizens, at the end of the day, are best served by those decisions that are made.

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.