Hansard — Tuesday, May 8, 2007 p.m.

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		7685

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		7686
	Richmond Kigoos Swim Club
	J. Yap
	Jewish Canadian war veterans
	C. James
	Lions Gate Hospital Foundation
	K. Whittred
	Ladysmith Resources Centre
	D. Routley
	Ashlu Creek green power project
	J. McIntyre
	Worker safety
	C. Puchmayr

Oral Questions		7688
	Cost of 2010 Olympics
	C. James
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Role of Crown corporations in funding of 2010 Olympics
	H. Bains
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Olympic venue construction contracts
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. C. Hansen
	G. Robertson
	Call for investigation into real estate practices
	D. Thorne
	Hon. C. Taylor
	M. Farnworth
	Funding for Nanaimo Family Life Association
	L. Krog
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Funding for agencies providing services to children and families
	M. Karagianis
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Funding for Buy B.C. program
	C. Evans
	Hon. P. Bell

Second Reading of Bills		7693
	Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill Pr402)
	R. Hawes

Committee of the Whole House		7693
	Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill Pr402)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		7693
	Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007 (Bill Pr402)

Committee of Supply		7693
	Estimates: Ministry of Health (continued)
	A. Dix
	Hon. G. Abbott
	D. Cubberley
	C. Trevena
	S. Fraser
	N. Simons

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		7718
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues (continued)
	Hon. I. Chong
	C. Wyse
	G. Coons
	R. Fleming
	B. Simpson
	M. Sather
	N. Simons
	G. Gentner
	D. Chudnovsky
	R. Austin
	J. Horgan
	M. Farnworth

Hon. C. Taylor: It's my great pleasure today to introduce a number of very special friends from my riding, the Sunset Indo-Canadian Seniors Society of Vancouver. This organization has been in existence for some 30 years. In fact, they celebrated their 30th anniversary last year. There are over 200 members, and they have given so much back to the community in terms of assistance to new immigrants to Canada and to seniors generally in my community.

I'm so pleased they were able to join us this morning for a reception, and they have had a tour of the Legislature. Now they get to see us work, which I hope is a good experience for them as they watch.

May I please introduce the president, Gurbux Singh Bal; general secretary and spokesperson Gurnam Singh Ranu; Vice-President Amrik Singh Gosal; Punjabi Market Association president Daljit Singh Sidhu; Ross Street Sikh temple Vancouver president Gurdip Singh Gill; Punjabi writer, columnist and the founding pioneer of the Punjabi Market Vancouver, Sucha Singh Claire; and Mr. Chandra Bodalia, their press photographer. Thank you very much for joining us today.

D. Chudnovsky: Together with the Minister of Finance, I'd like to add my special welcome to my dear friends from the Sunset Indo-Canadian Seniors. They are an extraordinary group of people. I encourage every member of this House to find time on a Thursday afternoon to join them at Sunset Community Centre. It's always a lot of fun. They ask tough questions — and the correct questions, it seems to me.

In particular, if I may welcome Mr. Ranu, who is a good friend, a confidant and an adviser. I thank all of these guests for being here today.

Hon. W. Oppal: I want to acknowledge the balance of the Sunset Indo-Canadian Seniors. They are Mohinder Singh Rakhra, Joginder Singh Johal, Dalip Singh Dhillon, Sohan Singh Atwal, Sohan Singh Mahal, Hukam Singh Kainth, Bakhsish Singh Bains, Lashkar Singh Dhatt, Makadev Singh Randhawa, Harchand Singh Dhaliwal, Dalip Singh Moga, Terger Singh Purba, Naraujau Singh Ghangheri, Sohan Singh Toor, Tarsem Singh Bal, Gurmej Singh Beesla, Sardarn Dhesi, Tarsem Singh Bains, Amargit Sidhu, Arjau Singh Bilku, Mukhtiar Singh Dhillon, Dara Singh Mann, Avtar Singh Kular, Mohan Singh Dhillon, Malkaiat Singh Sohpaul, Gurmej Sandhu, Avtar Dhillon, Sohan Singh and Sucha Singh Kalon.

They're a wonderful group of people, senior citizens, who meet on a weekly basis. They read poetry, they tell each other stories, and they support one another. They're wonderful people in our community. I join the Minister of Finance in welcoming them all here today.

M. Sather: Joining us today in the precinct are Joy Brown and a group of seniors from Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows. I'm sure they're going to learn much about the workings of this august institution. Will the members please join me in welcoming them.

J. Nuraney: Among the group who are the guests of our Minister of Finance is a particular person that I would like to recognize. His name is Chandra Bodalia. He's a photographer who attends each and every event of our community and is an untiring worker. His pictures tell thousands of words every time they get printed. I would like to say welcome to the House to Chandra, and I would ask the House to please help me welcome all of them.

J. Brar: I would like to once again be part of the introduction this afternoon and to join members from my side and members from the other side in welcoming the number of people who came from the Sunset community. These people not only get together every day. They are the voice of the community, and they fight for equality and justice.

I echo the introduction of the member. We do have one person who tells the story of the community through putting pictures in the newspaper. I would like to welcome him, as well, and many other members of the community who are here to meet with the government as well as the opposition and bring their issues to the House and also to watch us today as to how great we are in our discussion and question period.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Today in the members' gallery we have a special visitor from the embassy of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria. He is visiting Victoria for the first time, and his name is His Excellency Smail Benamara, the Algerian Ambassador to Canada. We had an interesting visit this morning. I ask the House to please give a warm welcome to His Excellency.

A. Dix: I want to introduce, on behalf of my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, 26 grades 5 and 6 students from Hastings Elementary School in Vancouver. These students are all in the French immersion program in Vancouver. I also want to introduce their parents, because as many people involved in French immersion know, trips such as these aren't possible without an incredible contribution from parents and teachers: Ken Macdonald, Maureen Ashfield, Tom Mills, Michele Tung and her mother Mrs. Tung, Jean Daniel Pancheau, Sherry Butt and Anna Ramirez.

I also want to say that they have the pleasure of being accompanied by 30 students from Rivière-de-Loup in Quebec and their teachers Natalie Fortin, Erica Levesque, Louis Valliere, Tatia Ouellette and Christian

Ouellette. I know that all of us wish everyone visiting us here today la bienvenue.

R. Hawes: In the gallery today is Mr. Gordon Taylor. He is agent for the Mission Foundation. He's a solicitor from Mission and also happens to be the landlord for my constituency office, so I have to be particularly nice to him. He is here with Doreen McKimmon, who is the vice-chair of the Mission Foundation and, hopefully, with the cooperation of everyone in the House, soon to be Mission Community Foundation. Would the House please make them both welcome.

Hon. B. Penner: In the precincts today are Mr. Doug Gillett and his wife Ann. Mr. Gillett has been a conservation officer serving the British Columbia public very well for the last 33 years. Today it was my honour to take him and his wife for lunch in recognition of his receiving the Conservation Officer of the Year award. Would the House please extend its congratulations to Mr. Gillett and his wife.

D. Hayer: I also want to say thank you to all of the seniors that are here today. Last week, on Thursday, I made a statement on seniors — how important they are and how seniors are the ones that built this province and this country. They are the ones who fought for our right to vote.

I just want to thank you on behalf of all British Columbians and all the MLAs who have introduced you. Welcome here, and thank you.

J. Yap: I rise today to recognize a community group which exemplifies the spirit of my riding Richmond-Steveston. That group is the Richmond Kigoos Swim Club. Kigoos is a first nations word for a fish that swims quickly, and that they do at the Kigoos Swim Club.

Founded in 1959, the Kigoos have a long history in Richmond, today calling the Steveston outdoor pool home. The club itself is one of the larger summer swim clubs in the lower mainland, with roughly 200 swimmers. In addition, it's one of the most inclusive clubs, boasting members from age three to 53 and beyond.

In keeping with their great sense of community spirit, the Kigoos have become a crucial part of the Richmond culture. They are a non-profit organization which is run almost entirely by volunteers, something that the residents of Richmond are extremely proud of and widely known for. In order to include as many swimmers as possible, the Kigoos work tirelessly to host fundraisers to lower costs and continue to provide quality swimming for local residents.

The summer season runs from May to August. June 2 to 3 marks the annual Kigoos Icebreaker swim meet. This is the first swim meet of the season, bringing together all the clubs that have not met for months — hence, the name Icebreaker. It has a long history of success and provides the swimmers a great opportunity to catch up, compete and have a whole lot of fun.

I know that this year will be no exception, and I want to wish every swimmer with the Kigoos Swim Club the best of luck at the Icebreaker swim meet and with the rest of the season. I know that all of you will make all Richmond's residents proud.

Please join me in saluting a great club which promotes community values, a healthy lifestyle and a sense of fun.

C. James: I'm very proud that my constituency of Victoria–Beacon Hill is home to the oldest synagogue in continuous use in Canada and the oldest house of worship in British Columbia. Congregation Emanu-El has served the Jewish community on Vancouver Island since 1862.

This week the congregation is honouring Jewish Canadian veterans who served their country in World War II. Today I rise to recognize the congregation's efforts and join with all British Columbians to honour the service and sacrifice of these Jewish Canadians.

Over 18,000 Jewish Canadians served in one or more branches of the Canadian Armed Forces in World War II. Thousands came home with physical and mental wounds. Hundreds were killed. Many more were decorated for military valour.

These Jewish Canadians fought for their country and for our freedom against an enemy that was committing genocide against the Jewish people. In fighting and dying for their country, young Jewish men and women made an invaluable contribution to the universal values of equality, liberty, religious freedom and human dignity.

Owing to the efforts of Jewish war veterans and of congregations like Emanu-El, that sacrifice and their memory will never be forgotten.

K. Whittred: I rise today to pay tribute to the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation. The success of this foundation is remarkable. In just over four years the Lions Gate Hospital Foundation has raised and invested more than $30 million to enhance health care on the north shore.

Thanks to the foundation, the Lions Gate Hospital is one of the few hospitals in western Canada that houses fully dedicated, minimally invasive surgical suites with worldwide teleconferencing capabilities. The total cost of these new suites was $2.1 million, with $1.3 million contributed by the foundation.

The hospital is also home to a 64-slice CT scanner, the most advanced CT available anywhere in the world. Vancouver Coastal Health provided $1.2 million. The foundation raised $900,000 to top up this contribution in order to purchase the 64-slice scanner.

Their fundraising efforts for a new emergency department have been astounding. The foundation will invest an astonishing $15.5 million toward the $23 million needed, which is 67 percent of the total cost of the expansion. This is an extraordinary feat.

I ask the House to join me in celebrating the tremendous accomplishments of Judy Savage, the board of directors and the many donors, volunteers and supporters. Their hard work and generosity directly contribute to the foundation's success, which in turn will save many lives. I know that their newest project, a freestanding hospice, will be equally as successful.

D. Routley: I know I share with many of the members here a history of some volunteer service in the community, but I also know I share with all the members a true amazement and astonishment at the level and depth of volunteer services in our community.

Today I rise to speak about one centre, the Ladysmith Resources Centre — which was born in 1992 at a meeting of the Ladysmith Inter-Agency Liaison Committee after those folks noticed, during the late '80s and early '90s, an increase in social problems on the streets of Ladysmith.

They banded together, and the first program they came up with was the Nobody's Perfect parenting program in 1993. I'm sure I could have benefited from that — very recently, actually. They added to that the community volunteer income tax program, the community advocate program in 1994, the youth-at-risk worker program in 1995, and the youth alcohol and drug worker program in 1997.

Since those days they've added the community computer centre, where people can access computers free of charge. They host the Ladysmith food bank, which is coordinated by the churches of Ladysmith. They do the Ladysmith early childhood committee and service the Success By 6 program. Community Kitchens is located there, and that's one of my favourite programs — adding capacities to the community by helping families learn about budgeting and diet and food preparation. They have loaner wheelchairs and scooters and walkers.

We all know the value of volunteerism, but it is something that's very difficult to quantify. Indeed, it's invaluable. Without it, our communities would not be the places that they are. Credible estimates of the value of volunteer service in Canada range between 10 and 17 percent of our GDP. Certainly that's not something we can afford to lose.

Beyond that, they add great character to our community. They add the great fibre of good character-building to the youth who experience their programs and serve their programs through our schools.

Right now the Ladysmith Resources Centre is trying to raise funds to build a disabled ramp to their building, so we need to reaffirm our support for volunteers in B.C.

J. McIntyre: It's no secret that modern society runs on electricity. Without it, our way of life would grind to a halt. It's also no secret that B.C. faces a dilemma when it comes to electricity. We use more than we generate, buying it from our neighbours to meet the demands of our booming economy and growing population. But we are working to become energy self-sufficient. There are projects being undertaken across this province to meet our power needs through the use of clean, green technology.

I'm proud to say that one of those projects is in my riding, the Ashlu Creek green power project. It's through clean, green power production facilities like this that B.C. will meet our growing need for power while still meeting our government's goal of having all new power generation have zero net greenhouse gas emissions.

Last Friday I was at the launch of the tunnel-boring for the Ashlu project and was able to learn firsthand the benefits — not just for the power generation itself, which is the equivalent of powering 23,000 homes a year, enough for all of the Squamish-Lillooet regional district, but the CO₂ emissions–avoidance as well. It's 219,000 tonnes per year when compared to coal generation, equivalent to 21,000 cars off the road annually. And all electricity will be sold to B.C. Hydro.

Importantly, this project is also being done in cooperation with Squamish First Nation, who in addition to employment opportunities will receive an annual royalty, academic bursaries, fund contributions as well as transfer of the project after 40 years.

This run-of-the-river project will generate millions of dollars in revenues to all levels of government combined, as well as provide economic opportunities and community benefits to local residents. The environment, the Squamish First Nation and British Columbians will all benefit from the construction of Ashlu green power.

This business partnership truly is a win-win. It was a pleasure to meet on-site all those involved who are ensuring our economy continues to boom.

C. Puchmayr: This week is Occupational Health and Safety Week. It is recognized throughout many jurisdictions in North America. This summer many students will enter the workforce for the first time — small and medium businesses and some farms. In this province children as young as 12 will be working. That is the youngest in North America and is very contentious to many.

One hundred and sixty workers died in B.C. last year, and 5,000 were permanently disabled. Twelve of the dead were young workers under the age of 24. This is unacceptable. All employers have obligations to provide safe and healthy working conditions to all workers. This includes training employees on potential hazards and ensuring that workers have the required knowledge and certification. It also includes correcting unsafe acts and unsafe conditions. Every employer

needs to ensure that personal protective equipment is available and being used. Employers need to investigate all accidents and incidents.

All workers have three fundamental rights: the right to know, the right to participate and the right to refuse unsafe work. No worker should die in the workplace in this modern era — no worker.

I challenge all workers and all employers to set a higher standard that achieves a safer result in the workplace. I challenge all to take the initiatives required to reverse the trend of permanent injury and death in the workplace.

Many workers are still exposed to asbestos throughout British Columbia. The asbestos-laden material must be eradicated and removed so that this toxin does not pose a risk to the public or to workers again.

C. James: After several delays British Columbians finally got to see the business plan for the 2010 Olympic Games. Unfortunately, British Columbians are still waiting for the Premier to tell them what the total cost will be. The business plan released today is an incomplete picture. It doesn't tell the taxpayers how much they're actually…

My question is to the Premier. VANOC refuses to do it, so will the Premier tell British Columbians today how much taxpayers are actually putting out to host the Olympic Games?

Hon. C. Hansen: I know that the Leader of the Opposition, on August 11, 2003, said on CFAX: "I didn't support going for the bid in the beginning." Now it's obvious that she is one of the few British Columbians — mind you, she has about 32 other colleagues — that are negative on the Olympics.

On this side of the House we know it is actually one of the most pivotal moments in British Columbia history that's going to launch British Columbia in the next decade and beyond.

Hon. C. Hansen: …we made a commitment at the time of the Olympic bid, which she did not support, that we would put on the table $600 million from the provincial government — from the taxpayers through the provincial government — for the staging of the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2010. Last year the Auditor General did a review. He actually verified the fact that that $600 million commitment is still on target.

C. James: The only people who believe that it's $600 million are the minister and his gang on that side. The rest of us want to know the cost. We've heard the minister and government stick to the same old tired line: "It's $600 million, nothing more. That's all the taxpayers are putting out."

Well, even the Auditor General has said that the provincial contribution is likely to be $775 million and counting. That doesn't include contributions from municipal governments like Richmond, like Vancouver and like Whistler.

Again, my question to the Premier: including the tens of millions of dollars that are being spent by those three municipalities, what is the total cost of the games to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: At the time when the Leader of the Opposition was negative on us going for the Olympic Games, we were actually putting in place the budgets and the support that the province would provide if we were successful. Guess what. On this side of the House we believed in the bid. We believed in going for the Olympics. We believed in going for the gold and striving for success in this province, unlike the NDP.

As a result of that, we're going to see the benefits that the games are going to bring. We know there's about $4 billion worth of direct economic activity that will come to the province, and there will be hundreds of millions of dollars — and billions of dollars more — of spinoff economic activity in the province.

Mr. Speaker, I will tell you what the biggest benefit from the Olympic Games is. The biggest benefit from the games is the eight-year-old child in a school in British Columbia who is inspired by the Olympic

athletes, inspired by the games and inspired by what this province is going to become.

C. James: There was one word left out of that minister's long list of beliefs, and that's belief in accountability, which we believe in on this side, to the taxpayers.

C. James: Taxpayers in Richmond are paying for the oval. Taxpayers in Vancouver are paying for the two Olympic villages. These are real costs, and British Columbians deserve to know the final price tag, not the public relations line that is put forward by this government.

Add that to other Olympic costs — Legacies Now, the Sea to Sky Highway and the big one that the government refuses to acknowledge as Olympic spending, the Olympic secretariat. Only the minister would believe that the Olympic secretariat is not Olympic costs. Why would you need a secretariat if you didn't have the Olympics? The costs keep growing, Mr. Speaker, but this government won't come clean.

Again to the Premier: what is the total cost to B.C.'s taxpayers, and why are they hiding the figures?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, Mr. Speaker, after ten years of NDP government in this province, British Columbians actually deserve the right to dream again — to dream big dreams.

Hon. C. Hansen: While the majority of British Columbians in every corner of this province are dreaming about success, the NDP are dreaming about failure. I know in Richmond, to use the member's specific reference, the city of Richmond decided: "Here's an opportunity. Yes, we can build a speed skating oval for the $60 million that the federal and provincial governments are putting on the table, but we want to do more than that."

We're going to revive that part of their community, and they put an additional $110 million into the speed skating oval to build it into a future community centre. Guess what. They promised that they were going to cover that cost by the sale of lands immediately adjacent, so it would not be a cost on the ratepayers. That's exactly what has happened.

H. Bains: Let me remind the minister that it was the NDP who dreamed about these Olympics before they even thought about it.

H. Bains: Let me make one more thing clear. I supported the Olympics right from the beginning, and every member of this caucus supported them. What we also….

H. Bains: We also support accountability and transparency, which is sorely lacking from that side of the House. It's a very simple question, but the government is more interested in spin and bogus numbers — and so much for transparency, Mr. Speaker. VANOC even locked me out of the briefing today.

The VANOC business plan shows that the organizing committee is still short of domestic sponsorships. We know that ICBC kicked in $15 million and that the government gave away B.C. Place as an in-kind donation. Those are all taxpayers' dollars.

H. Bains: The question is: how many other Crown corporations are going to kick in? Will those funds count as taxpayer contributions, or will he try to spin those away as well?

Hon. C. Hansen: You know, the member may have been a supporter of the Olympics from the beginning, but his leader wasn't. I'll give you another quote. This one is actually from January 2004: "I didn't support the government trying to gain the Olympics. But it's here now, and being a practical person, we need to do the best we can now that it's coming."

Well, that's not good enough for us. We're going to capitalize on the fact that we're hosting the Olympics to actually make it into something big, to put British Columbia on the map. I can tell you who actually

believes in the Olympics. If you look nationally across Canada, at the time of the bid the bid committee projected that they were going to realize $454 million from domestic sponsorships. The private sector has come to the table because, unlike the NDP, they actually know that this is going to be a phenomenal success.

But I can tell the member right now that they're not going to get $454 million from domestic sponsorships, because they're already up to $615 million, and it's projected that it's going to go to $760 million.

H. Bains: Mr. Speaker, VANOC is very clear. They are still looking for $100 million in domestic sponsorships. ICBC and PavCo have come to their rescue. Who's next, Mr. Speaker?

Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us: is B.C. Hydro next? Maybe the Solicitor General can tell us if B.C. Lottery is coming to the rescue next. Or maybe the Minister of Health: are the health authorities becoming sponsors? Or WorkSafe B.C. — are they coming to the rescue? Can anyone from that side tell us: who is the next coming to bail out VANOC from these Crown corporations?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think the member has his numbers a little bit wrong, because the domestic sponsorship is a tremendous success story. As I said, they've already raised $615 million. They are projecting not another $100 million, but they're actually projecting another $145 million.

We made it quite clear to all the Crown corporations that if they are going to be part of any kind of Olympic sponsorship arrangement, it has to be on a purely commercial basis, and those have all been vetted by the Auditor General in the province.

N. Macdonald: Today we learned VANOC's contingency for venue construction is down to $55 million. That's only 9 percent of the estimated cost. VANOC has also built a $100 million contingency into the operating budget. That's only 6 percent of the total budget.

Here's the problem. The Premier's friend, Ken Dobell, is chair of the finance committee. He's the same person that led the convention centre and let them bill $400 million in cost overruns. That's 100 percent over budget.

Given this government's deplorable record on the convention centre expansion project, does the Premier honestly believe that the 6-percent contingency is going to get the job done?

Hon. C. Hansen: When you look at the venue construction, it's actually a very good success story. There's a $589 million budget in there. As I pointed out last fall, there was at that time a $67 million contingency in place, which was a very sizeable contingency getting the remaining uncontracted services that still had to be contracted for.

There was actually a schedule, which is up on my website for everybody to inspect, that specifically identifies the rate at which VANOC can charge against the contingency. They have a contingency that is well in excess of what is allowed at this point. There is every indication, as verified by Partnerships B.C., that they will be well within their budget for the remaining challenges that are there on the venue construction.

We are working very closely with VANOC on a day-to-day basis to make sure that we are doing our due diligence. We're working hand in hand with them to make sure that all of the risks are managed and that the costs to VANOC are going to be delivered and the games are going to be delivered well within their budgets, whether it's on venue construction or on their operating budget.

N. Macdonald: Well, here's the problem with a speech like that. We can go back to November of 2004, and we can find speeches from the Premier and we can find speeches from minister after minister that say the exact same thing.

But the record for this government is clear — $400 million over budget on the convention centre, despite speeches like that. The reason the convention centre is over budget is that it's a cost-plus contract. Mr. Dobell and government officials negotiated that.

Today's business plan does not go into the specifics of the type of contracts that are used, but I want this minister or the Premier to assure the House that they have not used cost-plus contracts. If they have, how many are cost-plus contracts?

Hon. C. Hansen: Well, I'm surprised that the member would ask a question like that, because his answer is actually posted on our website, and it's been there for about the last eight months. It is a report that was done by Partnerships B.C., which is very comprehensive and actually looks at all of the venues and all of the risks.

We put in place a performance and accountability agreement with VANOC, which is being adhered to. They're providing regular updates, and we're working with them on a day-to-day basis. So if the member would actually take the time to go on my website, as anybody else can do, he can look exactly at how those contracts are put in place and can identify how much is still remaining in terms of uncontracted tenures that is covered off by the $55 million contingency that's there.

G. Robertson: The minister refers to his website as listing all sorts of valuable information. Unfortunately, there have been no contracts listed on his website for the last six months with this information. Can the minister clarify when those contracts will be listed on the website, the nature of those contracts and how many of those are fixed-price contracts?

Hon. C. Hansen: Last year Partnerships B.C. did a very comprehensive review of all the venue construction and capital obligations of VANOC, and that is posted on…. It will inform the member in terms of how those venue agreements are put in place and how the contracts are managed. In our performance and accountability agreement that we have in place, it actually provides for an ongoing program where we monitor that.

We use Partnerships B.C., and quite frankly, they're doing an excellent job on ensuring that the performance and accountability agreement that we have with VANOC is being adhered to.

G. Robertson: Let's try this again. The minister said that the detail on these contracts was listed on the website. The detail is not listed on the website. For six months there's been nothing about these contracts listed on the website.

You can assure us that Mr. Ken Dobell and Partnerships B.C. are doing all they can to make sure that there's accountability here. The members in this House and probably most of the people in British Columbia would question that assertion.

The taxpayers of B.C. are on the hook for the cost overruns. Look what's happened in the convention centre. We have no information on the website to go with. When will the minister guarantee all of the information on these contracts is listed on the website?

Hon. C. Hansen: The province of British Columbia is not "on the hook" for any cost overruns. If the member would like to learn more about the guarantee that the province has provided to the IOC and the Canadian Olympic Committee, I'd be pleased to provide that for him.

What is on the Ministry of Economic Development website, through the Olympic secretariat, is the detailed report that was done by Partnerships B.C. looking at all of the challenges around the venue construction. The process of contracting and all of their due diligence that has to be done are in there. The performance and accountability agreement is posted on the website as well, and it is there for the member to read.

D. Thorne: Yesterday I asked the Solicitor General if he would be having his ministry investigate the questionable real estate practices that are taking place right now in my riding. Today on the noon news I understand that the Solicitor General talked about civil contract law as being the protection for people in British Columbia. Well, civil legal action is very expensive and well out of the reach of most British Columbians.

It's obvious now that the B.C. government is refusing to step up to the plate and help the people in my riding who are being ripped off by unscrupulous developers. I ask again: will the Solicitor General say today that he will take real action to ensure that other people are not faced with these same situations?

Hon. C. Taylor: The Real Estate Development Marketing Act is the act which in fact governs the marketing of new developments. For instance, it protects deposits that are put forward by consumers. The superintendent of real estate is the person who is responsible for ensuring that act is being met.

As of noon today, which was the last time I checked, he had still not received any complaints to his office about this situation. But because he was aware of the difficulties and the issues being talked about in the press, he personally is looking into it to ensure that the act is being upheld.

M. Farnworth: Well, yesterday the question was taken on notice. Today we hear that we have not heard any complaints. Yet this story has been across the provincial media. It made national media on the weekend and at the start of this week.

So my question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will she instruct the superintendent not just to investigate this particular case but to investigate and ensure that these type of practices that are resulting in people losing their deposits and their dream of home-ownership are not occurring in other parts of British Columbia, bring back the results of that investigation, and, if legislation is needed to solve that problem, table it in this House so that people are not jeopardized the way that we have seen over the last number of days?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will repeat again: it was exactly because of this issue being in the press and being in the public attention that the superintendent has undertaken to look to ensure that the act is being followed.

M. Farnworth: To the Minister of Finance: this has come about, as the minister just recognized, because of news over the last few days. Her government wasn't aware of it. She's asked the superintendent, and the superintendent has indicated that he's looking into it.

My question is…. Don't just look into this, but ensure that these practices are not occurring in other parts of British Columbia. Will the minister ask the superintendent to do just that?

Hon. C. Taylor: Again, the Real Estate Development Marketing Act is in place and has a superintendent of real estate who is responsible for ensuring that the act is being followed. Generally, he responds to complaints that come into his office. As of noon today, his office had not received any complaints. However, because it is clearly in the public domain, the superin-

tendent has taken it upon himself to look into this situation and ensure that the act is being followed.

L. Krog: The Nanaimo Family Life Association has been forced to cancel seven of its highly respected programs that provide invaluable services to 2,000 people in my community. Those programs include sexual abuse services, an eating disorder clinic and mental health outreach.

The president of the association told the Nanaimo Daily News: "The Ministry of Children and Family Development has underfunded programs and expected agencies like Nanaimo Family Life Association to radically diminish service provisions."

Will the minister commit today to remedy this chronic underfunding and ensure that Nanaimo Family Life receives the funding necessary to provide these invaluable services to the community of Nanaimo?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member is correct. The Nanaimo Family Life Association has, for a number of years, provided valuable services to the citizens of Nanaimo — to children and to families. The ministry has been advised by the association that they wish to terminate their contract with the ministry.

We're now working with both the association and other service providers in the Nanaimo area to ensure that there is a continuity of important services to children and families in Nanaimo.

L. Krog: Well, that's a bit disingenuous. The minister knows what's happening here. The fact is that this agency, after years of funding cuts by this government, has simply given up and said: "We can't handle it anymore." Vulnerable members of my community are going to lose invaluable services.

I've spoken to the president of the board, and I've spoken to the executive director. Board members of the Nanaimo Family Life Association were told by the Ministry of Children and Family Development that if they spoke out, the government would impose even further cuts.

My question to the Minister of Children and Family Development is simply this. Is it standard practice to cut the funding to agencies that speak out on behalf of the vulnerable in this province?

Hon. T. Christensen: The member's suggestion is preposterous. We have thousands of employees in the Ministry of Children and Family Development that day in and day out are serving children and families in communities right across this province. They commit exceptional service to the people of the province, and to suggest that threats would be used against organizations is completely unfounded.

We work with service providers across the province to ensure that services are being provided in communities. It is unfortunate that Nanaimo Family Life Association has chosen to terminate its contract with the ministry, but we will continue to work with other service providers in that community to ensure that there is a seamless transition in the provision of services to children and families.

M. Karagianis: If a family who is known to the Children and Families Ministry, who is under protection, refuses to get counselling for sexual abuse when they're directed to, this government can step in and seize their children as being further abused by not getting that counselling. But this government is denying funding to organizations like the Mary Manning that we discussed in this House yesterday and the Nanaimo Family Life Association that we're discussing today, forcing these organizations to lay off staff or cut programs, and they consider that to be perfectly acceptable. If that is not the height of hypocrisy, I do not know what could be more stark.

I would again ask the minister: will he commit today to fund these two programs for vulnerable children here in the province of British Columbia?

Hon. T. Christensen: The Ministry of Children and Family Development, as I said yesterday, continues to provide significant funding to the Mary Manning Centre for the important services that they provide. We're certainly willing to continue to provide funding to Nanaimo Family Life. They have chosen to terminate the contract with the ministry.

The reality is that funding for the Ministry of Children and Family Development has never been higher in this province. Our budget this year is $1.9 billion. That funding has been increased in each of the last two years. It will be increased in each of the next two years. We will be working with service providers and with communities to ensure that we apply those dollars in a way that makes the greatest difference and impact on children and families right across the province.

C. Evans: Three business organizations — the Investment Agriculture Foundation, the B.C. Ag Council and the B.C. Food Processors — came together and considered the question of labelling British Columbia food. They asked 50 businesses that make food, from farmers to processors to retailers, if they would "be in favour of keeping Buy B.C. as their brand."

All 50 — 100 percent — said yes. Their reasons were: "I like the logo. It is a recognized brand. The public like it. It is an effective program." My favourite is: "There is public money invested in it already."

My question is real simple for the Minister of Agriculture. Will he now, six years later, reinstate public funding for the Buy B.C. program?

Hon. P. Bell: I'm glad that the member has taken the time to ask a question on agriculture. We have one of the most exciting, vibrant agricultural industries anywhere in Canada, right here in B.C.

What I can tell the member opposite is that I think he knows that the B.C. Ag Council actually has control of the Buy B.C. brand. I think even more exciting is the work being done by the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture Planning, who is putting together an extensive package — a plan for agriculture for British Columbia not just for the next five years but for the next ten, 20 and 30 years. It's going to be a great plan.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber second reading of Bill Pr402, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, and in Committee A, Committee of Supply — for the information of members, continued estimates of the Ministry of Community Services.

R. Hawes: This bill amends the name Mission Foundation to Mission Community Foundation, which better reflects the broader service they provide than just within the district of Mission. They provide a great service to the surrounding area as well. They believe that this name change will better reflect the service they provide.

By leave, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered forthwith.

Bill Pr402, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration forthwith.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill Pr402; H. Bloy in the chair.

R. Hawes: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill Pr402, Mission Foundation Amendment Act, 2007, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call Committee of Supply, continued estimates of the Ministry of Health.

A. Dix: My question is, of course, to the Minister of Health. I want to ask him a few questions about the announcement that was made with respect to hospitals in Kelowna and Vernon in the last couple of days. There has been some interest, so I thought I'd just ask the minister some questions right now.

The minister will know that an RFQ has been produced and published on B.C. Bid. The RFQ states, amongst other things, that…. For those watching at home, they can go onto the B.C. Bid site. It's request for qualifications 2006-07 040. Its issue date is May 7, 2007.

I note, amongst other things, that in the request-for-qualification document there's a request for the provision of non-clinical services to be privatized. I'm citing from the document: "Provision of non-clinical services at the KGH ACC and the VJH DTB, which will encompass plant operations and housekeeping and may include these services to the full sites, subject to the market determination of value for money."

Obviously such statements, given the history, cause concern to those people who are working in Kelowna and in Vernon as we speak.

I'd like to ask the minister if he thinks it is reasonable, given the hard work that hospital workers do, to

again threaten hospital workers, in the context of this project, with 350 job reductions and — if we understand the history — a significant cut in their pay and benefits and the elimination in many cases of their benefits.

Does the minister think that makes sense in the context of this request for qualifications? Why is the minister pursuing that option as part of this initiative put forward by Partnerships B.C.? Does the Interior Health Authority support and did the Interior Health Authority support this notion? This notion appears to come from Partnerships B.C. directly.

If I may quote the CEO of the Interior Health Authority yesterday, he seemed considerably less enthusiastic. In fact, the Interior Health Authority in general has resisted just the kind of contracting-out that the minister appears to be, through RFQ, attempting to impose.

I want to ask the minister if he could comment on the request for qualifications.

Hon. G. Abbott: We are not imposing anything. We are attempting to ensure that the British Columbia taxpayer gets maximum benefit for each and every one of the approximately $200 million that will be invested in the major expansion, remediation and redevelopment of Kelowna General Hospital and Vernon Jubilee Hospital.

These are the most substantial investments that have ever been made in health infrastructure in the North Okanagan and Central Okanagan. They're tremendous projects, and we are going to ensure that we obtain maximum public value for every one of those $200 million in taxpayer funds. The RFQ is of course supported by Interior Health. They are the ones that posted it.

A. Dix: I wanted to ask the minister…. He's talking about value and values. Of course, he may be surprised at the concern people have with respect to the behaviour of the government. He will of course remember the Premier of the province of British Columbia going to members of the Hospital Employees Union and telling them that they had nothing to fear, that their contracts would never be ripped up. Not in ten million years would they be ripped up. "I'm making a solemn commitment."

Of course, not only did he attempt to do that in a contract round; he actually did it by legislation. He took away their rights by legislation. I'm wondering if the minister thinks it's desirable to continue to slash the wages and have hospital workers subsidize and pay for the additional costs of going the P3 direction — the additional costs in terms of interest costs, the additional costs that we see in Abbotsford.

I wanted to ask if the minister really thinks it's fair, when everybody else in the health care system — I mean everybody else, maybe even the Minister of Health; we'll see — is getting a fairly significant raise, that this group of workers should be targeted to make sacrifices of this nature — I am talking about sacrifices from a living wage to a non-living wage — and why he thinks that these 350 health care workers in Kelowna and Vernon should be forced to pay the price.

Hon. G. Abbott: The opposition Health critic is fearmongering and fearmongering in a most reckless way here in the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. What has been posted is a request for qualifications. A request for qualifications is precisely that. It invites potential proponents who may have an interest in this project to provide us with their qualifications.

To speculate at this point about job losses is utterly reckless. I know the member just reflexively opposes anything in the nature of a public-private partnership, despite the fact that in the latter years of the NDP's tenure they appeared to be embracing public-private partnerships. Now they go out of their way to oppose them at every turn, regardless of whether it is manifestly in the interests of the taxpayer or not.

We're not bound by that kind of ideology. We believe that we should be open to a range of proposals on these things. I'm not going to at this point, as we go into requests for qualifications, start speculating recklessly about potential job losses. I think that's foolish.

Anyone who looks at the current curve we have with respect to health care consumption in this province and looks at the demographics of our society, who looks at the emergence of chronic diseases in our society…. There is not going to be any shortage of jobs for health care workers in this province.

In fact, we could use today 2,000 more nurses in this province. We have tried to correct the NDP's complete neglect of that area in the 1990s where we actually saw the number of nurses graduating in this province plummet from the early '90s to the late '90s. We've turned that around. We're graduating more nurses than ever before in British Columbia, but there's a great future for nurses. We could use 2,000 more nurses today than what we have.

There are, as our society ages, going to be endless opportunities to do this kind of fearmongering, to say: "You know, I don't really like P3s." You should just get up and say: "I don't like P3s. I don't want to have a P3. I want nothing to do with it. I want to build these just like we built the fast ferries." He can do that if he wants, but to speculate on job losses here is absolutely irresponsible.

A. Dix: Well, what's irresponsible is putting people's jobs on the table in a backhanded and indirect way. These are real people here, and I'll read the contract again. I'll read the request for qualification again. "It may include these services to the full sites."

I know the members who stood up and proudly voted for Bill 29 don't care about this sort of thing. They don't care about the fact that there are people in communities who are hard-working people, who work hard in my constituency and saw their wages slashed, who saw their jobs privatized.

There's a mother in my constituency who lives on Euclid Avenue. I know that they don't care over there. It makes them angry to talk about real people who get up in the morning and work hard and work in hospitals. I know it makes them angry, but I think their stories deserve to be told here as much as other workers in society. This is why we have democratic debate.

You know, there are constituents of mine who are single parents and have children. They work very hard, and their jobs were privatized. Their wages were slashed, and they now work 70 hours a week. Those are hours taken away from their children that they'll never get back.

So I think it's quite reasonable to ask why the hon. Minister of Health is fearmongering by putting into this request for proposals the jobs of those health care workers in Kelowna. I think that's a reasonable question to ask, because those people are asking that question. Those people are asking how they ended up in the minister's RFP.

I think it's a reasonable question to ask: whose idea was that? Where did it come from, and why would the people at Partnerships B.C., who happen to be some of the highest-paid people in the public sector, be putting the jobs of some of the lowest-paid people in the public sector in their RFQ?

Hon. G. Abbott: If anyone is fearmongering in this House, it is the hon. opposition Health critic who is fearmongering here. He's speculating wildly. He's speculating irresponsibly, and I think it's most unfortunate that he would do so.

Anything that is done pursuant to this request for qualifications and the request for proposals that will follow it will be entirely within and consistent with the laws of the province of British Columbia. We will not be doing anything that is not within the bounds of the laws of the province.

The member, I'm sure, was terribly disappointed that not so many months ago we were able to not only conclude a collective agreement with the Hospital Employees Union, but we were able to conclude agreement with the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union — with many thousands of health care workers across this province and indeed with tens of thousands of public servants across this province.

All of that was done without a day of striking. We've got a better relationship with public servants in this province than we have ever had before. We are working through a whole range of issues with the health employees that serve this province, and our relationship has never been better.

A. Dix: Right. You can tell that to the thousands of hospital workers who were specifically promised that their contract wouldn't be ripped up, and it was ripped up. All the members over there stood up and did that. It was the Premier….

A. Dix: The Minister of Transportation says they proudly got up. The Premier goes to workers before the 2001 election and says he won't do it. He says he absolutely won't do it. Then they double-cross those workers, and the Minister of Transportation is proud of it. Well, there you go. That's just the way it goes, you know.

A. Dix: I'm delighted that it's an estimates debate. I'm sure that members will participate in due course.

My question is — it's fairly simple: why was the decision made on this project to include the current employees of those hospitals? It seems like a reasonable question. That's the fearmongering. If it wasn't in the request for qualifications, there wouldn't be any fear. But people are justifiably fearful because they've been misled before. The Premier didn't say in 2001: "We might rip up your contract." He said he wouldn't do that, and then he did. So I think people are reasonably concerned about that.

I think the minister would agree with me that hospital workers are as important to the health care system as any other group of workers in the health care system. He can call it fearmongering, but they can read it as well as anyone else. I'd like the minister to be clear, and be clear today, and say that those 350 people are not going to see their wages slashed and their jobs lost.

Hon. G. Abbott: Led by the Minister of Finance, we have concluded some 140 agreements with public sector unions in recent months. All of those agreements were produced without one day of work stoppage. It was the most remarkable exercise in labour relations ever in this province, and for the member to….

The member wants to relive history over and over again. I'm a student and a passionate fan of history, so I don't mind doing that as well. We can relive history all day here if we like. The member and I were both around in the 1990s. I'm sure we could share our mutual perspectives on what occurred during that period, and I'm sure the viewing audience would be fascinated. Would they learn a darn thing about the estimates of the Ministry of Health? Probably not, if we want to spend our time reliving history.

After extensive analysis with respect to how to secure the best possible value on the Vernon Jubilee and Kelowna General Hospital projects, we have concluded that the best prospect for securing maximum taxpayer value for the approximately $200 million of expenditure that will be involved on those huge projects in the Central and North Okanagan…. The best way to do that is to proceed with a request for qualifications in an appropriate fashion, consistent with the laws of British Columbia. That is what we have done.

I fully expect that what we will see is considerable market interest in these projects. We look forward to that. We will look forward in the years ahead to see those projects constructed on time and on budget, just

Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre — a $355 million project if I recall correctly. That project is on time and on budget. It will employ health care workers, and it will employ more health care workers than the current Abbotsford hospital does because it will have more acute care beds. It also has cancer care capacity that doesn't currently exist in that portion of the Fraser Valley.

It's not only a huge win for the taxpayers of British Columbia, but it's a huge win for all of the hospital employees that will be added at Abbotsford hospital and cancer centre. Was it a huge problem that it was a P3? No, not from our perspective. In fact, it was absolutely the right decision to proceed with it as a P3. It was entirely over the opposition — the fervent, violent opposition of the members opposite — that we proceeded with that P3 model there, but government had the courage to do it. We proceeded, and it's been a huge success.

Similarly, the Gordon and Leslie Diamond Centre, the ambulatory care centre in Vancouver Coastal Health — a $95 million project. Again, on time, on budget. Tremendous project — just providing tremendous services to date. Another P3.

Again, the government stuck its neck out. Again, the government showed some courage. Again, the government did the right thing. Again, they did it over the vehement opposition of the New Democratic Party who, I suspect out of some combination of respect and fear for their public sector union leadership, absolutely oppose anything to do with a P3. That's fine. They can take that position. It is not the position which parties of comparable ideology in Britain take. It's not the position that parties of comparable ideology even in Saskatchewan take.

For whatever reason, the New Democratic Party in British Columbia is fervently opposed to P3s. I guess they're welcome to that position, Mr. Chair, but these projects will be a success just as the Gordon and Leslie Diamond ambulatory centre is a success, just as the Abbotsford hospital and cancer care centre is going to be a success.

A. Dix: My question was very direct. I'll ask it again. Can the minister assure those 350 workers that their wages won't be cut and their jobs won't be lost?

Hon. G. Abbott: As I've said earlier in these estimates, it is far too early in the process here to speculate about any jobs being affected by this RFQ, which will be followed by the RFP. That having been said, we know that in fact more jobs will be created by this expansion at both Vernon Jubilee and Kelowna General Hospital. There will unquestionably be more jobs. There will be plenty of jobs five years from now, ten years from now, 20 years from now and 30 years from now for anyone who, we hope, wants to be a part of an exciting career in the delivery of health care.

A. Dix: Of course, hon. Chair, we asked the minister the direct question on whether he can assure those workers that their jobs won't be lost and their wages won't be cut. Of course, the answer was that he gave no such assurance.

I'd just like to ask the minister, in the case of these hospitals, whether the minister plans to table publicly and release publicly all contracts in full related to the construction of these hospital projects. Does he plan to let every British Columbian know and be able to assess the situation?

The minister talks about the $355 million project in Abbotsford — which as he knows, because his government announced it, started as a $211 million project. But I guess that's on budget; I don't know. It's in the range of being on budget.

My question to the minister is very simple. Does he intend to make this public-private partnership a fully public process by releasing in this case all of the contracts involved, so people can judge the value of those contracts?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Abbotsford hospital is, notwithstanding the member's comments, on time and on budget. The member may recall that the new hospital for Abbotsford was announced, I think, three times during the 1990s by the former NDP government. It was not proceeded with. Our government made the commitment to proceed, and we did proceed.

We have expanded the scope of that facility to include a comprehensive cancer centre, and I think that is a wonderful thing. Certainly, the tertiary cancer facilities that will now be available in that end of the valley will be very welcome by all the citizens of the east end of the Fraser Valley.

Our guiding principle is maximum transparency in respect of contracts. There are principles of commercial confidentiality that need to be observed and will be observed, but beyond that, our policy is maximum transparency.

A. Dix: I'd like to ask the minister, briefly, another question about a majority-women workforce, the IHA, and the decision to displace or lay off 11 nurses at Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital.

I just wanted to bring it to the minister's attention, because he answered this question in question period in a way that didn't seem consistent with what happened. But you know, people have different views, always, of what happened.

I want to bring to his attention the views of Dr. Ron Cameron, who was so incensed about the displacement of the 11 nurses that he has actually written to the B.C. Nurses Union, giving them his full support. They do seem bizarre, because the minister has talked about the nursing shortage. Everyone has talked about it and understands that there's a significant nursing shortage.

Can the minister explain why it would be that the Interior Health Authority would lay off these workers? As Dr. Cameron says, it's ill-conceived at a time of national nursing shortage. He described the leadership involved as "appalling." Those are his words, not mine.

He says that the nurses are the front-line workers, the ones on the ground, the cornerstone.

As the minister will know, Mr. Marino, the community administrator in Trail, justified the cuts as being necessary to "standardize the staffing patterns." But the reality is, of course, that it's new nurses that will be bumped, and in the Kootenays, anyway, and everywhere, there is considerable competition for nurses. In fact, as Dr. Cameron says, this undermines years of recruiting, all done without consideration of the nurses. It's a big step backward.

I know the minister has had some time to consider again what Dr. Cameron calls the imposed, ill-conceived displacements at the time of a nationwide nursing shortage. I'm wondering if he has any comments on what Dr. Cameron has to say and whether he thinks it's a good idea in the context of that shortage — which he has oft referred to already in this debate — for the Interior Health Authority in Trail to have laid off those nurses.

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't have any comment with respect to Dr. Cameron's comments. He is certainly welcome to whatever opinions he has formed on whatever basis he wishes. I can say this though: yes, there is a nurse shortage in British Columbia. Yes, it is about 2,000 nurses that we are short. Yes, it is entirely related to the pathetic failure of the former NDP government to continue to educate nurses in the 1990s, to see the number of nurses that graduated actually being reduced during the course of the 1990s. Yes, that shortage is entirely due to their neglect of the system. So I hope that the opposition critic and I can agree on the point that, yes, we have the shortage and, yes, it is entirely due to their less-than-benign neglect of nurse education in the 1990s.

Let me follow through on the other portions of this. Yes, we have a nurse shortage. No, we have not laid off those nurses. The nurses in question have been redeployed, reassigned to somewhat different roles, but none of them will leave the system. They will not lose their employment. The changes were made consistent with the terms of collective agreement that exist with the B.C. Nurses Union.

A. Dix: Well, of course, the changes were made consistent with the collective agreement of the B.C. Nurses Union. I mean, that goes without saying. That says nothing. The question is: why did they make this decision? Why did they make this decision there — at the Kootenay Boundary Regional Hospital — which is going to cost them nurses? That's the question.

You know, I love the minister because half the time he says, "You know, every province has a nursing shortage," and half the time he says: "Oh, it's only in the 1990s that issues come forward."

In fact, we don't just have a nursing shortage. The minister will know, because he's heard from the health authorities, we have a shortage of care aides. The minister got up in this House and imposed a 15-percent pay cut on care aides, and that may have contributed to that. We have a significant shortage in every part of the health sciences profession, and the minister may have contributed something to that.

The fact of the matter is that I think what people want to know in all of these areas is: is their a comprehensive plan going forward? We'll have an opportunity in the next little while to discuss that in some detail.

I want to ask the minister about another group of primarily women workers who the minister has seemingly not respected. I want to talk to him about certified dental assistants and ask him a few questions now, and then we'll move on to other issues. It seems to me, and the minister will know, that certified dental assistants do outstanding work in British Columbia — 6,100 of them, all but 11 of them, women. He will know that they applied for a college; they applied for status in September 2002, prior to the disbanding of the Health Professions Council.

Since then I think it's fair to say that this group of people, who do an important service in society, have been run through a bureaucratic maze that has taken years to resolve. They have been disrespected by the minister. Their work has been disrespected.

I want to ask the minister how he explains what happened to their September 2002 application, how he defends the decision to give status to other dental disciplines — dental hygiene, dental technology, denturists and dentists. They've all met the criteria and been designated. In the case of dental assistants, their application was completely ignored and completely disrespected.

I'd like to ask the minister what happened to their application when the decision was made to disband the HPC in December 2002. Why was it that it took years for the ministry to respond, and why is it today that this group of workers who have their aspirations and have made their case to the minister, to the ministry, consistent with the law and the act and respect for the act, weren't allowed to go through the same process as every other one of the professions in question? Why did the minister and why did the government not treat this group of workers with respect?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll respond to the member's latter question, but first I do want to emphasize again, in response to the issue at Kootenay-Boundary Regional Hospital, that the nurses are not being laid off. There are no layoffs. There is a redeployment so that the skills of those nurses can be more effectively used — consistent with the recommendations that came from the Albo report, an attempt to ensure that the redeployment is consistent with the best patient care, with the best admission and discharge policies, all of those things.

I know sometimes I get a sense, and I hope it is an unfortunate sense, from the opposition that any kind of change is unwelcome in their world, that even when you can manifestly improve things, you should never change things because somehow change is hostile to the whole notion of effective health care delivery and that we should never have any flexibility in respect of these matters.

In fact, Interior Health is doing the right thing here. There are no jobs being lost. The nurses are going to be redeployed in different roles — no layoffs. It is entirely the right thing for Interior Health to be doing, and I think they are doing it in a way that is sensitive and sympathetic to the personnel involved. I think that point needs to be made.

In terms of the request to create a college of certified dental assistants, this is an issue that has been under consideration. I have concluded and have advised the proponents of a college of certified dental assistants that we have concluded that we do not see, on balance, merits in creating yet another college for dentistry. We currently have a College of Dental Hygienists. We have a college of dentists. We have a College of Denturists. We have a College of Dental Surgeons. It is within the College of Dental Surgeons that the certified dental assistants are regulated.

In my view, and in the learned view of people who have been working in this area of health policy for many years, it is not in the interest of the public to create yet another college of dentistry.

A. Dix: Prior to December 2002 we had a process to deal with these applications. Clearly, this group of people….

A. Dix: I know the Minister of Small Business doesn't care about this group of people, but that's okay. We're going to ask these questions anyway.

The 6,100 people made an application that was legitimate in the process. It was a serious application. The minister will know that. In December 2002 that process was disbanded. Ordinarily when that happens, and you have your application in, you're fairly treated. Instead, they went through a period of years where they were told a whole bunch of things by the ministry. They were told repeatedly to go meet the dentists, who are their employers and, presumably, also the overseers now of their professional fate. They were told to see them.

It took over 30 months — maybe the minister can explain this — after the application and after the disbanding of the HPC, for the Minister of the then Health Services to decide to tell this group of people that the old process was no longer in use and, furthermore, that there was no decision on any new process for the investigation of professional regulation issues formally dealt with by the HPC.

Why did it take 30 months to tell this group of people even what the process was? Can the minister explain, for example, since the decision is his to reject their application, whether in advance of rejecting their application, he ever met with them?

Hon. G. Abbott: He says 30 months. I don't know that to be a fact, but I'm sure that if it was one day less than that period, we would have been criticized for not taking sufficient time to devote to the merits of the argument that the proponents were making.

I think the opposition Health critic has a fundamental misunderstanding of why the college structure exists. The college structure is not an employee association. It is not a proponent association of the group involved. Colleges are structured and exist for the purposes of regulating, for the purposes of the protection of the public. It is not to advance the employee interests of certified dental assistants. It is to protect the public.

I hope the member doesn't mind that we did a very thorough assessment from that perspective of whether there would be an enhancement to the interests of public protection by the creation of yet another dental college. The conclusion was no. If the member believes otherwise, he should say so and tell me why he thinks it would be in the interest of better protection of the public that yet another dental college be created.

As I noted, we now have, at this point, four separate colleges for dental-related professions: the hygienists, the dentists, the denturists and the dental surgeons. The view that was concluded from an extensive analysis that was put forward by the proponents was that there would be no significant enhancement of protection of the public by having the regulation of certified dental assistants in a separate college versus the way they are regulated today, which is within the bounds of the College of Dental Surgeons.

A. Dix: Well, the minister didn't hear what I had to say. It wasn't 30 months to get to a decision. It was longer than that. It was considerably longer than 30 months to get to a decision.

In fact, in March 2005 they were told there was some mysterious process now that would assess it — not the old process of the HPC but some mysterious new process. It wasn't until March '06 that the Certified Dental Assistants of British Columbia received a letter from the ministry stating: "The minister has directed me to inform you that under the section 7(3)(a) of the Health Professions Act, your application has been refused."

Now, isn't it a reasonable question — since the minister made this decision and it took them 30 months to explain what the new process is? If the minister would answer this simple question: when he made that decision about the professional status of 6,100 people….

I'll just read it to the minister, because I think they've made the case very well for themselves here. I want to read from Sheryl Haynes, who is the former president of the Certified Dental Assistants of British Columbia. She says:

They have made a very compelling case, and yes, I say to the minister, I'm on their side. My question to the minister is, because the minister didn't hear that from them directly…. He made this decision. It's a question of administrative fairness.

There was a process before December 2002, and the government abolished that process. What process did they replace it with? Will the minister say, yes or no — because it's a fairly simple question, I think — did he meet with this group beforehand to discuss in detail their application before he made his decision? If he didn't meet with this group, can he explain what other groups he met with?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think I need to just set the context here again so that the member understands it. I know he will reflexively attempt to form a political allegiance with anyone that strikes him as meeting the political purposes for himself and his party, but I haven't heard yet a sustained argument in terms of what the public policy benefit would be for the change that he is suggesting he supports.

First of all, the role of identifying and managing, certifying disease in respect of dental health rests with the dentists. The role of the colleges…. Again, we have four of them in dental-related areas. We already have four of them.

The question is: would the benefit of the public be enhanced by adding yet another college of dentistry to the mix? Would somehow the protection of the public interest be advanced by doing so? If the answer to the question was yes, after our analysis, then likely we would have accepted their proposal to create a fifth college of dentistry in this province. But we did not, because a college exists to regulate the profession and to protect the public interest.

It does not exist to advance the economic or other interests of the profession involved. They have their own professional association which does that. The college aims at protecting the public interest in these matters.

In terms of the certified dental assistants, of course they play an important role in the provision of dentistry. That's why they are board members in the College of Dental Surgeons. That's why they're part of that college that regulates them. They have full voice within the realm of that college.

Would the public interest be served by yanking them out, creating yet another separate college? I personally think — and apparently pretty much every jurisdiction in Canada has reached the same conclusion — that we can manage these things within the existing four colleges of dentistry in this province. We don't need to add yet another separate college.

A. Dix: Of course, except that I know the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta are…. Maybe the minister thinks they're minor provinces, but they recognize independent governance of dental assisting. Ontario is heading in that direction as well, I understand. For the minister to say that no one is considering it is just incorrect, which is not surprising.

Let me ask the question again. I'll try not to add any extras to it so that the minister will actually answer it, because I think there's an issue of administrative fairness here. Did the minister, before he made the decision to say no to this application — after four years of waiting — when no Minister of Health met with this group after they made the application…?

Will the minister tell this House whether he did meet with this group or didn't meet with this group? That was the question. It's a simple question. It's a yes-or-no question. Can the minister answer that question, whether he met with the organization that made the application for the college or not?

Hon. G. Abbott: I should have noted that I'm joined to my immediate left by Craig Knight who is the assistant deputy minister responsible for this area of public policy within the Ministry of Health.

In terms of discussion, I know I had at least a telephone conversation with a proponent on behalf of the certified dental assistants. I don't recall at this point, but I'm sure my staff are checking in my daytimer to see whether I actually met with them at some point. I know I did have at least a telephone discussion, and I may have met personally with them.

I do know from the ministry that there were numerous meetings between the designated officials and my ministry that deal with the health college issues. So there were plenty of meetings. I don't know where the member is going with this. I presume it is the construction of yet one more conspiracy that I'm sure he thinks guides the creation of public policy in this province.

The fact of the matter is that the decision was made advisedly. Like many other decisions, I'm sure some people will agree with it, and some people will disagree with it. I have to say that we concluded, based not only on discussions with the group at the ministry level but also looking at the experience of Ontario, when most jurisdictions in Canada…. There were no merits from a public protection, public service basis in creating a fifth college of dentistry when we already have four.

A. Dix: The minister — and perhaps the recollection of his staff would be different — in March, I understand, made the decision after four years to reject this application. In May he talked to the group.

These are reasonable questions. It's not a conspiracy. I think the minister will acknowledge that a group

makes an application for a college…. It made a compelling case, certainly in their view. I've met with them, and I think they've made a compelling case for the college.

They present their application in September. The government changes the process, doesn't tell them what the new process is for 30 months and then, without really having the decision-maker meet with them, makes a decision a year later that they're rejected. Then the minister phones them two months after that.

I want to ask the minister whether he thinks that is fair. The minister has said he hasn't heard a compelling case; he hasn't heard from this group at all. I think that regardless of whether one agrees with this group of people or disagrees with them, they have a case to make. In other jurisdictions they've made the case, and their status has been recognized. I agree, not in all jurisdictions. I agree it's a decision for the government. I just think that the government should be fair in treating this group of workers, as fair as they would be in terms of treating other professions.

My question is simple. Given that they went through the process of having the process changed in midstream, not being told what the new process would have been and then having their decision rejected without meeting the decision-maker, does that strike the minister as a fair process? Will he quite reasonably — because this is a very committed group of people who take the issues in their profession and their professional life seriously — agree to meet with them now and to go over in detail why he made that decision?

They didn't tell me at length what the minister talked to them about, but the minister was asking them some questions in his meeting with them. They deserve to know from the minister, after having waited four years for a decision, why he made that decision. Really, I think the minister and the ministry could have done better here in terms of listening to this group, who are seeking what other groups have sought and successfully obtained.

Hon. G. Abbott: I would be pleased to meet with the proponents. I don't know that we've had any meeting request from them, but if we receive one, I would be pleased to meet with them and explain all of the reasons why the decision was made.

Was the process fair? Absolutely, the process was fair. The fact that the answer was no sometimes seems to lead people like the opposition Health critic to conclude that a process was unfair because we said no to somebody.

The member says they made a compelling case. From the ministry perspective they did not make a compelling case. The merits of their proposal were analyzed very carefully. There were extensive discussions between ministry officials and the proponents for an additional college. The arguments that they had advanced were carefully analyzed and scrutinized. The fact that the answer was, "No, we are not going to create another college," does not in itself suggest that the process was unfair.

There is nothing that I have seen to suggest the process was unfair. They may disagree with the conclusion of the process, and they're welcome to do that in a free and democratic society. People disagree every day in our free and democratic society, and they can join a long list of people who occasionally disagree on public policy issues. In fact, I think at times people even disagree with the opposition Health critic in some of the things that he says. I guess that's a theoretical possibility.

Was the process fair? Yes, I believe that it was. Did my staff give full consideration to the merits of the proposal that was being advanced? Yes, I believe they did. Did they conclude from that that we should form another college? No, they did not. They formed the conclusion that the creation of another college which would be based around the principle of regulating a profession — not the employees within the profession but regulating a profession — would not in any way advance public benefit, public interest, public protection.

That was the conclusion they formed. The member may wish to belabour this point further. It's his nickel and his opportunity at estimates here. He's welcome to do it, but I'm satisfied that my staff gave a full and proper consideration to the request. The fact that they formed their conclusions advisedly suggests to me…. It's the decision that was made, and I believe it to be the right decision.

A. Dix: I think that when citizens come forward to us with their concerns and their beliefs and their ideas, they should be treated with respect. If the person making the decision…. The process here changed halfway through…. The process did change. It changed from the point of application. The application process allowing other professions to succeed was changed, and it was changed as a decision of the government.

In a general sense, in other places, other government ministers have said that there's been a reluctance to add, just for broad public policy reasons, more colleges — that the government was desiring to go in another direction. That policy decision happened to come up, and it seems to have taken this issue as well. Certainly the same process that was applied to other professions wasn't applied to this profession. I think it's reasonable to ask about the process.

I'm delighted that the minister has agreed to sit down and meet with this group of people. I think the case they make is compelling. Hopefully when they meet with the minister and his officials, they'll bring information to bear that will change his mind. That would be a positive thing. I'm delighted to have brought an issue to the minister's attention here in estimates that he clearly hasn't given a lot of consideration to heretofore.

Hon. Chair, I now want to ask the minister about another set of questions regarding the Medical Services Commission and the process around the decision on the Copeman clinic. The minister will know that the ministry in September 2005 — in the person of his

Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Knight — wrote to the Copeman clinic and said that in the opinion of the government, they were violating the Medicare Protection Act and the Canada Health Act.

He further wrote, I believe, on February 1, 2 or 3, 2006 — in that range — to say to Mr. Copeman: "Your business model is violating the Medicare Protection Act and the Canada Health Act." He did that on February 2 or so, and I'm sure the minister will correct me on the date.

He said very clearly in that letter to Mr. Copeman, asking Mr. Copeman to stop those practices…. Mr. Copeman, I gather, defied the government. Since then, February 2006, the government decided that what was taking place there — in the opinion at least of Mr. Knight, and presumably he was speaking for the minister — was a violation of the Canada Health Act and the Medicare Protection Act.

Those business practices haven't changed. We're in May 2007. Is the minister satisfied with the length of time that it has taken to apply the law in British Columbia? Is he satisfied that these extensive delays that have taken place are in the public interest? Is he satisfied that the Medical Services Commission has the resources to deal with these issues, given the extraordinary delay from the sending of Mr. Knight's letter in September 2005 and the date we're standing at today, May 2007 — with no action having been taken?

Hon. G. Abbott: Let's begin by correcting one of the first statements that the opposition made here. Mr. Knight did not say that the Copeman clinic was out of compliance. Mr. Knight stated his apprehension that they may be out of compliance, and that is the reason why these matters get referred to the Medical Services Commission — that they may be out of compliance.

It is for the Medical Services Commission to conclude whether an organization or an individual practitioner may be out of compliance — not for me, nor the ministry to conclude that.

Further, it is not my role to be either satisfied or dissatisfied with the Medical Services Commission. The Medical Services Commission is an independent body. They operate to their own direction. I don't tell them what they must investigate. I don't tell them how they must investigate it. I don't dictate how they, in short, go about their business, because the Medical Services Commission is an independent body.

If there are complexities which require the Medical Services Commission to take a certain length of time in order to form definitive conclusions about a matter, i.e., whether Mr. Copeman is within compliance or out of compliance with the laws of British Columbia, then that is the amount of time which they will take.

So for the member to suggest somehow that I should upbraid the Medical Services Commission for the amount of time they are taking is entirely inappropriate, Mr. Chair.

A. Dix: Well, no one said anything about…. Upbraiding — was that what the minister…?

A. Dix: Excellent. Excellent stuff. I just wanted to be clear. I didn't quite hear what he'd said, so I wanted to be clear what he was suggesting I'd asked him to do.

Well, in February 2006, Mr. Knight wrote to Mr. Copeman and asked him to stop those practices. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Abbott: The letters from Mr. Knight to Mr. Copeman…. There was more than one letter. We want to be certain that we're discussing the same correspondence as the member is discussing. Those letters are on their way in, and we'll be able to work with the precise wording of the letters.

Perhaps we could leave this point aside for the moment and then come back to it when we have those letters.

I want to ask the minister about the process, because the minister frequently says that he will only act to refer issues to the Medical Services Commission, and in recent times a number of these extra-billing questions have been referred. Really, the Copeman case…. I think it's fair to say, and the minister can confirm this, that this is the first case of its kind that the Medical Services Commission is dealing with. They often do practice audits, and that's been their core business of doctors, as I understand it. Maybe the minister can confirm this.

My understanding is that this is the first major extra-billing case of its kind that has gone through this process. The minister frequently says that if we have issues to bring to his attention, which we occasionally have — specific cases, which we have…. We've in fact brought those cases to Mr. Vincent's attention, the chair of the Medical Services Commission, at various points as well.

Does he not think that, given his responsibility, the Ministry of Health should take a proactive role to ensure that extra-billing doesn't take place in British Columbia — that he should be examining these questions, that he should be using the full provisions of the former Bill 92 from the 2003 parliament, to address these issues, to ensure that British Columbians are not being extra-billed in a manner inconsistent with the Medicare Protection Act?

For example, just in the case of False Creek Surgical Centre, does he not think, given the fact that the minister knows that False Creek Surgical Centre has in the past charged facility fees, that it would be appropriate to do a comprehensive audit, in that case, to make sure that the surgical centre is in compliance with the laws of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Abbott: We take the issue of extra-billing very seriously. Whenever we have, from any source, an allegation that there has been inappropriate or extra billing levied by a health care practitioner, inconsistent with the statutory framework in this province, the Medical Services Commission is advised of those

allegations. Whether the Medical Services Commission follows up in a particular way on that is not for us to say, but it is our responsibility to ensure that they are aware of each and every allegation that is made.

The Medical Services Commission is an independent body, a quasi-judicial body, which in fact attempts to determine whether those allegations are well-founded and, where they are, to take remedial action to correct them.

A. Dix: I don't want to get into the issue. There was an issue of a member of the House, and he had some extra-billing done on this thing. I don't want to get into that, because I think that sometimes when there's a lack of services, it's really unfair to blame the victim. I don't want to get into that.

But at the time the issue was raised, the then Minister of Health, who is now the Minister of Economic Development, said very clearly he was surprised, when the information was brought to his attention, how many private clinics charged facility fees in addition to charging the MSP. I'm wondering if the minister or the Ministry of Health has conducted any investigation or done any work on any data that would seek to understand to what extent the MSP system, the public system, underwrites and subsidizes the private system.

For example, has anything been brought to the minister's attention — any analysis by senior ministry staff, using the DAD system out of hospitals — to determine whether surgeries that are charged to MSP are also subject to a facility fee? Does he have any information based on information or reviews brought to his attention? Have any such reviews taken place? When did they take place? And can he share them with the opposition.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, on any occasion when we receive an allegation with respect to an inappropriate billing practice by a physician — extra-billing, in short — there may be an audit conducted by the Medical Services Commission to determine the veracity of the allegation — appropriately, if there is an allegation tendered about inappropriate use of a facility fee by a surgical centre. Again, if a beneficiary makes such an allegation, it may well be that the Medical Services Commission will investigate and take appropriate remedial action to conclude that.

At one point, the member, or a constituent of the member, raised the issue of St. Paul's Hospital and Mount Saint Joseph Hospital charging inappropriate diagnostics fees. When that allegation was made, I asked my deputy minister and assistant deputy minister to look into that. They did and brought back a very comprehensive report on that, which has been publicly released and which we've followed up on to ensure that the principle of fairness and the proper respect for law were observed.

That's what's been done. I'm not sure exactly where the member is going with this. Perhaps further along the line of questioning, we'll have a better idea.

I think we have a good system in the province. If someone feels aggrieved with the times that they have paid for some either insured service or non-insured service, they lay a complaint, and we are able to pursue it through, at times, the ministry initially and then, where we feel there's some basis for it, the Medical Services Commission.

A. Dix: Of course, the minister didn't answer the question. My question was about the Ministry of Health.

My question was whether the Ministry of Health, because the minister seems to feel that…. It's true. He makes reference to the Mount Saint Joseph's and the St. Paul's issue, which we brought to the minister's and the government's attention. Our view of that issue was confirmed by the subsequent investigation.

It's true that it is the job of all of us to ensure that the laws of British Columbia and the laws of fairness, the laws against extra-billing, are applied. It's also, it seems to me, the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and the Minister of Health.

It's not just the responsibility of the opposition, although I, the Leader of the Opposition and others have brought forward issues that are currently under investigation and have been under investigation and have been confirmed, as the minister suggests. But it's also — it seems to me, anyway — the responsibility of the Ministry of Health to ensure proactively that people aren't being extra-billed.

I think it should be said, in fairness, that people often, when they're dealing with the health care system, face real challenges and real fears in terms of coming forward with information. So I just want to ask the minister a very specific question. I think that I just asked it of him, but I'll ask it of him again.

In the Ministry of Health, has the Ministry of Health reviewed data, hospital data, the DAD data from hospitals? Have they reviewed that data? Have they provided reports to the ministry that would show the subsidization of the private system by the MSP system?

In other words, have they reviewed MSP surgery billings to see if those MSP billings are consistent with hospital discharges? Have they done that review? Have they, in fact, done such a report? Have officials in the ministry done such reports using the DAD to assess the number of surgeries that take place that might well be qualified as extra-billing?

Here's what happens as I understand it, and I don't know, but here's what I'm told sometimes happens. Patient A goes to the private clinic. The private clinic charges a facility fee. Patient A pays the facility fee and goes home. The private clinic charges MSP with the cost of the surgery.

I would like to know specifically if officials of the Ministry of Health have reviewed that data with an eye to assessing the degree of subsidization or not.

Hon. G. Abbott: If I am understanding the member's question correctly, he is asking: has there been an

analysis done of discharge and admission data from private clinics? The answer is no. The clinics do not provide us with that data. There is nothing in law that obliges them to provide that to us, and they do not provide that to us.

However, we do audit surgeons and their billings, whether in public or private settings. Those audits may be on a random basis or on a complaint basis, but we are able to pursue those matters through those audits.

A. Dix: I just want to be clear. I'm referring to the discharge database of public hospitals and other facilities.

Say we've got a hypothetical situation where a patient goes to a private clinic, they pay a facility fee, and they go home. The last they know of it is that they paid a thousand bucks, two thousand bucks, whatever the amount in question might be. The private clinic then charges MSP. As I understand it, and I may be wrong on this, the charge to MSP doesn't necessarily state the location where the surgery took place. It's just a charge to MSP.

I'm asking if there was an analysis done in the Ministry of Health. You have a list of surgeries that are either done at public hospitals or not done at public hospitals. By reviewing the database on public hospitals, whether any such review has taken place in the ministry…. You compare that to the list of surgeries that come in through MSP to decide or to try and understand the number of surgeries that take place outside of the public system and are charged. Has such data work in fact been done by the ministry?

That's the question in a nutshell, using the public hospital database. I understand that the private clinics refuse to grant that information, and the government, I guess, refuses to go and get it. It's kind of: "Don't ask; don't tell."

Has the ministry done a specific review based on the public hospital DAD information, comparing it to MSP bills that come in from private clinics, to determine how many of those bills come in from private clinics and to help determine the degree of subsidization in the system?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a number of points that need to be made in response to the member's question here. The first is that physicians bill us for surgeries, not the private clinics. Only in the case where a contractual arrangement exists with a health authority and a private clinic would the clinic be billing the system for those surgeries. In every other case it would be the physicians that would be billing for the cost of those surgeries.

Physicians now are required to advise where the surgeries are being performed, so now part of the billing practice is a location code which will advise us of what surgical venue was used to provide the surgery. To conclude, we have no evidence or analysis that surgeries have been performed in a private clinic and then claimed to have been performed within a public setting — i.e., a public operating room.

I'm not sure if that's where the member was going with his question or not, but the short answer is: we have no evidence which suggests that hanky-panky of that character is being undertaken.

A. Dix: The Attorney General is here; I think that's why the term "hanky-panky" was used. It's a technical term, isn't it?

A. Dix: The Attorney General calls it a well-known legal concept. I like that.

A. Dix: You know, we're getting all kinds of contributions now. The minister responsible for mines was quoting Latin to me. I think it was Latin.

Just to ask the minister on that specific point, and I think the point I was making was…. I'll ask him this: at what point did MSP start requiring a location code? When was that decision made?

A. Dix: We're on a roll here. I sense the momentum building here. I guess I'm asking the minister…. The point I was making wasn't that they were saying one location and doing it in another. My point was that prior to October 2006, presumably, they could be ambiguous on that point by not putting the location code. Therefore, if the choice is, in terms of the code…. You could find out, presumably, which surgery took place in the hospital and which took place not in the hospital system by using the public DAD records.

I'm asking if the ministry had ever done a review of that type to determine potentially the extent to which…. Otherwise, without the location code…. I applaud that. I think that's a good innovation. But without the location code, the way to determine whether it's in the public hospital or a private clinic would be to review those records, and then you would see the ones that aren't in the public hospital. So I wanted to ask the minister whether in fact such a report exists or if it doesn't exist.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that the tool of the audit is the way in which information of that character would be secured. For example, if Mrs. Mary Smith had back surgery on such and such a day from a surgeon Dr. Jones, and Dr. Jones's bills…. There's an allegation made about some inappropriate billing practice. Part of the audit would be, undoubtedly, a

series of questions from the auditor to Mrs. Smith inquiring as to when and where and the nature of the procedure which she secured. So that kind of information would come to us. Normally, one would expect that where something inappropriate had occurred, that it would be uncovered through that process.

A. Dix: The question is very simple, though — whether in fact the ministry conducted or didn't conduct broad, random audits of that information or reviews or assessments of that kind — used that technique that we've just described — in order to bring broader issues to the minister's attention.

I assume that what a broad audit of that data would show — and it's all easily obtainable by the ministry staff — is the extent to which some of those surgeries which are being claimed were being done in private clinics.

I wanted to know: if the ministry did such a review, did they provide that to the minister? Really that's the question I'm asking. I understand that when specific allegations are made to the minister, specific allegations would involve a specific response. But most ministries might well consider being proactive about that.

I just want to ask the minister if the ministry ever conducted a kind of comprehensive or random or targeted review on its own initiative of that data. That's the question I've asked a few times, and I'm just going to ask it again. It's not really a hard question.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I hope we understand the question correctly. When the member uses the phrase "broad audit," one senses that this would be something akin to a formal review of a broader set of billings, as opposed to the specific audit that one would do with a particular practitioner and the response to a specific complaint. So I presume he is talking about whether the ministry conducted broader audits or reviews of a more expansive character.

The answer would be no, that it would be extraordinary to do that. The closest thing that I and staff can think of at this point, as to where I think the member is going, is the work that was undertaken in respect of the inappropriate use of diagnostic billings at St. Paul's and Mount Saint Joseph. Beyond that we're not coming up with what might be called broad audits on other issues.

A. Dix: I'll take that as a no, hon. Minister. What we'll do now is…. I know that the minister is coming back with some stuff on the Copeman clinic, but my colleague from Saanich South has a few questions on this line of questioning with respect to the Options clinic. Maybe he'll go, and then we'll do Copeman afterwards. I'll defer it to my colleague.

D. Cubberley: Thank you to the minister for the opportunity to ask some questions. I unfortunately don't have the full benefit of the issue-canvassing that has gone on prior to my coming here, so I apologize if I go over some of the ground that you've already covered.

The questions I want to ask are within the framework of a private health clinic that has set up in my own constituency, around which I have had questions raised by constituents, who have asked me if I could find out whether in fact the clinic is operating entirely under the rules of the game — is billing appropriately and the like.

Based on my own reading of materials, which I drew down from the Internet and the like, it was obvious that the clinic was offering a blend of public and private services. I recognized some similarities, I thought, to the Copeman model in charging a membership fee of some kind and then offering an array of services, some of which were entirely outside of medicare, some of which were within medicare and presumably would be billed, and then a grey area in between the two, which is probably the area of greatest concern.

In any case, I drafted a letter to the Medical Services Commission in which I outlined some of this concern to the chair of the commission and asked that an investigation be commenced. I didn't make a judgment in my letter, but I'll just give you what I said: "In reviewing the Options Health System website and reading its published materials, I am unable to determine whether or not infractions of medicare legislation are occurring or could occur, and I am therefore requesting that you initiate an investigation."

In response to that I got a letter quite quickly, within a week or so, back from the chair of the Medical Services Commission, thanking me for bringing the matter to his attention but unable to say to me yea or nay on whether they would commence an investigation.

This has led to me beginning to ask myself questions about whether I am in fact in the right place. Is the Medical Services Commission the right place to bring this information? Do they have an obligation? They would appear to have from the letter, but I'm asking for the minister's response on this. Do they have an obligation to deal with a complaint once brought to them? Is this a formal process? Where does a citizen stand relative to the commission in bringing this information to them? What does diligence look like on their part?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member in our reckoning has, to use his words, come to the right place in respect of his concerns. I think the member appropriately, if he had apprehensions with respect to whether the clinic was within the bounds of compliance of the rules respecting insured and non-insured services in the province, has raised the issues with the Medical Services Commission. That's appropriate for him to do.

The Medical Services Commission will have to form its own judgment about how far they would go in terms of reviews, investigations, ongoing audits or any of that. Those are decisions which the Medical Services Commission would have to make, and as we discussed at some length earlier, those are decisions that an independent, quasi-judicial agency makes in respect of

I do want to note, though, that my assistant deputy minister, Craig Knight, and other ministry officials have also met with Options to discuss their business model. There was a lack of clarity, in the ministry official's view, with respect to whether the services provided were non-insured services under the provisions of the act. For that reason, the ministry officials have asked the Medical Services Commission to look at this issue as well.

D. Cubberley: I would take from that — I want to ask another question — that they are actually looking into Options and/or there has been a request sent from the ministry to the Medical Services Commission asking them to examine it.

I haven't been and visited and gone through that process for obvious reasons. But the materials on the Web appear to be offering preferential access in some form to members. They appear to be offering consultations with physicians of a kind that are not permitted under MSP — half-hour defined appointments, accelerated access and an array of things that led me to feel some concern along the lines that you were probably alluding to on the part of your officials.

In asking the commission to look at that, I was quite specific. I mentioned that I'm concerned that facility fees not be used to confer preferential access to insured services and that members not receive insured services of a quantity or quality that are not available to the general public so that fair and even conditions are there for all members of the plan.

In the response that I got from the commission — and I guess this is where I find it challenging to see this as a complaint process that can work — the chair of the commission says: "I appreciate your bringing this issue to the commission's attention. I regret that section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act precludes me from discussing the MSC's audit plans at the level of detail you seek in your letter."

That led me to feel some concern, and I did follow this up by contacting the chair of the commission. He was quite willing to speak to me about it. But it led to a concern on my part — which I couldn't satisfy, really, through the conversation — that I would not have any idea of whether the Medical Services Commission was or was not going to proceed to investigate this matter. That letter wouldn't give me any sense of whether they were.

I want to just ask the minister to respond to that. For someone making a complaint, it's odd not to have some element of process elaborated that would tell you how it's going to be handled.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member appropriately asked about what clarity there was around what had happened and what will happen. We can say with clarity that the ministry has tendered to the Medical Services Commission a request for them to look at the structure of Options and to ensure that it is within bounds in terms of compliance with the statutory framework that governs the delivery of health services in the province.

We cannot say with the same clarity what the Medical Services Commission will do with it. These are frequently complex matters. The Medical Services Commission has to ensure that all of the privacy provisions which govern our lives are taken into account. They have to ensure that they proceed with what's termed "administrative fairness" so that there's no preconception of bias or outcome in respect of these matters.

I think they have to ensure that as they proceed, they do so in a comprehensive way so that the decisions that are ultimately made are manifestly defensible, because there may be additional challenges to the conclusions that they reach.

These are complex matters. Again, I just have to reiterate that this is an independent body. It is not a body which is directed by the ministry. It is a body which acts independently. It goes about its business in a very thorough way, but they set their own direction in terms of what they take on.

D. Cubberley: I thank the minister for that. I understand it's an independent body, and that it should be. I think that in order for it to work, it has to be able to operate in an independent way. But it also has to be seen to be operating in a way that meets the tests of administrative fairness. There are tests on the side of someone who might be investigated, but I think also that probably there are tests vis-à-vis someone who is asking to have a complaint taken seriously. So there's a question of diligence on both sides of that equation.

Well, let me put it this way. I brought the matter to the commission's attention. How would I know that the Medical Services Commission was carrying out an investigation? How would I know that they had completed an investigation? How would that be reported to me, and how would I understand what determination they had reached? How would that be conveyed to me? Where would it appear?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member has raised a particularly complex area of public policy here. We are needing to make reference to both the act that governs the Medical Services Commission and the Medicare Protection Act.

Section 49 of the Medicare Protection Act, for one piece, suggests that except in the cases of fraud — i.e., things that would be relevant to court proceedings — the release of other information of a non-fraudulent nature can only be made consistent with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and under other circumstances. So in some instances there may not be public disclosure of the outcome of an audit or a review by the Medical Services Commission.

I want to get the member a really comprehensive answer to that question, but I'm not sure I'm going to

be able to provide it without holding up estimates here for a longer period of time than I would like to. That's sort of at least a partial answer to the member's question, but I want to get him a better answer to the question. I'll endeavour to do that through the course of today or perhaps tomorrow.

If the member can come back and raise the issue again, we'll try to plumb the depths of the legislative and regulatory framework that guides us here and get him a better answer in addition to what I've given.

D. Cubberley: I do appreciate the complexity of it, having wrestled a little bit with it myself. I'm aware of section 49 which, at one level, makes perfect sense around auditing practices and, at another level, would appear to bang right into the proper functioning of this body as a body that receives complaints about practices under the law and that examines those to determine whether in fact infractions are occurring.

There is obviously a need for some transparency in that process. In fact, most complaint processes that I'm aware of have some element of public process about them so that some component of the process has a public element, if only when a determination is made — the provision of both the determination and a rationale for the determination.

What I see from looking through the annual reports that I've been able to look at is that I may see a summary line indicating that 15 audits were conducted, and X amount of dollars were assessed around something. But it does not give me any sense of what it was that was in play.

I recognize that the minister has asked for additional time to confer around this. I think it's a very serious question, because as we sail collectively into uncharted waters with more and more of these kinds of blended options occurring, I think we're going to see more of this demand, if you will, for the commission to look at operations and to determine that they're not falling afoul of the law for obvious reasons.

So I think there is an issue there of someone who does bring a complaint to the commission having some ability to understand whether that complaint was or wasn't taken seriously.

There is a matter which runs with it which is the credibility of the Medical Services Commission, which cannot simply be assumed but has to be demonstrated in the way that it makes its decisions, as does any body that is operating and charged with this kind of responsibility. There has to be some element of transparency in what it does in order for public confidence to be there.

I know the minister would not disagree with this. It's a very important piece of legislation that they're charged with ensuring respect for.

I want to ask just one other question, and then I will return the floor to the lead questioner.

Another matter which arose in looking at this had very much been in my mind from my days as Health critic in looking at what I saw going on. I'm wondering about the propriety of it, which is an enrolled physician charging someone for a consultation, perhaps as part of a diagnosis, who, in the course of providing this insured service to a patient, at the same time begins advising patients on private-pay options that are outside the Medical Services Plan.

I raise this issue because the Options Health System appears to bundle this into what it is selling and markets it to people as a reason to belong to Options; that is, they can provide you with the best advice on where you can get the cheapest, most immediate access, whether it's to diagnosis or to surgery.

I guess my question is: is that a Medical Services Commission issue? Is it, in fact, an issue? To me, it is. If they're billing MSP and advising people how to go outside MSP for faster service at the same time, to me as a citizen it appears to be an ethical issue. Is that an MSC issue? Is that an issue that the College of Physicians and Surgeons should be seized of? Or is it not an issue because there are no bounds on these kinds of things?

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally, the division between those matters that might be referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons and those matters that would be referred to the Medical Services Commission would fall on whether they were ethical matters, in which case they would be referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. If it was a matter of inappropriate billing, that would likely be referred to the Medical Services Commission.

Let's do a hypothetical example. I am a back surgeon, and I have a six-month wait-list for consultation. I have Mrs. Smith come to see me and say: "I'd like to get your view with respect to whether I need surgery on my herniated disk." And I say: "Well, I can see you in six months because that's the length of my list in the public setting, or I can see you on Saturday in my private clinic, if you pay me a $350 fee."

That would be, from our view, inappropriate ethical behaviour for a physician to express or conduct. Were we to hear such a complaint, we would describe that as potentially unethical behaviour, and that matter would be referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

Again, I hope that's useful in terms of understanding what the division of responsibility is between the two organizations. If it was around a billing matter, likely the Medical Services Commission; if it was an ethical matter, likely the college.

D. Cubberley: I'm going to finish up, not on another question but for our future continuing discussion of the matter raised about how the commission operates and how the public can have confidence in the way that it is operating.

I think it's a serious issue in the sense that for the public to have confidence, the body that is charged with the responsibility carries out that responsibility in an appropriate manner. There has to be some ability to see the determinations that are made, to know that a determination has been made, to have some sense of

what it was and how it was made, to be notified. Otherwise, it's completely tilted into a process operating behind a screen. The screen is very effective, but from where I stand, it's not in the public interest for it to operate so much behind a screen.

If the goal is to retain public confidence in how well the system is functioning and to ensure that there is an avenue for complaint and for redress, It's important that we look at it and that we find the way to ensure it can be conveyed to somebody — that your concern is actually being looked at and, if there is substance to it, that it's being acted on. I can't see that in any records I have access to right now.

I'm going to leave that with the minister and return the floor to the member for Vancouver-Kingsway, unless the minister wants to comment.

A. Dix: Just to return to the Copeman issue, the minister was concerned about my characterization of Mr. Knight's September 8, 2005, letter. Let me just quote from it so that it's unambiguous here. Mr. Knight wrote: "Based on the clear relationship between the centre's fees and MSP-insured services, it is clear that these fees, as currently proposed, are not permitted under British Columbia's Medicare Protection Act — MPA — or the Canada Health Act." I think that my characterization of Mr. Knight's pretty strong comments, pretty clear comments, was not really inconsistent with his actual words. Those were his actual words.

Then we move to what Mr. Knight wrote to Mr. Copeman on February 1, 2006. I think the minister has this letter in front of him now. It's the February 1, 2006, letter I was referring to, when he wrote: "The enrolment and annual fees are contrary…." There is text between this. I'll read it all, just to be fair. "The enrolment and annual fees appear to us to be, at least in part, for or in relation to Medical Services Plan — MSP — benefits contrary to the Medicare Protection Act."

Mr. Knight goes on to ask Mr. Copeman…. I should say the ministry; I assume he was speaking for the minister as well: "…requests that you take one of the following steps to resolve the situation by February 28, 2006: (1) cancel the centre's enrolment and annual fees. I understand you've already decided not to charge an enrolment fee at your Ontario clinics" — Mr. Knight asks him to cancel the centre's enrolment and annual fees — "or (2) require the physicians working at the centre to cancel their enrolment with MSP."

Just to be clear, Mr. Knight sent this letter, and he asked that one of those steps be taken by February 28, 2006. Just to be clear, Mr. Copeman, I gather, did not respond positively to Mr. Knight's suggestions as to how he might get into compliance with the law.

Hon. G. Abbott: The first observation I want to make is that the letter of September 8, 2005, from Mr. Knight to Mr. Copeman, and the letter of February 1 from Mr. Knight to Mr. Copeman…. In both cases the letters need to be read in their entirety and understood in their entirety, rather than taking particular pieces of it and then saying that this conveys the content of the letter.

The phrase I'll note to the member is this. The phrase that frequently appears in the letter is "appear." "It would appear." "It appears." "Appear" is a phrase which is used advisedly and is used on legal advice to convey the sense that there is an appearance the issue may be out of compliance with legislative statutes or the statutory framework in the province.

In the case of September 8, 2005, I'm not going to read the whole letter but refer the member here, to the last sentence of the third paragraph, which says: "Payment of the fees would appear to secure the payer an enhanced level of access to MSP-insured services in terms of both speed of access and duration of physician visits." Mr. Knight is saying that is the apprehension that exists here — that there is an appearance the payer gets an enhanced level of access to MSP-insured services. That is the concern being forwarded on to Mr. Copeman in this letter.

If we go on to the next page, the second page of that letter, the second paragraph says: "The difficulty with your proposal stems from the confusion of whether the fees charged are in relation to non-insured services or insured services under the Medicare Protection Act. An option the Copeman centre could consider would be either to restrict itself to services not covered by MSP or clearly delineate that the fees are for non-insured services only, and they are voluntary."

This is during the period in which Mr. Knight was working with the Copeman centre to try to bring it into compliance with what we understand his operation to be and with the statutory framework, as we understand it to be. I can't say Mr. Knight was entirely unsuccessful in his work. In fairness to Mr. Copeman, he did work with Mr. Knight and the team from the ministry, and some adjustments were made in the way the clinic portrayed itself — some additional clarity added. Not all the issues were able to be resolved.

As a consequence, that led to the letter of February 1, 2006, which again needs to be read in its entirety. I'm not going to read all of it, but as an example, the last bullet point on page 1 of the letter says: "The enrolment in annual fees appears to us to be, at least in part, or in relation to MSP benefits, contrary to the MPA." Again the deliberate use of the term "appear."

On the second page, the first bullet: "The centre's fees appear to constitute a financial barrier to MSP-insured services." Again it reflects the apprehension that this portion of the way the centre is portrayed, the way in which their business plan is constructed, gives that appearance of being out of compliance with the statutory framework.

Just to conclude on the letter of February 1, 2006, the second-to-last paragraph: "In the absence of a satisfactory resolution of our concerns by the end of the month, the ministry will refer this matter to the Medical Services Commission for further investigation and possible follow-up." That's the final paragraph.

That follows Mr. Knight's point that he would wish this to be resolved by February 28, 2006, or we would be referring the matter on to the Medical Services Commission. Given that they weren't resolved to our satisfaction, it was referred on to the Medical Services Commission by Mr. Knight.

A. Dix: Because I know the minister appears consumed with appearances, I think the letter is very good. I think the letter is very clear. I just note, because appearances and optics are part of it, that in response to Mr. Knight, Mr. Copeman wrote a letter that said: "We must come to a clear agreement on what it takes to be optically compliant with legislation." Mr. Copeman appears to use that word — concerned with appearances as well. Mr. Knight rightly takes him to task for this. He says: "Our purpose in these discussions, therefore, is to clarify what is needed for full legal compliance, not some standard of optical compliance."

In terms of that, I think the question I asked was simply: did Mr. Copeman respond to this letter, and did he take any of the actions requested of him by Mr. Knight on behalf of the ministry and the province of British Columbia to come into compliance with the legislation after the letter of February 1, 2006?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, I'm advised that pretty much all the movement that was undertaken by Mr. Copeman occurred before February 1, 2006. There was a little movement in the position after that point. That is the reason why the matter then went on to the Medical Services Commission for their adjudication.

A. Dix: At that point in the month of March, I understand that there were discussions between the ministry and the Medical Services Commission. The ministry provided, as I understand it, the commission with information that it had learned about the Copeman case. Can the minister describe those discussions? Were there presentations made to the Medical Services Commission that the ministry could share with the public of British Columbia? This is an important public question. Can the minister describe the process that took place and where the Ministry of Health took part in the Medical Services Commission process?

I want to fully understand what happened there. I think that around that time there were changes to…. I guess it's a secondary question, then. I don't think that Mr. Knight left the Medical Services Commission during this time. Maybe the minister could describe that process as well. The government's representatives on the commission are public servants, and I know Mr. Knight has many, many responsibilities. I just wanted you to describe the process.

Was there any connection between his decision to leave, given the sort of centrality of the case, really the precedent-setting nature of the case…? This is the first time the commission has dealt with this extra-billing case. Can the minister describe that process for us, because that process obviously didn't take place in public.

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me provide the member with this information. After the time had elapsed in which we hoped that further changes would be made and we were unsuccessful in resolving those, the issue was brought to the Medical Services Commission by Mr. Knight. Mr. Knight presented to the commission all of the materials relevant to the case at hand, the issue with Mr. Copeman. He advised them of how they had proceeded to reach an impasse around resolution of the matters.

The commission took Mr. Knight's presentation under advisement. Mr. Copeman was subsequently invited by the commission to appear before them and essentially provide his side of the story, and he did. He availed himself of that opportunity to meet with the commission.

The commission has undertaken analysis of the respective presentations that were made, but they were unable to form, as I understand it, conclusions based on the presentation of information by the respective parties. They felt that comprehensive audits were necessary to form conclusions, and I understand that those have proceeded.

Beyond that, and to address the second part of the member's question, Mr. Knight felt that to ensure there was no apprehension of bias on any part…. This was not pursuant to any observation that anyone made, Mr. Copeman or otherwise. This is a conclusion that Mr. Knight formed himself.

To avoid any potential apprehension of bias, he felt that it would be important, given that there was this case and potentially cases like it…. He did not want to confuse his role as the lead in respect of these matters with the ministry with a role on the Medical Services Commission as a member of that commission. Consequently, a decision was made that we would see Mr. Knight come off the commission. Mr. Bob Nakagawa is the now the ministry's representative on the commission in place of Mr. Knight.

A. Dix: I want to be clear to the minister that I was just asking if there was a connection. I think the challenge, in part, if you get into the issue of apprehension of bias, is really that the commission is appointed partly by the Ministry of Health. If there is a substantive issue around that, then you'd have to almost review the appointment process. Part of the commission is appointed by the B.C. Medical Association.

Some members of the commission have strong views as well. The BCMA is on issues of practice audits, where the commission has cut its teeth over a period of years. There aren't the same policy issues as there are with respect to extra-billing. Those debates are very much alive, as the minister knows.

The minister will know, of course, because he was there in December of 2006, that there is an issue with respect to the False Creek Surgical Centre and

the creation of the urgent care centre — which is an ongoing issue — at the time prior to when Bill 92 was proclaimed.

Did the proclamation of Bill 92 have an impact, to the minister's knowledge, on the Copeman case — those sections of Bill 92, the Medicare Protection Amendment Act, 2003, passed in the House in 2003? The minister proclaimed some sections of that act. Did the proclamation of those sections assist the commission in pursuing the Copeman case? We'll call it the Copeman case, not the Copeman investigation.

Hon. G. Abbott: The way the member phrased the question, I think perhaps inadvertently, was: did the proclamation of the Bill 92 sections have an impact on the Copeman thing? I presume he meant to say the False Creek Surgical Centre — no? You meant Copeman?

Hon. G. Abbott: Okay. I'm not sure that we would see a relevance or impact in terms of the proclamation of those sections on the Copeman centre. The issues around the Copeman centre had already occurred. The matters that were in hand with the Medical Services Commission I think were well in hand before those changes.

I'm not sure that there was anything that was provided in those amendments that allowed them to do more than they had been previously unable to do. I don't believe so.

I thought maybe the member was referring to the False Creek Urgent Care Centre, because clearly the proclamation assisted the commission there and may have had some impact on the direction the False Creek Urgent Care Centre took in terms of its operation at that time.

A. Dix: I presume what's gone on and one of the reasons for the very lengthy delay with respect to the Copeman case…. That delay has consequences. The minister might argue that he can't comment on the length of time it's taken to make a determination in that case, but the reality is that we have, as the member for Saanich South has suggested, a number of other like clinics with, really, Copeman-style models that have come up.

We've had this long period of ambiguity between Mr. Knight's clear letter to Mr. Copeman, which suggested that he cancel the enrolment fees and the creation of all these other fees.

I guess that the minister is saying that the additional powers provided — the audit powers, in particular, because I think that's the question here…. The commission probably had the ministry's point of view, as presented by Mr. Knight, and the Copeman clinic's point of view, as presented by Mr. Copeman and those around him.

I think one of the things about those audit provisions that were proclaimed by the minister around the False Creek thing is that it would seem to me that those provisions would assist the commission in conducting an audit and arriving at the truth. I don't need the minister's answer or anything else right now. I'm just interested, because I think in some ways the commission is going to be increasingly taken up with these.

The minister will know that the Leader of the Official Opposition referred a bunch of issues to the commission — the Barbara Gosling case and other cases where doctors were essentially setting appointments and then referring people to their own private clinics. We don't know which of these cases are before the commission, but we understand that a number of them are.

I guess my question is…. I'd be interested to know if it did assist and is assisting the commission, not in making one decision or another in the Copeman case, but in arriving at a set of facts on which it can make a decision in that case.

Isn't it also, therefore, reasonable to think it reasonable for the minister to review the previous decision not to proclaim all of Bill 92? Is there any review taking place now within the ministry to do that — in order to give the ministry, the commission and other public agencies all of the tools at their disposal to ensure that the Medicare Protection Act, in particular, is being respected?

Hon. G. Abbott: What the amendments did, as the member knows, was strengthen both the audit powers and the injunctive powers of the Medical Services Commission in relation to clinics. Certainly, the strengthening was borne out around the issues with the False Creek Urgent Care Centre.

In terms of future policy around other portions of it being proclaimed, we're not aware of a need to proclaim any other sections. That having been said, at this point in time if that need should arise, the executive council would give consideration to it.

A. Dix: I just wanted to ask…. Subsequent to the events at the urgent care centre, the various permutations, the minister will remember Dr. Godley suggesting that he had been in negotiation with the minister and with the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority at various points and so on, and then the decision to proclaim parts of Bill 92.

Can the minister tell us whether the False Creek Surgical Centre or the False Creek Urgent Care Centre are currently the subject of audits, or have they been the subject of audits since December 2006?

Hon. G. Abbott: This is one of those occasions when one must choose one's words carefully in respect of these important matters. The False Creek Urgent Care Centre is not, to our knowledge, the subject of any audit or any other processes of the Medical Services Commission. We understand what they're undertaking there in terms of providing services by non-enrolled physicians who are, as I understand it, from outside the province. There is no issue there at the present time.

In terms of the False Creek Surgical Centre, I understand that matters have been referred to the commission and that there may be discussions between the commission and False Creek Surgical Centre in respect of those matters. Beyond that there's not a lot that I can say about that.

A. Dix: Is it the case that many of the fines received by the Province under the Canada Health Act have been a direct result of the activities of the False Creek Surgical Centre?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer is no. They're unrelated to the False Creek Surgical Centre. All of the penalties invoked by the federal government under the Canada Health Act related to physicians and surgeons enrolled in MSP.

A. Dix: I understand that, although the minister will know that many of the surgeons associated with the False Creek Surgical Centre are in fact enrolled in MSP. I think in '05-06 it was $17 million in billings or something like that.

I guess the question is, shall we say: has the province ever been fined by the federal government under the Canada Health Act? The fines, in fairness to the British Columbia government…. I think we're one of the few jurisdictions in Canada that fully respects that process, and it's one of the reasons why we're also the subject of fine, it should be said, to be fair.

Are any of the fines that B.C. has received in recent years as a result of activities that have taken place at the False Creek Surgical Centre? I'm asking the question again just to be clear whether the minister was talking about this year or ever.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm sure that the Health critic, when he asks these questions, thinks that he's asking simple questions. Invariably they raise levels of complexity that are just marvellous to unfold.

If one looks, first of all, at the federal penalties, we're talking not about fines but rather deductions from the federal transfer on an annualized basis. We have the detail on that for fiscal 2003-04, which was actually paid in March 2006. That was $29,018; 2002-03 was $72,000; 2001-02, $126,000; 2000-01, $4,600; back as far as 1993-94, $43,000; and 1992-93, $1,982,000.

I'm advised by staff that the great majority — and I'm choosing my words carefully — of the billings through that period from '92 forward to today involve inappropriate extra-billing by physicians. We're going to have to go back and check on this.

We think that there are a few cases where inappropriate facility fees may have prompted a deduction from the transfer, but we're going to go back in the records and check on that. We can bring that information back to the member.

A. Dix: Just with respect to the current commission investigation or commission review — maybe "review" is the fairest — of False Creek Surgical Centre, how was that initiated? Was it initiated by the Ministry of Health or as the result of a complaint?

Hon. G. Abbott: In my earlier answer I used the term "discussions" as occurring between False Creek Surgical and the Medical Services Commission. Those discussions that are occurring are based on allegations that were forwarded to the commission from the ministry after the ministry was in receipt of those allegations.

A. Dix: So the process in that case…. The member for Saanich South had raised some of these issues of process, and there are real challenges for people. First of all, in life I think it's always difficult to make a complaint at the best of times. Many people don't want to rock the boat and have a challenge rocking the boat, so it's important to understand that process.

Before I say that to the Minister of Health, I'd just say to his staff that we're going to move very shortly to a number of our MLAs from Vancouver Island — we're moving through the health authorities — who have some questions for the Minister of Health. That's just for staff in the back who might be preparing for that. That's how we're going to go.

Then we're going to finish up today with a short discussion of the Conversation on Health, which I'm sure would only require me and the minister.

Just to be clear, then, the process in this case was a complaint from outside to the Ministry of Health and referred to the commission, which resulted in what the minister describes as discussions between False Creek Surgical Centre and the Medical Service Commission?

A. Dix: Just finally on this — talking about this complaint and some of the issues that arise — I guess, to ask the Minister of Health his point of view about this…. This is an issue that we've raised on a number of occasions in different ways. A number of occasions involved the Kamloops Surgical Centre and doctors working both in the public system and then having their own private business.

There's the case of a person such as Barbara Gosling, or others which we've raised, in which a citizen is offered a specialist's appointment for 2008 and then offered a specialist's appointment with the same specialist in a couple of weeks for $350.

As the leader of the health care system in British Columbia, does the minister think that that kind of conduct is appropriate? Does he think that's the kind of thing that should be going on in the health care system?

Setting aside the fact that these issues are subjects of debate by the commission, it seems to me that beyond everything else, when people are unwell — and this comes to all of us at times — there's a certain desperation that comes with that. Does the minister not think that those kinds of practices that are taking place

around the province — setting aside their legality — are wrong, are not things that he condones and are something that he in fact would speak against?

Hon. G. Abbott: The kind of scenario that the member just asked me about was one that I discussed with the member for Saanich South a little while ago in the House. We can use Barbara Gosling as an example here. She raised concerns. As I recall, she alleged that she was being offered a more timely access with a physician if she were to go outside the normal hours of the physician and pay an additional fee — that sort of thing.

I don't want to make judgment on that, because that's an allegation that obviously is serious. It is an allegation which I believe we have forwarded to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for their consideration and potential adjudication.

I won't repeat all of the dissertation I made around this with the member for Saanich South, but generally, the dividing line between matters that are referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons versus the Medical Services Commission is that matters of unethical behaviour would be directed to the college. Those matters that involve inappropriate billings or inappropriate financial behaviour would tend to go to the commission.

A. Dix: Just to finish on this, and we'll pick up diagnostics, probably tomorrow. Everywhere in British Columbia people are being offered MRIs at whatever price — often between $700 and $1,500. It depends on the MRI. Sometimes different MRIs are required that are more expensive.

We had this discussion around St. Paul's and Mount Saint Joseph's earlier. But the concern I think I have about the proliferation of this is that the minister will know that the ethical way we deal with waiting lists is to have doctors make those decisions.

Doesn't the minister agree with me that you get to the waiting list sooner in British Columbia if you pay for an MRI? He'll recall and he'll know the report of the Romanow commission with respect to these issues, but I'm wondering if he thinks that the proliferation of that, which is now commonplace in British Columbia — of people paying what in terms of medical costs is a smaller amount of money to jump to the front of the wait-list….

If I'm in the public system and asking the public system to give me an MRI, I wait in line for five, six months to get that MRI, or I'm given the option of paying $1,200 and immediately getting the MRI and then going on to the next stage.

Isn't that something that would preoccupy the minister? In a sense, that's two people in the public health care system — one moving on to the stage of surgery, if that's what's required, much quicker than somebody else, based on putting down a thousand bucks. Doesn't that issue, aside from its legality…? The proliferation of that — isn't that something that preoccupies the Minister of Health in British Columbia today?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a great many issues around diagnostics, which I think are appropriate for canvassing in these estimates. And no, there's a range of questions that we should consider, including: are some diagnostic tests being overprescribed? Are they being underprescribed? When is an MRI a non-insured service, and when is it an insured service? When is it medically necessary? When is it not? There's a whole range of questions that might be appropriately canvassed.

Let's set out the context here. First of all, we have more MRI scans being undertaken than ever before in the province. Between 2003 and 2006 the number of MRI scans increased from 50,000 in '04 to 74,826 — in three years, a 50-percent increase in the number of MRI scans. The number of CT scans over that same period rose from 280,000 to 359,000, a 28-percent increase in the number of CT scans in just a three-year period.

The publicly funded health care system is making enormous investments in CT scanners and MRI scanners. The number of MRI scanners, for example, moved from nine to 19 during the period between 2001 and the end of 2006. The number of CT scanners increased from 31 to 42, a 35-percent increase in the number of scanners.

We keep dramatically adding to the number of MRIs, CT scans and so on that exist in the province. We are doing more procedures than at any point in the history of British Columbia. We're certainly doing the right things. Medical technology is a fascinating area, and there's much we can learn from medical technology.

Places like Vancouver Island Health Authority recently engaged in a ten-year contract with General Electric, I think it was, to keep them the most current place on the face of the earth in terms of medical technology. That's a wonderful thing.

That having been said, are we seeing a situation where in some cases MRIs have become a default to more personalized attention to the patient? I think that's a legitimate concern to talk about. All of those things I look forward to discussing.

We're doing more surgeries than ever before and more diagnostics than ever before in the province. If the member is saying that somehow eliminating any of the private providers of MRIs and CTs would be a step ahead, I would have to say no, because some people are making the choice to undertake scans as a non-insured service — i.e., for screening purposes, for their own purposes.

This is an area that often tends to be grey in terms of its application to MPA and to the Canada Health Act.

A. Dix: We're now going to shift a little bit to a couple of Vancouver Island MLAs to ask questions about the Vancouver Island Health Authority. My colleague from North Island will take up the questioning.

C. Trevena: I wanted to ask the minister a little bit, maybe a bit predictably, about the proposals for the new regional hospital. This proposal obviously hasn't come to the minister yet, but we have two existing hospitals that are in real need of repair. Their fabric is a

problem, and that's one of the reasons, I think, that the Vancouver Island Health Authority has come down on the very unpopular decision to have a regional hospital rather than maintain the two existing hospitals.

I wanted to ask the minister what level of investment there was going to be for maintenance and upkeep for these two hospitals in the forthcoming year.

Hon. G. Abbott: Hospitals are regularly accredited with respect to patient safety and a range of other issues that may be brought into an accreditation process.

In terms of the hospitals in question, the community hospitals in Campbell River and Comox — both of which are, as the member notes, aging structures — there is a decision that is going to have to be made by VIHA and by the regional hospital district that serves that area about the replacement or remediation of those facilities.

VIHA went through, I thought, quite a comprehensive process in terms of going out and talking to physicians and the public about those facilities. It was a fascinating process where many people, when they talked conceptually about whether it would be good to have a regional hospital with tertiary facilities replace two aging but smaller facilities…. I think the answer was pretty much that yes, a tertiary regional facility would be a great thing.

Then when a geographical location was applied to that regional facility, at that point the consensus became unwound in a hurry. I suppose that's not entirely surprising, that we hear people concerned about having a greater proximity to their health services. Perhaps it's not surprising that we've heard some concerns from portions of the north Island in respect to where a regional facility should be located.

I think that depending on how close it is to Campbell River, the level of support for a regional facility goes up or down. This is a challenge for the Vancouver Island Health Authority to sort out. I wish them good luck and Godspeed in sorting that out. I'm sure it's a tough Solomon-like decision that they will need to be making around that.

But given the fact that the regional hospital district has expressed concern, and given that any project of a regional tertiary nature is going to require a 40-percent contribution from the regional hospital district, my expectation is that we will not be seeing a regional facility moving forward at any time in the near future.

That having been said, obviously we have to keep the hospitals up to a standard that allows their continued accreditation. This is a tough issue for the taxpayers and for VIHA to make a decision on. How much should one spend on consistently remediating aging infrastructure versus making the investment in new facilities?

So a tough question, and I welcome any advice the member might like to provide us in respect of that.

C. Trevena: I think the minister is quite correct. The regional hospital board is very unhappy with the decision, as are doctors. A number of doctors have come out now opposed to the decision. They don't like the location. There's also a huge amount of concern in the fact that nobody knows what will be left in the existing hospitals — that VIHA has been very vague.

There's obviously a lot of concern for people further up the Island. Looking at VIHA's own map of the location, it's supposed to be a north Island regional hospital, and it's located quite close to Courtenay-Comox. The map finishes at Campbell River, and yet this hospital is supposed to provide health care for people right up to the north end of the Island and to the islands off of the north end of the Island.

So there is a huge amount of concern that people's care will decline and people's lives could be put at risk by the location. There is also, obviously, the emotional attachment and the practical attachment to hospitals located within the communities.

What I was wondering — if the minister could assist me through this — is that if the regional hospital board has said, "No, we're not going to fund it," and VIHA is now in this state of, "Well, we're not going to get the 40 percent from the regional hospital board," can we be looking at an investment in the two hospitals to upgrade them, which at that level would still be less than the cost of building a completely new facility?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are in fact a range of perspectives on a north Island regional hospital. Some physicians and surgeons are keen supporters of it; others are not. There is a division within the medical community, as there appears to be between and among communities as well. I think I've explained the reasons for that.

In terms of what would occur in those community hospitals, once a regional hospital was created…. If a new regional hospital is undertaken, some 230 to 240 in-patient beds with enhanced trauma, critical care transport, etc., enhanced surgical capacity and a whole range of improvements around the tertiary services might be offered there versus what can be offered in Campbell River and Comox.

But were that regional hospital to proceed, the existing hospitals in Campbell River and Comox would be adapted for a broad range of community-based services for each community, which would complement what was offered at the regional hospital.

For example, in Campbell River, services that would remain after the regional hospital was put in place include 24-7 urgent care and treatment, in-patient rehab beds, transitional care beds, outpatient clinics, population health and primary health care. Those are the kinds of services that would continue to be offered at the hospital in Campbell River.

In St. Joseph's General Hospital in Comox, palliative care, residential care and assisted living, primary health care and day programs would be offered. So a somewhat wider range would be offered at Campbell River than Comox. On the other hand, as it's currently structured, the regional hospital would be rather closer

If the regional hospital district resolves that they are opposed to the regional project and if they resolve that they are not going to be providing the 40-percent regional share of the hospital, then that project will not proceed.

If that project does not proceed, then we are, I suppose, back to the drawing board in terms of what we do. The reinvestment in decaying infrastructure is a tough question. This is not a question that I'm going to seize or VIHA is going to seize and say: "This is what we're going to do, whether you like it or not."

This is something that is going to have to evolve from a community and regional consensus around this matter. There's no easy answer here. I think what VIHA has put forward is a reasonable approach. But if that's unacceptable to the regional hospital district, then nothing is going to happen until there's some resolution of that matter.

C. Trevena: The regional hospital district has opposed it. If the regional hospital district in the forthcoming year votes in a different way, would that then put it back on the agenda? Or is there a time limit for this?

Hon. G. Abbott: Well, the issue doesn't go away. We will continue to have aging community hospital facilities in Campbell River and Comox. In the absence of some definitive action, that continues. Presumably, if the regional hospital district view with respect to this changes, if their resolution changes, then the matter is back on the table in terms of discussion with Vancouver Island Health Authority.

But whether there's consensus there or not, we would still have to take the matters through all the processes around government approval of the project. We will await the decisions and leadership of the regional hospital district. But projects simply cannot proceed on the basis of the province paying 100 percent. There has to be partnership from the regional hospital district. If that is not forthcoming, then it doesn't proceed.

C. Trevena: I have a very quick question on the 40-percent figure, but I would like to come back in a moment to the provision of services in the two hospitals and the commitment to upgrade those hospitals, because if we get to this stalemate where the regional hospital board won't agree to come up with the 40 percent, we are going to have two hospitals that are in serious need of repair. They have been in serious need of repair for many years.

Campbell River has been calling for a capital investment for a number of years, and that has been stalled and stalled. So there is a certain stage where there's really no question. You have got to put the money into that hospital for patient care.

My question very quickly on the 40 percent: will this 40 percent be on the total cost of the project, or would it be on the proportion that would be under public financing with the structure of public-private partnership? Would it be on the total budget or the public sector part of the public-private partnership?

Hon. G. Abbott: The 60-40 formula has been in place for a long time. I remember it back when I was involved in regional hospital districts, as far back as the '80s and '70s. I know that the formula has been around for a long time. It is 40 percent of the total capital cost of the project.

My other question on this is: when looking at the plans for the hospital and weighing up the pros and the cons and the thousands of people who have actually come out and signed petitions and said that we don't want a hospital — and the doctors and so on — is the Ministry of Health also looking at the environmental impact?

I know that in the throne speech there was a lot of talk about urban sprawl. One of the other issues about having the regional hospital is that the location VIHA has chosen is completely unserviced. It has no community around it and would generate, by necessity, people travelling to the site to build it, to build the infrastructure, and then would mean that people would be commuting from both communities every day to it.

In fact, for almost all the sites along the highway up to the border of Campbell River, VIHA would be facing the same thing. So I wondered if that environmental impact is being built into the costing of the hospital and the costing of the health care returns.

Hon. G. Abbott: You should know first of all that new hospital facilities in this province are being built to LEED standards, so I think that's a positive thing. In terms of the environmental cost of people travelling from one community to a facility to access the services in a regional hospital, I think that this would be a difficult equation to develop with precision.

The reason why it would be difficult to develop with precision today is, because there is no regional hospital with tertiary services, we now see a portion of the north Island population going to Nanaimo or Victoria to access those tertiary services. If there was a regional hospital, their trip to access those kinds of services would be shorter.

I don't believe there's any sort of perfect balance that can be achieved where you say: "Demonstrably, this is environmentally friendly, but this is not." I think there are pluses and minuses to either scenario, because people today have to travel to get those specialist services, which otherwise they could get closer to home with a regional hospital.

That having been said, there will be some services moving from both the Comox and Campbell River hospitals to the regional hospital, so there will be an offset to that. I'm not sure what the balance is. I think generally it's probably pretty much a wash. I think you have to make these decisions based on service to the

public as opposed to probably a complex environmental formula, because I think there would be a lot of pluses and minuses on both sides of that equation.

C. Trevena: There would be a lot of pluses and minuses, but there is no doubt that by building the mini-city and allowing the mini-city to develop around a hospital, as would be the case we've seen here in Victoria, it would inevitably have an environmental impact.

Also, I have to say that we're going to have people who are going to be travelling further just for the regular care that they are presently getting at Campbell River Hospital, and it's going to give them another 30 minutes along the highway. It means that staff and doctors are not able to walk to the hospital. It is going to be everybody in their cars, because even if there is bus service running, it's unlikely to be sustained for that.

My other question — just to take it away from the regional hospital, and obviously, we now have to wait to see whether the regional health board does maintain its position — is on the other facilities on the north Island. I mean, we have hospitals and health care in Alert Bay, on Cormorant Island, in Port Hardy, Port McNeill and the clinic in Port Alice.

I just wanted to ask the minister whether there is the commitment to maintain community health care in these locations, which are at the moment isolated, and secondly, if that commitment is there, if there's any way that it can be strengthened in light of the fact that we are discussing the possibility of a regional hospital?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're not aware. We've canvassed fairly closely the written materials we have in respect of Vancouver Island Health Authority and the north end of the Island. There appears to be absolutely no suggestion that the hospital facilities on the north end of the Island would be reduced in any way. Certainly, they will be maintained.

We are always looking in rural and remote areas of the province at ways in which we can strengthen primary care, ways in which we can support better aboriginal health outcomes, community programs — that kind of thing. VIHA has actually been very good in respect of that. I think they've got lots of good work underway around improving the continuum of health services. But I think the core hospital services that we have there will be maintained and, I'm sure, incrementally improved over time.

C. Trevena: Yes, VIHA's commitment to aboriginal health is again another concern for the loss of the Campbell River Hospital because it has very good relationships with the first nations community.

My other question on rural health care and access to the ministry services and VIHA's services is on the health clinic on Cortes Island that has been built through local fundraising. There is a doctor there, and there's a desire to expand the services at the clinic.

I wondered whether the ministry has been approached by VIHA about getting this under the umbrella of VIHA rather than as an independent community health clinic.

Hon. G. Abbott: The staff we have available here, and myself, are not familiar with the health initiative that's underway on Cortes Island. What we will do is endeavour to respond, either later in these estimates or by letter to the….

Hon. G. Abbott: By letter is fine? So we'll respond by letter to the member with an answer to her question.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister and his staff for being here today. I'm going to start and, if I can, hopefully not take you on too circuitous a route.

I'd like to thank the minister for his work on making Ty Watson House a reality. We're looking forward to seeing that stand-alone hospice in Port Alberni open this summer. The community is quite excited.

I noted in the Alberni Valley Times yesterday that Lynn Turner, who is now working there as the executive director, I believe, for the Ty Watson House organization, was receiving a cheque from local businesses for $1,100. I think that partnership is going to be a very successful one, so I thank the minister for being involved with that.

With that being said, I understand other hospices on the Island have also received some funding. I believe it's one-time funding. I don't believe it's considered core funding or something that would be continuing from year to year. Can the minister confirm that, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm not able to provide as full an answer to the member as we would like right now with respect to whether the financial support from VIHA to some of the hospice or palliative care groups was one-time or whether it's part of a longer-term funding arrangement. We don't have the answer to that. We'll get the answer and provide it to the member.

I think it's fair to say that for Vancouver Island Health Authority and for all health authorities in the province, palliative care is an area where we want to have a devotion of additional resources in the future. It is part of the continuum of health care, and we believe that we need to expand the range and quantum of resources in that area for the palliative population. I know that VIHA, to their credit, has worked hard on those issues, not only in Port Alberni but in other locations around the province.

My understanding is that…. I just was looking for confirmation, but I believe it is a one-time funding that's being made available to the other hospices on the Island. I think there are nine other hospices that might be involved.

While I am very happy that funding came forward, it didn't seem to be happening with any consultation with the organizations or the people on the ground

themselves. When the funding came forward, I believe that it was specifically set for capital costs, if I got that straight, which may not always be the most appropriate use, depending on the facilities.

I just wanted to flag that for the minister — that some level of consultation with these organizations would probably be useful in the future. That being said, I'm sure everyone was happy — surprised happy — to get some funding.

Hospice societies have played an integral role in the delivery of end-of-life care for the past 25 years on Vancouver Island. In 2005 the nine hospices outside of Victoria attempted to quantify the value of their services by adding together their operating costs and volunteer-contributed hours.

Now, that was based on a $16.50-an-hour model. I think you could refer that to VIHA. That was considered to be appropriate.

They then subtracted this from a hypothetical $450,000 in VIHA funding — hypothetical in the sense that that's what we're seeing in the model used with the Fraser Health Authority. The result was a value-added service of $1,313,577 to VIHA — that's the value to VIHA — in 2005, if VIHA had funded hospices with $50,000 each. Again, that's keeping pretty close to that model from the Fraser Health Authority.

So a very good return value for investment from VIHA could be had if funding were made as core funding, based, for instance, on the model from the Fraser Health Authority. Can the minister comment on whether that is something that might be looked at, considering the potential success and the win-win of that scenario?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his questions and his observations, most of which I think I agree with.

I just want to say a few things about palliative care. First of all, I share with the member his sense of the importance of palliative care. We do think this is an area of emerging enterprise in terms of undertaking to provide better and more services to those who need palliative care.

I don't want to take it to the governmental level. I think this is a societal issue, really, rather than a governmental one. I think that, over time, hopefully we are seeing a broader acceptance in societies around some of the issues associated with palliative care and with death. As a society we do struggle with some of those issues. The fact that we struggle with them is one of the reasons why there has been relatively slim capacity in this province, historically, on hospice palliative care beds.

For example — and I'm not being critical of anyone here because historically, over a longer period of time, there have been relatively few palliative care beds — in 2001 there were 57 palliative care beds in the province. Today there are 181. Percentagewise, that may be a big increase, but it is far from what we need in this province.

We're seeing all of the health authorities move quite quickly forward to try to build community capacity, supported by the health authorities, to better manage the demand for palliative care. So I think we're making good strides.

We try to support that with the palliative care benefits program that we do through Pharmacare. We're trying to see more innovation around how we can get palliative supports right in the home or in palliative care centres so that people don't have to spend their palliative time in a hospital, which tends not to be always the best place to do that.

I think all of the health authorities are building better capacity. The member is probably right that Fraser Health, at least in some respects, is the leader in some palliative care issues. I'm sure we can learn a lot from them.

The member's observation that core funding is useful in terms of stabilizing these operations is an appropriate one. Most of the beds are funded on a per-diem basis by the respective health authorities, but core funding can be useful in stabilizing those operations.

That having been said, health authorities have to grapple with the appropriate distribution of the health care resources which they get from the government. They have to sometimes make very difficult decisions about what areas of health care delivery to bolster — what's working and what's not. These are not easy decisions.

I generally agree with the member's observations around palliative care, and I do know that we are going to see continuous improvement in this area and a continuous building of capacity in this area because I think we're seeing a broader societal shift in respect of those issues.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I appreciate that he recognizes the issues. I know that the minister is aware, but it was just last May that the provincial framework on end-of-life care was released by this government. It's quite clear that families should be supported in their bereavement as well as during the dying process — delivered by competent volunteers, including volunteers attached to hospice societies, who need appropriate education to support them in their role with dying people and their families. This plays a critical role as part of the health care continuum.

Now that's for the province. I have some concerns when certain health authorities seem to be following this more than others, and others don't. Vancouver Island Health Authority has its own unique challenges, I'm sure, but they are real. Certainly, if you look at the Qualicum Beach area, that's the largest percentage population of seniors in Canada, I believe, and there is no primary health facility there.

In an area like that, having the government and the health authority support things like hospice and what that can provide is essential, because there is not the facility there. The closest facility for primary care is Nanaimo, which is 40 minutes away, and if you head north, it's a similar distance and time to get there.

I'm switching gears a bit here because I'm quickly running out of time. That issue, that Oceanside area —

Qualicum Beach, including Parksville — is outside my particular constituency, but nonetheless, that region has been looking for some sort of primary care. Has there been any progress made there? I have been supportive of this, as has the Liberal MLA to the south of me. Can you give us an update on that, please?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. He's right. The member for Nanaimo-Parksville is also keenly supportive of enhancement of primary care services to this portion of the Island.

For all of the reasons that the member articulated, I think that that is probably an appropriate approach for this portion of Vancouver Island. I am a great believer in primary care. Primary care is all about managing the health needs of people outside the acute care stream. If we can manage people who have chronic disease issues or geriatric issues or some combination, as often occurs, of age-related and chronic disease issues…. If we can case manage those in primary care centres outside of the acute care setting, it relieves pressure both on ERs and on the acute care setting.

For me, that is going to be the big push for the future, not just on Vancouver Island but across the province. The two waves that are coming at our health care system…. In fact, I guess in some respects they're already here. The two big waves that are really going to be confronting the ship of health care over the next 20 to 30 years are the aging demographic — the postwar baby-boomers, making their way into their 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s, who are going to be enormously challenging — and the growing incidence of chronic disease which is appearing in our society. Those two waves are going to be difficult to manage.

To me, primary care — along with prevention, which I think needs to be at the core of what we do — provides us with the opportunity to try to mitigate some of that inevitable demand outside of the acute care setting. It's always struck me that the area of the Island around Qualicum Beach and Parksville and so on — the member is right; it's one of the highest areas of seniors' population in the province — would be an area where it would be sensible to try to divert some of that stream.

There are discussions underway. We're probably some distance yet from finalizing those things. I think that for all of the reasons that the member said…. I'm agreeing far too much with this member here today; I'm just kidding on that. It's always a delight to agree with someone on either side of the House, actually, at any time — always a delight. I know that there are very good reasons that the member has articulated for that kind of endeavour in that corner of the Island.

S. Fraser: Thanks to the minister for that. I hope that I, too, am not being too agreeable.

I will make a comment before I just move on to the last question. Seniors built our health care system, and I know that the minister respects that. We're seeing a level of seniors who have activity levels that are quite high, across the island and certainly in Qualicum Beach and this region of the Island.

I've been beaten in the 10K here just recently, and I know that the minister was involved too. If you looked at the numbers, there are a lot of seniors that smoked us there. There's a whole other level of seniors. But those seniors are also much less of a cost to society in general in other ways — in policing, in court costs. Understanding that there may be associated costs for their health care, it's something to be kept in mind.

I know that I'm going to get moved on here very quickly, so I want to touch on Tofino Hospital. We have a committee that I've been involved with from their inception — the coastal health care committee project. I sent correspondence earlier to the minister, you may recall, and I had been seeking funding through Community Services to help them with their strategic work.

It's a complex area. It's a growing population and there are a million-odd tourists that visit there every year. There are five first nations Nuu-chah-nulth communities associated, there is Ucluelet, and there is the one hospital. It's actually the stressors on that hospital and the staff for the hospital that are quite unique and quite extreme. The community was working to try to develop a plan that came from them and that they had an active stewardship role in, which I think is a laudable thing.

I was not able to get funding through Community Services, so I did attempt to get some through the ministry. I was told there was a strategic planning process underway that might take care of that through VIHA — a five-year planning process. Knowing that the community was engaging in a process that would give them some ownership and stewardship of what might come out of a future hospital or facilities there — that they have a part of, that they have ownership of and then stewardship of — can the minister give me some assurance that he does support their involvement?

I know that VIHA has a job to do, but for them to just come in and do it from the outside may not be as effective. I'd like to see that done as a partnership. Can the minister comment?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm quite familiar with this particularly beautiful part of the world from having vacationed for many years in the Tofino-Ucluelet area. I do know just how much the population grows in the summer. From being in this position now for a couple of years, I'm pretty familiar with some of the challenges that can appear on a year-round basis but also particularly on a seasonal basis at Tofino Hospital.

There are probably not a lot of easy answers here. I know I had a meeting with the council of Ucluelet recently. I think the member may have been a part of that meeting, hon. Chair. I know these are areas that are going to be growing, so we need to be thinking about primary health care — perhaps clinics in Ucluelet, particularly — and perhaps looking at some ways to try to stabilize the situation at Tofino Hospital.

There would been some challenges around recruitment and retainment there. Obviously, Tofino is a

particularly beautiful part of the world to live in. On the other hand, it's a small hospital with a relatively small population base compared to other areas. It's difficult for doctors to practise the range of skills which they may be able to at larger centres and in and around tertiary hospitals, that sort of thing — so there are some particularly difficult issues around recruitment.

I know that VIHA is working tirelessly to try to address the recruitment issue, and they have tried some innovations, as well, to try to support them. In one case emergency room physicians from Nanaimo Hospital have been going up to Tofino on a locum basis in the summer to try to fill that gap that comes with the substantial growth in the population that occurs in the Tofino area in the summer. So that's helped.

I don't think we're comfortable, that we're where we want to be in terms of the stabilization of staffing there, but I think some progress has been made. It's not for lack of trying on VIHA's part. I'm sure they will enjoy some successes on the recruitment side.

I appreciate the member raising the issue. I do realize it's a tough one, but I know that everybody is working hard to try to find some solutions to those challenges there in Tofino and Ucluelet.

N. Simons: My questions for the minister are in regards to a long-term care facility in Powell River and the hospital — St. Mary's — on the lower Sunshine Coast. I wonder if the minister could inform the residents of Powell River–Sunshine Coast when an announcement might be made about the St. Mary's Hospital expansion, if in fact an announcement is going to be made or if it has been made.

The second question about capital improvements is the Olive Devaud Residence in Powell River, which, as the minister well knows, is in desperate need of replacement for a number of reasons, including just lack of adequate space. So, if the minister could enlighten….

Hon. G. Abbott: The St. Mary's Hospital, I think, is one of the areas that the MLA wished to canvass. There are portions of the St. Mary's Hospital built in 1963 which are now aging. The aim of the project, as the member knows, is to expand St. Mary's Hospital generally but particularly to replace some of the oldest parts, the most antiquated pieces, of St. Mary's Hospital. The aim is to, hopefully, expand some capacity — i.e., the number of acute care beds — to improve the emergency department, try to modernize the diagnostic and other facilities that are available there.

This is an ambitious proposal from the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority. I am optimistic that this is coming to a conclusion in the relatively near future. This will be a project that will proceed with the support of the Sunshine Coast regional hospital district. I understand them to be supportive of it. We have approval in principle at least. We're awaiting final confirmation, at least at the time this note was generated, of approval from SCRHD. But I understand them to be supportive.

The ministry is reviewing the business case for this now. We are relatively near the end of that business case review. I'm optimistic that in the weeks ahead we may be able to provide some confirmation with respect to whether this project will be proceeding.

N. Simons: The other part of my question that I was trying to save time with was the Olive Devaud and the need for extended care beds in the Powell River area, and maybe, since I have this opportunity to add on, the worry that the capacity, once built, will already be outgrown.

The issue being: Olive Devaud is one of the highest in need of being replaced. Added to that is the fact that the residents of the upper Sunshine Coast's only alternative would be very, very costly trips to either Vancouver Island, the lower Sunshine Coast or North Vancouver by ferry, which is all part of it, with the extra costs and difficulty in scheduling. Many times folks have to go out of town overnight just for a one-hour visit.

With that in mind, with the context of a remote, semi-isolated community, could the minister indicate where the priority is for the replacement of the long-term care facility?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for his question. The issue of residential care for Powell River has been an important one. We have seen on occasion some strain in respect of capacity issues at Powell River around residential care. There's a strong seniors population there, and that is reflecting on the demand side for residential care.

We know that we're often on the edge in terms of capacity there, and sometimes, as the member noted, some have had to leave the community in order to access complex or residential care elsewhere in the Vancouver Coastal region.

As I recall, the facility that is probably now undersized, and in any event is becoming aged and antiquated is the Olive Devaud facility — is that correct? — the residential care facility. Plans are underway to replace that facility with a larger, modern facility that will take care of that.

I can't say that we are near conclusion of those discussions, but I expect that in the weeks ahead we'll be able to provide the member more clarity with respect to how that project to replace the antiquated facility will take root.

N. Simons: If I may turn to the issue of doctor shortage in rural and remote communities, I simply would like to ask if, in fact, the minister has heard from the local doctors — who I told should expect a couple of new doctors this summer. I did that in a casual enough way — not in any sort of announcement way. But it seems to me that perhaps I might have misled them inadvertently, that the two doctors that we are expecting might in fact take quite a long time to actually go into practice and that it might not relieve the immense pressure that the doctors are currently facing.

Can the minister let me know and let the constituents know if there are any expectations of imminent arrival of any doctors to the Sunshine Coast or the Powell River area?

Hon. G. Abbott: We can provide the answer to the member's question. We just can't possibly provide it within the next 30 seconds. I do know, and I can say this definitively, that VCHA is well aware of the physician issue, physician shortage in Powell River. For a variety of reasons, it has been a challenging location to replace doctors who have retired. I do know that VCHA has recruited heavily to try to fill those positions. I can't speak at this moment to whether they have been successful.

Why don't we recommence this discussion tomorrow afternoon? I'll finish it off then, give you an answer to the question, and we can go from there. Further to the conversation that the member and I had privately, I think we understood that there has been some success in securing a locum, but I think the member here is asking me about two permanent physicians for the community. We apparently have two international medical graduates who are interested in practising there, and locums will be in place until they arrive. So there's the answer to the member's question, and I thank him for his patience while I developed it.

A. Dix: We've got just oodles of time left, and I know it's just going to test the pithiness of the minister here. A couple of questions. There's one where the minister says staff is going to forward me information about the own-source revenues of health authorities. They had some information for me. I'd like him, just in terms of following up for tomorrow….

Secondly, I think the minister was going to get back to me with a response on thalidomide.

Thirdly, just to give him a warning for perhaps the first question tomorrow. I wanted to ask the minister about plans for a Gardasil HPV vaccination program. He might want to defer that until tomorrow. I know it's a serious question.

Finally, I'll let the minister know that tomorrow at 2:30 we'll be starting with seniors health, so we'll also be doing Pharmacare tomorrow, in terms of staff availability and so on.

Hon. G. Abbott: We have some detail here with respect to own-source revenue. Rather than read it into the record now, we'll forward it to the member. We do also have information with respect to thalidomide and it's use, etc., but I think that's an important issue that we should leave for our discussion around Pharmacare. It is an issue probably of concern to all members of the House, so I'll ensure we have that available for that discussion.

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

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

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

Hon. I. Chong: Hon. Chair, if I might at this moment introduce a new staff person that has joined us. In addition to Deputy Minister Sheila Wynn; executive director of governance and structure Gary Paget; Shauna Brouwer, assistant deputy minister of management; and Marijke Edmondson, manager of local government liaison; we have Mr. Glen Brown, director of infrastructure and engineering with us today.

C. Wyse: We will start off our session with some questions of the minister from local MLAs. Without any further time for me, I would like to call upon my colleague from North Coast.

I just have a few questions that have some significance in the North Coast riding that I have. One of them is the Towns for Tomorrow initiative. You can

imagine the excitement on the north coast and in the small communities under 5,000 that saw the opportunity to take advantage of some resources that were available.

I was definitely pleased to see the program overview indicate that not only is it incorporated municipalities with less than 5,000 people, but the Central Coast regional district was also included. They recognize the uniqueness of the central coast basically having no municipality in that regional district to help with any tax base or to cover any split costs to the program.

They have found that basically they are an eligible applicant, but they are eliminated because of the project funding structure. The third-party contributions are deducted, and there are no internal resources for them. There's no basic tax base that they have through the regional district. They feel that that program basically "becomes absolutely useless" to them, even though it's recognized in the program, the program overview, and they were highlighted specifically as a region that needs the help and they have the uniqueness of having no municipality within the regional district.

My question to the minister: are there any options for the Central Coast regional district to overcome the dilemma that they're in?

Hon. I. Chong: We, too, on this side of the House were very excited with the Towns for Tomorrow initiative and program, because it does reach about 80 of our small towns, which represents half of our municipalities in the province. We did acknowledge, as the member indicated, the Central Coast regional district with its unique challenges and gave an opportunity for that regional district to look at accessing these dollars.

The objective here is to ensure that 20 percent of the project costs come from local government and the other 80 percent from the provincial level, to a maximum of a $500,000 initiative. We were clear that the local governments would be able to use their moneys in whatever way, shape or form they were able to secure that. It can be through a tax base. In some cases, if they have limitations there, they might look at other pools of dollars.

I know, for example, in the federal gas tax transfers, the community works fund provides allocations to regional districts. In terms of the Central Coast regional district, in year 1, '05-06, they received a sum of $69,307; in year 2, which was '06-07, $69,272. But when you look out to year 5, they will receive about $205,146. That's by '09-10. So they can in fact look at planning ahead.

In addition, our recent increases…. The doubling of our small community and regional district grants program has provided the Central Coast regional district an amount that in the past was $120,000. They received $144,000 this year. By 2009, when the program is fully implemented, the doubling of the program, approximately $200,000 will be available to them. So if they were able to plan out…. Perhaps if they were not seeking an application this year, it is a three-year program.

I would suggest perhaps the member have an opportunity to speak with them and see whether they would be able to use and access some of those funds — in particular, the regional district basic grants which are going up a substantial dollar amount, which they ordinarily would not have anticipated. Perhaps consider that as their share. Again, the community works program is available. These are some options that are there for them, and I would hope that the member, on behalf of his citizens, could offer up that.

If there are particular problems in understanding how that works, I would certainly offer the member the availability of staff that he can contact to find out how these works programs and the regional district grants can be used on their behalf. The offer for him to avail himself of the staff is always there.

G. Coons: Thank you for that. I'll be working and discussing that with CCRD, especially with the limitations they have on their funds with the 80-20 percent split. There are third-party contributions that are deducted from the funding, I believe. That was one of their concerns, along with their limited tax base. But I'll let them know to work with the staff on that initiative.

When we look at the other wonderful initiatives that the ministry has — whether it's the Spirit Squares or LocalMotion — and it's a 50-50 split, there are major limitations when you have a regional district like the Central Coast, in its uniqueness, as was recognized by the minister and the ministry. I hope they can work together to look at initiatives so that these can be overcome.

The next thing I'd like to get into is just looking at…. In the ministry's service plan they talk about the new relationship and how the ministry encompasses a new relationship and how they work with first nations on the aspects of some of the projects and initiatives they have out there.

I'm just wondering if the minister or the staff are working with the four villages in the Nass Valley — New Aiyansh, Kincolith, Laxgalts'ap and Gitwinksihlkw — as far as any of the initiatives that we've been talking about right now, whether it's Towns for Tomorrow or the Spirit Squares or LocalMotion.

Hon. I. Chong: As the member has pointed out, our government is committed to defining a new relationship with our first nations based on principles of mutual respect, recognition and the reconciliation of aboriginal rights and title. Our ministry has a direct involvement with local governments and first nations relations in terms of a local government–first nation relations program. It is directed at developing positive, constructive and collaborative relations between our first nations and local governments.

I will describe examples of the key initiatives, as follows. We have provided annual provincial funding to the Union of B.C. Municipalities, UBCM, and the First Nations Summit to support these community-to-community forums across the province. This funding is matched by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, so the federal government is involved as well. It's used by

local governments and first nations to jointly organize meetings between elected officials to try and increase understanding and to improve overall relations on matters of mutual interest such as economic development, land use planning, natural resource management and service delivery.

I am pleased to say that we have provided dollars to UBCM to provide for these community-to-community forums. They call them "c-to-c," and this year we have just provided those dollars recently. I think they have been transferred over to UBCM, and we did increase it by about 40 percent, I think, of what we had in the past.

G. Coons: I guess the question here is: is the minister aware that the four villages in the Nass have equal status as far as other B.C. municipalities?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I should have asked the member for clarification. We are trying to presume what we think his question is, so as I say, we're trying to anticipate the answer.

If the member is requesting confirmation or clarification on whether grants are provided to these first nations who are distinguished as distinct, then I would say no, the Ministry of Community Services does not provide grants to the first nations government. Many of these matters are discussed in the treaty settlement program or agreement legislation — that is, once approved and passed.

If this is where the member is headed, I would have to say that these grant programs we have in the Ministry of Community Services are not available for those specific governments.

G. Coons: For the last while we have been working with other agencies to determine the status of the villages under the Nisga'a agreement. Under the Nisga'a agreement, the Nisga'a villages have full equality to other B.C. municipalities. There was a letter — I don't have it with me, unfortunately, but we'll get that — from the Ministry of Economic Development, who had accepted the Nisga'a villages as having equal standing under the terms of the Nisga'a final agreement.

We're working with that with the NDI, the Northern Development Initiative, which did not recognize them as having municipality status. That's what I'm referring to now.

I would hope that when we clarify the status of the villages in the Nass Valley under the Nisga'a final agreement, the minister can clarify that the villages in the Nass would also have access to all of the programs, initiatives and strategies that all municipalities in B.C. have access to.

Hon. I. Chong: As the member is probably aware — but if not, I'll clarify — the municipalities, the local governments that we deal with are the ones that are incorporated through the provincial government and governed by the Community Charter or the Local Government Act. In this particular case, while it may be incorporated or may be established as a municipality and viewed as having municipality status, it's not one that comes under our ministry area.

In terms of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, that would be an area that the member might want to canvass with the Minister of Economic Development. That deals with the trust initiative, and the Minister of Economic Development may decide to treat that separately as a northern area, a northern region, to see that those benefits are distributed amongst them.

But when it comes to municipal status, grants and the MRIF programs as such, which this ministry administers or evaluates, they would be those local governments that come under the purview of our Community Charter or the Local Government Act.

G. Coons: We'll pursue that again, I assume, ministry by ministry and agency by agency, to look at the full Nisga'a agreement and see where the villages lie.

The next topic I'd like to get into is the communities in transition program. The minister recently talked about the community transition program in the Legislature. As the minister realizes, we've dealt with that with Prince Rupert. It sounds like Prince Rupert was perhaps one of the few communities that actually went through the community transition plan, because what we've heard is that the minister was questioned on this and nobody has applied for it. There haven't been any communities, it seems, that benefited from that.

Prince Rupert, as the minister knows, jumped through the hoops. They had a comprehensive report done, the Kennedy report, and a year ago or so the minister and I and some representatives met about that. The community waited for months and months for the recommendations. The recommendations came forward, and there was still no follow-up on that. The way I read the recommendations indicated that there should have been some assistance coming. Clearly, some needed assistance.

I'm wondering, if there is another community that requests assistance through this program, where would they find this information — the application, the details and the where and how of the program? Is that on the website? Where could somebody find that?

Hon. I. Chong: Just to clarify for the member, there have been other communities that have gone through a community transition with our government and, in fact, with the previous government. We know that Gold River had gone through a community transition assistance as well as Sayward, Tahsis, Tumbler Ridge and, most recently, Port Alice. So it certainly is not a new program.

It is one that has been available for local governments, in particular municipalities that are affected by closure or a significant downsizing of their major industry so that the community faces unique challenges and therefore requires unique solutions.

What we have made available is generally in dollars to help the community decide their future, how

they are going to transition and come out of it should that major industry not return, and how they will go forward. As I say, community transition has been around for a while.

In terms of Prince Rupert, I have spoken with them on a number of occasions — with their representative. The ministry…. When I say "the ministry," oftentimes they will go directly to staff. I understand that the mayor and senior officials of Prince Rupert met with the ministry along with the representatives of the Ministries of Transportation and Economic Development on February 23, 2007. So about two and a half months ago there was some contact with that.

The purpose of that meeting was to receive a general overview of Prince Rupert's future economic development and their plans and challenges brought about by the economic growth opportunities from the commencement of the operations of the Prince Rupert Container Terminal, phase 1, in October 2007, and of course then the longer phase 2.

I know that Prince Rupert is shifting to manage what their current challenges are to their future potential and their future growth. The approach that Prince Rupert has been taking, if we are specifically talking about Prince Rupert and not all communities in transition…. We have been engaged with them, and not just my ministry but others, for quite some time.

If they should approach us for further financial assistance, they would first be asked to demonstrate those steps they are taking that are recommended in the 2005 study to show to us how they are trying to improve their liquidity and ensure that the targets in their financial plan in fact can be met.

I can assure the member that Prince Rupert is no stranger when it comes to meeting with various ministries with this government. They avail themselves of that on a fairly frequent basis, I think, and the member would know the mayor is quite assertive in that way.

G. Coons: I found it interesting. I spent some time on the website looking for the community transition program. I couldn't find it. I noticed that in the 2005-2008 service plan, under "Seniors', women's and community services," there was actually "community transition" there in the flow chart. In the 2007-2010 service plan it has disappeared. I just found that pretty interesting, and that's why I commented on it.

I spent a while trying to find it so that I could access it and perhaps encourage some of the communities in my riding to apply for it, because the minister talked about no applications. I guess two things: where can that be accessed so that I could pass it off to somebody? And could you clarify more on Port Alice, as far as their transition plan?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps with the community transition program that we have, the dollar amount is not a significant amount to isolate separately. In the past we have noticed, apart from the Port Alice incident and perhaps a few others, the need for community transition has in fact decreased because of a strong economy.

What has occurred is that we have left the dollar amount there in our budget. Should a community find themselves faced with losing one of their major industries, they will generally contact our staff anyway, in any event. In that case we would then assure them of what we have in terms of an available community transition program for them.

It's noted in the service plan. It may not be as segregated in the budget documents as such, but I can assure the member that we will make provision for community transition. Sometimes if the budgeted dollars that we have there are not sufficient, then within our ministry we have to in fact provide more than what is available. Sometimes, as I say, we provide less, depending on those communities in transition and on how the economy is doing.

For the benefit of those who may be reading or watching this debate: communities in transition does still exist, and it is on an as-needed and as-required basis.

In terms of Port Alice, they have gone through quite a transformation. I'm happy to say they are very happy. I recently spoke with the mayor of Port Alice, Larry Pepper, who was at the area association meeting at the AVICC on April 13 and 14. He was very pleased that their village has come alive. They were happy that they were able to have the former Port Alice Specialty Cellulose Inc. site purchased by Neucel Specialty Cellulose.

That mill reopened as of May 2006. The village and Neucel have also recently signed a five-year agreement to provide for predetermined amounts of tax for the mill property from 2006 to 2010. As such, the industrial tax levies will remain below historical rates until 2011.

Those are some of the things that we were able to work with when a community goes through transition. They oftentimes will say: "Well, in order for us to keep this major industry in town…." Or in order for them to transition, certain legislative requirements may be necessary, or they have ideas. I can say that we have staff that work very diligently with them to put in place those policies or practices to allow a town, a village to go through this transition.

G. Coons: Before I pass it off to my colleague from Victoria-Hillside, just one more question.

I'd like to follow up on the meeting the ministry had with the mayor of Prince Rupert, Herb Pond; the economic development coordinator, Jim Rushton; and Gord Howie, the city administrator. They were concerned about the infrastructure that the municipality isn't equipped to deal with in those gaps, including enough power to operate when they get into the overwhelmingness of the port coming in.

Again, there's no backup for Internet. It has been down for days at a time. The concern is that in the world of ports, we're told that two hours can be fatal — a comment from the mayor. He was talking about B.C., saying that we're no longer a pioneering province. Our region is still a pioneering area, unless we get the infrastructure needed to push forward and have the benefits economically and regionally that we need.

I'm wondering, after the minister or her staff had a meeting with those from Prince Rupert along with the other ministries, whether or not there's been any specific follow-up that she's done since that meeting to help overcome the concerns about the gaps that the municipality can't deal with. Or should Prince Rupert go back to the transitional program, the Kennedy report, and try to access the money through that?

Hon. I. Chong: In terms of Prince Rupert, I'm led to believe that the ministry staff have had meetings as recently as about two weeks ago. A staff person from our ministry also met, I guess, with officials in Prince Rupert to discuss exactly, as the member has indicated, the issue regarding Internet service, BlackBerry service. I don't have the results of that meeting as to what the next steps are going to be, but as I've indicated, we know that the mayor of Prince Rupert and all his councillors know their way around, shall we say, the various ministries when it comes to accessing information and support.

The Ministry of Economic Development may be of more assistance to this member when it comes to Prince Rupert. I know they have been involved in providing assistance and dollars towards the revitalization of Prince Rupert, to call it that.

The province has invested heavily in infrastructure projects in northern British Columbia, and as much as $30 million in funding for the Port of Prince Rupert has been committed. As I understand it, $200,000 in funding for the Kitimat break-bulk facility study was also provided. Again, I understand that that's from the Ministry of Economic Development. When it comes to things such as economic development and initiatives such as that, I would defer the member to the Minister of Economic Development.

With this ministry we deal more specifically with infrastructure in terms of water, sewer and other programs, as he's mentioned. Things like transportation, of course, will accordingly be dealt with by the Minister of Transportation. I hope that's helpful for the member.

R. Fleming: I want to pick up on the subject of local economic development. I know the minister has canvassed that with members on a variety of issues, and she was finishing her remarks there and talking about infrastructure.

I want to talk about housing affordability and how critical that is for regional economic success in our province today. Certainly, that is an emerging challenge and one that I know the minister is aware of from her service on the task force that she worked on with the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It came up again and again.

I will stay away from getting into Housing estimates with the minister, but I do want to ask about aspects of that report that she submitted to government in October 2006 and the recommendations around innovative housing options that were contained in that report.

With that, I will begin by asking the minister…. The budget this year was characterized as a so-called housing budget, yet the main recommendation in this report around innovative housing options, which was to tie revenue from the property transfer tax to fund a number of policy initiatives, was not a part of that budget. In fact, the hallmark of this so-called housing budget was a completely discretionary tax cut that can be spent on anything at all, really, yet it's called a housing budget.

I want to talk about specifically tying revenue generated from real estate, generated from taxation on housing activities, and the concept, as this report recommends, of putting it back into housing reinvestment — programs, for example, for low-income families in British Columbia, programs for housing for disabled people, programs for housing for aboriginal people in B.C. The list goes on.

That wasn't in the budget, and she did chair this task force. I want to ask her the status of that recommendation — for her benefit, that's on page 14 of the report — if that recommendation was taken to the Minister of Finance, whether it was taken to Treasury Board and to her cabinet colleagues, and whether this minister recommended that the property transfer tax be tied to a reinvestment in affordable housing.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps the member for Victoria-Hillside will indulge me for just a moment. To put on the record in clarification, the Task Force on Community Opportunities was a task force that I absolutely did chair. It was not, in fact, a report that was presented to government.

It was very specific, when it was formed in 2004, that it would allow local governments to come together, allow the Minister of Community Services to chair that, to bring forth ideas that local governments wanted to banter about and suggestions, to put that out in a report and report back to UBCM. The actual reporting of this was to UBCM members, and that's what happened in October 2006. Absolutely, members of government and members of the opposition received a copy of those reports, but I was not directed to present it as a government report.

As such, I made it very clear at the presentation at UBCM in 2004. In fact, the then president, Councillor Marvin Hunt from the municipality of Surrey, really threw out the challenge to all the member municipalities to say: "Here it is. This is what we've done for the last two years, what we've investigated, what we've looked at. Here are some recommendations we have come up with. It may not represent things that you all agree with, but we'll put this out for you, and perhaps you, the member municipalities, can think about which of these ideas you may wish to advance or not."

When I met with UBCM recently — and I do meet with them regularly when they hold their executive meetings — we did discuss the issue of the task force and the recommendations. They asked where to go from here, and I said that I was really expecting and waiting for the area associations — if they wanted to take on any one of these particular recommendations and whether they felt it would require endorsement from all the area associations through a UBCM resolution or what have you.

When it comes to tax policy, however, those are items that the Minister of Finance would have to ultimately decide on. I think it was clear that housing and homelessness was an issue that has been raised not only at UBCM but from time to time as we meet with our local governments. That was one of the reasons why the budget as presented by the Minister for Housing has been given such a significant increase to deal with housing and the issue of housing affordability.

I can say, though, that while we have put forward these recommendations — when I say we, it's the members of the task force — not everyone would agree with all of them. This is one of the reasons why we have asked member municipalities to decide which ones they believe should have additional work done or to lobby government again, whether that's what they would like.

The one recommendation that I saw there and that members of the task force agreed upon was the business licence harmonization. They felt that that is an initiative that they could not undertake on their own. There was some agreement that, as a provincial government, we could undertake that.

The Minister of Small Business now has that initiative underway. I'm hoping that that is helpful for the member. I'm not directly responsible for the tax policy, as I've indicated, but I would not say that there's absolute agreement on every one of these recommendations. It's, as I say, not a report to government. It was a report to UBCM.

R. Fleming: Well, presumably, the minister stands behind it, because as task force chair she was a signatory to the cover letter endorsing the report, and this is a very significant, standout recommendation.

While I appreciate there is interest in harmonizing business licences around local government, I think what there is tremendous interest in — and something that was promised but not delivered on in discussions around the Community Charter — was significant revenue tools for communities to be able to regionally plan and fund transportation projects and to deal with the most pressing issues in their communities.

The minister has referenced homelessness. Indeed, homelessness has grown to be perhaps one of the most significant issues in this province in terms of quality of life for residents and the way that small towns and large cities in British Columbia look and feel like today. Homelessness is a presence in almost every community.

That is why I think the task force spent significant attention and focus in making this recommendation to tie the provincial property tax revenues that this government receives to a reinvestment to communities, and to actually give local government a share of that revenue — to have a say and to have control and to be able to direct decisions.

The minister signed that task force letter. She stood behind that recommendation, and I want to ask her today in estimates whether she has also advocated for that position to her cabinet colleagues. Did she take this to the Treasury Board? Did she take it to cabinet? More specifically, does she have research in her possession from her ministry staff that suggests the implications of that recommendation that she made in this task force report?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member has indicated, on page 14 of the task force report it does state here that the task force suggests that thought be given to earmarking a portion of the provincial property transfer tax to create a pool of funds to provide incentives to local governments to innovate in the areas of housing affordability. So there was no definitive amount that was established, that thought be given to, because there was thought that there were no dollars that local governments were able to access in terms of dealing with the issue of housing and homelessness.

I hesitate to get into that area, because that is something that the Minister for Housing can elaborate on. While this report was being prepared and drafted with the committee members, the Minister for Housing was developing a housing strategy — Housing Matters B.C. — which he announced on October 1, I think, three weeks before we brought our report to UBCM.

While we were doing this, he was simultaneously — or in advance of us, I guess you would say — actually working on a housing strategy where he has provided additional dollars in his budget for supportive housing initiatives to the homeless. He has worked with communities to allocate new units of supportive housing through our provincial homelessness initiative — the PHI, as it's referred to.

There have been additional units — 533 units, I understand, and 12 new developments funded in nine communities since 2004. There has been $27 million over three years announced in the budget to convert about 300 cold-wet weather beds to year-round beds. There is the housing endowment fund that I know the member is aware of.

I think, to be fair, when we as a task force were developing these initiatives, there was no idea that the Minister for Housing was already putting additional dollars and support towards housing and the homelessness initiatives. So while we were preparing our report, we indicated that this might be an idea, this might be an area that we wish to pursue, but it did not say emphatically this would be one that would be required of government if something else were to be put in place, for example. I've already indicated that the Minister of Housing has established a number of initiatives.

Again, I would ask that if the member has further questions regarding homelessness and housing, he might be well-served to speak to the Minister for Housing for a more full answer.

R. Fleming: One would have thought that the so-called housing budget would have had the input from across a range of ministries on how it might make the most impact. But apparently this minister hasn't stood

behind a recommendation that she signed on to as the task force chair that made a very significant recommendation about tying revenues from the property transfer tax to a substantial — not a token, but a substantial — reinvestment into housing programs in British Columbia. She doesn't stand behind it.

I want to ask her colleague…. She's directed me to ask him further questions about homelessness. I will indeed do that.

I still want to stay on the subject of tying revenues from this surtax on property to a reinvestment in low-income and housing affordability options. Her colleague — I will ask him questions, but on the subject of some of his remarks — did almost famously quip that local government has dined out on industrial taxes, and we know that caused a lot of controversy across British Columbia.

I would put it to this minister that her government has dined out on property transfer taxes over the last six years. In fact, over the past six years her government has taken in over $4½ billion worth of property transfer taxes. They will take in over $950 million of PTT this year alone. That's more significant than oil and gas revenues. That's more significant than all the revenues achieved by B.C. Lottery Corporation, yet there is no indication of tying that tax to housing reinvestment in British Columbia.

Housing is the greatest challenge that local government faces in most communities around the province, region after region — number one. There is nothing in this budget that suggests that the minister stood behind a recommendation she made only in October 2006 to take action on that, a commitment that was made to the Union of B.C. Municipalities and all 200 local governments that belong to it.

I will ask her once more: can she provide this committee at least with documentation, notes, discussions, meetings, etc., between her and her colleagues or that was supplied within her ministry that does provide some research to this recommendation she made that links PTT to reinvestment in housing programs? Will she provide that to the committee?

Hon. I. Chong: I would hope that the member doesn't want to get into a political debate at this particular estimates process, because he is entering very close to that. If he wants to suggest that we remove the Minister for Housing's budget and replace it with something else, then perhaps he should say so.

I can tell you there are a significant amount of dollars that have been invested in the Minister for Housing's budget to provide for more supportive housing and to provide for initiatives in local governments to work in partnerships with not only our government but also community organizations to have more housing opportunities available. In addition, I can say that the Minister for Housing has been in dialogue with the various mayors on the Premier's Task Force on Homelessness, Mental Illness and Addictions, so he hears from them on a regular basis as to what is needed.

If the member suggests that the only way to create more affordable housing is about dollars, then I think he should go back to his days on council. He knows well that it also requires zoning, and it requires the council of the day to ensure that there are places where housing can take place.

He knows full well, as I do from when I was on council, that sometimes you don't get the support of the other members on your council to put in housing in an area that would otherwise be used for other purposes. So it's not just the matter of dollars; it certainly is a matter of the local government wishing to take up the initiative and to carry on.

In regard to this report, and I will try to make it clear again, this was a task force that was brought together to look at revenue-sharing opportunities and initiatives. It was not to commit to any particular method, but to allow members — mayors, councils and representatives from regional districts — to come together and think about it. Because we had seen success in terms of the traffic fine revenue sharing, the Premier thought perhaps we could take a look at other initiatives. One which didn't come out of this report but certainly has occurred is the resort revenue-sharing initiative. I'm sure we're going to get into that.

In essence, we know that in some cases these things can happen. This committee worked for two years looking at a variety of revenue-sharing opportunities. They did suggest that perhaps we look at the property transfer tax, but they also indicated that similar to other revenue-sharing initiatives, it would require establishing prerequisites, conditions that local governments would have to meet, defining eligible innovations deserving of support, developing appropriate revenue-sharing formulas — all these things.

This is one of the reasons why this report was presented to the UBCM and to the UBCM members. If they felt that this needed to be advanced, then I would expect that they would come forward with exactly some of these parameters — how they feel local governments would access, how they think the conditions would be.

If it was sound, if they came to me and said that this was how they perceived it, that they've had enough workshops and enough local governments buy in to a new revenue-sharing formula, then certainly I would take that. But they haven't done so. There's a lot of talk, but no one has actually taken up that initiative.

I can say yes, there have been increased dollars that have come into our provincial treasury from the property transfer tax. It's because we have a strong economy, which I hope everyone agrees is important. Those dollars in fact aren't used specifically for one area. It goes into the provincial treasury. I can tell the member that there are demands on health care. Plenty of dollars go there.

B. Simpson: I want to spend a little bit of time trying to understand the nature of the socioeconomic transition that some of our communities are going to go through, and the ministry's role in that.

I find quite curious the minister's comment that the need for community transition planning has decreased

because of a strong economy. Has the ministry done any risk assessment on the number of communities at risk of a significant transition in this province?

Hon. I. Chong: No, the ministry does not undertake a risk assessment of municipalities, because the community transition program, as was established back in, I believe, 1999 or before, was such that communities themselves would make a determination on whether they felt they were at risk.

Some may feel that they are able to deal with their challenges without the assistance of the provincial government, and if so, that is good on them to do that. But those who feel that they are at risk and need assistance from the provincial government would then approach us, and we would deal with them on a go-forward basis.

B. Simpson: Let me be crystal clear. The ministry is taking an absolutely passive role when we have three-quarters of the municipalities and regional governments in the province, according to the ministry's own documentation, going through a significant transition. The ministry is taking an absolutely passive role, and these local governments have to wait for the axe to fall before they find out that they have a need and they come to the ministry.

Is there no active role that this ministry is taking in trying to do an assessment of the risk faced by resource communities in this province?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps I should request that the member for Cariboo North be clearer. If he's referring to the community transition program, which is one that is based on hearing from municipalities when they're going through a downsizing because of the loss of a major employer or a major industry in their area, that's what that program in our ministry deals with.

If in fact he is talking about a larger issue such as the mountain pine beetle, which I'm presuming is what he's wanting to do a risk assessment on, all those communities…. We very well know it is of concern to all British Columbians and to this government. There has been work done on that.

For the mountain pine beetle there have been, I believe, a number of what they call…. There is the Cariboo-Chilcotin mountain pine beetle action group as well as the Prince George–Omineca action group.

They have been working closely with the Minister of Forests, as I understand it, to look at the impacts of the mountain pine beetle.

Our ministry is also involved in that we have a role to play here on the socioeconomic side. Again, it's not necessarily about the risk assessment, but in order to assure that when the community is transitioning, they have considered some of those issues that have arisen as a result of that.

I can tell the member that our current activities on the mountain pine beetle file include a number of things, and I'll just list them for his benefit. We have a staff person with experience in community transition who works with the mountain pine beetle emergency response team. We also have coordination of provincial involvement in the May 2007 social development planning session for ADMs, organized by the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition.

My understanding is that there is a team of our senior officials from various ministries heading to 100 Mile House, I think tomorrow or the next day, and then they'll be up there. We also participated in the economic development planning session provided by the CCBAC. That was in May 2006.

My deputy minister, who is sitting beside me here, provides input regarding cross-governmental mountain pine beetle issues at the deputy ministers' committee on natural resources and the environment. My assistant deputy minister, as well, provides advice regarding the anticipated social impacts of the mountain pine beetle and the importance of planning for community transition at the assistant deputy ministers' committee on mountain pine beetle — cross-government priority. There is also provision of ongoing support to the beetle action coalitions as requested.

In terms of working with some of our vulnerable communities, there is work that this ministry is engaged in. But if the member is referring specifically to the community transition program — and I do want to separate that — that is usually not necessarily the mountain pine beetle, but it could be.

If there's a major fish plant in a town that closes or…. As we know in the issue of Port Alice, their entire mill was shut down, and that was 80 percent of their municipal tax base — things such as that. That is what the community transition program has traditionally been made available for.

That's not to say other communities that we know will be going through a transition that are affected by things such as the mountain pine beetle are being ignored. They certainly are not, and our ministry does have involvement in that.

B. Simpson: I wasn't just referring to the mountain pine beetle, nor was I just referring to the community transition program, which as the minister well knows, I find an empty shell. I have indicated many times on the record that the minute a plant announces a closure, it's too late. That's when the property taxes drop. Businesses are forced to start relocating. It's a done deal at that juncture, and that program is not helpful.

What I'm trying to understand is: who in the provincial government has the lead responsibility for doing what the minister's own objective 2 seems to speak that she has responsibility for? Objective 2 states: "Communities are resilient and able to adapt to change." I've looked at all of the other service plans, and the only service plan that has that lead responsibility for something like resilient and adaptable to change at the community level — and I'm assuming that's municipal regional districts; that's unincorporated communities — is this ministry.

What I'm trying to understand is the proactive nature of that. For example, on a risk assessment, one

would think that, given that the ministry even admits that we're in a significant transition…. Has the government done a tax risk assessment of the implications of significant mill closures, the transition on the coast, the transition in the interior? Has there been any risk assessment of tax implications — in particular, associated with the number 2 under "Strategies" for objective 2, that this ministry is responsible for making sure local governments have the fiscal capacity needed for self-government?

How many of our communities may end up not having the fiscal capacity for self-government within the decade? Can the minister even just answer that question?

Hon. I. Chong: Our ministry does provide grants and programs designed to help communities to be vibrant, to be sustainable. Things such as infrastructure are important to communities to help them to continue on, and we provide infrastructure grants. That's what allows the communities to thrive.

We provide small community grants. We provide regional district grants. That, again, supports our small communities.

But if the member suggests that we have to take a look at communities and rank them or put a figure as to the risk associated with that, I don't know whether that's what a municipal or local government actually wants. This is where we have to be careful. If we start listing those communities that are in jeopardy, that could do many things to their financial standings and to their credit rating issues. I don't know whether local governments actually want that. I haven't heard local governments say: "Come and do a risk assessment." I haven't heard UBCM come in and say, "Do that," but if they were to ask, then we would absolutely try to provide the staff resources or perhaps a planning grant to help facilitate that.

I don't think that's what 157 municipalities around this province want us to start doing. I don't think they want us to start determining whether or not they have the financial capacity to be a municipality. When they ask to be incorporated, they make a determination that they want to be incorporated, so they must have made some decisions that that's where they want to go.

We do ask for financial reporting on an annual basis. I believe all the municipalities must provide us with financial reporting, so we'd be able to take a look at those situations if we needed to. In terms of economic development, the Minister of Economic Development has regional economic development officers in a number of communities. I would venture to believe that local governments dialogue with those officers who have expertise in those areas, meet with them from time to time and advise them if in fact they do feel that they need some specific assistance.

B. Simpson: I find quite disingenuous the minister's comment that when these municipalities incorporated, they must have thought that they had the financial capability of being incorporated, because many of them have been incorporated for a very long time.

What's happening now is that the ground is shifting. That financial capability may be removed from them if we're not careful how we do this transition. What I'm getting at is that, last service plan, I asked questions about this minister's and the ministry's lead role in the mountain pine beetle action plan with respect to community transition. I note that that's disappeared from this service plan, so I guess one impact of asking questions in estimates is that if you can't answer the question, you just take it out of the service plan. Again, we find ourselves in that same boat.

I'm not asking the minister to put a hit list of communities on a website, whether it's her website or the Minister of Economic Development's website. What I'm asking is: is the government doing due diligence around the nature of the transition that we are in with respect to rural communities in this province?

The minister raised the issue of infrastructure, so here's an example. Has the ministry done an assessment of the infrastructure impacts on rural communities of the downloading that's occurred from this government and of the implications of the range of additional responsibilities that municipalities have had to pick up? Has that assessment been done? Because it seems to me that there are conflicting objectives here. One is to give some infrastructure grants and so on to offset what's happening in our rural communities, and the other is this nebulous "helping communities to be resilient."

Maybe you can help me to understand how those two have been put together. When they come down to the UBCM, communities certainly say — we know that, for a fact, on this side — time and time again that they do not have sufficient resources for the downloading that has occurred and for the infrastructure needs that they have.

Has an assessment been done to get a picture, to roll all of that up and to say: "What are the asks?" Throughout the province, particularly rural communities, what are they asking for and what is the magnitude of that ask?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, if the member wants to talk about what municipalities have received under our government's role, then we certainly can do that. I do hear, from time to time, members talking about the downloading of costs.

But I can say that I have seen more dollars flow through to local governments than ever before. The real downloading occurred in 1997, when municipalities had their unconditional grants unilaterally, arbitrarily eliminated, contrary to the Local Government Act, by the previous administration.

We have not only protected our small community and regional district grants, we're in fact doubling those. We have worked with the federal government to receive additional dollars from municipal rural infrastructure funds.

We had brought in a community water improvement program that was announced in February of 2005 — an $80 million program that provided at least $120 million worth of projects. Of course, one of the most significant, I would say, is the traffic fine revenue sharing, which was promised at 75 percent but returned instead at 100 percent.

Significant amounts of dollars have gone back to local governments. Even the federal gas tax transfer of $635 million over five years has gone to local governments. We have seen, as well, the public transit trust that has been made available for public transit, something that local governments oftentimes have to grapple with. More dollars have been invested there.

Over the past three and a half years, the government has transferred as much as $66 million to UBCM for a number of purposes ranging from wildfire prevention to community health promotion.

I know there are a myriad of programs. The UBCM executive and staff have said to me on a number of occasions that they are very grateful for the number of programs that they are able to administer for local governments. If the members opposite disagree and would like us no longer to transfer those kinds of dollars and programs to UBCM, that's fine. They can take that stand, but here we are working with UBCM.

B. Simpson: I thought the minister said a few minutes ago that she didn't want to politicize the estimates process. If that wasn't a political statement at the end, I don't know what is.

What we're trying to understand is: who in this provincial government is taking care of the needs and the future of rural British Columbia? Who's trying to figure out where rural British Columbians are going, what their options and opportunities are? The minister's own documentation says that we're going to go through a significant transition in many of those communities. I am not only talking about the mountain pine beetle areas. I'm talking about the coast, the southeast part of the province and anything outside the Greater Vancouver regional district, the lower mainland area and the capital district.

Those communities, I know for a fact, are coming to this minister with a very different message than the minister wants to paint in this room today. They are saying clearly that they have been given additional responsibilities, which this flow of dollars that the minister's talking about simply does not underwrite — whether it's the wastewater regulations, the Drinking Water Protection Act, policing, roads or interface fire. It's one thing after another that these communities have had to pick up, and there's no way that this government has restored funding to the previous levels, let alone underwritten all of those responsibilities.

Here's a question for the minister. She raised the issue of interface fire. UBCM reported to the Minister of Forests that there are fundamental regulatory problems with interface fire. There are fundamental fiscal problems with addressing interface fire. What has the minister done with that report, and what can she report out here with respect to any fixes to that?

B. Simpson: So again, this ministry…. What is it called again — Community Services? It has the local government responsibilities. It's supposedly, according to its own objective, trying to create communities that are "resilient and able to adapt to change."

And here UBCM says: "Another downloaded responsibility to us is not only underfunded; we are ill-equipped to do it because of the province's regulatory framework. They're asking us to do things that it's not appropriate for us to do. They're asking us to do things which the government's regulation and legislation prevent us from doing in any meaningful way." And the minister who's responsible for local government says that it's the Minister of Forests' report.

Does the minister play any advocacy role with respect to things that come from UBCM to various ministries? Does the minister play any advocacy role with respect to the needs of rural British Columbians?

Hon. I. Chong: I can say that in terms of rural communities, small populated towns, we in fact have absolutely assisted our small communities with the doubling of the small community protection grants that have been made available. I can tell you that community after community that receives those dollars is appreciative of that. I can also say that the Towns for Tomorrow program, the $21 million over three years, is absolutely designed for our small towns, most of which are in rural and remote areas of British Columbia.

In fact, this ministry does provide assistance to our smaller towns. If the member is suggesting that because I have responsibility for local government, every matter that comes before a local government is dealt with through this ministry, then he needs to take a look at the entire government structure as a whole. I don't think a local government necessarily would like me to interfere with their conversations or their activities that may be taking place, for example, with the Minister of Transportation or even the Minister for Housing.

However, if they did come to me on those issues, which sometimes they do at UBCM, and ask that I support their position, that I work on their behalf or be an extra voice to that minister, then I do that. So I do work with local governments. I do provide them with that assistance.

I do not take on the responsibilities of another ministry just because a local government has issues with that particular ministry. But we do work cross-government, so I don't want to leave the impression that the member may be wishing to place — or maybe he isn't wishing to, but it certainly seems to be coming across that way — that our ministry isn't providing the support to local governments. We absolutely have, we absolutely do, and we absolutely will continue to do that.

B. Simpson: I would never use the word "interfere." I would use the word "advocate." I think that's what

they are looking for — another voice. If a minister doesn't respond to the report from UBCM, then one would hope there is another person in cabinet they can go to, to advocate on their behalf.

Let me try another tack. The minister isn't doing the risk assessment. It's up to the individual communities to come to the minister and get help when the axe has already fallen. The minister doesn't believe that there are any infrastructure problems outside of — I don't know — anywhere in the province, I guess.

Is the ministry at all doing historical and current socioeconomic trends for our communities outside the lower mainland? Is the minister at least doing that kind of work to feed into the processes that are going on with respect to the transition that our communities are going through?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sure the member is not trying to paint an impression that we do not work in cooperation with local governments, because I've stated so, and I'll state so again. We absolutely do in this ministry. I have indicated that when local governments do approach me regarding issues they have with other ministers and ministries, problems they are encountering, I absolutely do take those concerns. So just for the member's benefit, and in case he didn't hear it, I'll say that a second time.

What we also do, as I indicated earlier, is that we require our local governments to provide us with annual financial statements so that we are able to review the fiscal health, if you will, of all our local governments. We are able to review those financial statements, and we do keep an eye on local governments.

Should a local government be, I guess, in jeopardy, where that can impact their potential borrowing, staff are alert to that. They do monitor these and are able to contact local governments to find out whether they have a plan in place.

I think it's important — because local governments are locally elected, are autonomous; they have administrators, planners and staff available, and if not, they sometimes share staff — that they have an opportunity to make decisions that best meet the needs of their local community in whatever fashion they believe is necessary.

If they feel that they can manage, if they feel that they have the capacity to manage, then…. I would hope that the member is not suggesting that we would arbitrarily step in. I'm not going to use the word "interfere," as he chooses not to. We would not arbitrarily select one over another and say: "Well, we think we need to do this."

When we are monitoring these financial statements, we can do so with an eye to concerns, if we believe they are there. We can contact those local governments. But I dare say if they choose not to avail themselves of assistance from a senior level of government, then that is certainly their choice as well.

B. Simpson: Again, I'm trying to understand the ministry's relationship with the mountain pine beetle so-called action plan. One of the things under community stability is the key action: complete socioeconomic statistical baseline studies for mountain-pine-beetle-impacted regions and communities. Is this ministry doing that?

Hon. I. Chong: In terms of the mountain pine beetle, I indicated that there is a response team that has been established through the Ministry of Forests. We have a staff person that we have allocated to that response team so that we still have a role to provide information and assistance where needed.

B. Simpson: Does this ministry do any analysis of other jurisdictions' impact on local governments, impact on municipalities that have gone through a significant transition like this — like northern Ontario or Quebec or other places? Has this ministry done at least some of that work?

Hon. I. Chong: In fact, we were just trying to get the name of the report that we actually did prepare. It was a report that had an analysis of different communities across Canada, as to the communities in transition in terms of their resiliency. We showcased, I believe, Tumbler Ridge in that report. I believe it's called The Resilient City or communities in transition. I can't recall the title. It's been a while since I had a look at that.

We presented that last year to the World Urban Forum. I have shared that with my provincial and territorial ministers across Canada so that they also have seen that. So we in fact have done an analysis and presented that out, and by all accounts, it shows that British Columbia was in a better position than others when it dealt with helping a community to be more resilient in the long term.

B. Simpson: I'll bet you any money, if I look at that report, based on the past experience of the previous government and what they did under community transition…. I would hope that report is available on the website and I can find it.

I have a few more questions here to close this off. What I'm trying to understand in all of this questioning is that the minister said in a previous line of questioning: "The need for community transition planning has decreased because of a strong economy."

Anybody who's paying attention knows that in many parts of this province, that strong economy is a short-lived event and that we're going to hit probably one of the most significant transitions that this province has ever seen. Communities like Houston, Vanderhoof — McBride is already going through it — Valemount, Quesnel, Williams Lake, 100 Mile House…. If the consolidation continues in the forest industry, the whole southeast part of the province starts to see that impact. Of course, coastal communities are already there.

The minister says: "Okay, fine. We can breathe a sigh of relief just now, and we can take some of the

community transition money away." That's what I heard her indicate — that it's not necessary at this juncture. But how is the government doing the planning? I'm talking here about fiscal prudence and fiscal foresight. How is the government doing the planning to project forward what the potential demands are going to be when these communities start to feel the impacts of the transition that they are in?

How is that projection done — on the basis of what data? And who is collecting that data? That, surely, according to the minister's own words, rests only in this ministry. Ultimately, at the end of the day, this ministry will have to have the financial resources to address the transition that is going to happen. So where is that budget? How can I find it? When is the projection? When is it going to increase? How much is it going to be? How can I get answers to those questions?

Hon. I. Chong: Just to refer to the previous dialogue that we had, in terms of the report that I referenced earlier, the paper that was provided to the World Urban Forum is called The Resilient City, and it explores how small Canadian communities cope with the transition from a resource-dependent economy when that economy is no longer viable. As I say, it's been shared with all local governments across the province. It is available through our Community Services website and through the World Urban Forum website as well. So that certainly is available; however, to make it easier for the member, I'll ask staff to send him a copy. That will alleviate him from having to go through all the various links.

I just want to make it clear that I had not said that the community transition budget has been taken away. I have said that the dollars are there, and in the years that we require it, it may be fully utilized. In the years that we don't have requests, it may not be fully utilized. In that case, we can perhaps use it for other planning grants that local governments ask of us.

I can say that in terms of the community transition dollars that have been provided for…. I will just go back a year. Squamish in August 2006 had asked for some assistance; Gibsons in May 2006. Sandspit, from May until October of 2006, had been in contact with our ministry; Midway in May of 2006; Kimberley in 2006; Pemberton in April of 2006; Port Clements in March 2006; Port Alice — we all know about Port Alice — in March 2006; and Canal Flats in October 2006. That was the last time we had heard from a community that was looking for assistance through community transition.

As I say, those dollars are available upon request or even if they are not seeking dollars but just seeking staff resources in terms of understanding on how to move forward. Local governments know very well, and they do get in contact with our ministry and ministry staff who can provide assistance.

Local governments prepare plans. They prepare a financial plan and a report that they have going forward. As a government and as this ministry, we support those plans when they share those with us. We support those plans by identifying within those plans investments that they wish to make so that their communities can be more sustainable.

If a community has within their plans things like water and sewer projects or things that we now have with the LocalMotion, Towns for Tomorrow, and Spirit Squares…. If that's what they have identified in their plans and they believe that is what will increase the strength of their communities to allow them to be vibrant communities and that is what it will take to improve the quality of life of their citizens, and they have this in their plan, we work with them.

Do we fund every single project in every single community? Well, we all know that is simply not possible. But we do take a look at all the applications, and we do select those that have sometimes the widest-ranging impact and absolutely, in the case of water and sewer projects, those that have an impact on the environment and on public health. So we do support local communities, but they are in the best position to determine exactly what it is they want to plan for, for their communities.

B. Simpson: My final question before I get the big shepherd's hook on my side here. The minister mentioned the resource-based revenue-sharing, and I'm curious if anything has been explored in that respect, because, as the minister is aware, beetle action coalitions are going to be looking for some kind of funding source — year-over-year funding. They are looking at maybe a trust. We don't know what's happening with the federal dollars. They've already gone on the record that they are quite concerned about that.

Have there been any discussions, with some sort of revenue-sharing formula for returning, whether it's stumpage or some of the softwood lumber border tax or any of those things along the lines of what the government is embarking on now with the resort communities, looking for a mechanism to flow some consistent dollars back to the communities and assist them with the transition, because they know they've got year-over-year funding to do that work?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member also mentioning or raising the concerns that we have that our other senior level of government is not fully at the table in terms of providing assistance with our small communities. I can say that, at this point, if there are discussions of that nature, they have not yet taken place with our ministry. They may well be taking place with the Minister of Forests, who currently has the lead with the mountain pine beetle file. Although we are involved, there might be other discussions that might be taking place there, and I would ask the member to canvass that with that minister.

I can say that when the Task Force on Community Opportunities was established, we did take a look at a variety of revenue sources, and at the end of the day, there were very few that the committee agreed to as one area that they wished to pursue and present to UBCM. I have to say, it was a challenge sometimes,

Oftentimes we'd put out areas that we should think about or talk about, and some of those sitting around the table had some great ideas and others around the table would disagree, as can happen in any government and any caucus, even. As I say, there was a good discussion on various revenue-sharing opportunities. At the end of the day there was not one that came forward as the member described.

M. Sather: I wanted to take up with the minister and continue a discussion that we started last year in estimates about a subject that's really important in my community and, I think, in other communities in the GVRD. That has to do with the livable region strategic plan, which is a plan to manage and control urban sprawl, and more in particular, though, the issue of the green zone within the LRSP.

As the minister knows, there has been an effort by the mayor and council of Maple Ridge to get some changes to the green zone. I had asked the minister a number of questions last year about how that process takes place. So I wanted to start off by asking: is there in provincial legislation a requirement that there be a green zone, or is there an allowance that a green zone can take place under provincial legislation?

Hon. I. Chong: For the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows — again, I'm just trying to recognize their area of constituency. In terms of the livable region strategy plan, there is a requirement to deal with regional open space, and that is part of a mandatory regional growth strategy and has been incorporated into the LRSP. I'm not sure where the member is going with this line of questioning.

I'm not trying to pre-empt him, but I'll offer this. Any amendments to that require acceptance by all members, and I can tell the member here that, at the request of the GVRD, we are looking at how we may look at the amendments — those which may be considered minor and those which may be considered major — and perhaps look at altering that formula where acceptance of all members is required.

There have been concerns raised — I know the member must be aware of it — and the GVRD has actually asked us to even have a look at that procedure, regarding the livable region strategy plan.

M. Sather: I just want to understand, though, the involvement of the province in this. I know there is the Community Charter and the like. Is it stated in the Community Charter, then, that there needs to be an amending formula to the green zone?

Hon. I. Chong: The livable region strategy plan — as with all regional growth strategy plans, which come from the regional district's level…. They are governed through part 25 of the Local Government Act. In fact, there are specific requirements that if changes are made, our ministry needs to be notified with those changes.

Again, there has been in place, in particular with the livable region strategy plan, a requirement that all members accept those changes, but now there is a request for us to look at that possibly being changed. We are still looking at that and how we might accommodate that.

M. Sather: It is, I think, precedent-setting — the idea of amending the green zone. My understanding is it hasn't been done, so Maple Ridge is advancing this for the first time. I think they started with looking at six properties in Maple Ridge, one of which — the Jackson Farm — is particularly contentious.

I understand the process they went through was to approach the GVRD about amending the green zone and getting an amending formula. They weren't given the process to go it alone or to get that decision alone, as I understand it, but it's been rolled into a broader review of the LRSP, the livable region strategic plan, by the GVRD.

The minister mentioned that there are discussions going on between her ministry and the GVRD. Is the minister dissatisfied with the process that is taking place at the GVRD? Are they dissatisfied with it? What is the impetus, if you will, for the communication that is taking place?

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for his question. It's not an issue of whether I'm satisfied or the GVRD is satisfied with what has occurred or what will take place. What I am aware of is, certainly, an issue has arisen, and I have heard from members of the GVRD that it's been some time since the LRSP has been looked at in terms of dealing with the green zones.

So I have made a commitment that we would look at that. We are still looking at that at the ministry level and just evaluating what kinds of issues we might anticipate in the future and what changes we may or may not be contemplating. It's still very much, I guess, in the early stages.

The matter was raised, and I think initially the GVRD said, "Let's take a look at revising the entire plan," and there are some members who said: "Well, that could take years." They said: "Well, we may wish to pursue that. In the meantime, would the Ministry of Community Services consider taking a look at any other possibilities, any other options in dealing with this strategic plan that would allow local governments to have the autonomy that they believe they should have?"

That's what has transpired. I have no results to provide to the member at this time, but there isn't satisfaction or dissatisfaction occurring at this time. As I say, it's very much in the early parts of discussion.

M. Sather: If I could get a sense from the minister…. The LRSP has been around since the mid-'90s,

and some — I think I would include myself amongst that group — construe it as an exceedingly valuable growth-management tool that has managed to keep our community somewhat compact. Certainly, we know it's the goal of all of us, I think, to have compact communities. Particularly with challenges like global warming, we need to reduce transportation. The more compact our communities are; the less transportation needs we have — in terms of cars, anyway.

What is the minister's sense, then, of the dissatisfaction about the LRSP from the GVRD communities, or at least from Maple Ridge in particular? If it's a wider scope thing, then I'd like to know what the concern is. As I say, the fact that this has worked well…. The minister mentioned that the communities want more autonomy. Can she give me some sense of what the dissatisfaction with the LRSP is as she sees it? What sort of autonomy does she see that member municipalities want?

Hon. I. Chong: I think what's important to recognize is that whether it's the livable regions strategic plan or other regional growth strategy plans that are in place, from time to time those that have been in existence for a while may require a change or a refreshing, if you will, because things don't stay the same.

There are changes in the people who are elected to local councils and different directions that are taken. I think it's fair to say that from time to time we will have to take a look at these plans.

I can also say that I have not canvassed all members of the GVRD as it relates to this strategic plan, but some members of GVRD have asked that surely we could take a look and see what changes may be possible prior to an entire plan being redrafted or amended. I said we certainly can take a look at that in the context of some of the issues that have been raised.

I do acknowledge that when the GVRD put forth and all members approved the livable region strategic plan, their primary interest was to protect the overall regional plan in the context that they had agreed to. But there is also some balancing that needs to take place.

In today's new world, where as the member indicated, there are…. Who would have thought we would be looking at our compact communities in the way that we are? Who would have thought we would be so focused on the issues of transportation as much as we are today because of our greenhouse gases and things like that? It does require a new look at the regional plan.

Some members have suggested that we be able to make minor amendments without unanimous consent, and the key to that, of course, would be know-how. It may occur without undermining the entire plan while a new plan is being developed. I'm not suggesting that they will come forward with a new plan immediately or whether it will take some time. What I do know is that there is some interest in taking a look at whether or not minor amendments would in fact be possible.

The question then becomes: what do we take a look at, and how do we define what a minor amendment is? That's what our ministry is doing. As I say, it's very preliminary at this point. It would be helpful if the member advised whether he supports us moving forward in that direction. That would also give us a little more assistance in going forward.

M. Sather: That's a good question that the minister asks, and I have a great deal of concern about the movement to amend the green zone, because I don't see it in any way as a minor amendment. Minister, correct me if I'm wrong, but to me this is a precedent. This is not a one-off. If Maple Ridge is approved to amend the green zone….

For those listening, I should clarify that the green zone is, in Maple Ridge, all the lands in the agricultural land reserve, plus some others were put into the green zone by the municipalities when they signed on to the LRSP a number of years ago.

The long and short of it is that being able to amend or get rid of parts of the green zone simply enables removing land from the agricultural land reserve in my community. That's what it comes down to, and that's in fact what these properties are about. They were in the agricultural land reserve and are now in the process of being removed.

I would like the minister to comment. Does she not think that granting an amending formula to the green zone is going to set a precedent throughout the GVRD that is going to make it very difficult for our communities and for this government to maintain the goal of preventing urban sprawl and to meet our climate change objectives?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not able to comment on particular properties in specific areas at this time. If the member is concerned about some specific properties within his district, then I would assume he would raise those with the local mayor and council. If they have no intentions of looking at those properties that he may be referring to, then I'm sure his mayor and council would make that clear to him.

However, if his mayor and council are in fact intending to look at that, then that's an issue he will have to deal with. He has to represent his community, which I would say are the same constituents.

I can only say at this time that we have been asked to look at the issue, and that's what we do in Community Services. A matter is raised. A compelling reason has been brought forward that it's been some time since that strategic plan has been reviewed. Would we consider looking at it? That's all we're doing. We're looking at it. I have no conclusions at this time. I've indicated to the member it's very preliminary.

If he has specific concerns that his GVRD representative has, he may wish to make those known, or if he disagrees with his GVRD representative, he may make that known as well. As I say, I can only say that we're looking at it at this moment, and we will know in due course whether or not any changes have any feasibility of going forward.

M. Sather: Well, the GVRD has expressed some concerns about it and talked about the danger of edge

creep, as they call it, with regard to urban sprawl. The mayor of Maple Ridge, though, has been very adamant and has actually threatened to pull Maple Ridge out of the GVRD if they don't get this amending formula. So he's putting heavy pressure on. He's asked for provincial legislation. He said that the provincial government should now act and act quickly, clearly and provide an amending formula.

The minister has said that it's early negotiations or communications — whatever. That's fine. I probably won't get to ask her in this forum for another year. And who knows what will happen in another year? I would like to know whether she contemplates provincial legislation that will allow for amending of the green zone within the next year.

Hon. I. Chong: What I gather from the member is the fact that he has disagreement with his mayor from Maple Ridge. I'm not trying to put him in a spot, but he clearly said the members of the GVRD do not want to see an amending formula. Yet his mayor, who is part of the GVRD, in fact wants to see that. I think what we have at issue here is that not all members of the GVRD would necessarily take that stand.

What I have attempted to do, and this is…. What I have indicated earlier is the fact that we have received — I won't say a majority of requests, but we have received some — inquiries from persons who are members of the GVRD who have asked us to take a look at the current formula and the amending formula upon which the voting takes place in regards to amendments to this the strategic plan.

I said that I would be prepared to look at that. As I say, it's very, very preliminary. It is too early to say how we are going to proceed, simply because we have just been asked to take a look at that. I will want to have some further dialogue as to what makes sense here.

But I can tell the member that we are in fact committed to protecting green zones, and we are in fact committed to combatting urban sprawl. But at the same time it may be difficult to find a solution that at the end of the day everyone agrees meets those objectives.

As other members have asked, if I'm here to represent local governments, if I'm here to hear their concerns and bring forward their issues, then here is one that has come forward that I have been requested to look at. So I do have staff taking a look at that.

With that, I'm hoping that the member understands. It's very early to suggest how we're going to conclude this matter, but I do know that there are some members of the GVRD concerned. There are some members who are concerned to the extent they don't want to see any change. But as with all plans, it is sometimes important to take a look at them from time to time.

M. Sather: Just one last question to the minister. Can the minister commit, then, to keep me apprised of the progress of these discussions over the coming year?

N. Simons: Thank you to the minister and staff for being here. I'm just going to be asking about the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, which has been given assent. It's relating to resort communities. Of course, I think the minister knows that there is some concern on the Sunshine Coast that that particular development is going in under the jurisdiction, I guess, of this new piece of legislation. I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on that and perhaps put the communities' concerns to rest, if possible, or to remind them to remain vigilant, as the case may be.

Hon. I. Chong: Bill 11, the Community Services Statutes Amendment Act, dealt with a number of things. The areas of his concerns, sections 14, 15 and 16, dealt primarily with the issue of resort developments. I have to say that I was disappointed that members of the opposition voted against two important sections, sections 14 and 15 in particular, which I believe, if they had read deeper into it, were really about revenue-sharing. I can tell you that local governments have been very appreciative of that opportunity to revenue-share in the hotel room tax.

I believe that the member is most concerned with the other section, section 16, which is the section that provides for or is an additional tool that allows for the development of a mountain resort municipality, and that's where I would like to stress. It is the section…. While it does not directly change the governance structure or decision-making authority of local government, it does provide a new governance option for alpine ski resort areas that could be used to address those unique circumstances in an area.

I want to be clear that it's about an alpine ski resort, and that means there has got to be a mountain there. I think the concern that the member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast was most worried about was that it could be just flatlands. I will assure him here, so that he can assure his constituents that, no, in order to use section 16, you need a mountain and alpine ski lifts to make that appear.

N. Simons: I think that the members in the community will be somewhat relieved, although they have been told by the developer that that is their intention. They initially said they were waiting for the legislation. When the legislation came in, they said that they were pleased with the legislation, that they'd had some discussions with senior members of government, including cabinet ministers, about the ability of the provincial government, or the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, to make a decision that will allow such municipalities to be developed, as a clause that supersedes the others to permit such a resort municipality.

Just to comment. I understand the alpine ski lift issue. They did bring up the fact that there's a beautiful cross-country ski development happening in Dakota Ridge. It's in very close proximity to that. I'm just wondering if the legislation does allow — or if the government structure as it existed prior to this new legislation would allow — the provincial government to simply

allow a community to go in without the consent of the regional district in which it would take place.

Hon. I. Chong: I am familiar with the area that the member speaks about. As he has now confirmed that we are looking at section 16, it would apply to alpine ski opportunities — being that a mountain has to exist. Cross-country, of course, is not there.

In relation to the legislation and previous legislation, what I can say is that local governments are entitled to make decisions as to land use. Local governments can do so through their regional districts or through their incorporated municipalities, which brings us to the finer issue which sometimes gets missed.

If a local government or a municipality chose to and is permitted to extend their boundaries…. That has been in existence for quite some time. Generally speaking, those are routine. Where an area owner of even a residential property wishes to belong to a municipality and the municipality wishes the owner to be a part of it, if everyone is satisfied and there are no objections to it, generally that could take place.

If that were to occur and those lands were to be included in a municipality, it would therefore be within the boundaries of that municipality, and that municipality would be the local government that would have the authority to deal with land use decisions. So that has not changed, and that was there prior to the introduction of Bill 11.

N. Simons: Just to be certain on that. The land would have to be contiguous to the area in order for the resort municipality status to be conferred. Nothing can happen prior to that taking place. I think that's clear.

My question has to do with the regional government's authority over land use in respect to this particular development. It is currently under private managed forest land, which has certain designated assessment regarding tax assessment and tax considerations.

What we currently have is a developer talking about a residential community on what is private managed forest land. The issue at hand is that regional governments don't have authority over that unless the lands have been transferred out of that particular status, so private managed forest lands are beyond the reach of regional government. However, when inappropriate use of that land takes places, the only authority capable of determining land use in our watershed, perhaps, lies with the regional government.

Can the minister explain how a regional government is to respond to an activity that has potentially serious impacts environmentally, socially and economically on the community, if it's known and it's clear and it's well documented that the land use is inappropriate? Would the jurisdiction automatically revert to the regional district once that land use designation is being used inappropriately?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member knows, regional districts do have land use authority available to them, as do municipalities. The issue of private forest lands is beyond local jurisdiction if the land is used in a particular way.

There's not a straight answer that I can give to the member, simply because of this. It is somewhat technical, and it depends on the private forest and the forest land reserve. If in fact private forest lands…. If there is anticipated change to that in terms of land use, where there is some development, for example, the key to that may be the density that occurs. If we see one or two properties being provided, it may not be objectionable to the intent of the forest land reserve, but if in fact the urban development that takes place is incompatible with the forest land reserve, then it would present a problem.

We do not have the information regarding the forest land reserve with us here. It may be something the member will need to canvass with the Minister of Forests, or it may fall under the Minister of Agriculture's purview.

As I say, there are some complexities in regards to that, and there is not a straight answer. I can't provide the member with any more complete data other than that.

N. Simons: That actually helps a lot, in that it's clear that regional authority can only be exercised when the Private Managed Forest Land Council says that this is no longer assessed as that.

The problem that the Sunshine Coast regional government has right now is that during the time when we're waiting for this designation to change, serious and very noticeable changes are occurring in the regional district — including clearcuts larger than we've seen in many, many years and, subsequent to that, potential cumulative damage to watersheds, whether they are fish habitats or drinking water watersheds.

The issue is: where is the jurisdiction? Where is the support for the regional government when something is happening within their boundaries that has the potential to have an impact on soil, river flows, fish or water licensees? I'm wondering: what does government have at its disposal to protect the interest of regional government when there is an independent council making delayed decisions about land status?

I think that there is perhaps a loophole. I believe that some attention needs to be paid to this particular loophole. Because of the delay, it has been almost two months since they've announced this community. It's been on the front page of the Vancouver Sun. It's been canvassed extensively on radio. It makes the front page of the local newspaper repeatedly. The regional district is highly concerned about it, and the community feels that their voice isn't being heard because there doesn't seem to be an avenue for that voice to be heard.

To summarize my statement, my question would be: how can the minister reassure regional government that in fact they can't be walked all over until some independent council decides that they've perhaps breached some regulation?

Hon. I. Chong: I don't want to provide the member with a generic answer because it may not be fitting for

all of the regional districts. Clearly, he has within his constituency a regional district that I wouldn't say has an absolutely unique but rather a unique problem or challenge. What I can say is that our staff is available to provide some technical advice to the regional district and the staff. If they were to call us to speak to us on that, certainly staff would be available to help.

Just so the member knows, I know the Sunshine Coast regional district had contacted staff but not on that particular area that he's currently canvassing. They wanted assurance regarding Bill 11, as he has just asked about as well. But this particular line of concern that the member raises has not been brought to our ministry staff's full attention. We will be in a better position to hear. This certainly helps today. We'll be in a better position to work that through with them and perhaps give them some guidance and some information as to what may or may not take place and then go forward from there.

N. Simons: So essentially the community, sort of, needs to…. I appreciate that offer. I think it's important enough because of the potential of this occurring in other places. Someone needs to figure out what we do in the meantime, because I don't believe the forest council is really even allowed to identify what cumulative risks might be. I think they have very limited jurisdiction on the point at which they're allowed to step in.

My impression from this legislation…. Obviously, I haven't had a huge number of interactions with this legislation or regional governments, but it seems to me that this could potentially be troubling because the current system doesn't allow, apparently, for any sort of involvement. Because the regional government's hands are tied, there seems to be a sort of lack of authority. I appreciate answers with respect to that.

Can I maybe I can just clarify? I asked about the need for a community to be adjacent to a resort community. Is that always the case — that they have to actually abut each other?

Hon. I. Chong: Generally, when we have received requests for boundary extensions or annexation, the lands have been contiguous. There have been rare occasions where that has not occurred, and it may be because there is a separation by a lake or something of that nature. But where there are boundary extension annexations which are pretty straightforward, and there are many of those that do take place, they are approved fairly quickly.

The ones that have more difficulty with them are…. I can tell you that the staff work very diligently with the communities involved. And of course, if there's resistance to it, as the member is aware, there's the counterpetition or the assent procedure from the electorate which takes place. That could also invoke a referendum prior to a boundary extension annexation taking place. We do deal with those from time to time.

Generally, the boundary extensions that are the simplest and the ones that are easily accommodated up through our ministry are the ones that have the contiguous boundaries or borders. But I don't want to say that they have occurred in absolutely every case, because I have seen occasions where that did not occur.

N. Simons: I guess, underlying these discussions about growth, expansion and development is the need that has been identified by a number of regional districts which don't have them, for regional growth strategies. I'm just wondering if there have been any requests, any inquiries to the minister, on the part of communities or regional governments in my constituency, Powell River–Sunshine Coast, and if there have been any steps taken towards achieving a plan for regional growth strategy.

Hon. I. Chong: My understanding is that staff is working quite actively with Sunshine Coast regional district in terms of a regional growth strategy plan. I wouldn't say they're fairly new, but these were all started, I think, in the '80s by the previous administration, and they actually have been very good tools to use.

There are 27 regional districts, as the member may or may not know, in the province, and not every regional district immediately jumped in and said, "We want our regional growth strategy plan," or what, in some cases, they call their livable region strategic plan. We have encouraged it, but at the end of the day, the regional district needs to ask for financial assistance to put one in place, and we provide that financial assistance.

It still is left up to the regional districts to prepare that. We have encouraged them, more than ever before, because we know the value of that. We know the value of having municipalities work together cooperatively with a regional vision to better serve their citizens. It is becoming more and more the norm, but I believe there are still a few regional districts that have yet to complete a regional growth strategy plan.

N. Simons: I think that wraps up the questions I had regarding this issue, and I thank the minister and her staff.

G. Gentner: Just briefly, just two major subjects — major in my community, nevertheless. They are relative to the possible depletion of professional inspectors and what it could mean here. My understanding is that there's pending legislation that will have municipalities insist that developers have professional inspectors to do the work. Could the minister elaborate how we're making out with this legislation?

Hon. I. Chong: We were just trying to determine how to best provide information to the member for Delta North. The issue of building inspections and housing would be under the purview of the Minister of Forests and Range and the Minister Responsible for Housing. He may be better able to provide the member with what initiative he may have underway. It's not an area that we have responsibility for, so I'm not able to

G. Gentner: My understanding is that there is legislation that's pending, and it will affect municipalities, and it's your job to help municipalities. The view is that…. Let's say, for example, when it comes to inspection of homes, it's usually been expected that municipalities would be able to help at signing off with plumbing or building inspectors, etc., etc. However, since the leaky-condo episode that happened some years ago, municipalities have been involved in hiring independent professional inspectors and thereby forgoing liability to their professional expertise.

Can the minister elaborate, or at least give us some indication whether or not it is true that municipalities…? I've been in discussion with some municipalities recently, and this seems to be where we're going. When it comes down to the more complex building of condominiums and of course commercial areas, independent professional inspectors will no longer be required, and the onus will now be on the municipality to do it alone and hire people to provide that expertise.

Hon. I. Chong: I would advise the member, and we've discussed this with other members, that while, yes, it is the Minister of Community Services responsible for local governments, there are certain aspects that local governments are involved with and that go across government. As I say, because there are roads in local government doesn't mean that I deal with all the transportation issues or the transit systems. There are universities in local governments, but I don't deal with all the educational institutions there.

So in this particular instance regarding building inspections that involve housing, there is a Minister for Housing who is in fact the minister responsible for this area. But I can tell the member that where there are issues that impact or affect local governments and if there are changes that directly affect and impact local governments, there is a duty, through the Community Charter, to consult.

My understanding is that if…. I don't have a line on whether there's future legislation or not. If there is future legislation, the member knows I can't speak on it. But if the Minister for Housing is in fact looking into this, then I would advise him that there is a duty for the minister to consult with UBCM and to ensure that any issues that they have are raised and are addressed.

G. Gentner: Well, maybe we should try a different perspective on this. Can we expect that all local governments are there to regulate every aspect of the building construction? It's part of their purview, I suppose. The developer/builder buys the land; sees that the zoning is appropriate; hires professional architects, engineers and landscape architects to do the design and specifications; hires the subcontractors; approves the building materials and fixtures; and markets the homes.

Under this scenario, does the minister believe that the developer or builder of a housing project is responsible for any major problems resulting from design and construction — and not the municipality?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the member is making references to local governments, where they certainly have authority in dealing with a number of matters such as land use, such as their approval processes, and that certainly is the purview of local governments. When it comes to the housing aspect, when it comes to the inspection side, while that was once in our ministry, that has now been consolidated with the Minister Responsible for Housing, so the Minister Responsible for Housing is the one best able to provide him with the answer.

I've been advised by staff that the Minister for Housing is currently underway, engaged in consultation with UBCM, the Planning Institute and the Architectural Institute, just as an example. Clearly, there may have been issues raised that are requiring that the Minister Responsible for Housing, local governments and others — as I say, the Planning Institute, the Architectural Institute — come together and talk about the very issues that this member is concerned about.

G. Gentner: Thank you to the minister for confirming that there is a pending bill underway and that the Ministry for Housing is in consultation with UBCM, but what consultation has the minister provided the ministry relative to this change in inspections?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, let's be clear for the record. I didn't say there was pending legislation; the member stated that. I just said, if in fact there was future legislation, I can't comment on aspects of any future legislation.

What I am saying is that I have been made aware that the minister is consulting — because he is the Minister Responsible for Housing — with organizations such as the Architectural Institute and the Planning Institute, as such, perhaps to absolutely address the concerns that have been raised in the past, such as the leaky condos. I don't know the scope of the discussions that have taken place. I know that the consultation is underway, and UBCM certainly is engaged in that consultation process. They're aware, and they will be raising those issues directly with the minister.

As I've indicated earlier to various colleagues of his, there are a variety of things that affect local governments. Not all of them are handled by this ministry, simply because local governments seek out the appropriate ministry where there is responsibility and where the legislative authority lies, and they will deal with those appropriate ministers in that manner.

G. Gentner: Well, if the Minister Responsible for Housing is going to meet up with the UBCM regarding this matter that does affect all municipalities, can the minister assure the House that she will at least be meeting with UBCM, all affected municipalities, if possible, and the minister relative to this matter?

Hon. I. Chong: On a regular basis, I believe quarterly, UBCM executive meets. At those meetings they provide me with an update on the consultations that they're having with various ministers, and I update them with things happening within my ministry. From time to time I will invite other ministers to present at UBCM executive as the UBCM executive requests. So there certainly is engagement with the UBCM executive — and consultations, as well, with various ministries — occurring continually throughout the year.

G. Gentner: I want to stick to the responsibility of the Ministry of Community Services, which oversees that of municipal government. There will be a change in inspections, and there probably will be a decrease in the amount of inspectors available for hire. So the question is: what steps is the ministry taking to ensure that there's going to be proper training in the event that there is this influx of municipal inspectors?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the member has presumed that there's going to be a change. The member has presumed what might or might not be in legislation, and I can't engage in that kind of speculation.

I will say, as the minister responsible for local governments, that I have a role to work with UBCM to ensure — where there are impacts to local governments or where there are changes that are contemplated, whether in the Community Charter or in other pieces of legislation — that they be informed and that they be consulted. I do that on a regular basis, and UBCM is always available.

I also know that our government does work across ministries to ensure that there is always engagement. We have, at times, deputy ministers' committees and assistant deputy ministers' committees working on initiatives that do cross various ministries. We have a staff person available within our ministry to continue to work with the Minister for Housing as they move forward, as I say, on initiatives that may affect local governments.

When that takes shape, then, if a member of our staff needs to be there and the UBCM requests that they be there, they will be there.

G. Gentner: The ministry does quite a bit of research as to directions and trends that are happening with the municipalities. Can the minister give us its anticipated legal costs for all current or pending legal suits relative to leaky condos?

G. Gentner: Well, as the municipality of Delta knows — they went up to a suit and lost it on this issue — municipalities are involved in this issue. This is a bankruptcy-like setting that's affecting all suburbia and all urban areas in the lower mainland.

Obviously, the minister must know how it's going to affect municipalities. She has been in consultation with municipalities on this concern. Many municipalities have raised it many times with the hon. minister. Again, the minister must have some understanding of what the liability is to municipalities, because in the end it's going to be the government, the caretaker of all municipalities, who is going to be responsible.

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, this is not an area of responsibility in our ministry. I can say to the member — regrettably, he was not here earlier in our debates — that we ask all local governments to provide us with their financial plans and their annual financial statements. In fact, some of them actually win awards for great financial statements, if you can believe it.

We are able to monitor their fiscal plans and their fiscal capacity, and should we note a problem that arises, our staff are able, as a result of having this information made available to us, to make contact with them and advise how they intend to manage that potential fiscal issue that may or may not arise.

We rely heavily on the fact that municipalities and local governments provide us with their financial plans and financial statements. As I say, we monitor them annually.

G. Gentner: It's unfortunate that the minister wants to skirt the issue, because we do know, for example — I think it was in the 1950s — that the city of Burnaby went bankrupt, and it was the province of British Columbia that had to sign some cheques. I think this is a major issue, and to just finger-point to other ministries within the province is avoiding and evading a crisis situation that's been lurking around for a while with all local governments.

Therefore, knowing that the minister is apparently not responsible for inspections of homes and that the municipalities are going to have to pick up the tab or find some way of hiring these new inspectors if this pending legislation comes through, I will move on to another issue. I'm sure the minister will point the finger as a responsibility which is no longer hers.

The Ministry of Transportation made a decision that's affecting the zoning of Delta. Now, the zoning of Delta was such that part of it was zoned industrial. The municipality wanted to amend that zoning in order to contain or control the number of containers that are going to be located on this very expensive industrial land.

Upon doing it after third reading, it was the Ministry of Transportation that stopped that, under an obscure section of the Transportation Act whereby it has now threatened the whole official community plan of that municipality. It's been overridden by a very zealous Ministry of Transportation that has other visions of what's in the interest of the province, which is opposed to the interest of a local municipality.

So I ask the minister: how can she ensure that local autonomy is upheld in the light of a very belligerent ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: The member phrased his opening comments about this likely not being the area of

responsibility for this ministry, and he's correct in that. I think the Ministry of Transportation has been involved in this issue.

I can say that at times when issues of broad public interest are brought to our attention, our ministry staff is engaged or asked to comment. It was the decision of ministry staff after a required review of the proposed bylaw — which is section 52, I think, of the Transportation Act — that the bylaw would have an adverse effect on the overall transportation system. Maybe that is a disagreement that takes place, but with an adverse effect on the overall transportation system, that had to be taken into consideration.

When there is passage of blanket bylaws such as that in any municipality, it can open the door to extreme impediment to an overall transportation system. In light of that, this was about balancing transportation upgrades for the sake of a stronger economy with municipal desire for controlled growth.

It's not always to strike the right balance. We do attempt to do that, and we will continue to have the necessary dialogue to ensure that there is understanding, but at the end of the day, if there is disagreement, then that will, in fact, exist. We cannot allow an adverse effect on an overall transportation system to be put in place as a result of a bylaw change of that nature.

G. Gentner: If I have this correct, this ministry, which is there to help municipalities, has concurred with the Minister of Transportation to what's called a balancing act between the needs of the Ministry of Transportation versus those of a local municipality.

The protector of local autonomy and local government has swayed to those of her colleagues in another ministry, so what authority does this ministry have? If this ministry is not here to help municipalities and protect an OCP, and the OCP is involved in some statutes, then my question to the minister is: is this ministry that of being a lame duck? What do you do? Bow to the Minister of Transportation?

Hon. I. Chong: I can appreciate that the member doesn't like the fact that some decisions are made that may be of greater importance to the broader public interest, and I can understand that he believes that local governments all bear a specific interest, a need to be upheld. We do work with local governments in many ways, through various programs and services, to ensure that takes place.

However, as I've indicated, where a municipality introduces a bylaw — the passage of a blanket bylaw, as in this particular case — it can open the door to some impediments to the overall transportation system, and I don't believe that's exactly what they're desirous of. At the end of the day, there will be some balancing required. If the member wishes to speak more about transportation issues — or other members, who I imagine might want to speak about transportation issues — I'm going to defer them to the Ministry of Transportation.

What I am here to do is talk about the estimates of the Ministry of Community Services — the programs we provide, the grant systems, things of that nature. I can talk about the Community Charter or the Local Government Act. If that's what members wish to discuss, that's what I will discuss with them.

The Chair: First, let me remind members that this is estimates, and keep your questions in that context.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you, hon. Chair, and good afternoon to the minister and to her staff. It's the first time I've had an opportunity to put questions to this particular minister, and I look forward to doing that for just a few minutes.

I wonder if I could just pursue the issue that my colleague from Delta North was talking about a minute ago. I recognize and appreciate the minister's response with respect to the authority of the Ministry of Transportation. What I want to ask about is this ministry. My question is: at the time that the Ministry of Transportation chose to reject the Delta bylaw and prior to that, was there consultation with this minister and this ministry?

D. Chudnovsky: In the course of that consultation, I take it between the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Community Services, did the Ministry of Community Services put forward a point of view to the Ministry of Transportation on the notion of overruling the Delta bylaw?

Hon. I. Chong: Unfortunately, the ministry staff that were involved in the consultation are not with us today. But knowing the staff involved, I know that whenever they are consulted by other ministers and ministries that have impacts on local governments, they do always provide a perspective of local government. Also, they provide advice as to any other legislative framework or consequences as a result.

I feel confident that the staff involved in this discussion would have provided that to Ministry of Transportation staff. At the end of the day, however, they felt that it was important to move in this direction to ensure that the broader public interest, the overall transportation system, was in fact preserved.

D. Chudnovsky: I thank the minister for that answer. I want to clarify what I think I heard, so I want to ask directly: do I understand from the minister's answer that representatives of her ministry…? I recognize that they are not here, and it's a bit complicated. But do I understand from her answer that she thinks that the representatives of her ministry would have put forward to the representatives of the Ministry of Transportation that it was a problem, that they would have

advocated against the use of the provision used by the Ministry of Transportation to overrule the Delta bylaw?

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for his question trying to seek clarification, and perhaps I can provide him this assurance. I know that the ministry staff involved in consultations, when it comes to dealing with other ministries and providing the views of the Ministry of Community Services, represent the views in terms of the parameters, the legislative framework upon which we are governed — essentially, the Community Charter and the Local Government Act.

We also provide advice as to the bylaw-making authorities and why bylaws are imposed and why bylaws are revoked and things of that nature. But I cannot say with absolute certainty, because I wasn't at that particular meeting, that the staff involved in this discussion indicated that there was in fact a problem, or as the member said, "problematic." He may well have indicated that concerns have been raised, but whether he would have said this is a problem or not…. I can't provide him that commentary because I wasn't there.

D. Chudnovsky: Perhaps I could ask two questions at once. I know it's dangerous, but we can probably all make our way through it. The first is to ask the minister if she can communicate with the appropriate staff person and provide to my colleague the critic in this area as well as she's able to what the advice was from her ministry to the Ministry of Transportation on this question. That's the first part of my question.

The second part of my question is a more general one. I may disagree with this or that decision, but it seems to me reasonable that a Minister of Transportation would advocate for roads and railways and barges. It's reasonable that a Minister of Agriculture would advocate for farmland and technological advance in agriculture. It seems equally reasonable that the Minister of Community Services would advocate for communities and municipalities. So my more general question is: is it the practice of this minister's ministry to take the part of municipalities when government is making decisions which will have an impact on those municipalities?

Hon. I. Chong: To the member's first question, I will endeavour to provide whatever information I am able to in regards to the consultation process that took place, respecting, of course, any privacy issues that might arise. Again, I cannot provide any more than that at this time. I will seek out and see what I can provide to the member.

In terms of the comments or the second question the member posed, well, this ministry does in fact advocate for local governments in terms of providing them with opportunities to be vibrant, sustainable, socially responsive, environmentally sustainable communities. We do so in a variety of ways. We provide them with access, in particular to dollars and programs that allow them to improve their water quality, to improve their air quality, to provide for transit, to provide for energy conservation. We provide dollars for their small communities, in particular, to grow and to develop and sometimes be much more economically vibrant. We provide dollars for things such as tourism.

I will say that there is a variety of services that local governments provide. When they approach our ministry and ask for yet another program, yet more dollars for this program or that program, I listen and I see whether those things are possible, and put that forward.

I do believe that this ministry has done a very good job of advocating on behalf of the local interest. We're also cognizant of the larger provincial interest at times. In those cases we negotiate with other ministries. But I can say that I'm very proud of the work that this ministry has done, and I'm proud of the opportunities we have provided local governments. I hear from them on a very regular basis. I'm sure members opposite hear from their local governments too. I can respect that they may not get everything they want. But there have been more opportunities and dollars flowing to local governments now than ever before.

D. Chudnovsky: If the response to the other question about what advice was given to the Ministry of Transportation could be sent to me rather than the critic's office….

I wanted to turn this a little tiny bit — not very much. It still relates to this issue of advice and relationship between ministries. The Minister of Transportation has tabled a bill, Bill 36, and I don't want to ask about the bill. I know that the appropriate place to ask about that and to debate that is with the minister, and you can be assured I'm going to be doing that.

This is the TransLink amendment act or whatever they call it. What I wanted to ask about is the process prior to the tabling of the act. My question specifically is: was there a time when the Ministry of Transportation came to this minister and this ministry and said: "We're thinking of doing this and such. What's your advice?" Was there an opportunity for this ministry to provide advice with respect to what became the bill that's now before the House?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member's acknowledgment that the bill before the House is something that he will canvass vigorously with the Minister of Transportation. What I can provide…. I am venturing very close to speaking on issues that relate to the Minister of Transportation, but I will attempt to provide the member with this clarity.

The Ministry of Transportation, in fact, did consult with our ministry in regards to the legislative framework under which we are governed — the Community Charter and Local Government Act — to ensure that there was an appropriate consultation process that took place. But I think the member will know that it was in a report of August 2001 that the Auditor General recommended changes to TransLink's governance

structure. And in a letter to government in, I think, 2005 the chair of the GVRD board proposed changes to the composition of TransLink's board and its appointment term.

I think there was enough of an impetus for the Minister of Transportation to move forward in terms of appointing the three-member panel as he did on March 8, 2006, to announce there would be a review of the existing TransLink governance structure. That's how I believe that report came about. But as I say, during that time they would have consulted our ministry and asked whether there were any concerns or impediments that we might have needed to talk about. The assistant deputy minister for local government was involved in this process, as he generally is when we work across different ministries.

The Community Charter, as I indicated, is the governing piece of legislation that affects our local governments, and where there are impacts to local governments, there is a duty — I believe under section 277, but someone will correct me if I'm wrong — to consult. It's not a veto power that the communities have, but it is a duty to consult. Sometimes as a result of that consultation, we are able to gain a consensus or amendments to proposals. Other times it is about striking a balance.

I am confident that this initiative that began in March 2006 was as a result of some consultation, but note that it was also as a result of an Auditor General report, and a letter from the chair of the GVRD made it quite clear that there needed to be a review of the governance structure.

D. Chudnovsky: My interest isn't so much, in this forum, in the motivation for the review and the particular elements from the review, which is to say very virtually all of them that appear in the legislation. My interest is in the minister's understanding of the impact of the legislation on local taxation. The minister will be aware that as a result of this legislation, if it passes, there will be significant and dramatic implications for local property taxation.

My question has to do with whether there was consultation between the two ministries on that issue prior to the legislation being tabled.

Hon. I. Chong: The consultation process that took place was about moving this step forward and about, I believe, when the panel was formed. The panel itself was formed, from which the recommendations eventually came forward.

In terms of the legislation that ultimately is now before the House, as part of its drafting, I would imagine we would have been advised of those impacts that may or may not be there. Our involvement has primarily been to advise as to exactly how we can move towards looking at the three-member panel or governing structure being put in place. We were not involved in the three-member panel or their recommendations.

So I cannot give the assurance to the member that while there are going to be, as he's indicated, some changes and potential impact to property taxes, that wasn't part of the consultation process that we were engaged in, in terms of having this move forward with the governance review change.

The Chair: Just prior to recognizing the member, I am going to…. There has been, I think, a fair amount of latitude from the Chair in the last two questions particularly. I'm going to try and bring us back to the estimates of the Minister of Community Services.

D. Chudnovsky: Thank you, Chair, and I seek your guidance. I have one more question in this field. I think, with great respect…. You know, you're the Chair, and I respect that. I'm going to try this question, and I think it's completely within the purview of this minister.

My question is this. Do I understand from the minister's answers up to now that this ministry did not comment or give advice or consult with the Ministry of Transportation with respect to Bill 36, prior to Bill 36 coming forward, on the issue of municipal taxation and increases to municipal property taxation as a result of this bill? That's my question. Did that happen? Did that consultation take place, or didn't it?

Hon. I. Chong: I will heed, also, your warning on this side. As I indicated earlier, we're venturing very close to discussing issues that pertain to another ministry.

I indicated that a member of my staff has been involved in consultation, and I cannot definitively describe to this member as to the extent of those discussions that took place prior to or before or just after, potentially, the tabling of any piece of legislation.

What I can tell the hon. member is this. There are often times when pieces of legislation may affect local governments, not directly but through to their citizens, yet they can still proceed without necessarily a direct and formal consultative process with our ministry.

As an example, when the Minister of Finance decides to make changes to the threshold of property values to allow for homeowner grants to still be made available, to allow for seniors to be able to access their…. That has an impact on property tax owners as well. The Minister of Finance will deal with those in the context of her responsibilities for tax policy.

There will be times where we may believe that while they impact our citizens, it may not be a direct impact on the local government. It is a taxing ability, and that's what local governments can do. At the end of the day, if local governments choose to reduce their taxes across the board, they can also do that, and they won't consult with me in that regard. I hope that provides some information that is helpful to the member.

C. Wyse: Earlier in the discussions there was a commitment given by the minister to provide information to the member for Vancouver-Kensington, and there may have been some understanding that the information would come to me. I would just like to ask

Assuming that the minister is in agreement with that, I would then turn over to the member for Skeena.

R. Austin: I'd like to ask the minister a few questions with regards to community transitions. I understand that my colleague the member for North Coast asked a few questions earlier today, but I'd like to ask a few more to get some clarification on how the program exists and what it can do.

I have heard in the last while — in the minister's answers to questions in the House, some in question period — that this program is there to help communities that are going through transitions. By transitions, my understanding is that it's there to help communities that are going through economic hardship, maybe because an industry is slowing down or coming to an end. That whole community may have got a large percentage of its economic benefit from a particular industry, and then it has to figure out a way to transition.

I'd like to ask the minister: what are the criteria under which a community can apply for assistance in the community transition program?

Hon. I. Chong: Generally, when a community finds itself in a difficult situation as a result of a major industry that has closed down, where it impacts a significant portion of its population…. This goes to the local government, the municipality generally, who acknowledges that a significant share of its municipal budget is impacted as a result of a major industry no longer being in that particular community.

They will generally seek out assistance from our ministry and ask for what we then say is community transition assistance. It's not about — and I want to be clear about this — taking care of the tax bill or the municipal budget. What it means is that we will begin by providing a staff person who will give advice as to the steps to move forward — what that local government wants.

I've said this in question period, the member will recall. We don't dictate to the municipality how they should come out of transition, how they should go forward or how they should survive, if they're going to, as a result of the major industry loss. But we do say that there are opportunities to seek dollars to hire a professional who can come in and actually develop a transition plan and transition study.

That might be a five-year or a ten-year plan. It will be up to the municipality as to who they would like to engage to do that — usually hiring a professional. They do so as a result of a significant loss.

The need for community transition there for a while…. I don't want to say that there are set criteria, because it can change. I don't want to say it's based on, you know, a 75-percent loss or 82-percent loss. We take a look at these on a case-by-case basis. We take a look at the size of the employment loss relative to the population of the community. We take a look at the proportion of the municipal property tax base loss as a result of that particular industry downzoning or its closure.

We take a look at the extent and condition of other economic activity that is going on in a community. We take a look at the community's location and the role relative to other communities. And certainly, we look at the socioeconomic governance and geographic factors that are unique to the community. While a community may suffer a major industry loss, there may be other economic activity that has just not yet matured, and so we would have to weigh that balance.

At the end of the day, if the community seeks assistance, we will be able to provide and develop, as I say, on a case-by-case basis the scope of what that transition study will entail, the development of a transition study and then how we move forward from that.

If the member has a specific instance, it may be more helpful. I'm trying to be general here because I'm not sure where he's going. I do know that it varies from community to community. In some cases very small amounts are requested. In other cases it's a much more substantial amount.

R. Austin: Yes, I certainly will get specific. I'm talking here about my home community, for example in Terrace, which traditionally made a living from the forestry industry. Of course, certainly in the last ten years, it has undergone a huge transition as companies have shut down. We've lost a significant amount of employment.

Right now, as I speak, what was the second-largest employer in the town, the mill, is being torn apart, leaving a 60-acre parcel of land right in the centre of town there. People don't know at this point what's going to happen.

A community the size of Terrace with the population base that it's got…. I would say that when I arrived there 12 years ago, forestry was certainly the dominant form of income and labour for most of the people, and that's not the case anymore. If the municipality of Terrace were to request assistance from the ministry, would a community like that qualify for transition planning? And in addition to the person who would be assigned to come and help to construct the plan, are there any dollars to help follow up, to put that plan in place? Or does the municipality itself have to come up with the dollars to put that plan in place?

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for providing that specific example. The goals of our community transition are to ensure municipal financial viability and, in turn, community vitality and vibrancy. The principles that do guide us in community transition are such that they do need to be locally initiated and managed.

First and foremost, yes, in response to the member's question. If Terrace wished to locally initiate a community transition, we would welcome that. I have just asked staff whether we had heard from Terrace, and we have not. The member could certainly, as the local MLA, take it upon himself to advise the mayor to come and speak with us. He may even wish to be involved in a meeting, which we have no problem with.

Once underway, though, the transition must encourage self-reliance. So a transition study would allow us to take a look at that kind of self-reliance. As I say, every situation is unique. Every solution is unique, and it's not that simple.

At the end of the day, what we will provide at the very beginning is to have the dollars available for a transition study. It's not that our staff will do the study — not that they're not capable, but there are other professionals out there that have that as their mandate. They can look at that.

Generally, what we have seen is that when we have provided the dollars, they have gone out and hired a person or a team of people — maybe they live in the town themselves — who know what needs to be addressed and how they can help the municipality to move forward.

What we will also be able to see is, in fact, that if a number of recommendations are outlined as to where to go, in some cases we may be able to provide support; in others, we may not. For example, if the community transition plan indicated that in order for the community to be vibrant and in order for it to bring in new people and a new industry to come into town, maybe what is severely lacking is their infrastructure. That might be identified, and the local government may not have thought of that.

We might then ask: what is it that needs to be provided for? If there are dollars that they are seeking to generate more economic development than in the member's particular case, if it means that they need to access dollars through one of the development initiative trust funds, then again we might be able to provide assistance there.

It is not that when a community goes through transition, we basically throw money at them and say: "Here it is." We will work with them, and it is a process.

I can say that Terrace will see an increase in their small community grant of almost $150,000 by 2009 as a result of the small community grant program being doubled. They are seeing additional dollars added to their tax base. I'm hopeful that that provides them a bit of a cushion. I don't know the significant loss they might be experiencing as a result of the closure of the industry, as the member has indicated.

We would be very happy for the member to advocate on behalf of his local government to seek out some assistance with our ministry, and we would work with you on that. If you need a contact person in our ministry, we can provide you with that as well.

R. Austin: I appreciate the minister's comments and her willingness to assist in this regard.

I just have a couple of other questions. I notice in looking at the organizational chart off the Ministry of Community Services website that community transition was on the website and is no longer on the website. I take it that there are dollars still assigned to this program? That's my first question.

My second question is: how much money is actually allocated towards this program? Are there examples that the minister could cite of communities in similar size to the community of Terrace…? I know that earlier today the minister mentioned some other communities that have used this program. I believe she may have mentioned Gold River and Port Alice. Are there examples of communities larger than those of what I would call, I guess, villages — more like the size of Terrace — that I could use as an example to go and speak to them to find out what kind of assistance was given to them?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised by our staff that to date we have not had a community of similar size to Terrace that has requested assistance. As the member cited and is aware, I will again for the record provide examples of some towns which had been the beneficiaries of the community transition program.

Sayward had been assisted from the period 2001 to 2004. They started off with a $30,000 transition study, as an example.

Tahsis. From the years 2000 to 2004, they, too, received a transition study grant, and I believe that cost $66,000. So, as I say, they are very different.

Tumbler Ridge from the year 2000 to 2004 received assistance but also a transition study was provided in the amount of $60,000.

Port Edward. In 2004 they came to see us. We're still monitoring that situation. So far, a very small amount they have requested, about $7,000….

Port Alice — 2004, and we are still ongoing with them on that. They had a transition study for about $45,000.

Most recently, in 2005-2006 Midway had approached us requesting assistance, and a $45,000 transition study was provided.

As you can see, the range is $45,000 to $60,000, which is sufficient, I believe, to hire a professional or a facilitator to come in and speak to the community and ask what it is that they'd like to see happen in their communities.

R. Austin: My final question is: could I have the name of the contact person within your ministry who I could maybe speak to?

Hon. I. Chong: Just before I provide that, I wanted to state — and this was raised previously by another member — that looking at the service plan or organizational chart, they thought that the community transition had disappeared. We have, I guess for the sake of saving a line, rolled it up with the other. Because it's usually planning grant dollars like that, we have decided to just roll that into the entire program. It has not disappeared. We still have transition dollars available to provide this transition study.

The name of the individual that you can contact is my assistant deputy minister of community transition. That's Barbara Walman, who is sitting behind here now. At some point I'm sure you can get her card from her and set up the appointments.

J. Horgan: It's a pleasure to once again participate in the estimates of the Ministry of Community Services. If this is the 38th parliament, and this is Community Services, I must be here to ask questions about governance and southern Vancouver Island. I'm sure the minister…. They've probably got the briefing notes already at the ready.

I'll start with a simple question, hon. Chair. If she could update me on the status of the governance or governances studies currently underway in the Juan de Fuca electoral area.

Hon. I. Chong: I welcome the member for Malahat–Juan de Fuca for his colourful presence here today in the committee room. I was just trying to ensure that I have the right information. As the member will know, this issue has gone back and forth a number of times.

What I have indicated to the CRD, to director Lund and to Mayor Ranns, the mayor of Metchosin, is that money would be available for a restructure study. I believe a total of $30,000 has been committed to that study, and the ministry's staff have recently met with the administrator from Metchosin. I believe Mr. Joe Martignago is his name. He used to be with the city of Victoria, so he's very well-versed in these things. I understand that is the study that all parties have agreed to as the one that they wish to pursue at this time.

J. Horgan: The minister is aware, and I know her staff are aware, of the contentious nature of this question on the west side of Vancouver Island and my constituency. Certainly, the minister's staff and her office have been very receptive to suggestions and tried to find a place where people could land and find some comfort. But there is an area that has been excluded as a result of the final decision to go with the restructuring of East Sooke and Metchosin as the preferred option for the moneys available, and that's Otter Point and Shirley.

Now, I know that the electoral area rep has been working on a governance process for those other communities. Otter Point is itself participating in what it's calling a visioning exercise to find some clarity on where they want to go as the smaller communities fall into place, whether it be through the restructuring in the East Sooke case or some other mechanism.

I'm wondering if the minister could advise me if there will be any resources available for Otter Point and Shirley to pursue this visioning exercise — if that would fall into any category that she's aware of within her ministry.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm advised that director Lund has indicated that he would be able to access the resources through the CRD to take a look at that. He has not approached us at this time to suggest that he is desirous of additional assistance. Mind you, after having said that now, I'm probably going to hear from him. We'll wait and see. But at this point he has indicated that he is able to deal with it, as I say, with the assistance and resources available through the capital regional district.

J. Horgan: I'll accept that, and I know that the minister's door is always open on this question. So if I find new information that's inconsistent with that, I'm sure I can access that without using this process.

The other area I wanted to touch upon — and I have also been in touch with ministry staff on this in a preliminary way — is the status of the study that's currently taking place in the city of Duncan, the southern portion of which is in my constituency of Malahat–Juan de Fuca. If the minister could perhaps brief the committee on the status of that study and what the objectives are.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm aware that Duncan has now completed their study. We did provide a grant to Duncan. There was, I believe, a citizens' committee that was established. They're overseeing the process and will be making recommendations to the elected officials as to how to proceed. We have not yet received that report. I believe it's just recently concluded.

Oftentimes, after all the work has been done and all the public forums have taken place, generally there will be time to put together a set of recommendations to the public officials, who then certainly will forward those on to us. I have not yet seen that, but I understand the study itself has been completed.

J. Horgan: I thank the minister for that. What may well be my last question, but I want to reserve judgment on that…. The minister will know as a resident of southern Vancouver Island that the notion of the number or capacity of individual communities to manage a whole host of issues — whether it be policing, recreation, sewage and so on — is extremely topical. Certainly, in my constituency, the minister will know, there is the coming together of the capital regional district and the Cowichan Valley regional district, including half a dozen municipal entities currently and electoral area representatives of about six, maybe seven, depending on the day and how the wind is blowing.

From my perspective as the representative of those individuals or communities in this place, when there are issues about how we manage regional undertakings with our local budgets, I often suggest that perhaps amalgamation discussions need to be renewed. So I want to throw that out on the table. I know it's late in the day, and the minister is looking at the clock, thinking we're almost at the end. So, as I say, it may not be my last question.

I'm not doing this to put her on the spot. She'll know, perhaps better than me — in fact, I'm sure she does know better than me — that these issues are ongoing and current. I would certainly benefit from her views on where she believes we're going, and what steps she's taking to try and address the most topical current issue, that being recreation in the capital regional district.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm reluctant to say what I believe is happening now. As soon as I say it, it won't be. I don't have a crystal ball in front of me. The challenges that are faced with our small communities within our

regional districts exist. We always, throughout our ministry, have staff available to encourage better cooperation. At the end of the day sometimes we hear from municipalities — sometimes the larger ones as opposed to the smaller ones; oftentimes that's the case — that perhaps we should take a look at amalgamation, the "a" word I was reluctant to use.

However, I will say this. We have made a commitment and one that I still firmly believe in to this day that we will not force amalgamation of municipalities. I have had requests, and I'm sure the member has, from both sides — people saying, "Why don't you do it?" and others saying: "Please don't do it."

There has not really been a proper survey done. We have straw polls that are done all the time suggesting that amalgamation would be of benefit, and then we have a hue and cry that that would destroy the local autonomy.

I have been on record publicly, and I will continue to be, that I am not going to force amalgamation of municipalities. I will continue to work to ensure that the smaller areas within regional districts can work cooperatively. At the end of the day, though, if I am approached by municipalities who wish to amalgamate, then I certainly would entertain that. I have put a challenge out, particularly to the capital regional district, that if this is what they wish to do, they need to come back to me with a sizeable amount of names upon which I could then consider their request. But I am not going to do it on the strength of a thousand people suggesting that this take place.

J. Horgan: I appreciate the minister's response. This is a difficult challenge in our community here on the south Island. I have the luxury as an opposition member, as you know, hon. Chair, to have as many positions as I want. I'm quite comfortable with that, as the minister well knows, but there are issues where I think that leadership is important. Again, this isn't a box for the minister. It's only a suggestion and something to contemplate, perhaps.

Taking ourselves out of our home communities of the capital regional district and looking north to the Cowichan Valley regional district, recreation is a divisive issue, one that, normally, all members would want to see as a unifying factor in a community. Because of the compartmentalization in the Cowichan Valley regional district, particularly south of the Cowichan River, where to locate recreational amenities becomes a challenge.

I'm not expecting the minister to respond to this if she chooses not to. But, again, does the province contemplate in the future some mechanism whereby there could be some coherence brought to discussions in the Cowichan Valley regional district about issues like regional facilities for recreation?

Hon. I. Chong: Through the work that was done on the Task Force on Community Opportunities, not only did we look at issues in regards to revenue-sharing, but we did in fact look at issues in terms of providing citizens with better services regionally and, therefore, better collaboration. I would encourage the member if he wants to take on the small communities in the Cowichan Valley regional district, to work together to see, especially in the area of recreation, that they come together and find a place.

The fact is there are oftentimes grant programs through the MRIF and things such as that, that if they individually cannot possibly provide for, maybe they can realize that the potential for them to work together will be much greater and the region will be better served once they agree to having a community centre, a rec centre of that nature. Sometimes that's why we put out the grants the way we do, to encourage better collaboration, better regional services to the citizens of the area.

I haven't heard from the Cowichan Valley regional district, to be fair to the member. I haven't heard that they want us to be involved in any way, shape or form on the issues that the member has raised. If they were to come to us, and if the member wants to facilitate that, to meet with our staff, we would be happy to do that.

M. Farnworth: It's my pleasure to take my place in the estimates debate. I have three topics I want to cover. The first is one that I have raised…. This will now be the third time I've raised it, and hopefully the minister has had the last two years to deal with it, and that's the issue of Coquitlam First and election campaigns.

My question to the minister is this: does she still believe it's appropriate that organizations and individuals that campaign like political parties, advertise like political parties and act like political parties but are not registered as political parties, are able to skirt the campaign disclosures at the municipal level?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to advise the member that post–municipal election, we oftentimes conduct a survey, and he would be aware of this. A survey is conducted where issues that were raised as a result of, sometimes, election results that people weren't satisfied with or what took place during an election…. Those matters are brought forward to us. As a consequence, if changes need to be made to the Community Charter and to matters that he has brought forth, we would ensure that those would be brought forward in time for a future municipal election.

I can say that the survey that was conducted after 2005…. This matter that he has raised, in fact, has been identified as an issue and a problem. Currently we are working through that. I'm not saying it's future legislation from that respect, but I can say that it has been a problem which has been identified.

I thank the member for raising it, and we are in fact working to see how we can resolve it. It may be able to be done without legislation. If not, then we may have to pursue that avenue. I can't give him a definitive answer today as to when and how that will take shape, but we absolutely identified that it's a problem.

M. Farnworth: I am glad to hear that, because I think that is an improvement over last year's position. My question, then, would be: the work that needs to be done…. Is the minister able to give some assurance that the work will be done before, let's say, this time next year?

I know she doesn't want to give a commitment on legislation. I understand that. But certainly in terms of the work that would be required in order for a bill or regulation to be in place before the 2008 municipal elections…. Does she expect that the work will be done in time so that if the government does want to act on it, they will be able to?

Hon. I. Chong: Work has been underway on this. I cannot give the member a date as to when that will be concluded. But the member knows and I know that the next municipal elections are in November of 2008, and so I do note that there will be time lines to consider in the event that any changes need to be put in place. I just will say that I am very cognizant of the November 2008 time line.

M. Farnworth: I thank the minister for that, and we'll accept those answers and watch the progress. The minister can be assured that I will be asking these questions next estimates if there is no legislation in place.

I think that it is a very important issue — for people to have confidence in their electoral system and to know that there's a fair playing field. Many people — not just in the Tri-Cities but in other parts of British Columbia — were very concerned about that loophole and the way it was flouted and don't want to see a repeat of that in 2008.

My next question concerns Port Coquitlam and the Community Charter. I'd like for the minister to tell the House why the provisions regarding the stepping down of elected officials was removed from the Community Charter when it was brought in. The old section of the Municipal Act involving what happens with the municipal official stepping down — whether charged or some offence — is not included in the current Community Charter. Why is that?

Hon. I. Chong: I was seeking clarification from staff. The issue that the member raises is still in place. It is in the Local Government Act, and that Local Government Act still has authority in these matters respecting local government officials — even with municipalities. It was never in the Community Charter as such, because it was in the Municipal Act. The Local Government Act still is in place to provide those provisions. So that is still available, if that's what the member is seeking clarification on.

M. Farnworth: I'm asking the question because the local council has indicated that the fact it's not part of the Community Charter makes it difficult for them to deal with…. I think we're all aware of the specific case.

I don't want to focus on the specific case in itself but generally on how this issue is dealt with by local councils. There is a sense at the local government level that they don't have the ability that they used to have. So my question to the minister is: is she aware of that concern? Is she looking at ways in which it can be improved or changed to deal with the concerns that local government has?

Hon. I. Chong: First of all, I again apologize to the member. I wanted to ensure that we had not heard from the municipality. That is the case. If they had contacted us, we would have provided them direction or technical advice.

The issues regarding qualifications that were once provided for, as the member indicated, in the Municipal Act are still available through the Local Government Act. That is where it is covered off. It was never in the Community Charter, but the provisions that were provided previously are still being provided through the Local Government Act, so there has been no change.

If the member is stating that the municipality that he's referring to feels that there is less ability, then I would say that they are incorrect. Perhaps if they were to make a call to us, we can clarify that. I think there is just a misunderstanding of the changes more than anything else. There hasn't actually been a change to that, and they may just not realize that they have the provisions of the Local Government Act that they can impose.

M. Farnworth: I will pursue this with the minister outside of estimates, noting that we are limited in time.

My final question is around the charter and citizens' rights. I have raised this issue before. Under section 32, individuals who feel that their rights have been impinged upon, that local government has been able to act in a way that is detrimental to their rights and they feel that they don't have recourse…. I want to ask the minister: has she been monitoring over this past year complaints from individuals against section 32 of the charter?

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member. I know he raises this section on a regular basis during estimates. As a result, we do monitor that particular section and the complaints that come in. I'm advised that there has only been one complaint that has actually been formally received by our ministry regarding that section.

I know the member can appreciate that we don't always act on changing any section of an act based on one complaint. If there are more that he's aware of, I will accept that. But people need to make those concerns to us so that at least we have a sampling of the variety of issues that are raised as a result of section 32, which he references.

M. Farnworth: I'll leave this with the minister in this way. I know, for example, in the case of my own area, the Spraggs family has had a long-running dispute with the city of Coquitlam regarding the new David Pathan over whose land it sits on. It has been found that it actually sits on the Spraggs' land. There is

a frustration amongst people that section 32 does not allow them the recourse they feel they should have to deal with this and that local government can sometimes act in a high-handed way.

I would ask the minister to continue to monitor it, and I will continue to raise it. With that, I turn it back to my colleague the member for Cariboo South.

C. Wyse: We must be getting near the end of the day, Minister, because you pretty much cleared out the questioners on this side of the House. However, I purposely have kept a couple of questions around general critic area, just so you have a bit of a heads-up about that. I have some questions for you specifically around the general areas of water and sewer, if that assists your staff about where I'm going.

Given the time we have left, I'm not going to give you the long story. I'm going to request that the minister does accept that there is a layering effect of regulations that have developed over the last couple of years with regards to wastewater management. A regional district requires a vertical distance in the sewage dispersal field of 15 metres. The same regional district also has zoning bylaws that create further complications for wastewater practitioners.

Now, in addition to those two items, the regional health authorities also have their own guidelines that govern this same particular item — mandatory sewage guidelines that must be followed where subdivided properties are involved. Needless to say, this layering effect creates a situation where it is almost impossible to understand the interaction of the different regulations, never mind attempting to implement them and carry on with actually putting in septic fields.

I have a series of questions, depending upon the time, around that item. My first question: does the minister recognize the cost to property owners and wastewater practitioners of implementing these new requirements? What is she doing to help these people with this situation?

Hon. I. Chong: I hope this provides clarification for the member. The Ministry of Health has responsibility for the sewerage system and regulations. As such, the Minister of Health would be in the best position to answer that. I'm not sure if his estimates are ongoing at this time. Perhaps he'll still be available to the member to take a look at that.

When it comes to private systems, these are not owned or operated by local governments. They're private systems as such, so we have no ability to provide assistance for that. At this time, if there is a homeowner or developer who also has a septic system, that is their responsibility in terms of all the costs associated with it.

I'm sure the member is aware that what's most relevant here is the question he raises about the sewerage system regulations, and those do fall under the Health Act. He might be able to get a more complete answer from the Ministry of Health.

C. Wyse: Along the way we were hoping to get some type of answer that's going to get around to addressing the huge complication that exists for people that are attempting to address these various issues. The requirements, for sure, are creating a lot of confusion with property owners and wastewater practitioners. As I've already mentioned, in many cases they are almost impossible to follow.

How does the minister suggest these people deal with these conflicting and often impossible-to-follow regulations? After all, one of the levels in here is a local level of government.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not sure if I understand the question. Where a local government is involved and where a local government operates and owns a system, they can apply through our various infrastructure programs if they believe their systems require upgrades, enhancements or improvements due to public health or environmental concerns.

For those that are private systems — and I can understand the concerns that the member is raising on behalf of his constituents — they are exactly that, and there are no dollars that can be accessed from the provincial government, or the federal government for that matter, to deal with private systems.

Oftentimes people choose to live in an area, to put in a system, to operate it, and everything goes well. Unfortunately, when they fail, they suddenly believe it's the responsibility of local government. It's not, nor is it the responsibility of senior levels of government.

What is relevant, though, are the regulations that pertain to environmental concerns or health. Just because you have a private system doesn't mean you can ignore that there are going to be regulations that are put in place.

In terms of systems that belong to local governments, we hear from them regularly if they fail, and we are able to provide assistance through infrastructure grants. But that is just not available for private systems or private property owners.

C. Wyse: I apologize. It's late in the day, and it's clear from the response that I've been receiving that I have not done a good job at all in asking the questions. The question I have attempted to ask the minister is about the conflicting regulations that have developed and the confusion that results for anybody trying to react to those conflicting regulations.

There's a layering effect that has been put in with the regulations. One is by local government, and the second set of regulations is by health authorities. It's assistance with addressing the confusion of the regulations that I'm attempting to find out from the minister. What, if anything, is her ministry able to do to help with clarifying the duplicity of the regulations that are in place? This item has been in front of her ministry for a period of time now, so I know there is some work that is being done on that aspect of it.

Hon. I. Chong: Just again trying to ensure that the member has the answer, I have been advised by staff that currently there is work underway that is looking at the subdivision regulations and the sewage regulations in unincorporated areas. That is being undertaken now; that hasn't been concluded. Once that is, perhaps then we would be able to provide the member with additional information, but that matter is still being dealt with at present.

C. Wyse: I appreciate greatly the minister staying with me on this particular topic. The complexity with the issue is huge. It has been in existence for at least two years, to my knowledge. The point that I'm attempting to emphasize is the significance not only of inconvenience but of a variety of other factors that come into play for individuals caught in this web of contradictory regulations in order to get on with their life.

I want to acknowledge my recognition of her staff for working on this particular item. I also want to be on record here that I intend to be…. Aggressive is the wrong word.

C. Wyse: Sure, that one works too — vigilant on getting resolution to this item. It is not an item that exists just in Cariboo South. This is an issue that runs all across the province. I'm looking for assurances from the minister — now that I've done a better job — that some due diligence will be given to move it along and to get resolution of this item. I'm looking for that commitment from the minister here today for that aspect to occur.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps also helpful for the member, so that he doesn't have to feel he has to be as vigilant, would be if he actually met with our staff person who has been working on this initiative — this issue and concern that has been raised — and perhaps provide his input to our staff on that.

If the member from Cariboo South would like to meet with Mr. Glen Brown, who is seated behind me, we may be able to move this along and find resolution sooner.

C. Wyse: I can even go further than that. There are individuals that have the expertise around the province of B.C. that are also willing to work with her staff and Mr. Brown in coming up with resolutions, so I will do that.

I know my time. I've got two questions. One is around water. The water regulations have recently changed, and the new regulations have created problems for the smaller water systems in meeting the new water regulations. What is the ministry doing to assist these smaller systems to meet these new regulations without necessarily requiring them to be taken over by another local level of government?

Hon. I. Chong: About a month ago a small committee was struck, engaging the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Environment and our ministry, specifically to address the small water systems.

I can say that on an ongoing basis, as well, as the member knows, we have the infrastructure grant programs and the B.C. community water improvement programs that have been able to deal with some of the small systems. We know there is a larger issue with more of the smaller systems. The three ministries have come together. A committee was struck about a month ago, as I said, and we're going to be working through those concerns.

C. Wyse: I need to forgo any further questions of the minister because of the time frame. Therefore, I'm going to take you over to our favourite area, which is the insurance premium tax — the duplicity of funds being collected by insurance companies on behalf of the province, and the local governments then collecting taxes on property for providing fire protection.

As the minister knows, the fire chiefs would like to see more funds from the insurance premium tax being made available to local governments so that services in protection can be provided. UBCM is on record likewise as requesting the same — an item that's been in existence for 80 years. It is way beyond the '90s, and things of that nature.

My last question here is: will the minister support the UBCM and the fire chiefs' position on having some of these funds being redirected back to local government to assist with the cost of providing fire protection?

Hon. I. Chong: I know the matter has been raised, and in our task force report the matter was raised as well. I will say this. I know and the member has acknowledged that this matter certainly goes well beyond our administration, beyond his administration and way back. I guess at the end of the day there's never been a right answer.

I know it's always easiest to ask for dollars and to say that a dedicated share of revenues should come from a particular source. That doesn't always meet the needs of the service that eventually may be provided. I don't know whether that actually is the right answer. The fact of the matter is that the firefighters and such are just looking for more funding. At the end of the day, that is what we really need to address.

When it comes to taxes as such, though, the member is aware that those are under the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. How she makes or implements changes to them is her determination, but we need to be careful that we don't dedicate a specific tax to a specific source, program or service. Should that tax ever be eliminated, then we'd be in a difficult situation and the funding source would disappear as well.

I've challenged those I spoke to that we really do need to take a look at what the issue is, what the problem is, and address that appropriately through the appropriate ministry as well.

C. Wyse: Noting the hour, much more discussion needs to be done around this particular item. I find the response somewhat lacking.

However, before I do close, I would like to acknowledge the minister for her time as well as her staff for adjusting to a variety of different things that have taken place and for the time and efforts that were put into answering the questions from this side of the House. For that, we are appreciative.

Hon. I. Chong: Before I move Vote 23, I do want to thank the critic as well, the member for Cariboo South, for orchestrating the colleagues that he has had before us in the Ministry of Community Services, Seniors' and Women's Issues as well as the Public Service Agency. For the most part it has been a very respectful dialogue, and I thank him for his efforts on that part.

Hon. I. Chong: Now I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and completion of the Ministry of Community Services and ask leave to sit again.

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